A Treatise of Original Sin, Part 4 · Chapter 3
CHAP. III.
Of the Combate between the Fleſh and the Spirit, as the Effect of Original Sinne, ſo that the Godliest man cannot do any holy Duty perfectly in this life.
SECT. I.
The Text explained and vindicated from corrupt Interpretations.
GAL. 5. 17.
For the fleſh luſteth againſt the Spirit, and the Spirit againſt the fleſh, and theſe are contrary one to the other, ſo that ye cannot do the things that ye would.
THe Apoſtle in the verſes before admoniſhed them about the uſe of their liberty, that it ſhould not be turned into licentiouſneſs, but that they make love the Rule thereof. For though in reſpect of the right of my Chriſtian liberty, my conſcience is to regard none but God, yet the uſe and exerciſe of it muſt be regulated by love and prudence, according as the edification of our brother doth require.
As a remedy therefore to refrain from all exceſs therein, he giveth us an excellent precept, with an emphatical Introduction thereunto, [This I ſay then] that is, This is the ſumme, the main, the all in all in theſe caſes.
Then you have the Antidote it ſelf, Walk in the Spirit. The only way to prevent all thoſe importunate temptations of the fleſh, is to give up your ſelves to the Spirit, to obtain the direction and illumination thereof, as alſo the inclination and powerfull operation of it, whereby we may be eſtabliſhed in that which is good, To know what is good, and then to be inabled to do it, which if done, he declareth the bleſſed effect and iſſue thereof, Ye ſhall not fulfill the luſt of the fleſh. Some (as Beza) readeth this imperatively, becauſe of the foreign, but the Text he inſtanceth in is not parallel to this. And Grotius bringeth in ſeveral places, where this foreign relateth to the future. This then is the happy iſſue of a man, who keepeth wholly to the Spirit of God inlightning and working by the Word, that he ſhall get dominion over the luſts of the fleſh, He ſhall not fulfill them: He doth not ſay, he ſhall not have them, he ſhall not feel, and perceive them working in him, for that cannot be in this life; only he ſhall not fulfill them, which is the ſame as to walk in the fleſh, and to mind the things of the fleſh, which thoſe that live in the Spirit, and walk in the Spirit cannot do.
In the next place, The Apoſtle giveth a reaſon, why they are thus to give themſelves up to the Spirit, elſe the fleſh will quickly prevail, and that is from the contrary nature and inclinations of theſe two, expreſſed in that Propoſition, The fleſh luſteth againſt the Spirit, and the Spirit againſt the fleſh. By fleſh and ſpirit we are not to underſtand the body and the ſoul, nor the ſpiritual ſenſe and literal ſenſe of the Scripture, as Origen moſt abſurdly; nor as many Papiſts and others, the rational part, and the ſenſitive, as if the Apoſtle were here ſpeaking no more then Ariſtotle doth about his incontinent perſon, as diſtinct from an intemperant one. Therefore that is too frigid and dilute of the late Annatator on this place, in his paraphraſe, as if the oppoſition were between the carnal and rational wils, between the carnal and rational part of a man inſtructed out of the Goſpel, for this ariſeth to no more then that ethical and moral conflict, which Heathen Philoſophers deſcribe; whereas the Apoſtle is here ſpeaking of that which the godly find in themſelves, and that from the two contrary principles of the fleſh and ſpirit within them.
Neither are we to underſtand this with the Remonſtrants, as if the Apoſtle ſpake in the general, or Idea only, making the ſenſe to be no more, then the fleſh of a man, oppoſeth the Spirit of God, putring it ſelf forth in the powerfull preaching of the Word; for the context maketh it evident, that he ſpeaketh of this oppoſition, as it is in the ſubject, by which no godly man can do the things that are holy with that perfection, as he deſireth.
Laſtly, Neither are we to underſtand this of perſons, as if the Apoſtle meant the carnal man, and the spiritual man, as Iſaacl did Iſaac, will alwayes oppoſe one another: For it is clear, he ſpeaketh of two principles within us, the one whereof is fleſh, that is, our whole man ſo farre as it is unregenerate, the mind and the will as well as the affections; (for by ſinne incarnavimus animas noſtras, as the Ancient ſaid, our ſouls are become fleſh,) and the whole man ſo farre as he is regenerate: For this in ſeveral reſpects, a godly man is both fleſh and Spirit.
This contrariety in their nature is declared by the effect thereof, They luſt one againſt another: He doth not ſay, they work one againſt another, though that be true; but the Apoſtle would direct us to the head and ſpring of all outward evil or good, and that is the deſire within.
In the next place, the Apoſtle amplifieth this contrary motion between the fleſh and the Spirit from the nature of them; They are foreign, immediately ſet one againſt another, even as darkneſs and light, as fire and water. Now although it be a Rule, That contraries do expell each other; yet it is alſo another Rule, That contraries while they are in pugnâ, in fighting with one another, they may be together, as alſo in remiſſe degrees: And thus it is with the godly, the fleſh and the Spirit are alwayes in conflict; Theſe are the twins in the womb, that by their oppoſition make the godly mourn, and long for Heaven, where the fleſh ſhall be wholly overcome.
Laſtly, Here is the conſequent and iſſue of this Combate, So that the things ye would not, thoſe ye do; which words are ſubject to many interpretations: Some ſay, they are only to be interpreted as the end to which theſe contrary principles do encline, not that they do denote the event. By the fleſh we are carried out to this end, not to do the good things we would do; yet this event doth not alwayes at leaſt follow, becauſe Gods Spirit worketh in us both to will and to do; This expoſition they are the more confirmed in, becauſe in the Greek it is not foreign, which would denote the event, but foreign: This ſeemeth to have no great ſtrength, for foreign is taken eventually ſometimes. But then if ſo, ſtill there is a difference among▪ Interpreters: Some underſtand it of the good will only, as if the meaning were thoſe good things you would do, the fleſh doth hinder and retard you therein. Grotius with others that follow him, underſtand it of the evil will, in this manner, The Spirit luſteth againſt the fleſh, ſo that thoſe evil things, which otherwiſe you would doe, if the fleſh did prevail in you, now ye cannot do. And the late Writer (Vnum Neceſſarium, cap. 7. pag. 482.) is ſo peremptory for this Expoſition, That (he ſaith) we cannot make it ſenſe elſe with what had gone before: (being beholding to Arminius for this Argument) For the Apoſtle bid us, Walk in the Spirit, ſo we ſhould not fulfill the luſts of the fleſh; and this is the reaſon, Becauſe the Spirit luſteth againſt the fleſh, and ſo we cannot do what that would have us; whereas if by the fleſh we were hindred from what the Spirit would have us do, this would directly contradict what he had ſaid before.
But to anſwer this, Some read all the former verſe by a parentheſis, and make this clauſe to belong to the precept, verſ. 16. Walk in the Spirit, and ye ſhall not fulfill the luſts of the fleſh, ſo that ye cannot do thoſe things, which the fleſh would incline you unto: But this ſeemeth too much forced. Though therefore we underſtand it of the good will, as well as the bad, yet the ſenſe runneth ſmoothly; neither is this brought as a reaſon of the later part, You ſhall not fulfill the luſts of the fleſh, for ſo it would have ſome apparent contradiction, but of the duty commanded, why they ſhould walk in the Spirit. For if they do not, ſuch is the contrariety of the fleſh to every thing that is ſpiritual, that if yeelded unto, it will carry you away to act thoſe luſts, which otherwiſe you would not do, and ſo the connexion is very harmonious. But for my part, I think this muſt be underſtood generally, both of the good will, and bad alſo. For the Apoſtle having named two contrary principles, and their luſtings one to another, there is no reaſon to limit it to one; but that we underſtand it thus, That even in had things a godly man is not carried out with the full command of the fleſh, but the Spirit of God doth in a great meaſure check and prohibit it. And alſo in good things, though the Spirit of God doth enlighten and enlarge the ſoul, yet the fleſh doth ſomething retard, and by its oppoſition, cauſeth that we cannot do holy things with that fulneſs, purity and perfection as we would do.
Thus you have this noble Text explained, which will afford excellent practical matter, concerning that property of original ſinne, that it remaineth in ſome meaſure even in the moſt holy, and that therefore there is no perfection in this life. None is all ſpirit without any fleſh at all in them. Therefore the foreign in the Text may have its emphaſis, The ſame things ye cannot do, that ye would. For what godly man doth not feel, that it is not the ſame prayer, the ſame faith, the ſame repentance he deſired? The duty like Jeremiah's veſſel cometh to be marred upon the wheel in the very doing; ſo much deadneſs, diſtraction, lukewarmneſs and ſenſleſneſs of ſpirit appeareth, that he wondereth to ſee how different the duty exerciſed is from the deſire and purpoſe in his ſoul. From the words thus declared obſerve,
That original ſinne remaineth in every man, though never ſo godly in ſome meaſure, whereby there is a combate between the fleſh and the Spirit, ſo that we cannot do any holy duty perfectly in this life. I limit my Diſcourſe only to the good will in the Text, not the bad, becauſe that is moſt homogeneous with my ſubject. And beſides, The Pelagians calumniated this Doctrine of original ſinne, as a diſcouragement unto holineſs, and that hereby perfection could never be attained, becauſe this ſinne is ſaid to have ſome being and working in the moſt holy, though it have not dominion. It is from original ſinne, that the moſt holy men find a combat within them more or leſſe; that alwayes in this life they find a need both of pardon of ſinne, and of the righteouſneſs of Chriſt, which if any deny, as the Pelagians did, we will not believe them with Auſtin, in that they ſay, but attribute it to their arrogancy and hypocriſie, pretending more holineſs to the world then they have, for their ſelf-advantage, or elſe to their ſtupidity and ſenſleſneſs, not feeling what doth indeed annoy and oppoſe the Spirit of God; and truly they who have not the Spirit of God abiding in them, How can they diſcern of ſuch a combate? That moral conflict which Ariſtotle ſpeaketh of in the incontinent perſon, he may perceive within himſelf, but this of the Spirit and the fleſh, He cannot know, becauſe it is ſpiritually diſcerned.
SECT. II.
Several Propoſitions clearing the truth about the Combat between the Fleſh and Spirit in a godly man.
¶. 1.
The Difference between Original and Actual Sinne.
THe only way to comprehend the latitude of this excellent truth about the Conflict between fleſh and spirit in the true believer, becauſe of original ſinne ſtill adhering to him, is to lay down ſeveral Propoſitions, wherein we may at the ſame time aſſert truth, and obviate ſome error.
Firſt, Original ſinne doth greatly differ from actual ſinne in this particular, that when an actual ſinne is committed, there remaineth no more but the guilt of it, which upon repentance by juſtification is wholly removed away, and thus an actual ſinne is as if it had never been; but in original ſinne, although the guilt of it be taken away, yet the nature of it abideth ſtill, though not with ſuch dominion as formerly it did. It is true the Schoolmen, except Biel and ſome others, ſay, actual ſinnes leave a macula, a blot or defilement upon the ſoul, as well as a reatus, or guilt; and what this macula is, they are different in their explication of: but we muſt neceſſarily grant, that every actual ſinne doth defile the ſoul, depriving it either of the beauty it hath, or ought to have, but yet ſtill the act of ſin is paſſed away, whereas in original ſin, the ſin it ſelf doth ſtill continue, by which it is, that though to thoſe who are in Chriſt, there is no actual condemnation, yet there is that which is damnable in them; inſomuch as without Chriſt there is a wo to their moſt holy and praiſe-worthy actions. It is true, the Papiſts and others look upon this as non-ſenſe, or a contradiction, that ſin ſhould be in a man, and not make him guilty; as if actual condemnation might not be ſeparated from ſinne, though indeed the deſert of condemnation cannot. It cannot be but whereſoever ſinne is it doth deſerve hell, it hath enough in it to provoke God to wrath, but yet when humbled for and withſtood, then through the bloud of Chriſt, this actual guilt, though not the potential one, is taken away. Yea original ſinne doth not only differ from actual ſinne, but alſo habitual, becauſe though habitual ſinnes do abide in a man, yet when a man is regenerated, and made a new creature, all the habits of ſinne are expelled; for if the habits of ſinne and grace ſhould abide together, then a man might at the ſame time be holy and unholy, the ſonne of God, and the ſonne of the Devil, ſeeing our denomination is from the habits that are within us; therefore that cannot be. But though in our Regeneration the habits of ſinne are removed, yet it is not ſo with original corruption, that is not an acquired, but an innate habit of ſinning within us. Thus our original corruption is farre more pertinaciouſly cleaving unto us, then any habits or cuſtoms of ſinne can be, though of never ſo long continuance.
¶. 2.
IN the ſecond place, That is a falſe poſition which the Remonſtrants have (Exam. Cenſurae cap. 11. pag. 128.) that the difficulty which new converts have to leave their former luſts, doth ariſe chiefly from their former cuſtome and exerciſe in wayes of impiety, not from original ſinne. For they diſtinguiſh of godly men ſuch as are incipients, new beginners, that are but newly converted unto Chriſt, and theſe they ſay have a great conflict within them, they have much ado to leave their former luſts and impieties they have been accuſtomed unto: and then there are the Adulti, ſuch who are proficients, and grown up; now theſe they ſay may ariſe to ſuch a meaſure of holineſs, as to be without any conflict at all between fleſh and ſpirit, or to feel it very rarely: but that is directly to contradict this Text, which ſpeaketh it univerſally of all that have the Spirit of God in them while in this life, they do meet with oppoſition not only from the devil without, but the fleſh within: Therefore they would elude this Text, as if it did not mean an actual reluctancy or luſting againſt one another, but only potential, that it is the nature of the fleſh and Spirit thus to oppoſe one another, for this is ſay they againſt the nature of habits, ſeeing it is the property of habits to make the will readily and willingly will and do thoſe things, which formerly were grievous and troubleſome, but the Scripture ſpeaketh of the actual reluctancy; it doth not ſay it may or it can, but it doth luſt; and as for habits, though we grant when theſe ſupernatural habits of grace are infuſed into the ſoul, we are carried out with readineſs, delight, and willingneſs in thoſe holy duties which formerly were tedious and grievous unto us; yet becauſe neither the habits of grace are perfect within us, nor the acts that flow from them, therefore it is that there is a mixture of our droſs with the ſpirits gold. For although the habits of grace are immediately inſpired or infuſed from God, and ſo as they come from him are perfect; yet becauſe that is a true rule, Quicquid recipitur, recipitur ad modum recipientis; whatſoever is received, is received according to the capacity and qualification of the ſubject: Hence it is, that theſe habits of grace are imperfect as received and ſeated in us; and whereas again they reply, that ſuppoſe this Text be underſtood of actual reluctancy, yet it is not generally to be extended to all, but limited to the Galathians, who were but new converts, but beginners, and therefore had this fight within them; that is alſo falſe: The Apoſtle ſaith the fleſh luſteth againſt the Spirit, and the Spirit againſt the fleſh in the general: It is an univerſal Propoſition, neither is it any more to be limited to the Galathians, then the duty enjoyned, which is to walk in the Spirit; ſo that as the duty belongeth to every godly man, the reaſon likewiſe muſt, and therefore the Apoſtle doth not ſay, the fleſh luſteth againſt the Spirit in you, (they put (in vobis) into the Text) but ſpeaketh univerſally of all that have the Spirit of God: Beſides this Text oppoſeth them, for grant theſe Galathians were new converts, yet the cauſe of the combate within them, is not attributed to their former cuſtome of impiety as they would have it, but to the fleſh, which is original ſinne within them, when therefore a man is truly converted, that difficulty to leave his former luſts doth not ariſe becauſe the habits of ſinne do ſtill abide in him, but becauſe original ſinne is ſtill living in us; and therefore according to the greater or leſſer meaſure of grace healing and ſanctifying of us, ſo we find the greater oppoſition in parting with the ſinnes we formerly committed.
¶. 3.
WE are to lay it down for a certain foundation to build upon (as hath formerly been delivered) That this spiritual conflict was not in the ſtate of integrity. Adam before his fall could not find ſuch a rebellion in him; for if ſo, this would greatly have interrupted all his bleſſedneſs; and withall ſuch a duell within him, and that neceſſarily flowing from his creation, would have redounded to the great diſhonour of God his Maker. Now the Adverſaries of original ſinne, whether Papiſts, Remonſtrants or Socinians, who do uſually traduce the orthodox Doctrine about it, as if horribly injurious to God, do in this particular farre tranſcend all ſuch ſuppoſed reflections, either upon the juſtice or mercy of God. For they do boldly affirm, That by the very natural conſtitution of man, there is a neceſſary conflict between the rational and ſenſitive part; only ſay the Papiſts, original righteouſneſs (which the Socinian derideth as much as original ſinne) did keep down this repugnancy, ſo that Adam had not any actual rebellion within, though it was there potentially and radically. Thus Soto (though Stapleton fluctuateth, and ſeemeth to be his Adverſary therin) expreſly affirmeth (Lib. de Naturâ & Gratiâ, c. 3.) that the conflict mentioned by the Apoſtle, Gal. 5. 17. is Homini â naturâ ingenita, inbred in the very nature of a man, which he would prove from a philoſophical Diſcourſe out of Ariſtotle, who divideth man into two parts: his rational and ſenſitive, adding that the ſenſitive part obeyeth the rational, not deſpotically, as ſervants who have no right of their own do to their maſters (for ſo the members of the body only do ſerve the mind) but politically and civilly, as a Citizen doth his Prince, in whoſe power it is to diſobey. But as Ariſtotle knew nothing of mans creation, or the Image of God put upon him, nor of his fall, and the utter depravation of mans ſoul thereby, ſo it would be abſurd to runne to his darkneſs to fetch light about theſe things. Hence alſo it is, that the ſame Author (Cap. 13.) in another place, compareth man fallen with man ſtanding to ſome weighty piece, that hangeth on high, but is hindred that it cannot fall; and the ſame piece, when the impediment is removed. For as ſuch a piece of timber had the ſame proneneſs to fall to the ground, while it was hindred, as when the obſtacle was removed, only it did not actually fall: Thus man abiding in his ſtate of integrity had this principle within, to carry him more affectionately to ſenſible things then ſpiritual; only original righteouſneſs did ſtop and hinder the actual motions thereof. It is true, that all Papiſts do not aſſert this repugnancy from our primitive conſtitution: For Cajetan upon the place doth note truly, Sermo eſt, &c. ſaith he. The ſpeech is of the fleſh, as infected with original ſinne, for thence the fleſh luſteth againſt the Spirit, not from the primary Creation. Yea their admired Thomas a Kempis, (Pag. 77.) for his practical devotion, confeſſeth that Adam in the ſtate of innocency had not this conflict. And no wonder that Papiſts thus dogmatize, when Arminius, who uſeth to be very wary, being he was the firſt that was to broach thoſe dangerous errours, the Devil delighting to uſe a Serpent, not an Aſs, becauſe he was more ſubtil then other beaſts of the field, yet aſſerteth that the inclination to ſinne was in Adam before his fall, Licet non ita vehemens & inordinata ut nunc eſt, although not ſo vehement and inordinate as now it is. It is true, the whole Paragraph is put by way of queſtion, but in the procedure thereof, this is ſpoken affirmatively, (Articul. perpendendi, cap. de peccato originis.) And with the Socinians nothing is more ordinary then to affirm ſuch a rebellion in man, and that ſo peremptorily, that from this they conclude, Adam did ſinne, it was from his concupiſcence that he did break the Law of God; Yea ſome are not afraid to attribute this repugnancy and conflict to Chriſt, as if when he prayed, Father, if it be poſſible let this Cup paſſe away, that this came from the Agony between the rational, and ſenſitive part within him. It is wonder that theſe do not alſo hold, that it will continue in Heaven alſo: ſo that as long as man hath a ſoul and a body, this oppoſition cannot be removed; but ſurely the naming of this to tender hearts and ears is confutation enough. For is not this truly and properly to make God the Author of ſinne, that he put a rebellious thorn in our ſides at firſt, and that becauſe we are his creatures, made of a ſoul and a body, therefore we muſt neceſſarily be divided within our ſelves. Thus thoſe who charge original ſinne with Manichiſm do herein exceed the Manichees themſelves; for they attribute this evil in a man to an evil principle; but theſe make the good and holy God to be the Author of this rebellion. Neither is it any evaſion to ſay, This rebellion of the ſenſitive part is no ſinne, unleſs it be conſented unto; for it is ſuch which is contrary to the Law of God, it is to be reſiſted and fought againſt. And certainly that demonſtrateth the evil nature thereof. Luther indeed ſpeaks of a Franciſcan, which maketh this concupiſcence to be a natural good in a man, as it is in the fire to burn, or the Sunne to ſhine: But certainly ſuch qualities or actions are not to be reſiſted, or fought againſt, as theſe are; How can that be good, which is confeſſed to be a ſinne, if conſented unto?
¶. 4.
VVHen we ſay the fleſh and the Spirit do thus conflict with one another, Prop. 4.you muſt not underſtand it of them as two naked bare qualities in a man, but as actuated and quickned from without. For the gracious habit in a man, is not able to act and put it ſelf forth vigorouſly without the Spirit of God exciting and quickning of it. And although inherent ſinne of it ſelf be active and vigorous, yet the Devil alſo he continually is tempting and blowing upon this fire to make it flame the more impetuouſly: So that we are not to look upon theſe ſimply as in themſelves, but as ſubſervient to the Spirit of God, and the Devil. The Spirit of God by grace in the heart doth promote the Kingdom of God, and the Devil by ſuggeſtions, doth advance the kingdom of Satan in our hearts: So that grace and ſinne are like the Deputies and Vicegerents in our ſouls to thoſe Champions that are without us. Now becauſe the Spirit of God is ſtronger, and above the Devil, therefore it is that the fleſh ſhall at laſt ſurely be conquered. Nay, if the godly at any time fail, if ſinne at any time overcome, it is not becauſe the Spirit of God could not overcome it, but becauſe he is a free agent, and communicateth his aſſiſtance more or leſſe, as he pleaſeth; only in this combat the godly are to aſſure themſelves, that they ſhall overcome all at laſt, that the very root of ſinne will be wholly taken away, never to trouble or imbitter the ſoul any more.
¶. 5.
FIfthly, In natural and corrupt men, there is no ſenſe or feeling of any ſuch conflict. They never groan and mourn under ſuch wreſtlings and agonies within them, and the reaſon is, becauſe they are altogether fleſh, and fleſh doth not oppoſe fleſh; neither is Satan ſet againſt Satan. It is true, there is in ſome natural vicious men, ſometimes a combate between their conſcience and their appetite; their hearts carry them on violently to ſinne, but their conſciences do check them, and they feel a remorſe within them, but this is farre different from that ſpiritual conflict, which the Apoſtle doth here deſcribe, and is to be found only in ſuch men, who have the Spirit of God: No wonderthen if there be ſo many who look upon this as a figment, if ſo many even learned men write and ſpeak ſo ignorantly and adviſedly about it; for this truth is beſt acknowledged by experience: It's not the Theologia ratiocinativa, but experimentalis, as Gerſon divideth Divinity, that will bring us to a full knowledge of this, It cannot then but be expected that you ſhould ſee men live at eaſe, and have much quietneſs and ſecurity in their own breaſts, thanking God, as if their ſouls, hearts, and all were good within them, all were as they deſire it; for the ſtrong man the Devil keepeth all quiet; fleſh would not oppoſe fleſh: It is true, one ſinne may oppoſe another, covetoufneſs; drunkenneſs; and ſo a man who would commit them both be divided within himſelf; one ſinne draweth one way, and another ſinne the other way: but ſtill in the general here is an agreement; all is ſinne, all tendeth one way ſtill, and therefore is not like this combate in the Text; but of this more in its time.
¶. 6.
SIxthly, In all regenerate perſons though never ſo highly ſanctified, there is a conflict more or leſs: It is true, ſome are more holy then others; ſome are babes, and ſome are ſtrong men; ſome are ſpiritual, ſome in a comparative ſence are carnal; ſome are weak, ſome are ſtrong; and according to the meaſure of grace they have received, ſo is this conflict more or leſs, Amyraldus a much admired Writer by ſome, (neither do I detract from that worth, which is due to him,) doth induſtriouſly ſet himſelf. (Conſtd. cap. 7. ad Rom.) to expound the 7th of the Romans of a perſon not regenerated, but in a legal ſtate, yet diſclaiming Arminianiſme and Socinianiſme: which Expoſition being offenſive and excepted againſt, (as juſtly it might) by William Rivet; he maketh a replication thereunto, wherein he delivereth many novel aſſertions. Among which this may be one; That making four ranks, or claſſes of Chriſtians, he apprehendeth the firſt, to be ſuch who have attained to ſo high a degree of ſanctification, that they conſult, and deliberate of nothing, but from the habit of grace that is within them; and that this conflict within a man, is rather to be referred to the legal work upon a man, then the Evangelical condition we are put into: hence he underſtands this Text not univerſally, but particularly of the Galathians, who were then in that ſtate, viz. a legal one, not Evangelical, which he thinketh the next Verſe will confirme, where the Apoſtle ſaith, If ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law: now of this ſort, who may be apprehended ordinarily to live without ſuch a combate; he placeth the Apoſtles, eſpecially when plentifully endowed with the Spirit of God, after Chriſts reſurrection: and for Paul he is ſo far raviſhed with the Idea of godlineſs repreſented in his life, that he ſaith, (Conſid. in cap. 7. ad Rom. cap. 74.) if God had pleaſed ſo to adorne Paul, with the gifts of the Spirit, that in this life, he ſhould attain to that perfection, which other believers have only in heaven, none might find fault herein. The general rules he goeth upon (and others though diſclaimed by him,) is, becauſe there are many places of Scripture, which ſhew that ſome godly perſons are victorious and tryumphing above this conflict; as when this Apoſtle ſaith afterwards, ver. 24. They that are Chriſts have crucified the fleſh with the affections and luſts thereof, and Rom. 8. 2. The law of the Spirit of life in Jeſus Chriſt, hath made me free from the law of ſin and death: So that they conclude it injurious and contumelious to Paul, reproachfull to the grace of the Goſpel, and a palpable incouragement to ſinne and wickedneſs, to interpret the 7th of the Rom. of a regenerate perſon: But becauſe this is a truth of ſo ſpecial concernement, we ſhall take theſe things in a more particular conſideration; for it would be found an heavy ſinne lying upon moſt orthodox Teachers in the Reformed Church, if they have conſtantly preached ſuch a Doctrine, as is injurious to Gods grace, and an incentive to ſinne, as alſo ſlothfulneſs and negligence in holy duties: for the preſent this Text will bear us out ſufficiently, that where ever the Spirit of God is in perſons while in the way to heaven, they have a contrary principle of the fleſh within them, whereby they are more humbled in themſelves, and do the more earneſtly make their applications to the throne of grace; and that all have ſuch a conflict within them, may appear by theſe following Reaſons: yea we may with Luther ſay, ſo farre is it that any do attain to ſuch a meaſure of grace, as to be without this combate, that the more holy and ſpiritual any are, the more ſenſible they are of it; for they have more illumination, and ſo diſcover the exactneſs and ſpiritual latitude of the law, more then formerly they did, and alſo their hearts are more tender, whereby they grow more ſenſible even of the leaſt weight of any ſinful motion, though never ſo tranſient. It is true the godly do grow in grace, they get more maſtery and power over the luſtings of ſinne within, yet withall they grow in light and diſcovery about holineſs, they ſee it a more exact and perfect thing then they thought of, they find the Law of God to be more comprehenſive then they were aware of; and therefore they are ready to cry out, as Ignatius when ready to ſuffer, Nunc incipio eſſe Chriſtians: Oh me never godly, but beginning to be godly; I believe, but how great is my unbelief! This Paul declareth, Phil. 3. 12. Not as if I had already attained, either were already perfect, but I follow after, &c. Thus Paul is farre from owning ſuch commendations which happily others may put upon him. It is true indeed Amyraldus denyeth, that any are abſolutely perfect; but yet he goeth beyond the bounds of truth, in attributing too much to Paul, or other Apoſtles, which will appear,
Firſt, Becauſe the moſt holy that are, have uſed all. meanes to mortifie and keep down the cauſe of theſe ſinful motions; If they did not continually throw water as it were upon thoſe ſparks within, the moſt holy man would quickly be in a flame. Even this Apoſtle Paul, doth not he confeſs this of himſelf, 1 Cor. 9. 27. I keep down my body, and bring it into ſubjection, &c. He doth not mean the body, as it is a meer natural ſubſtance; for the glorified Saints will not keep down their bodyes. but as it is corrupted, and made a ready inſtrument to ſin: for though the Apoſtle call it not foreign, but foreign, yet theſe are not oppoſite, but ſuppoſe one another, as Rom. 6. 12. Let not ſinne reign in your mortal body, and it is a very frigid and forced Expoſition of Amyraldus, as if the Apoſtle did underſtand it of the expoſing his body to hunger and thirſt, and all dangerous perſecutio…s for the Goſpels ſake. For this was not Paul's voluntary keeping down of his body; thoſe perſecutions and hardſhips to his body, were againſt his will, though he ſubmitted to them, when by Gods providence he was called thereunto; but he ſpeaketh here of that, which he did readily and voluntarily, leſt from within ſhould ariſe ſuch motions to ſinne, as might deſtroy him; yea it is plain that even in Paul there was a danger of the breakings forth of ſuch luſts, becauſe 2 Cor. 12. God did in a ſpecial manner ſuffer him to be buffetted and exerciſed by Satan, that he might not be lifted up through pride: neither is this any excuſe to ſay with Amyraldus, That ſuch ſinnes are apt to breed in the moſt excellent dispoſitions; for it is acknowledged by all, that ſuch ſinnes have more guilt in them then bodily ſinnes, though not ſuch infamy and diſgrace amongſt men; Luther calleth them the ſublimia peccat; the ſublime and high ſins, ſuch the Devil was guilty of, and they were the cauſe of his final overthrow and damnation: If then the moſt godly have uſed all means to mortifie ſinne within them; it is plain they found a combate; and that if ſinne were let alone, it would quickly get the upper hand.
Secondly, That there is a conflict of ſinne appeareth in thoſe duties enjoyned to all the godly, that they watch and pray, that they put on the whole armour of Chriſt. Yea the Diſciples are commanded to take heed of drunkenneſs and ſurfetting, and the cares of this world, Luke 21. 34. and generally Paul's Epiſtles are full of admonitions and exhortations to give all diligence in the wayes of holineſſe: eſpecially that command is very obſervable, 2 Cor. 7. 1. Having theſe promiſes, let us cleanſe our ſelves from all filthineſſe of fleſh and ſpirits, perfecting holineſſe in the fear of God. Here you ſee both fleſh and ſpirit, that is the rational and ſenſitive part, have filthineſs; and that thoſe who are truly godly are to be continually cleanſing away this filthineſs, and to perfect what is out of order. What godly man is there, that can ſay, This command doth not belong to me, I am above it, I need it not? No leſſe conſiderable is that command of Peter, 1 Pet. 2. 11. Dearly beloved, I beſeech you as pilgrims and ſtrangers, abſtain from fleſhly luſts, which warre againſt the ſoul. Not as if this were wholly parallel with my Text, as Carthuſian is ſaid to bring it in, thereby proving that by fleſh is meant the body, and by spirit the ſoul; but onelyonly it ſheweth, that no godly man in this life is freed from a militant condition, and that with his own fleſh, his own ſelf, which maketh the combate to be the more dangerous. For this cauſe David, though a man after Gods own heart, though Gods ſervant in a ſpecial conſideration, yet prayeth Pſal. 19. 13. Keep back thy ſervant from preſumptuous ſins; which expreſſion denoteth, that even a godly man hath luſt within him, that would carry him out like an untamed horſe to preſumptuous ſins, did not the Lord keep him back. But we need not bring more reaſons to confirm that which experience doth ſo ſadly teſtifie.
SECT. III.
A Conſideration of that part of the ſeventh Chapter to the Romans, which treats of the Conflict within a man: Shewing (againſt Amyraldus and others) that it muſt be a regenerate perſon onelyonly, of whom thoſe things are ſpoken.
¶. 1.
THe next Propoſition that may give light to the weighty truth about the ſpiritual conflict that is in the moſt regenerate perſons is this, That beſides the reaſons formerly produced, and many others which might be named, there are two famous places of Scripture, which do moſt ſignally and eminently declare ſuch a combate in the moſt holy men. The firſt is this of my Text, which hath ſufficiently been explained and vindicated from corrupt Interpretations. And truly the light of this Text ſhineth ſo clearly, that there are very few who are not convinced that this ſpeaketh of the fight which regenerate perſons find in themſelves between thoſe two contrary principles of the Spirit and fleſh which are within them. The ſecond place, which doth ſo firmly eſtabliſh ſuch a conflict in thoſe who by grace are made new creatures, is Rom. 7. from v. 14. to the end of the Chapter, where we have a moſt palpable delineation of this duel that is fought in the inwards of a godly man; but that place is not ſo freely conſented unto, as this Text I am upon.
Now becauſe the clearing of that is of ſpecial uſe, and becauſe it is of ſuch affinity with my Text, I ſhall inlarge my ſelf (for I will not call it a digreſſion) in the full explication of that part of the Chapter, ſhewing, How that it muſt be a regenerate perſon, and him only of whom thoſe things are there ſpoken. And you will find that the diſtinct opening of that portion of Scripture will afford us many neceſſary things both for Inſtruction, Conſolation and Admonition, and all immediately adhering to this point I am now upon. This I intend to diſpatch in ſeveral particulars, which will be as ſo many branches growing from the flock of that Propoſition I have already named. And
Firſt, You are to know, that the Diſcourſe which Paul there uſeth concerning the combate within himſelf, is by ſome interpreted, as if Paul, though he name himſelf, Yet doth not mean himſelf, while regenerated, but while unregenerated. So that (ſay they) Paul doth therein take upon himſelf the perſon of one that is not yet in the ſtate of grace. This they conceive muſt neceſſarily be ſo, becauſe ſuch a perſon is ſaid to be carnal and ſold under ſinne. The fleſh is alwayes ſaid to have the better, whereas regenerate perſons they have crucified the fleſh and the Spirit; And the Law of the Spirit of life hath freed them from the Law of ſinne and death, Rom. 8. 2. OnelyOnly when they expound it of an unregenerate perſon, they diſtinguiſh of ſuch,
1. One who is groſly ignorant and prophane, wallowing in his ſinnes in a moſt ſenſleſſe and ſtupid manner, whoſe conſcience are wholly dead within them; and ſuch are carried out to ſinne with all impetuouſneſs, having no check or remorſe of conſcience within them, of ſuch the Apoſtle doth not ſpeak. But
2. There are others who are in a Legal ſtate, under the powerfull convictions and operations of the Law, as Amyraldus expreſſeth it: Men who beſides the meer knowledge of the Law have by the efficacy of Gods Spirit the convincing power of it ſo ſet home, that now their inlightned minds do greatly incline them to that which is good; but becauſe their hearts are not ſanctified, their affections are not mortified, therefore theſe luſts do hurry them away againſt thoſe legal convictions that are upon them; or as Arminius expreſſeth it (in cap. 7. ad Rom.) not in a much different way, the Apoſtle ſpeaketh of one, who is in ſome preparatory way to converſion. By the Law he is ſo farre wrought upon, that he is afraid becauſe of his ſinnes, he cryeth out of them, mourneth becauſe of them, hath many wiſhes and deſires: Oh that I could leave theſe luſts, I do not like or conſent to ſuch evil things that I do! Thus this perſon is ſuppoſed to have a ſervile fear, which is initial to the work of converſion. And this frame of ſpirit, although it be not regeneration, yet is to be reckoned among the good and ſpiritual gifts of God. This (ſay they) is the direct caſe of that perſon, who is here deſcribed by Paul; and it cannot be denied, but that many of the Ancients, and ſome later Writers have expounded it of a man under ſuch legal convictions. And although the Pelagians boaſted, That all Eccleſiaſtical Writers did interpret it of ſuch a perſon, yet Auſtin oppoſeth them therein, inſtancing in ſome, who did underſtand it of a perſon regenerated. It is true, Auſtin himſelf, while younger, did expound it of an unregenerate perſon; I underſtood it (ſaith he) in that manner, or rather I did not underſtand it. But when he came to be elder and more exerciſed in the Scripture & other Writers, then he was compelled to yeeld to the truth, and to interpret it of a perſon regenerate; ſo that they caluminate Auſtin, who make him flie to this Interpretation out of the heat of his Diſputations with Pelagians, taking this ſenſe (though formerly he had done the other) as being more ſubſervient to his preſent intereſt; for he attributeth his change of mind to the truth of God in other Scriptures, as alſo to the light he had from the tractates of other learned men. Eſpecially thoſe places compelled and forced him, as he ſaith, (viz) Now I no longer do it, but ſinne within me, and I delight in the Law of God in the inward man. He that delighteth doth it not for fear of puniſhment, but love of righteouſneſs. Vide Auguſt. lib. 1. Retract. c▪ 23. &c. 26. & l. 3. contra Julianum. c. 26. & lib. 6. contra Julianum. cap. 11. We grant indeed that there is ſuch a legal ſtate in which ſome men are, that there are ſome who are miſerably divided between their enlightned conſciences, and their corrupt luſts, ſo that they do the they would not do. Yea the godly themſelves, though they have a ſuperiour and more ſubline combate; yet becauſe they have an unregenerate part within them, therefore they ſometimes have even this conflict between their conſciences, and ſome importuning corruptions; but this is not remarkable in them comparatively to the other.
In the ſecond place, There are others who do zealouſly contend, that that diſcourſe cannot be applied to any, but a regenerate perſon; and to underſtand it otherwiſe would be to plunge the godly in a deep gulph of diſcouragements, and to attribute ſuch things to unregenerate perſons, which thoſe that are truly ſanctified cannot go beyond; And this way Auſtin, and others of old do, willingly go. Yea moſt of the Popiſh Interpreters, Eſtius, Contzen, Pererius, Saſb…lt, &c. Tolet is taken notice of, as the moſt eminent diſſenter. The Lutherans alſo generally, and the Calviniſts, yea moſt Proteſtant Writers. Even Muſculus, whom the adverſaries of this Interpretation do ſo much alledge in this point, and labour to decline all ſuſpicion by his name, yet doth clearly and fully expound it of a man truly regenerated and converted, but in the loweſt degree and initials of grace; although in the loweſt form, yet ſanctified and regenerated he confeſſeth him to be. Arminius and Amyraldus have indeed in a peculiar manner ſet themſelves againſt this Expoſition. Yea there is an Engliſh Writer, who goeth ſo high, as to call the explication of this portion of Scripture, as ſpoken in the perſon of a regenerate man, An encouragement of an evil life, and a ſcorn caſt upon the holy Ghoſt; yea that it is verbum dictum contra Spiritum ſanctum. (Vnum Neceſſarium, chap. 7. pag. 456.) But herein he followeth Arminius, out of whom alſo he ſeemeth to borrow all that he hath in this point of any appearing ſtrength and validity. In cap. 7. ad Rom. where he would have it conſidered, whether this fight deſcribed here in the Text, can be attributed to the Spirit of God, Citra apertam gratiae Chriſti, & ejus Spiritus contumeliam & ignominiam. And a little after, Conſtabit diligenter inspicienti, citra enorme Spiritus ſancti dedecus, illi luctam iſtam attribui non poſſe. Thus Ariſtotles ſpeech is very true, foreign, Ethi…. lib. 7. cap. 10. Yea the late Annotatour is ſo farre from thinking, That doing the ill we would not, and the not doing the good we would, to be a fit ingredient in the character of a regenerate man, that he maketh it the aggravation of a wicked man. Thus he ſaith, The Heathens made the higheſt pitch of villany in Medeas perſon, when ſhe is ſaid to ſee and like that which was good, and do the direct contrary. So that it ſhould ſeem by this, That the Annotatour would think Arminius, and thoſe who think this Diſcourſe to be underſtood of a man in a preparatory way to converſion, and as it were not farre from the kingdom of God, to yeeld too much: We muſt rather look upon it as ſpoken in the perſon of ſome enormious and tranſcendent ſinner: but I think herein he is primus and ſolus. Beſides his aſſertion is againſt Ariſtotle, who writing of the incontinent perſon, that in ſome reſpects knoweth the actions to be ſinnes, yet doth them, ſaith notwithſtanding, that he is not a wicked man, but foreign, a ſemi-wicked man, Ethic. lib. 7. cap. 9. foreign. But concerning this ſinning againſt knowledge in a regenerate perſon, as alſo the collation of him with an incontinent perſon more hereafter. Only by the way we may wonder, why the above mentioned Annotatour in his Annotations on this place, is ſo induſtrious to prove this paſſage cannot be meant of a regenerate perſon, from verſe the eighth and the ninth in this Chapter, where it's ſaid, Sinne wrought all manner of concupiſcence in him, that ſinne revived and he died. For ſurely he cannot but know, That none of the Diſſenters from him in this Expoſition, do apply thoſe verſes to a regenerate man; but that the application to ſuch a perſon beginneth at the fourteenth verſe, or elſe as Calvin, at the fifteenth verſe; But it is not ſo material to know what men ſay, as what may be evinced out of the Chapter it ſelf. Only we may adde, That the Socinian is likewiſe very ſtiff and zealous in the Interpretation of this Chapter concerning a non-regenerate perſon. Yea the Polonian Knight, that writeth the life of Socinus, would have us take notice of a wonderfull work of God, convincing an eminent man of this Expoſition; for thus he relateth, Pag. 21. That anno 1585. in the Synod of Lublin, the opinion of Socinus concerning the ſeventh of the Romans, was exceedingly agitated; and that one Nicolaus Zitinius, being one of thoſe Paſtors, who oppoſed the Socinian Expoſition, was deſired to explain that Chapter contrary to the mind of Socinus; which he ſtoutly managed, till he came to thoſe words, I thank God through Jeſus Chriſt, and then ſtanding like a man amazed; What is that benefit (ſaith he) which drew from the Apoſtle ſo great thanks? Was it that he was of neceſſity detained in ſuch a ſervitude of ſinne? Certainly, I cannot believe ſuch a thing; and thereupon gave thanks to God, for the light ſhining upon him, and freeing him from his errour, and afterwards entred upon a contrary way of explaining it to the amazement of his own party. But it had been well, if this writer had ſet down the reaſons which made ſuch a change in that man.
Thirdly, We cannot ſay it is hereſie and an errour in fundamentals, to expound this place of an unregenerate perſon; yet as the grounds and reaſons may be, ſuch an expoſition may be either heretical, or bordering thereupon. For there are two principles, which may be ſuppoſed, upon which the Expoſition of this Diſcourſe concerning an unregenerate perſon may be built; for either ſome will not underſtand it of a regenerate perſon, Becauſe they think it oppoſeth perfection in this life, whereas they think a man may and ought to be altogether pure and without ſinne in this life; or elſe they do acknowledge the imperfection of out regeneration, and the reliques of original ſinne abiding in us, whereby we are not able to anſwer the purity and holineſs of the Law: Only they think this is not a proper place to prove ſuch a truth, but is rather injurious to the grace of God working in believers. And in the number of theſe later Arminius doth acknowledge himſelf: Now if ſuch men be real in what they ſay, and do not ſecretly nouriſh ſome monſter within, till they have a fit time to bring it forth, they are not much to be blamed. For as long as they agree in the true Doctrine, though they differ in the Texts, that do prove it, that is not ſo material. Certainly Calvin was moſt unjuſtly traduced by Hunnius the Lutheran, for Judaizing and denying the Trinity; yet he did not think that Doctrine was to be proved out of every Text, that the Ancients did make uſe of. But then to deny the expoſition of this place concerning a regenerate perſon, Becauſe they hold perfection in this life, and an immunity from ſinne, for which end the Pelagians of old did ſeem to oppoſe it; yea and that this perfection was to be obtained by our own free-will, this may juſtly be looked upon as heretical, Upon which account Caſtalio is inexcuſable, for he interpreteth it of an unregenerate man, only ſubject to the Law, meerly to eſtabliſh perfection; affirming, that the old man is wholly crucified in this life, denying Chriſts imputed righteouſneſs, and affirming men may be without ſinne. (De Juſtific. pag. 67. & frequenter alibi.) This is certain that the true Expoſition of this place doth powerfully overthrow the Doctrine of perfection in this life: For if a Paul doth find this civil warre within himſelf; if Paul creep thus upon the ground comparatively to the admirable holineſs required in the Law, who then may not have cauſe to be humbled for that ſpiritual agony he feeleth within himſelf?
Fourthly, Although we affirm this later part of the Chapter is to be underſtood of a regenerate perſon, yet we alſo acknowledge, that a Miniſter is to manage this truth with much wiſdom and dexterity, that ſo the Doctrine of imperfection in regenerate perſons, may not be an occaſion to …ull men a ſleep in their lazineſſe, that hereby they do not content themſelves with incompleat and ſluggiſh wiſhes in the wayes of holineſſe. If any do abuſe this Doctrine to lukewarmneſs or indulgence in ſinfull wayes, ſaying, their eſtate is like Paul's the evil they would not do, they do: This is not the fault of the Doctrine, but either of the Miniſter, who doth not wiſely diſpenſe it; or of the hearer, who doth wilfully ſuck poiſon out of the ſweet herb: Even as the whole Doctrine of the Goſpel, and Gods grace, may be abuſed to licentiouſneſs. It is true, that the proper character of Chriſtianity is, That it is an acknowledgement of the truth, which is after godlineſſe, Tit. 1. 1. And certainly there is no point may more quicken up to godlineſs, ſ…ur on the moſt holy to greater growth in piety, then this truth about the imperfection of the graces, that are in the beſt; and alſo that we have a treacherous enemy within us (the reliques of original ſinne) which without daily watching and praying, will quickly plunge us into confuſion, Now the Miniſter of Chriſt will ſo handle this Expoſition, though of a regenerate perſon, very profitably and advantagiouſly to the increaſe of godlineſs, if he adde theſe qualifications to his Interpretation:
1. That the evil which this perſon is ſaid to do, is not to be underſtood of groſſe and enormieus crimes, but partly of the very motions to ſinne within us, and ſometimes a conſent thereunto, and (it may fall out ſo, as to be) an acting of them in our lives; but this is not of groſſe ſinnes, or if of a foul ſinne, yet not continued in, but with repentance and greater hatred recovered out of it. Unleſſe the Preacher do thus limit his Expoſition, he leaveth the battlements without rails, he doth not fence againſt the pit wherein ſome may fall. Let no man therefore think that this paſſage of Pauls is to be extended to groſſe ſinnes, as if many prophane ſinners, who ſinne, and their conſciences check them, and then they ſinne again and have remorſe again, could take any comfort from theſe places, as if they might ſay with Paul, It is not I, but ſinne that dwelleth in me; The evil that I would not, that I grieve for, in the temptation, I do: Oh take heed of abuſing the holy Word of God to ſuch corrupt ends! Auſtin ſome where ſpeaketh to this occaſion, when this part of Paul's Epiſtle was read, I fear (ſaith he) left this may be ill underſtood, but let none think, as if Paul's meaning was, he would be chaſte, but he was an adulterer, he would be mercifull, but he was cruel, &c. Thus it would be very dangerous to interpret this paſſage of groſſe ſinnes, and yet it cannot be denied, but that men who ſinne groſly, yet with ſome remorſe and grief of conſcience are apt to cover themſelves with theſe fig-leaves, and think this is ſanctuary ſafe enough to runne unto, that though they do ſinne, yet it is not with full conſent and delight. Arminius affirmeth (in cap. 7. ad Rom. pag. 753. as he ſaith, Verè & ſanctè) That he had ſometimes the experience of this, that when ſome have been admoniſhed, that they would take heed of committing ſuch a ſin, which they knew was forbidden by the Law; They would anſwer with the Apoſtle. To will was preſent with them, but they knew not how to perform what they willed: Yea he addeth, He had this anſwer from one, not when the ſinne was committed, but when he was forewarned that he ſhould not commit it. But the ſame Author goeth on, and ſaith, he knew both men and women, young and old, who when he had explained this Chapter in the ſenſe he defendeth, did plainly confeſs to him, that they hitherto had been in this opinion, that if they committed any ſinne with reluctancy of their mind, or omitted any duty, the ſame regreeting of them, they were not greatly to trouble themſelves, or grieve in this matter, ſeeing they thought themſelves like Paul therein, and therefore gave him hearty thanks that he delivered him from that errour by his interpretation. But what needeth all this, if any read Calvins, or other Expoſitions upon this place, might they not have been fully ſatisfied, that ſuch perſons offending in that manner (viz.) ſinning, having only terrour and contradiction from their conſcience againſt the ſinne they commit, but their hearts otherwiſe carry them out to it, do no wayes agree with the perſon here deſcribed, whoſe heare and will is ſaid to be againſt ſinne, as well as his mind and conſcience? We muſt not therefore underſtand it of groſs ſins, eſpecially of a continual cuſtom therein. No doubt but David did commit the adultery and murder, he would not have done. No doubt when Peter denied Chriſt, he could ſay, the evil that he would not do, that he did; but this was in ſuddain temptations. This was not often or cuſtomary, therefore they did recover out of them with bitter tears and ſorrow. We muſt therefore underſtand it chiefly of the motions and luſtings of the heart to ſinne, and oftentimes a conſenting thereunto; yea and in leſſer ſinnes an acting thereupon; ſo that it is no more in ſenſe then what the Apoſtle Jam's ſaith, In many things we offend all, Chap. 3. 2. So that howſoever the Jeſuites and Arminians would make Auſtins, and the later Expoſitions to differ, as if Auſtins were more innocent, becauſe he underſtood it only of motions to ſinne, which the godly man did ſuffer againſt his will within him; but the later apply it even to actions; yet who ſo diligently compareth them together, cannot find any real difference; for the ſumme of their Expoſition is, That the Law requiring ſuch a perfect and pure holineſs, that is doth not allow of the leaſt ſpot, or blemiſh, the moſt godly do find themſelves ſo depreſſed and weighed down with that remainder of corruption that is within them, that they come exceeding ſhort of that excellent and perfect holineſs, and therefore do abhorre and loath themſelves, and judge themſelves miſerable, while they carry about with them ſuch a body of ſinne.
Secondly and laſtly, This Expoſition will be advantagiouſly managed for godlineſs, … alſo inform, That Paul doth not here ſpeak of every particular temptation, as if in every conflict he had the worſe, and the fleſh had the better; but he ſpeaks of good and evil in the general, and that in the whole courſe of his converſation. In the general his heart was ſet upon the good commanded, and againſt the evil forbidden, but yet he could never attain to his fulneſs of deſire, though in ſeveral combars, the ſpirit might and did conquer the fleſh. And certainly the Arminians, who will hold us to the rigid letter, as if this perſon never had he better, no not at any time in any ſinne, muſt take heed of that fault they charge upon us (viz.) that they be not injurious to the grace of God, even according to their own Expoſition; for they acknowledge thoſe workings of the Law in this perſon againſt ſinne, are from the Spirit of God: Theſe are the good gift of God, and although they come not from the Spirit, as regenerating, yet as moving and preparing the heart for Regeneration. Now will it not be derogatory to ſay, that in this conflict the Spirit of God is overcome in every conflict, that at no time he cannot do the good he would? This is to make the conflict of a man in this legal eſtate inferiour to Ariſtotle's incontinent perſon, who hath only the meer light of natural reaſon to help him; for he compareth (Lib. 7. Ethic. cap. 9.) intemperance to the diſeaſe of a Dropſie or Conſumption, becauſe incurable, but incontinency to the falling-ſickneſs, becauſe curable. And then becauſe the former is continual, the later ſometimes only. If then in very Heathens, whoſe conflict is only between a natural conſcience, and their luſts, conſcience doth ſometimes prevail, their luſts do not alwayes overcome; Shall we think leſſe is done by the Spirit of God in them, who are in this legal conflict? It is true, if we ſpeak of perfect obedience to the Law of God: ſo at all times in all things, the Law of ſinne within a godly man doth retard and make him to come ſhort; but then in particular combates, there the fleſh doth not alwayes prevail; only the Apoſtle inſtanceth in the tyranny of ſinne, and not the dominion of grace, becauſe hereby he would inform the Jews how much they were to ſigh and groan under this burden, and thereupon to have higher thoughts of Chriſt. For ſeeing there were two things that did keep them off from Chriſt, The ignorance of the power of original ſinne, and a deſire to find out a righteouſneſs by the works of the Law: The Apoſtle doth take an excellent way to cure them of theſe two evils, by ſhewing what deep root original ſinne hath in the moſt holy, and how oppoſite and fighting it is againſt the grace of God within us, inſomuch that we cannot have our full comfort but in Chriſt alone.
¶. 2.
Reaſons for this Expoſition.
THat there is no godly man living free from this ſpiritual combate, becauſe of the fleſh which ſtill abideth in him, hath been proved by Reaſons and Scripture. To this Text we have joyned Paul's Diſcourſe, Rom. 7. which you heard was to be underſtood of no other then a regenerate perſon. But becauſe ſuch an Expoſition, as alſo the Doctrine of the imperfection of Regeneration may be abuſed; You heard with what limitations that Chapter was to be interpreted, though of a godly man.
It is remarkable what Auſtin ſaith in defence of himſelf, expounding this place of a regenerate perſon, whereas he had interpreted it otherwiſe formerly, Non ego primus aut ſolus, &c. (Lib. 6. contra Julianum. lib. 11.) He was not the firſt, or only man that did interpret it ſo. Yea he confeſſeth he underſtood it of unregenerated perſons once himſelf; and his greateſt reaſon was, becauſe he thought Paul could not ſay of himſelf, That he was carnal and ſold under ſinne; but afterwards (ſaith he) Melioribus & intelligentioribus ceſſi, vel potius ipſi veritati, &c. The example of this excellent man might much convince, but that prejudice doth blind mens eyes.
Let us ſee what Reaſons are cogent for this Expoſition.
Firſt, This is very conſiderable, That the Apoſtle in the former verſes ſpeaking of himſelf, uſeth the Preterperfect tenſe, ſpeakth of that which was paſt: onelyonly at the fourteenth verſe, there he changeth the tenſe, and ſpeaketh of the preſent time; which may perſwade us, that he ſpeaketh of himſelf, what he was once, before regenerated, and what he hath experience of in himſelf, though ſanctified. This changing of the time, argueth a change alſo in the perſon; for ſo his Diſcourſe runneth from the ſeventh verſe to the fourteenth, I had not known luſt, and ſinne wrought in me all manner of concupiſcence, I was alive without the Law once, and ſinne deceived me, &c. All theſe expreſſions are concerning what was done in him. Then at the fourteenth verſe, with the reſt following, he ſpeaketh of the preſent time, I am carnal, I do that which I allow not, &c. This altering of the time may incline us to think, that it is very probable the Apoſtle doth compare his former eſtate of unregeneracy with the preſent of ſanctification that he is now in. It is true indeed, we grant that the Apoſtle doth ſometimes aſſume the perſon of another man; he ſuppoſeth ſuch a thing in himſelf, which yet we muſt not conclude to be in him, as Rom. 3. 7. For if the truth of God hath abounded more through my life unto his glory, why yet am I judged as a ſinner? Here it is certain, he perſonateth a wicked object or and caviller. So 1 Cor. 13. 2. If I have all faith, and not charity, &c. As alſo Gal. 2. 18. If what I have deſtroyed, I build the ſame again, I make my ſelf a tranſgreſſor. But who doth not ſee a vaſt difference between theſe expreſſions and Paul's Diſcourſe in this Chapter? For they are ſpoken hypothetically by way of ſuppoſition. And therefore every one may perceive that the Apoſtle doth not intend an abſolute ſpeech of himſelf. Had the Apoſtle uſed ſuch conditional expreſſions here, then there had been ſome colour, If I do the evil I would not, if I do not the good I would, if I delight in the Law, if the Law of God, &c. then we might have doubted whether he ſpake of himſelf or no. Or had the Apoſtle as abſolutely and peremptorily ſpoken in thoſe places, as he doth here, we ſhould have wondred at it. Should he after a large Diſcourſe to that purpoſe have concluded, So then I my ſelf diſtroy what I have built, it would have greatly amazed us? As for that place inſiſted upon by ſo many, 1 Cor. 4. 6. Theſe things I have in a figure transferred to my ſelf and Apollo, &c. and from thence gathering, That it is ordinary with Paul by a figure to aſſume another habit (as it were) then his own. Suppoſe it be granted, Doth it therefore follow he doth here in this place? What, doth the Apoſtle never ſpeak in his own perſon? If we will not take this as ſpoken of himſelf, Why do the Diſſentients take the ſecond verſe in the next Chapter, as to be underſtood of his own perſon? The Law of the ſpirit of life in Chriſt Jeſus, hath freed me from the Law of ſinne and death. Beſides this very place maketh againſt them: for when the Apoſtle doth thus aſſume a perſon, he plainly diſcovereth he doth ſo; you ſee he doth expreſly ſay, that what he did, he did by a figure, but here is not the leaſt hint given of any ſuch thing, there is not a ſyllable by which we may gather any ſuch transfiguration: So that it is a wonder that the Apoſtle ſhould continue in ſuch a long diſcourſe, and that with ſo much vehemency, and yet give no diſcovery that he doth not mean it of himſelf, eſpecially when the Adverſaries to this Expoſition ſay, That to underſtand it of Paul, is ſo contumelious to the Spirit of God, and ſo deſtructive to all godlineſs. Certainly if ſo, the Apoſtle would have manifeſted ſomething to remove this ſtumbling block. Although I may adde that even that very Text, I have in a figure transferred to my ſelf and Apollo, &c. doth not neceſſarily allude, to that mention made of th…, 1 Cor. 2. 12. where ſpeaking of their factions, ſome ſaid they were of Paul, others of Apollo; as if the Apoſtle did by figure, uſe their names, intending thereby the falſe Apoſtles; for (ſay they) The Corinthians made their diviſions by occaſion of the falſe Apoſtles glorying in them, and exalting them againſt thoſe that were faithfull. But if ſo, what argument could there be in Paul's words? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized in the name of Paul? If he did mean falſe Apoſtles, and not himſelf, why ſhould he thank God that he had baptized ſo few? Therefore Pareus acknowledgeth, that the common Interpretation of that Text, as if Paul by a figure uſe his name and Apollo for the falſe Apoſtles, is no wayes agreeable with the ſcope of the place: For how could that be an example to teach them humility, as he there enlargeth himſelf. Heinſius alſo doth not like the tranſlation of the Greek word foreign, for ſuch a tranſmutation of names and perſons, but maketh it the ſame with foreign, but enough of this.
2. A ſecond Argument is, In that this perſon is ſaid to hate evil, not to will what is evil, not to know or approve of it, and then he is ſaid to will that which is good. Now this is the Deſcription of godlineſs, to love good, and to hate evil. It is true, that in convinced men, who yet retain their luſts, as alſo in legal men, they would not do the evil that they do, but yet they cannot be ſaid to hate it: No they love their luſts; therefore when any fear doth abate, they preſently fall unto thoſe ſinnes again, but this man doth hate ſinne; So that in this property two things diſcover a regenerate perſon, 1. That not only his conſcience and his judgement is againſt ſinne, but his will, his heart and affections alſo, whereas in all unregenerate men, their judgements, and their conſciences being enlightned and terrified, maketh them afraid to commit ſinne; but their will, then affections … not againſt it. And then ſecondly, The Apoſtle ſpeaketh generally of evil and good, he doth not ſay, I do this evil, I would not, or I do not this good that I would, but evil and good indefinitely, and this is only proper to the regenerate, he only hateth all evil, be only loveth all good, whereas the unregenerate perſon doth hate only ſome evil, and it is ſome good only that he would do, though if a man truly hate any ſinne, he hateth all ſin, becauſe odium is circa genus.
Thirdly, This perſon muſt be a regenerate perſon, becauſe there are two diſtinct principles in him, Sinne and He are made two different things, verſ. 17. It is no more I that do it, but ſinne that dwelleth in me: And ver. 18. I know that in me (that is my fleſh) dwelleth no good thing; Here then are (as it were) two diſtinct perſons; this perſon hath two ſelfs, which doth neceſſarily demonſtrate that this is a ſanctified perſon. For can a man under legal convictions ſay, It is not I, but ſinne within me? Can he that hath only errors upon his ſoul ſay, It is not I, but ſinne within me? How abſurd and falſe were that, for their hearts are ſet upon evil, only the terrours of the Law reſtrain them? Now a man is, what his heart is, not what his conviction is. It is true, the Libertines did abuſe this Doctrine, and would thereby acquit themſelves, it was not they, but the fleſh: Yea ſome blaſphemouſly would attribute it to God himſelf; but till a man be regenerated, he hath but one ſelf, and that is the fleſh. But (ſaith Arminius) thoſe legal preparatory workings by the Law, are the good gift of God, and are to be reckoned among the works of the Spirit, and therefore the Apoſtle may oppoſe them and ſinne together. To this it is anſwered, Though thoſe legal operations are from Gods Spirit, yet becauſe the perſon is not regenerated, he is ſtill in the ſtate of the fleſh, he is ſtill without Chriſt, and therefore cannot diſtinguiſh himſelf from the fleſh within him. As long as thoſe good gifts of God are not in a ſubject regenerated, the ſame perſon and the fleſh are all one. Yea though thoſe good effects come from Gods Spirit, and ſo are in themſelves ſpiritual, yet as they are in a perſon unregenerated, they are improved carnally, they are managed only to ſelf-reſpects; and thus temporary believers, though they do enjoy the good and common gifts of Gods Spirit, yet as they are in them, they are carnally improved, ſpiritual things being proſtituted to temporal ends. It is plain then, that onelyonly a godly man may ſay, It is not I, but ſinne in me; and thus Aquinas on the place ſaith, it may be eaſily underſtood of a man in the ſtate of grace, and of a ſinner, it can be only interpreted extortè, by violence: His reaſon he goeth upon is, becauſe that a man is ſaid to do, which his reaſon doth, not which his ſenſitive appetite inclineth unto, becauſe homo eſt id quod eſt ſecundum rationem; By reaſon we muſt underſtand ſanctified reaſon, otherwiſe a mans reaſon is corrupted, as well as his ſenſual part. Beſides, there is a further Argument uſed by the Apoſtle in this diſtinction he maketh, It is no more I that do it. No more, that implieth, once it was he that did it, formerly he could not make ſuch a diſtinction as now he doth.
Fourthly, The perſon here ſpoken of muſt needs be a regenerate perſon, Becauſe it is ſaid, He delighteth in the Law of God after the inward man, ver. 22. This is one of the places that compelled Auſtin to change his former opinion. Certainly to delight in the Law of God, is an inſeparable property of a regenerate perſon: David expreſſeth his holy and heavenly heart thereby; yea the Greek word is foreign, I delight with. Arminius doth well obſerve the emphaſis of the word, for he maketh the Prepoſition foreign not redundant, but ſignificant. So that the meaning is, he delighteth in the Law of God, that is, he delighteth in Gods Law, and Gods Law delighteth in him; there is a mutual ſympathy and delight (as it were) which maketh the reaſon the ſtronger for a regenerate perſon. For can any but he delight in Gods Law, and Gods Law (as it were) delight in him again? It is true, it is … in the inward man, but that is not a diminution, but a ſpecification of the cauſe, whereby he doth delight in Gods Law. I will not ſay that the inward man doth alwayes ſignifie the regenerate man, and ſo is the ſame with a new-creature. For although ſome underſtand that place ſo, 2 Cor. 4. 16. The outward man periſheth, but the inward man is renewed daily; yet happily the context may enforce it another way, yet here it muſt be underſtood of the mind as regenerated, becauſe it is oppoſite to the fleſh, and ſo ſignifieth the ſame with the hidden man of the heart, in which ſenſe a Jew is called one inwardly, becauſe of the work of grace upon his ſoul.
Fifthly, The ſad complaint he maketh concerning his thraldom, doth evidently ſhew, that it is a regenerate perſon: O wretched man that I am, who ſhall deliver me from the body of this death! If we take body for the material body, which is mortal, and ſo ſinfull; or elſe for that body of ſinne, which abideth in the godly, it cometh much to one point. It argueth that the perſon here ſpoken of, feeling this weight, this burden upon him, is in ſad agonies of ſoul, judgeth himſelf miſerable and wretched in this reſpect, and thereupon doth earneſtly groan for a total redemption; he longs to be in heaven, where no longer will evil be preſent with him, where he ſhall do all the good, and as perfectly as he would. It is true, a godly man cannot abſolutely be called a wretched and miſerable man, but reſpectively quoad hoc, and comparatively to that perfect holineſs we ſhall have hereafter. So we may juſtly account our ſelves miſerable, not ſo much from external evils, as from the motions and ſtirrings of ſinne within us, that do preſs us down, and thereby make our lives more diſconſolate. Hence it is that Auſtin calleth this Gemitum ſaactorum, &c. the ſighs and groans of holy perſons fighting againſt concupiſcence within them.
Sixthly, The affectionate rejoycing and aſſured confidence that he hath, about the full deliverance of him from this bondage expreſſed in thoſe words, I thank God through Jeſus Chriſt, doth greatly eſtabliſh this expoſition alſo of a regenerate ate perſon. It is true, there is variety about reading of this paſſage; however this plainly cometh from an heart affected with aſſurance of Gods grace to give him a full redemption, though for the preſent he lie in ſad conflicts and agonies. This is ſo palpable a conviction, that ſome of the Diſſentients will make Paul here to ſpeak in his own perſon, as if he did give God thanks for that freedome which the perſon ſpoken before had not obtained. Neither is it any wonder to ſee ſuch a ſudden change in Paul from groaning under miſery, preſently to break forth into thanks and praiſes of God: For we may often obſerve ſuch ebbings and flowings in David's Pſalms, that we would hardly think the ſame Pſalm made by the ſame man, at the ſame time; one verſe ſpeaking dejection and diſconſolateneſs, the next it may be ſtrong confidence, and rejoycing in God.
Laſtly, The concluſion which Paul maketh from this excellent experimental Diſcourſe, is fully to our purpoſe, So then I my ſelf ſerve the Law of God, but with the fleſh the law of ſin. To ſerve God, and to ſerve the Law of God is all one, and this none but a godly man doth. Yea to ſerve him with the mind and the ſpirit is a choice expreſſion of our grace. But becauſe this is not perfect and compleat, he addeth, He ſerveth alſo the fleſh, and the law of ſin. It is true, None can ſerve God and mammon, Chriſt and ſin, but yet where there is not a perfect freedom from thraldom to ſin, there, though in the principal and chief manner we are carried out to ſerve God, yet the fleſh retardeth, and ſo ſnatcheth to it ſome ſervice: you heard contraries might be together, while they are in fight. Neither is our redemption from ſin full and total. It is to be done ſucceſſively and by degrees, that ſo we may be the more humbled and grace exalted. Beſides that expreſſion foreign, is emphatical; this is uſed when Paul expreſſeth himſelf in ſome remarkable manner, I the ſame, and no other man, as it is uſed in other places, 2 Cor. 10. 1. Now I Paul my ſelf beſeech you, &c. 2 Cor. 12. 13. except it was, becauſe I my ſelf was not burdenſom to you. Rom. 9. 3. I could wiſh that myſelf were accurſed, &c. which is enough to convince ſuch as are not refractory.
¶. 3.
Objections Anſwered.
I Shall now conſider what is objected againſt this Interpretation, and ſhall not attend to the general objections, ſuch as that, That who are Chriſts and regenerated have higher things attributed to them; They have crucified the fleſh, they have mortifiedeth old man, &c. As alſo this ſeemeth to be injurious to Gods grace, it will encourage men in ſlothfulneſs and negligence, &c. for theſe ſhall be anſwered in the general. I ſhall therefore only pitch upon two objections, which the Adverſaries inſiſt upon.
The firſt is, That this perſon here ſpoken of, is ſaid to be once without the Law, which (ſay they) is the deſcription of a Gentile in Paul's language; therefore he aſſumeth ſome other perſon then his own; for Paul alwayes lived under the Law. Auſtin indeed expounds it thus, I did live once without the Law. that is, ſaith he, when he was a child, before he had the uſe of reaſon. This is too harſh. Therefore it is better anſwered, The perſon here ſpoken of, is not ſaid to be without the Law, which is indeed the deſcription of a Gentile, but that he was alive without the Law once, that is, he, as all the Phariſees underſtood the Law of God, as forbidding only external ſins, and Paul living unblameably as to that reſpect, thought to have life and righteouſneſs by the Law, but when the commandment came in power to him, and he was convinced that it did prohibit not only outward ſins, but inward luſtings of heart, then he began to find himſelf a greater ſinner than he was aware of; then he found the Law to be death to him, ſo that he lived without the Law, becauſe he was not affected with the full and exact obligation therof.
The ſecond thing much inſiſted upon is, That the perſon here ſpoken of, is ſaid to be carnal and ſold under ſinne, which (they ſay) is made by the Scripture a certain property of a wickedman. Thus it is ſaid of Ahab, Thou haſt ſold thy ſelf to do wickedly, 1 Kin. 21. 10. yea of all the children of Iſrael, 2 Kin. 17. 13. They cauſed their children to paſs through the fire, and ſold themſelves to do evil in the ſight of the Lord. But firſt, Calvin doth grant, that this is ſpoken of Paul, while unregenerate, and therefore beginneth his Expoſition at the 15th verſe of a ſanctified perſon: yet that cannot well be, becauſe there the Apoſtle beginneth to alter the tenſe; There he ſaith, I am carnal, I am ſold under ſinne, whereas before he had uſed the paſt time. We grant it therefore, that Paul ſaith this of himſelf, though regenerated, that he was ſold under ſin. But then we ſay, The expreſſions above named, and this is not a like; here it is in a paſſive ſenſe, there in an active ſenſe; of thoſe wicked men it is ſaid, They ſold themſelves, which denoteth their wilfulnes and obſtinacy; of this, he was ſold, which implieth it to be done againſt his will, as captives are; there it is abſolutely, here it is limited to the fleſh: And if this phraſe did denote a wicked man in an high degree, then how can they apply it to a man under legal convictions, and in a preparatory way to converſion? It would be very hard to ſay of ſuch men, that they ſold themſelves to do evil. Beſides, there is a two-fold bondage and captivity under ſin, even as the Iſraelites had a two-fold one they were born in, that of Egypt, and another they voluntarily by their ſin ſell into, which was that of Babylon. Thus there is a bondage unto ſin, we are all born in; for in Adam we were all ſold to ſinne, and ſo needed a Chriſt, Redermer. And ſecondly there is a bondage unto ſinne, by our own voluntary tranſgreſſions; It is true a regenerate perſon cannot be ſold under ſinne in this later ſence, but he is in the former, and ſo it is no more injurious unto the grace of God, as Auſtin noteth, then that he is yet mortal and corruptible. Thus you have this great and neceſſary truth eſtabliſhed: Paul ſpeaketh here of a regenerate perſon, and that not only of him, as he is in the loweſt eſtate, and initials of grace, as Muſculus thinketh; but of every godly perſon while in this life, even the moſt perfect that is, though this conflict be more applicable to ſome then others; yea if we do regard the exact purity of the law, the moſt holy do moſt humble themſelves under it.
¶. 4.
The ſeveral Wayes whereby Original Sinne doth hinder the godly in their Religious Progreſs, whereby they are ſinful and imperfect.
THe next Propoſition in order is, That this fleſh, this original ſinne in a man doth ſeveral wayes hinder the godly in their religious progreſs, whereby they are ſinful and imperfect, whereby every one is forced to cry out, as he; O me nunquam ſapientem! ſo, O me nunquam pium! Oh me never godly, never believing, never anſwering the holy Law of God! This treacherous enemy within us is ſo multiforme, putteth it ſelf Chamelion-like into ſo many ſhapes, that the moſt holy men have cauſe to be alwayes on their guard, to keep continual watch, leſt ſometime or other this Daliah betray them into the hands of the Philiſtines. How were it poſſible that ſome eminent ſervants of God, as David and Peter, have fallen ſo grievouſly, and committed ſuch ſinnes which ſome Heathens by the light of nature would have abhorred? but that there is this fuel and ſpawn of ſinne abiding in every regenerate perſon. It may well be affirmed, that the reliquiae peccati originalis; the reliques of original ſinne are in the moſt holy: for as when an houſe hath been for the greateſt part conſumed, but at laſt the fire is quenched, yet there remains ſome little ſparks and embers, which cauſe a conſtant watch, leſt they kindle and conſume whatſoever is left yet undeſtroyed: Such care and fear ought the godly to have, leſt the remaining corruption break out ſuddainly, and ſo deſtroy them.
I ſhall inſtance in ſome particulars whereby original ſinne doth thus hinder and retard the work of grace in us. As
Firſt, This fleſh within the godly maketh us imperfect in this life by its ſtrong oppoſition; and contrary thwarting it hath to the grace of God within us. Theſe two ſaith the Text are foreign, they are two adverſaries daily combating with one another; Inſomuch that what the Spirit ſaith, do, the fleſh ſaith do it not. Thus original corruption is like Solomons brawling woman, whoſe contentions are a continual dropping, Prov. 19. 13. What reſt can ſuch a man have? no more then he that lyeth in his bed, and hath conſtant droppings of rain upon him: Such a diſturber, and farre more troubleſome inmate is original ſinne to a believer, grace hath no reſt, no quietnes, but the fleſh is alwayes raiſing up oppoſitions againſt it, alwayes croſſing it, what the Spirit would not, that the fleſh would. Therefore Rom. 7. 23. the Apoſtle expreſſeth the violent actings thereof by military termes, it warreth, and it bringeth into captivity; In this ſence we may ſay, the fleſh is Satan, for that is an adverſary in our way, that riſeth up and ſtoppeth us in our ſpiritual progreſs: It is true, the natural and carnal man findeth no ſuch oppoſition; he never cryeth out, Oh how hard a thing is it to be heavenly minded, to be godly indeed, to live a life of faith? how difficult to live and die upon Scripture and ſpiritual grounds? for all is fleſh within, dead men feel no pain, they find no oppoſition; Mortuus non belligerat, is the Proverb, but the godly are in continual exerciſes, no ſooner doth grace begin to work, but the fleſh preſently beginneth to counterwork.
Secondly, The fleſh doth retard and hinder the work of grace by ſubtil allurements and enticements: Thus as the Devil ſometimes appeareth as a roaring Lion, and ſometimes again as a gliſtering Serpent, and in this latter way is moſt dangerous; ſo it is with this fleſh within us; ſometimes it groſly, and violently oppoſeth the grace of God, at other times it craftily inſinuateth, It readily interpoſeth, it propounds many ſweet baits; thus what it cannot do as a Lion, it accompliſheth as a Fox, ſo that what counſell is given, Mis. 75. Keep the doors of thy mouth from her that lyeth in thy boſome, implying there would be treachery in the neareſt relations: This is much more to be obſerved againſt original ſinne that lyeth in thy own boſome, yea it is thy own ſelf; and therefore how eaſily may it perſwade thee, yea no temptations without could do thee any hurt, did not this fleſh within betray all: Thus it craftily inſinuateth, and ſurprizeth the ſtrongeſth holds of the ſoul, before we are aware: ſo you heard from that of James 1. 17. Every man is tempted and drawen aſide with his own luſt. Sweet poiſon doth more eaſily deſtroy, white powder that giveth no noiſe more certainly kills; and this is the Reaſon, why the godly may be carried away to ſinne of profit, and pleaſure, and not judge them to be ſo, their hearts may not condemne them, and all becauſe the fleſh can ſo bewitch us; it doth caſt ſuch miſts before our eyes, that we are not able to diſcern between things that differ.
Thirdly, The fleſh within us doth keep off grace from its perfect work, by depreſſing it and weighing it down; that when grace would lift up the ſoul to heaven, that is like a milſtone about our neck, and pulleth us back again, it is lime to the birds wings, it is the ſtring to her feet: This made Paul cry out of it as a weight lying upon him, Rom. 7. O wretched man that I am who ſhall deliver me from the body of this death? yea Heb. 12. 1. it is called a weight; now as that muſt needs be an impediment to any who run in a race, no leſs burdenſome is original ſinne to a godly man in his way to heaven.
Fourthly, It hinders the perfection of grace, cooling and remitting the fervour and zeal thereof; and herein chiefly the miſchievous effect of original ſinne is diſcovered, it maketh the ſoul halt in his progreſs, it allayeth the heat of grace, it is like ſmoak to put out the fire. The adverſaries to this Truth ſay, it is not intelligible how the Spirit can make us will one thing, and the fleſh another, ſeeing a man hath but one will, and he cannot velle & nolle, will and nill at the ſame time about the ſame object; But they may know that by ſuch expreſſions are chiefly meant, That the hearrt of a man through this fleſh within him, is very faint and remiſs in all its actions about that which is good; when he doth will it, it's ſo inefficaciouſly, ſo ſlluggiſhly, ſo imperfectly, that it may be called a nilling as well as a willing; and this is the ſad iſſue of original ſinne, it maketh us go halting to the grave, it abateth that activity and zeal of ſpirit, which ought to be in holy things.
Fifthly, The fleſh hindereth abſolute compleatneſs of grace, by ſoiling, debaſing, and infecting our holy duties; It is as ſome mud caſt into a pure ſtream, it is as ſome poiſon mingled with wine; and for this it is, that the moſt holy have prayed, God would not enter into judgement with them, becauſe in his ſight no fleſh could be juſtified, Pſal. 143. 2. For this, the Scripture compareth even our righteous actions to a menſtruous cloath, Iſa. 30. 22. This is the frog that is drawen up with the pure water out of the well; though our godly duties are not ſinnes, yet they are ſinful, they are damnable in themſelves, and therefore need the mercy of God to forgive the imperfections adhering to them.
Laſtly, The fleſh is an hindrance in the way of grace, by dividing and diſtracting of the heart. In the ſtare of integrity when there was no ſuch inteſtine warre, then the whole ſtrength of the ſoul emptied it ſelf one way; but now though grace hath for the main ſetled our hearts upon God, yet the fleſh interpoſeth, that propoundeth other objects, and thus becauſe the pool runneth into divers ſtreams, it is not ſo full and plentifull, ſo that it is impoſſible there ſhould be any perfection, where there is any diſtraction or diviſion; and therefore we may juſtly expoſtulate with all thoſe, who plead they are without ſin, Whether they never have ſo much, as one wandring thought in any holy duty they go about. If they ſhould ſay they have not, it is our duty to flee from ſuch perſons as are puffed up with ſuch ſelf-love, and ſelf-confidence, that they know not, or feel not what they are, or do: Such are like thoſe diſtracted perſons, that conceit themſelves Kings and Emperours, when at the ſame time they are miſerable and indigent. Now by theſe ſeveral actings of the fleſh within us, the godly man may perceive what little cauſe he hath to truſt in himſelf: thou canſt not be ſecure, while in this mortal body; the wound original ſinne hath given thee is not wholly cured; ſometime or other this cloſe ſecret enemy may rob thee of thy Pearls and Jewels, if thou art not diligent in praying and watching over thy ſelf.
In the next place, I ſhall proceed to a ſecond Propoſition, and therein ſhall anſwer ſuch general Objections that may plauſibly be urged againſt the actings of original ſinne within us, and thereby againſt the imperfection of regeneration: for ſome have thought it no dangerous errour to plead for a perfection even in this life: Therefore Arminius his heires (Epiſtola dedecati. ad cap. 7. ad Rom.) ſay that the unſeaſonable and exceſſive urging of the conſtant imperfection of regenerate perſons, and the impoſſibility of keeping the Law in this life, without adding what the godly might do by faith and the Spirit of Chriſt, ſuch a thought as this might eaſily enter into the hearts of the hearers, that they can do no good at all; and they adde, the ancient Church thought not the queſtion about the impoſſibility of the law, to be reckoned among capital ones, which is apparent (ſay they) from Auſtin, which wiſheth the Pelagians would acknowledge it might be performed by the grace of Chriſt, and then there would be peace between them. But certainly Auſtin may beſt explain himſelf, (De perfectione juſtitiae ad Caeleſtiam, ad finem) where he ſaith, he knoweth ſome who hold there either have been, or are ſome, that were without ſinne: Quorum ſententiam de bâc re non audeo reprehendere, quanquam nec defendere valeam; as he dared not reprove it, ſo he could not defend it. This is his modeſt expreſſion, but if Auſtin could not defend it, I do not know who in that age could, ſeeing Auſtin by the gloſs in the Canon law, hath juſtly the preheminence above all the Ancients for Diſputations, as Hierom for the Tongues, and Gregory for Morals; and certainly the places brought to prove this point, do argue that no man is without ſinne, that none can be juſtified, if God enter into judgement: It was alſo Pelagins boaſt in that Epiſtle ad Demetriadem, (for it's taken to be his) That in the firſt place he doth enquire what men are able to do, how farre their own power extendeth as if this foundation were not laid, there could be no exhortation to godlineſs. Hence the Pelagians charged it as a conſequence upon the Doctrine of original ſinne, that it would work in men a deſpair about perfect righteouſneſs, (lib ſecundo coutra Julianum in initio) But of late Writers ſetting aſide Papiſts, Caſtellio, (for we muſt not call him Caſtalio, ſeeing he bewaileth his pride, (Caſtel. Defenſ. page. 356.) for aſſuming that name to him from the fountain of Muſes) doth with the greateſt earneſtneſs propugn the perfection of regenerate perſons and immunity from ſinne, underſtanding that prayer for pardoning of ſinne, like as that duty to forgive our enemies, viz. when we have them: This Writer calleth that queſtion, Whether a man may by the Spirit of God perfectly obey the law, a very profitable queſtion, but addeth that the errour on the right hand, viz. that we are able perfectly to fullfill it, is farre leſs dangerous then the contrary; for God will never find fault with that man, who doth endeavour for a perfect obedience, and that by the help of God, (De obedientiâ Deo praeſtandâ pag. 227, 228.) but his arguments are as weak as his affections are ſtrong in this point.
¶. 5.
Objections againſt the Reliques of ſinne in a regenerate man anſwered.
LEt us examine what is uſually objected againſt this truth. And
Firſt, The command of God requiring we ſhould not luſt, and that we ſhould love God with all our heart, and all our ſoul, and might: From hence they argue, if theſe two commands cannot be perfectly fullfilled, why are they required of us.
To this it is anſwered, that it muſt be granted, no man living is able to anſwer the perfection and exactneſs of this law: who can ſay he loveth God, as much as the command requireth? that he never faileth in the leaſt degree? who can ſay that he never finds any ſinful motions? any irregular workings of heart? though he do not conſent to them; ſuppoſe that were alwayes true, which is not to be granted, yet ſuch motions being in the heart, the very having of them maketh us to fall ſhort of the exactneſs of the law; But yet theſe commands are neceſſary; for the rule muſt alwayes be perfect, not wanting or failing in any thing. The command doth repreſent the perfect Idea of compleat righteouſneſs, as Statues that are erected up in high and eminent places, are commonly of greater length, then the ordinary ſtature of men is. Thus it is one thing the righteouſneſs commanded in the law, and the participation of it in the ſubject, that receiveth it according to its proper capacity; The law then is perfect, but we are imperfect, true obedience and imperfect muſt not be confounded, as Caſtellio moſt ignorantly doth, and therefore abandoneth that opinion (De Juſtificat. pag. 46.) which maketh imperfection a ſinne: but he calumniateth the orthodox, when he ſaith, we hold nothing a vertue, but what is chiefeſt (ibid. pag. 43.) neither do we call that imperfection, which may have a greater degree; Adam was not imperfect, becauſe he had not ſo much holineſs, as the Angles have; In heaven it may be judged, that one Saint ſhall have more grace then another, yet every one perfected in their meaſure; and though it be ſo, he that hath not ſo much holineſs as the chiefeſt, ſhall not be judged ſinfully imperfect; there is a negative imperfection, and a privative; this later is, when the ſubiect doth not partake of what degrees it ought to do, and then it is alwayes a ſinne: The ſtarre hath not as much light as the Sunne, but this is no privative imperfection, becauſe it is not bound to be the Sunne: Now the command of God requireth of us the chiefeſt love that we can by grace put forth, not the higheſt degree of love, which is poſſible, but what we are bound to do, and any defect herein is a ſinne; We admit that all graces are not alike, no more then all ſinnes, one may be more holy then another; yet he that is the higheſt attainer doth not reach to the utmoſt of the command; and therefore whatever falleth ſhort of that, is damnable deſerving wrath of God.
Secondly, When we ſay no man is able to fullfill the Law of God in this life, becauſe the fleſh doth ſtill abide in us; We mean not as if this were ſo, becauſe God could not ſubdue it, or ſinne and the Devil were more potent then Chriſt, but he hath in his Word declared, that he will not give ſuch a meaſure of grace in this life, by the righteouſneſs whereof we ſhould be juſtified. So that Caſtellio's exclamations in this caſe are ridiculous; here is no injury done to the Spirit of God; we do not make Chriſt a ſemi-Saviour; for we readily grant, That the Spirit of God could make us abſolutely free from ſinne in the twinkling of an eye. In the hour of death we are immediately purged from all evil. So that it's plain, the Spirit of God could make us thus compleat, but he will not; neither doth this tend to his diſhonour, no more than that we die, that we are …ck, and carry about with us corruptible bodies. For did not Chriſt die that we might have glorious bodies, that we might be redeemed from this corruption? Yet this is not done immediately. Seeing then Chriſt hath aſſured us, that both ſoul and body ſhall be made perfectly holy and happy in time, though it be not done as ſoon as we would have it; we are not to cavil herein, but ſatisfie our ſelves with the wiſdom of God, who doth every thing beautifull in his ſeaſon, It is true, Chriſt when he cured bodily diſeaſes, he did perfectly cure them; but doth it therefore follow, that he muſt do ſo in ſoul-diſeaſes, as Caſtellio urgeth? No certainly, but rather as Chriſt, though he healed ſome perfectly of their diſeaſes, yet he did not take away their mortality from them: So though by the grace of God, we have ſtrength to overcome groſs ſinnes, yet we are not made impeccable, as the glorified Saints in Heaven are, but there remaineth the fuell of ſinne ſtill within us; not but that God could remove it, as he could have inabled the Iſraelites to have conquered all the Canaanites, but becauſe he will not; God could have made all the world at once, but he proceeded by degrees; and thus he doth in our ſanctification. So that herein we are daily taught to be humble in our ſelves, and to depend alone upon the grace of God. It is true, if all ſinne were removed, and we confirmed in a ſtate of grace, then there would be no danger of pride, as there is not in thoſe who are made glorious in Heaven: But were were we made perfect and delivered from all ſinne, yet abiding ſtill in a mutable condition, we ſhould quickly be drunken with the thoughts of our own excellencies; ſo that perfection, while we are in the way, would not be ſo advantagious unto us, unleſs to perfection God ſhould alſo add confirmation, and this would be to confound Heaven and earth together. And thus much for the firſt Objection.
¶. 6.
I Shall onelyonly name a ſecond Objection made in the general againſt the reliques of original corruption in a man, though regenerated, and thereby the imperfection of our renovation, becauſe this doth more properly belong to another head in Divinity, which is much diſputed, viz. De Perfectione Juſtitia, Of the Perfection of righteouſneſs in this life.
The Objection which is plauſibly and ſpeciouſly urged againſt this truth is, That this Doctrine is an enemy to a holy life, it is pernicious to godlineſſe, that it is a pleading for ſinne, and an encouragement to men to content themſelves in their formal and ſluggiſh way, becauſe they cannot be perfect. Thus it is thought we bring up an ill report about the way to Heaven, as thoſe Spies did about Canaan, we diſcourage people, making their hearts faint, becauſe of great Gyants that we ſay are in the way. In this manner Julian the Pelagian old of calumniated Auſtin, that he did in naturae invidiam malae converſationis ſordes refundere, that he did Peccantibus metum demere quorum obſcenitatum Apoſtolorum & ſanctorum omnium injuriis, he did conſolari, becauſe he made Paul to ſpeak thoſe words, The evil that I hate, that I do, of his own perſon: Yea (he ſaith) Auſtin's purpoſe was ad infereadum virtutibus bellum, ad excidium civitatis Dei, &c. (Lib. 3. contra Julianum, cap. 26.)
What a boaſting Goliah is here, or a railing Rabſhaheb, as if the holding of this corruption adhering to a man, though godly, did proclaim war againſt all godlineſs, and did overthrow the City of God. Caſsalio alſo maketh ſuch preaching as this, to be to ſow thiſtles that we may reap figs, It is to make God accept of blind and ſame Sactifices, ſaith he (Quin que Impedim. pag. 11. & 12. & 19.) that we are like children holding a bird whoſe legs are tied by a thred, and letting her flie a little, we preſently pull her back again: Thus we bid people obey … Law of God, and when a man endeavoureth to do it, then they tell him he cannot. Therefore (ſaith he) ſpend as much time to get perfect obedience, as thou doeſt to get learning, the knowledge of the tongue, or as thou doſt to get wealth, and then thou wilt ſee, we are not perfect, becauſe we do not ſpend ſo much time in this, as in other things. But this is to ſpeak like a Philoſopher rather than a Chriſtian.
To the Objection we anſwer, There is no injury to godlineſſe offered by this truth.
Firſt, Becauſe we ſay it is every mans ſinne that he is not perfect, therefore we ought to humble our ſelves under all our failings. As it was the Iſraelites diſobedience, that they were not active to deſtroy every Canaanite; whatſoever cometh ſhort of the exact Rule of the Law is ſinfull, and thereby damnable: Hence God is angry, not only with groſs ſinnes, but the imperfect graces of his people, Revel. 3. 2. I have not found thy works perfect foreign before God. I here was much emptineſs, much vacuity, the Church wanted ſolidity and fulneſs in her duties: For this it is that the godly are ſubject to many afflictions and temptations, they are under divers chaſtiſements, becauſe all the droſſe of corruption is not yet purged from them. So that the godly man is ſo farre from delighting and contenting himſelf in theſe imperfections that he mourneth and groaneth under them.
Secondly, Here is no impediment to godlineſs, becauſe we preſs it as a duty upon the godly, to be preſſing forward every day, to be perfecting holineſſe conſtantly, and that they are to take heed of ſelf-fulneſs, or to reſt contented in low principles. Hence the Apoſtle, Heb. 5. 11, 12, 13. and Chap. 6. 1. ſpeaketh very terrible to ſuch as remain in their rudiments (as it were) and are not carried out to perfection. The Corinthians alſo, 2 Cor. 7. 1. are commanded to perfect holineſſe in the fear of God. It is therefore our duty to endeavour after perfection, as Paul profeſſeth he did, Phil. 3. though he had not attained unto it; but yet when all is done, Our perfection will be to bewail our imperfection; we ſhall find abſolute purity is Res voti magis quam eveniûs, as Ambroſe of old. Hence the moſt godly have failed in the exerciſe of thoſe graces, which they have been moſt eminent in; Abraham is called the father of the faithfull, whoſe ſteps we are to follow; yet through fear in his lying or equivocating, he manifeſted unbelief. Sarah is noted for obedience to her husband, and propounded as a patern to all wives; yet in what a ſinfull and ſad paſſion did ſhe break out againſt Abraham, when he was innocent, and ſhe was in all the fault that was about Hagar? The Lord (ſaith ſhe) judge between me and thee, Gen. 16. 5. Thus David for his ſincerity, called a man after Gods own heart; but how falſe and hyporitical in the matter of Ʋriah? Here then is no encouragement to ſtand ſtill; we are not come to our races end, we are to grow every day, there is more to be done, then yet we have performed; and this ſtriving after further holineſs will be while we are in this life.
¶. 7.
The Objection return'd upon the Perfectioniſts.
THirdly, Thoſe that plead for perfection, they hinder the progreſs of godlineſs; they perſwade men with fooliſh and ablurd conceits, that they …ay attain to perfection; for when men do believe, they are perfect; What …ed they labour more, if they be at the races end? What need they runne ſtill? Nothing doth more deſtroy the life and power of godlineſs, than ſuch arrogant and proud conceits: So that as Seneca ſaid, Many had been learned men, if they had not been conceited of their learning; ſo many might profitably proceed in the mortifying of ſinne, if they were not perſwaded, it was mortified already. Thus theſe Perfectioniſts preach men into arrogant perſwaſions of their own righteouſneſs, and thereby hinder them from a true progreſs in holineſs. Beſides ſuch Doctrine is in an high degree injurious to the grace of the Goſpel, to our Evangelical Juſtification; if we be whole, we do not need the Phyſician. Though God vouchſafe inherent grace to us, ſo farre as to be delivered from the dominion of ſin, and alſo to be ſubduing of it daily, yet the grace of God exalted in this life is by imputation. The grace without us, not the grace within us is that which doth juſtifie. This is the grace ſo frequently ſpoken of in the New Teſtament, and to which all the godly make their recourſe under the guilt of ſinne, and the accuſations of the Law; whereas the Doctrine of Perfection wholly evacuateth this admirable and precious way of Goſpel-grace. But enough of this.
¶. 8.
The ſeveral Conflicts that may be in a man.
I Come to another Propoſition, which is, That we may conceive of three conflicts and contrary luſtings that may be in a man; not at all naming that which is for the moſt part in every ſinner, that he would have the profit of a ſinne, the pleaſure of a ſinne, but not the bitterneſs of it. Such a conflict is in moſt ſinners, they would have the advantage by ſinne, but not the damage by it. Thus Arianus (Epictetus lib. 2. cap. 26.) foreign, Every ſinne hath diviſion in it ſelf, and ſo goeth on ſaying, That every rational ſoul is obnoxi us to this fight. The thief would not ſteal, as it is a ſinne, but as it is profitable. Hence it is, that foreign, that foreign, that what he would that he doth not, and what he would not do, that he doth, which are almoſt the ſame words with the Apoſtle. But this I do not inſiſt on.
The firſt combate is, That which may be in Heathens, between their conſcience and their appetite. The light of nature inclining one way, and their luſt another way, which is notably taken notice of by Ariſtotle; a man in ſuch a conflict is called by him an incontinent perſon, as diſtinct from an intemperate, who having the habit of ſinne, is carried out to the actings thereof without any remorſe or regretings of conſcience or reaſon. To clear this, he ſpeaketh of a two-fold part of the ſoul, the rational, and that which hath not reaſon, or which doth repugn reaſon. The rational part (ſaith he, Lib. 1. Ethic. cap. 13.) foreign, doth provoke and incite to what is good; but the rebellious part gain-ſayeth. Even as in the paralytical parts of the body, when a man would move ſuch to the right ſide, they fall to the left ſide. Now this Diſcourſe of Ariſtotles we acknowledge, as having ſome truth, for even Heathens have by nature their conſciences accuſing or excuſing of them, Rom. 2. 15. But Papiſts and others do horribly perve…t this, when they bring it into Divinity, and ſo put a new piece of garment into the old, thereby making a rent, becauſe there is no agreement with them; otherwiſe we grant ſuch a combate: yea it is in too many men, whoſe convictions are ſtrong, but their luſts ſtronger; and no doubt this is in a regenerate perſon ſo farre, as nature ſtill abideth in him; but ſuch mens diſlike and renitency of conſcience doth not excuſe them, though they be not ſuch great ſinners, as thoſe that ſinne without any remorſe, yet their condition is damnable. Though ſuch have many good ſentences, and you ſhall hear many good ſpeeches come from them, yet they are ſtill under the bondage of ſinne; for though they have a knowledge condemning their ſinne, yet it is but univerſal; when they come to the particular, then they are carried away, or their knowledge is but habitually in them, not actually; as with drunken men, or men in a ſleep; ſo that the good ſayings they utter, they have no practical application of them, and therefore compared by Ariſtotle (Lib. 7.) to a City, which was derided by this ſaying, foreign, The City conſulteth and adviſeth, that yet regardeth not Laws, or like ſuch who did utter Empedocles his grave ſentences. A ſad thing it is: And oh how often is it for ſome men to ſpeak excellent religious truths in diſcourſe, of which they have no practical power? Solomon hath two excellent expreſſions to this purpoſe, Prov. 26. 7. The legs of the lame are not equal, ſo is a parable in the mouth of fools. As the legs of a lame man being not equal, make the going uncomely; ſo it is when a man hath good ſpeeches, but evil actions. Again verſ. 9. As a thorn goeth up into the hand of a drunkard, ſo is a parable in the mouth of fools; As a drunkard feeleth not the ſharpneſs of a thorn running into his hand; ſo neither doth ſuch an incontinent perſon, the power and efficacy of the moſt excellent and ſavoury truths which he ſpeaketh: yet all the while ſuch convictions of light are upon man, there is the more hope, and he may be the more eaſily cured, inſomuch that he is not as evil, as a man habituated and ſenſleſs in his ſinne. Hence Ariſtotle ſaith, That though an incontinent perſon doth the ſame things with an intemperate, yet he is not an intemperate perſon, as was ſaid of the Mileſians, They are not fools, but they do the things that fools do, foreign, Lib. 7. Ethic. cap. 9.
¶. 9.
Another Combate in thoſe within the Church, which yet may not be godly.
IN the ſecond place, There is a ſecond Conflict that is in thoſe who are in the Church of God, and are in a preparatory way to converſion: Theſe beſides the natural light of conſcience, have the ſupernatural light of the Word, which doth powerfully awaken them, enlighten and humble them; ſo that they feel a troubleſome warre within themſelves, yet for the preſent obtain not that grace which ſetteth them at full freedom. Many men before their converſion have been in this ſoul-fight a long time. Prudentius the Chriſtian Poet hath his Pſycomachia, wherein ſome ſins and virtue, as chaſtity and uncleanneſs, covetouſneſs and liberality are brought in combating with one another. And thus many times ſome godly perſons in their unregenerate time have been entangled in ſome ſpecial luſt or other. There are many aſſaults and skirmiſhes ere the work of grace doth take full poſſeſſion. Auſtin doth excellently declare this in his own experience (lib. 8. Confeſſ.) Velle meum tenebat inimicus meus, &c. My enemy did take hold of my will, and made a chain thereof, whereby he was faſt bound; and hereupon he did ſigh and groan to be delivered, being ligatus non ferro alieno, but ferreâ meâ voluntate, bound with his iron will. In theſe aeſtuations of ſpirit he lay wearying himſelf, till at laſt the grace of God came in with full power upon him, making a through change, cutting off the fetters that were upon his ſoul.
¶. 10.
Of the Combate in the godly between the Fleſh and the Spirit, and how it may be diſcerned from the former.
IN the third place, There is the Combate in regenerate perſons between the work of grace, and the fleſh in them. The former was only between the natural conſcience and luſt; The ſecond between the Spirit of God, but moving and working only in a man, and his corruption; The laſt between the Spirit of God inhabiting and dwelling in a man, and the fleſh in him. So that if a Chriſtian ask, How ſhall I know whether the combate I feel be between the Spirit and the fleſh, or conſcience, and my luſt? Though practical Divines give many differences, yet briefly in theſe three particulars, one conflict may be diſcovered from the other.
1. From the principle and root. In the godly this ariſeth from a total renovation, or the Image of God placed in a man: In the other it is only from partial illumination or natural light.
2. In the motive. This combate in the godly is upon holy grounds, out of hatred to ſinne, out of love to that which is holy. In the other it is out of terrour and ſlaviſh fear, it is becauſe they would not be damned, it is becauſe of horrour upon them, not any delight in God.
3. In the manner. In the other the fight is between two parts of the ſoul, only the mind againſt the appetite; or if there be any work upon the heart, it is but tranſitory and vaniſhing; whereas in the godly man this combate is univerſal, he hath will againſt will, love againſt love, as well as his mind againſt theſe. Thus Auſtin (ibidem.) ſpeaketh of the two wils he had, his carnal will, and his ſpiritual will; his meaning is, that becauſe his will was not ſo full and efficacious as it ſhould, therefore he had two wils, as it were, Non igitur monſtrum, &c. ſaith he: It is not therefore a monſter partly to will, and partly to will; but the ſickneſs of the mind that cannot riſe up fully to what is good; and therefore there are two wils, becauſe one is not wholly and fully carried out to that which is good. This expreſſion of Auſtin fully anſwereth that Objection, when they demand, How can the will, will and nill at the ſame time? It is a contradiction to ſay ſo. But Auſtin anſwereth, It's therefore called two wils, or therefore it is ſaid to will and nill, becauſe it doth will ſickly and faintly, It's not ſo throughly and totally carried out to God as it ought to be; and this halting like that of Jacobs thigh will go with us to the grave. Thus we are as weak men that are partly well, and partly ſick, as the twy-light, when it is partly light, and partly darkneſs, or as wine mingled with water; not that in ſuch a mixture we are able to ſay, this part is water, and the other part is meer wine: So we muſt not think that in a regenerate man, one part is meerly ſpiritual, the other meerly carnal, but the corruption in a man doth adhere to every part that is ſanctified; and therefore as the principle is mixed, ſo are the actions which flow from it. But it is time to haſten to the laſt Propoſition, which is,
¶. 10.
Of the Regenerates Freedome from the Dominion of ſinne; And whether it be by the Suppreſsion of it, or by the Aboliſhing part of it.
THat though original ſinne be in a regenerate perſon, yet it is not in its dominion there, it is in part aboliſhed. For there are theſe things to be conſidered in this inbred defilement; there is,
1. The Guilt.
2. The Dominion, and both theſe are removed in a regenerate perſon.
3. There is the ſenſe or preſence of it, and that is not taken away but by death.
4. Some adde the Root of it, and that (they ſay) is not deſtroyed till the body be conſumed to aſhes. For although it be true, that death putteth an end to all ſinne, yet that muſt be underſtood of an ultimate and final death; otherwiſe if it be a diſpenſatory death, as it was to Lazarus and ſome others; as that did not put a period to their bodily miſeries, when they lived again, ſo neither did it to ſinfulneſs in their ſouls. But even Lazarus and ſuch like perſons raiſed upon a ſpecial economy were regenerated but in part; and this conflict of fleſh and Spirit was in them, and ſo they needed to pray for forgiveneſs of ſinne. But though we muſt acknowledge, that original ſinne hath not the power in a godly man it once had. All the difficulty is, Whether it be by ſuppreſſion of it onelyonly, or aboliſhing part of it; and if original ſinne be in part diminiſhed, How can the whole of it be propagated to the child? Or why may not the laſt part of it be conſumed in this life? It may be this Queſtion may be more ſubtil then profitable. Scotus, as Pererius alledgeth him (in Rom. cap. 7.) thinketh that in a godly man original ſinne is not at all abated, onelyonly grace is every day augmented, and ſo that cannot weigh us down, as it did before: As (ſaith he) if an Eagle ſhould have any weight upon her, but the ſtrength of her wings be increaſed, then though the weight were not diminiſhed, yet becauſe her ſtrength is increaſed, it would not hinder her in flying. But to anſwer this Queſtion, we muſt conclude, that in regeneration original ſinne is more then ſuppreſſed, there is a qualitative change, and ſo a diminiſhing of darkneſſe in the mind, by light; of evil in the will by holineſſe: So that the encreaſing of theſe graces do neceſſarily argue the decreaſing of original ſinn. And For this purpoſe the Scripture uſeth thoſe termes of crucifying and mortifying; onelyonly when we ſay, original ſinne is diminiſhed: You muſt not underſtand it hath quantative parts, as if they were cut off by degrees, but poteſtative, that is, the power and efficacy of original ſinne is not ſo lively, ſo vehement as it was once, yet where it is thus weakned, a regenerate perſon begetteth a ſonne in an unregenerate eſtate, becauſe he is the ſonne of Adam fallen, and is not a father as he is godly, but as he is a man. Now though it doth thus tenaciouſly adhere unto us, yet death will give it a final and full blow: not death meerly, as it is a diſſolution in a natural way (ſo that Caſtellio doth abſurdly endeavour to perplex this Doctrine with curious interrogatories) but as the nature of it is altered by Chriſt, the Spirit of God putting forth its greateſt efficacy at that time: Yea though a godly man ſhould be ſo overcome by a diſeaſe, that he were not able to act faith in Chriſt at that time, for the utter ſubduing of ſinne in him, yet his faith formerly put forth on Chriſt for that purpoſe, and the promiſe of God at that time will effectually conquer all. This being ſo, how ought the godly gladly to ſubmit to death? The terrible vizour of it is now taken away. No vain thoughts, no wordly or diſtempered affections ſhall ever moleſt thee more. It is not death to thee, but to thy ſinne. It is not a death to thy graces and comforts, but to thy corruptions, Miſeria non home moritur, ſaid the Martyr, when he was to die. It is miſery not man that dieth.