A Treatise of Original Sin, Part 2 · Chapter 18
CHAP. XVIII.
A ſecond Text (to prove Original Sinne to be Poſitive) opened and vindicated.
SECT. I.
ROM. 7. 7.
For I had not known luſt, except the Law had ſaid, Thou ſhalt not covet.
WE are diſcovering the Nature of original ſinne in the Poſitive part of it; For although Corvinus the Remonſtrant cavilleth at the Diviſion of original ſinne into two parts, therein gratifying the Papiſts (as it were, yet we ſee the Scripture ſpeaking of it fully, as having theſe two parts; And whereas he ſaith, The Poſitive inclination to evil, muſt be the effect of the privation of original righteouſneſſe, and ſo not a part of original, becauſe an effect cannot be a part of its cauſe.
It's anſwered firſt, That ſometimes there is a diviſion of a common thing, as into two parts, when yet one is the effect of the other; as when malum is divided into malum culpae, and malum poena, the evil of puniſhment is neceſſarily the effect of the evil of ſinne. But
Secondly, Though an inclination to evil may be the effect of the privation of original righteouſneſſe, yet for all that it may be part of original ſinne, which is the whole conſiſting of both theſe: Even as according to ſome learned Divines, Remiſſion of ſinne is part of Juſtification, although it be an effect of the imputation of Chriſts Righteouſneſſe, which is alſo another part of our Juſtification.
SECT. II.
The word Luſt expounded.
HAving therefore conſidered this Title or Name given to original ſinne (viz. Fleſh.) which doth denote the Poſitiveneſſe of it: I come to a ſecond, which ſhall alſo be the laſt, and that is the word luſt or concupiſcence, which both in the Scripture, and in the writings of ſeveral Authors is attributed to it; For which purpoſe the Text pitched upon is very uſefull.
To underſtand which, conſider that the Apoſtle having aſſerted ſome things, which in an outward appearance did ſeem to diſhonour the Law, he maketh this Objection to himſelf, Is the Law ſinne? A cauſe of ſinne, and ſo ſinne, and God the Law-giver a commander of ſinne; To which he anſwers, foreign, by defiance, God forbid, and in the next place giveth a reaſon, why the Law cannot be the cauſe of ſinne, becauſe that doth diſcover and detect ſinne, that judgeth and damneth it, therefore it cannot be the cauſe of ſinne; and that the Law is the manifeſter and reprover of ſinne, he inſtanceth in himſelf, and his own experience, I had not known luſt to be ſinne, except the Law had ſaid, Thou ſhalt not covet.
Now ere we can underſtand this Text, we muſt anſwer ſome Queſtions. And
Firſt, It's demanded, What is meant by the Law here? Some ſay, the Law of Nature, which is not ſo probable; Others, the written Law of Moſes, and this is moſt probable by the whole context. But yet ſome, though they underſtand it of the Law of Moſes, yet they do not mean any particular command, but the Law in the general, ſaying, the Apoſtle uſeth foreign and foreign for all one; As if the meaning were, The Law in general did not only forbid ſinfull actions, but alſo inward luſt, and motions of the ſoul thereunto, as our Saviour fully expoundeth it, Matth. 5. Others they underſtand this Law of a particular Commandment, viz. the tenth; and therefore Beza obſerveth the Article foreign, by this, or by that Commandment in particular; And this ſeemeth moſt probable, becauſe they are the very words of the tenth Commandment.
But ſecondly, If the Apoſtle alledge that command, Why doth he inſtance onelyonly in the ſinne forbidden, not mentioning the objects that are ſpecified in the command, Thy neighbours Oxe or his Aſſe, &c?
The Anſwer is, that is not material, for the Apoſtle ſpeaking of luſts in the heart, what latent and unknown ſins they were without the light of the Law, it was enough to name the ſinne it ſelf, ſeeing the objects about which they are converſant are of all ſorts, and can hardly be numbred.
In the third place, It's doubted how the Apoſtle could ſay, that he did not know luſt to be ſinne, but by the Law of Moſes, ſeeing that by the very Law of nature, even Heathens have condemned inward luſts, and unjuſt thoughts and plots, though but in the ſoul, and never put into practice. Aquinas makes the meaning of it, as if Paul's ſenſe was, He did not know luſt to be ſinne, as it was an offence to God, and a diſhonour to him, becauſe the Law of Moſes repreſents the ſinfulneſs of theſe luſts in a more divine and dreadfull way, then the Law of nature doth. Grotius maketh the ſenſe thus, Paul did not know luſt, but by Gods Law, becauſe the Laws of men puniſh nothing but ſinfull actions, never at all medling with the thoughts and purpoſes of the heart. Beza expounds the expreſſion comparatively, I had not known luſt to be ſinne, viz. ſo evidently, ſo fully, ſo unqueſtionably, as I did when I underſtood the Law. But the general Interpretation is, That the Apoſtle ſpeaketh here of his thoughts and knowledge, while he was a Phariſee, and it's plain by our Saviours correcting of pharisaical gloſſes about the Law, Matth. 5. That they thought the Law did onelyonly require external obedience, and whatſoever thoughts or ſinfull luſts men had, ſo that they did not break out into the practice of them, they were not guilty of ſinne, He did not then know luſt to be ſinne, following the traditional expoſition of his Maſters, till he came to underſtand the Law aright.
Another Queſtion of greater conſequence is, What is meant by luſt? Thou ſhalt not covet, for the word foreign, though in Exod. 20. there be the ſame Hebrew word foreign yet Deut. 5. 21. There is another Hebrew expreſſion, which is foreign, which becauſe in Hithpael, and ſo of a reciprocal ſignification, they tranſlate fecit ſe concupiſcere, to ſtirre up a mans ſelf to deſire, and thereby ſay, ſuch luſts are only forbidden that a man nouriſheth, and yeelds himſelf up unto, but that rule is not a general one, ſee Prov. 23. 3. Some limit this Commandment too much, as it did only command contentation of ſpirit, and that we ſhould not ſinfully deſire, that which others have. But the Apoſtle doth plainly extend it further than ſo. The Papiſts they likewiſe limit it too much, making only thoſe luſts andmotions of ſinne, which we conſent to to be forbidden, denying that thoſe motions to evil, which ariſe antecedently to our reaſon and will, to be truly ſinnes; hence is their Rule concerning them, Non ſenſus, but conſenſus is that which doth damn, which in a good ſenſe, we alſo will acknowledge to be true. But we are not to limit Scripture, where it hath not limited it ſelf, and therefore we conclude, That the command doth forbid a threefold concupiſcence or luſt.
Firſt, That luſt which is actually conſented to, though not breaking forth into act, and if this were all, the Law of God would hereby be exlted above all humane Laws, which reach no further than external actions, And how many are ignorant of, at leaſt not affected, with the ſpiriruality of this Law in this particular? Would they dare to entertain ſuch heart-ſinnes as they doe, could they make their ſouls cages of uncleane, unjuſt and ungodly thoughts, as they do?
Secondly, The Law goeth higher, and doth not only forbid thoſe luſts in thy heart, which thou yeeldeſt conſent unto; but all thoſe ſuggeſtions and ſuddain ſurreptitious motions, which do ſuddenly ariſe in thy ſoul, though thou doeſt not conſent to them, yea though thou doeſt reſiſt them, hate them, and pray againſt them, for of ſuch luſts Paul doth eſpecially ſpeak in this Chapter, and the Law of nature did never condemn theſe for ſinnes in any Heathens, whereas the Apoſtle doth chiefly complain of theſe, and that as ſinnes properly ſo called, for to be mortified and crucified, as being contrary to the holy Law of God.
Laſtly, By luſt is meant original ſinne, as being the fountain, the root of all theſe luſts, that hot furnace, from which thoſe ſparks of ſinfull motions do continually ariſe, and that by luſt is meant at leaſt ſecondarily, and by contequent original corruption is plain, becauſe this luſt is the ſame with the Law of the members, the Law of ſinne, and the ſinne dwelling in him. It is true, he ſaith, this ſinne he complaineth of, wrought in him all manner of concupiſcence or luſt. But then we muſt diſtinguiſh between luſt habitual, and luſt actual; Luſt habitual is original ſinne, and that is the cauſe of luſts actual; And if you ſay, Why doth the Apoſtle call original ſinne luſt, as if it were an actual ſinne? The reaſon is (as is further to be inſiſted on) becauſe it is a fountain alwayes running over; Its not a ſluggiſh dull habit, but is continually venting it ſelf forth into all poiſonous and ſinfull acts. So that by luſt forbidden in the Text is meant.
1. Luſts conſented to, though not accompliſhed in act.
2. Luſts ariſing in the ſoul, but rejected and ſtriven againſt.
Laſtly, Original ſinne, as the root of all; In which ſenſe the Apoſtle James Chap. 1. 14. calleth it likewiſe luſt. Some learned men there are, that do not like it ſhould be ſaid original ſinne is forbidden by the Law of God, (as Molineus, Rivet. in Expoſ. Dec. Martinius in Expoſit. Decal) although they grant the Law doth damn it and judge it. But ſurely their meaning is no more, as Martinius doth expreſly afterwards affirm, than that original ſin is not primarily and directly forbidden, but ſecondarily and by conſequent; As alſo that it is thus forbidden, that we ſhould not obey but reſiſt it, as Rivet. But whereas they reaſon, That a prohibition is not of thoſe things that already are preſent in us, but of what is future or may be, that is no wayes ſolid, becauſe paſt ſins and preſent actual ſins, are truly forbidden by the Law, although the ſinne paſt cannot but be paſt, and the ſinne preſent cannot but be preſent, becauſe quicquid eſt, quando eſt, neceſſe eſt eſſe. Other learned men, though they grant original ſinne is truly and properly forbidden by the Law of God, yet they ſay, It is not in this Commandment, partly becauſe it's forbidden in every Commandment, for where any branch of ſin is forbidden, there the root alſo is forbidden, and where pure ſtreams of holineſs are required, there alſo a pure fountain of holineſs; Original righteouſneſs is commanded, and that partly becauſe this tenth Commandment doth belong to the ſecond Table onelyonly, whereas original ſinne is not onelyonly the cauſe of evil luſts towards man, but alſo towards God. Now in this we ſhall not much diſagree; For it muſt be granted, That ſeeing an holy heart is required in every particular command, it followeth, That an evil ſinfull heart is forbidden in every command; and for the later we grant alſo, That original ſinne is not forbidden in this laſt Commandment in the univerſal latitude and utmoſt extent of it, but ſo farre as it doth break out in ſinfull luſts towards man.
SECT. III.
THeſe things being thus neceſſarily premiſed for the opening and vindication of the Text, I proceed to the Doctrine, which is
That original ſinne is truly and properly concupiſcence or luſt in a man. This name doth plainly denote more than a meer privation, for it evidently diſcovereth the nature of it, to be in the carrying out of the ſoul in all its motions ſinfully, and inordinately, as alſo that from this as a corrupted fountain do all thoſe poiſonous ſtreams of actual luſtings in the ſoul flow, as Jam. 1. 14. where you have notably the riſe of all actual ſinne deſcribed, how it cometh about that any one is enticed to do that which is wicked, he cannot accuſe God or the Devil, but this luſt within him: But of that famous and excellent Text, we are in time to ſpeak. This great Truth, That original ſinne is Luſt, or Concupiſcence, doth firſt deſerve diligent and clear illuſtration, and then practical amplification.
SECT. IV.
IN the firſt place conſider, That concupiſcence or luſt may be taken two wayes, as was formerly hinted, habitually and radically, or actually, the mother and the daughter, the root and the fruit. Now original ſinne is luſt, not actually, but radically; It is that from which all actual luſts and deſires have their immediate riſe; and in this ſenſe it is commonly called the fleſh, and luſts are the ſinfull iſſue of it. Thus Gal. 5. 16. You ſhall not fulfill foreign, The luſt of the fleſh. And again, They that are Chriſts have crucified the fleſh with the luſts thereof. So Epheſ. 2. 3. here fleſh and its luſts, is original ſinne with the immediate motions and outgoings thereof. At other times, original ſinne is called ſinne in the general, to declare the emphatical ſinfulneſs of it, and then there are aſcribed ſeveral luſts likewiſe to it, Rom. 6. 12. Sinne muſt not reign in us, that we ſhould obey the luſt thereof; And Rom. 7. 8. Sinne wrought in me, foreign all manner of concupiſcence. So that you ſee, there is luſt the cauſe, and luſt the effect, luſt the root, and luſt the branches; the former is original ſinne, called excellently by the Apoſtle Jam. 1. 15. foreign, luſt conceiving, implying, it is like the womb, wherein all wickedneſs is firſt conceived, and ſuch a womb that like the grave never hath enough, we may call it the Sheol in a man. The Rabbius ſay well, That concupiſcentia doth aedificare inferos; This luſt in the ſeveral actings of it, is that which maketh hell; Though God never ſaid▪ Increaſe and multiply to it, yet it filleth earth and hell, with the effects thereof.
SECT. V.
SEcondly, We are to underſtand, that foreign in the general, To deſire in the abſtract is indifferent, neither good or bad, but as diverſified by the object. In the Hebrew there are theſe words for concupiſcence foreign, and that properperly ſignnifieth Luſt, as we take it in our common-Engliſh ſenſe, for the luſts of the body in an unclean manner, Eccleſ. 12. 5. the word is there uſed, but tranſlated by the Septnagint foreign, which hath exerciſed Criticks; The root of the Hebrew word is foreign from whence is Ebion, poor, needy, from thence ſome Heretiques were called ſo, as being deſtitute of underſtanding. Another is foreign, which ſignifieth deſire in the general, and is uſed in a good ſenſe, Pſal. 132. 13. in a bad ſenſe Numb. 11. 4. There is alſo the word foreign, which is many times applied to the object deſired, as wives, children, houſes, &c. Laſtly, there is foreign, and the Hebrews do commonly call evil concupiſcence foreign: But to return to the Greek word foreign. Col. 3. 5. There is foreign, Evil Concupiſcence: Though the Engliſh word Luſt ſeemeth to be ordinarily taken in an ill ſenſe, yet Gal. 5. 17. our Tranſlators render it, The Spirit luſteth againſt the fleſh; Hence in the Scripture we may obſerve a three-fold luſt or deſire:
1. That which is natural flowing from the appetite of nature: Thus it is ſaid of Lazarus, Luk. 15. 16. he did foreign, deſire to be ſatisfied with the crums of the rich mans table.
2. There is in the Scripture mention of a good concupiſcence, or coveting, and that is, when a godly man doth earneſtly deſire to do or ſuffer the wil of God: Thus Mat. 3 17. righteous men are ſaid to deſire to ſee thoſe things; which were to be ſeen in Chriſts dayes: So Luk. 22. 15. Chriſt is there ſaid, foreign, greatly and earneſtly to deſire to eat the Paſſeover with them. The godly then have a holy coveting, an holy deſiring after the things of God, as carnal men have luſts after their ſinfull objects, and therefore they ought to nouriſh and cheriſh thoſe affectionate deſires; They cannot go beyond their bounds and limits in this caſe, the modus is ſine m…de.
But then laſtly, There are evil covetings and deſires, ſinfull luſtings; In which ſenſe we read often of the foreign, The luſt of the fleſh, the luſt of the eyes, 1 John 2. 16. The luſt of the world, 1 John 2. 17. And men are ſaid, To walk after their luſts, to be delivered up to their luſts; There is then a natural concupiſcence, a good concupiſcence, and a ſinfull wicked one; And this again is two fold, either when we deſire ſuch objects as are abſolutely and ſimply ſinfull: Or ſecondly, when the objects are lawfull and good, yet we deſire them exceſſively, and for ſinfull, unlawfull ends.
SECT. VI.
A Three-fold Appetite in Man.
THe third particular neceſſary for the underſtanding of this Doctrine, viz. That original ſinne is luſt or concupiſcence in a man, is, To take notice of a three fold appetite, Natural, Animal and Rational: Even inanimate bodies, the ſtone and the fire have a kind of an appetite, to deſcend, the one downward, the other upward. In a man there is a natural appetite of eating or drinking.
2. There is the animal or ſenſitive appetite, whereby the ſenſitive faculties do deſire their ſutable objects.
Laſtly, There is the Rational Appetite, whereby a man is carried out to deſire thoſe good things that are judged to be ſo by reaſon: Now if we take theſe appetites ſubſtantially, as it were, or phyſically, ſo they are good, and the actions that flow from them are good; but then take them Ethically and Morally with that Ataxy and Inordinacy that doth cleave to them, as they are in man, and ſo they do become polluted, and defiled: Inſomuch that a man doth ſinne till regenerated in all theſe things; his eating and drinking became ſinne, and all other his actions, becauſe the principles from which they flow are all vitiated; So that whatſoever principle we have of any action, it being deſtitute of that original rectitude, which adhered to it; therefore it is that it moveth to every object ſinfully; So that this conſideration may take off that calumny which the adverſaries of original ſinne would faſten upon the Orthodox herein, as if we made man to be nothing but opus Diaboli, the work of the Devil, as if he were not the good creature of God. Vide Auguſt. lib. 2do, de nuptiis & concupiſcentiâ, where the Pelagian ſaith, Qui originale peccatum defendit perfectè Manichaeus eſt, ne vocentur Haeretici fiunt Manichai, as alſo this freeth them from the aſperſion of …ccianiſm. though Cortzen the Jeſuite ſaith, The Calviniſts by their principles cannot avoid it, Neceſſario concedere coguntur ſubſtantiam eſſe peccatum, qui concupiſcentiam affirmant, (Com. 5. ad Rom.) but very abſurdly. For we ſay, take theſe faculties of the ſoul, as they are naturally planted in the ſoul, ſo they are good and of God. The underſtanding, the will, the affections, theſe are in themſelves good, but man having ſinned away original righteouſneſſe, which would have habitually diſpoſed them to their due objects, in a due manner, for a due end, hereby it is, that they are only for ſinne, which were at firſt only for good.
SECT. VII.
4. VVHen we ſay, That original ſinne is habitual luſt, we muſt not take luſt ſtrictly, but moſt largely, as it comprehends any part of the ſoul in its motions to their reſpective objects. Our Engliſh word luſt is by cuſtom almoſt limited to unclean deſires, as if thoſe corporal burnings were onelyonly luſt: Even as the Latine word libido, though originally ſignifying quicquid libet, any thing that pleaſed a man is for the moſt part alſo reſtrained to fleſhly luſting, but we told you that the word luſt foreign, is in the Scripture uſed onelyonly largely in a good ſenſe, in a bad ſenſe, and a neutral indifferent one. Therefore in the affections there is this luſt, in the will there is this luſt, yea in the underſtanding and fancy, which are apprehenſive faculties only, there is this luſt: For although Aquinas ſaith, That we cannot properly in the underſtanding ſay, there is motus ad objectum, becauſe a paſſive faculty, yet in a large ſenſe, all faculties of the ſoul have their inclination and motion to their objects, and ſo this original luſt diffuſeth it ſelf through them all, and therefore they alſo limit this concupiſcence too much, which confiae it only to the ſenſitive part, the inferiour region of the ſoul; For the more acute Papiſts do ingeniouſly confeſſe, That Hereſies, Idolatries are ſins of the mind, and yet flow from this concupiſcence, ſo that this habitual luſt is diffuſed and extended, as farre as the ſoul hath any power or motion: Oh but how few are there that do regard luſt any further than bodily or ſenſible? The ſpiritual, the intellectual luſtings of the ſoul are not apprehended as an heavy load or burden: So that original ſinne hath its upper-ſprings, and its nether-ſprings, the corporal chanel, and the ſpiritual, in which its filth runneth down; In the groſs prophane man, there is original ſinne acting carnally and bodily; in the heretique, in the proud Scholar, there is original ſinne acting mentally and intellectually: So that as man doth conſiſt of two parts, one viſible, and the other inviſible, ſo alſo doth original ſinne, as it were, conſiſt of two ingredients, the bodily part, and the ſoul part, and from the ſoul doth this poiſon fall to all the inferiour parts; Therefore do not only complain of ſinne and luſt in thy material and ſenſitive part, but look upon the ſtrength and chief power of it, as in thy immaterial and ſoul part, for in all theſe, this original luſt, this Law of ſinne doth conſtantly dwel. The Schoolmen they call this Fomes peccati, becauſe it doth fovere; it's like the cinders and aſhes that keep alive the fire of ſin within a man, and the more dangerous and damnable it is, by how much the more cloſe and latent it is.
SECT. VIII.
A Conſideration of this Concupiſcence in reference to the four-fold Eſtate of man.
5. VVE are to conſider this concupiſcence or concupiſcibili'y (for we ſpeak of the principle of luſting, not actual luſting) according to ſeveral ſtates that man may be looked upon in: AS
Firſt, There was his Natura inſtituta, his inſtituted nature at firſt, and that was right and holy; There was concupiſcence and deſiring of the ſeveral powers of his ſoul, but in a good and orderly way; It was not then as now, the Superiora did not turpiter ſervire inferioribus, or the inferiora contumaciter, rebel againſt the ſuperiour parts, as is to be ſhewed in the next place; In Adam there was no concupiſcence in this ſenſe; The inferiour parts, though they did deſire a ſenſible object, yet it was wholly in ſubordination, and under the command of the ſuperiour. It's true indeed Eve did look upon the forbidden fruit, and ſaw it was good and pleaſant, whereupon ſhe was tempted to eat of it, but this did not ariſe from any original luſt in her, but from the mutability of her will, being not confirmed in what was good: Even as we ſee the Angels before their Apoſtaſie, had ſinfull deſires in their will, through pride and affectation to be higher than they were, yet this did not ariſe from original luſt in them. Although therefore both Socinians and ſome Papiſts, do acknowledge man made with ſuch a repugnancy of the ſenſitive appetite to the rational; yea, the former making it to be in Chriſt himſelf, yet this is highly to diſhonour God in the Creation of man: Oh happy and bleſſed eſtate, when there was ſuch an univerſal harmony and due proportion in all the powers of the ſoul, but miſerum eſt illud verbum ſniſſe, may all mankind cry out in this particular.
Secondly, There is Natura infecta and deſtituta, infected Nature, ſtript and denuded of all former holineſs and excellency, and here concupiſcence is not onelyonly in us, but it doth reign and predominate over the whole man; The harmony is totally diſſolved, and now the choice and ſublime parts of the foul, are made proſtrate to the affectionate part, as loathſom and abominable, as when the Law forbiddeth to lie with a beaſt. Now the mind and underſtanding is wholly ſet on work to diſpute and argue for the carnal part: Now the motions of the ſoule beginne in the carnal part, and end in the intellectual, whereas in the ſtate of integrity, the beginning and riſe would firſt have been in the intellectual, and ſo have deſcended to the ſenſitive part. The motions thereof antecede all deliberation in the mind, and a rectified choice in the will; Thus the feet they guide the head, and in this little world of man, the earth moveth, and the Heavens they ſtand ſtill, as ſome fancied in the great world; now luſt is by way of a Law ruling and commanding all things: This is the unſpeakable miſery and bondage we are now plunged into.
Thirdly, There is Natura reſtituta, repaired nature by grace, which the regenerate attain unto, and theſe, though they have not obtained concerning luſt, ne ſit, yet that ne regnet in them, as Auſtin expreſſeth it, though they cannot perfectly fulfill that command ne concupiſcas, yet they obey another, poſt concupiſcentias ne …as; hence it is becauſe of the actings and workings of original ſinne ſtill in the godly, they are in a continual conflict, they cannot do any thing perfectly, they feel a clogge preſſing them down, when they are elevating themſelves, as Paul, Rom 7. doth abundantly manifeſt, The good he would do he cannot do. Original ſinne is like that Tree in Daniel, Chap. 4. 23. Though there was a watcher from Heaven coming down to cut it down, yet the ſtumps and root of the Tree were left with a band of iron and braſs, to denote the firm and immovable abiding of it: Thus though the grace of God be ſtill mortifying and ſubduing the luſts of the fleſh, yet the ſtumps ſeem to be bound with braſſe and iron to us, we are never able in this life wholly to extinguiſh it.
Laſtly, If you conſider the perfected and glorified eſtate of the godly in Heaven, then there will be a full and utter extirpation of this original ſin. The glorified bodies in Heaven, though naked, ſhall not be ſubject to ſhame and confuſion, as Adam and Eve were after their fall; And among other reaſons, therefore doth the Lord ſuffer theſe reliques of corruption to abide in the moſt holy, that ſo we may the more ardently and zealouſly long after that kingdom of glory, when we ſhall be delivered from this ſinfull ſoul and mortal body; Then this command Thou ſhalt not luſt, will be perfectly accompliſhed, whereas in this life it is a perpetual hand writing againſt us; The Papiſts indeed do confeſs our luſts to be againſt this command, but not ut praecipienti, but ut indicanti, as if God did not ſo much command us what we ſhould do, as by Doctrine inform what is good and excellent in it ſelf. Thus rather than they will be found guilty by this Law, they will make it no Law, and turn it from a precept into a meer doctrinal information: But ſeeing one end of the Law is to convince us, and aggravate our ſinfulneſs, to make us ſee our deſperate, diſeaſed eſtate, that thereby we may flie to Chriſt, as the malefactor to the City of refuge; let it be farre from us to extenuate or to leſſen our ſinfulneſs: The Phariſees of old, and all their ſucceſſors in endeavouring to eſtabliſh a righteouſneſs by the Law, have ſplit themſelves on this rock, as if the Law had not holineſs enough to command them, but they were able to do more than that required: But whence doth this Blind preſumption ariſe? Even from the ignorance of the power of original ſiane in us.
SECT. IX.
6 FRom theſe things concluded on, we may ſee, that the Scripture giveth us a better diſcovery of our ſelves, than ever the light of nature, or moral Philoſophy could acquaint us with. Ariſtotle teacheth us out of his School clean contrary Doctrine to this, That we come into the world without virtue or vice: Even as Pelagius ſaid of old, and the Schoolmen, though they hold original ſinne, yet moſt of them by cleaving to Ariſtole's principles, and ſo leaving the Scripture have advanced nature, to the diſpraiſe of grace: Ariſtotle he maketh the reaſon in a man, alwayes to incline to the beſt things; and as for the ſenſitive appetite, that he divides into concupiſcible and iraſcible, not acknowledging any corruption in theſe principles of humane actions, viz. the mind, the will and ſenſitive appetite by nature, but by voluntary actions. We muſt therefore renounce all Heathen Schools, whether of Plato or Ariſtotle, when we come to be auditors of this Doctrine, yet (as in time may be ſhewed) ſome of the Heathens had a confuſed apprehenſion about ſuch a natural defilement.
SECT. X.
Why Original Sinne is called Concupiſcence or Luſt.
THeſe things thus premiſed, to underſtand this Truth, viz. That original ſin is habitual luſt. Let us in the next place conſider, why we call it ſo. And Firſt, It may well be called concupiſcence or luſt, Becauſe the appetitive and active powers of the ſoul are chief in a man, and they being corrupted and polluted, it's no wonder if the whole man be …urried headlong to hell. The Schoolmen make it a Queſtion, Why original ſinne ſhould not be called ignorantia, as well as concupiſcentia? But firſt, We may call it ignorance alſo; It's ignorance and blindneſs in the apprehenſive powers of the ſoul, but luſt and concupiſcence in the appetitive; eſpecially the will being horribly corrupted, which is ſaid to be the appetitus univerſalis, and is to all other inferiour parts of the ſoul, as the primum mobile, to the other orbs, which carrieth all about with its motion; It's no wonder that it be called luſt, as infecting and perverting the will, which is the whole of a man; for if a man know evil, yet if he do not will it, it is no ſinne; God himſelf knoweth all the ſinne that is committed in the world, and there is difference between Cogitatio mali, the thought about evil, and cogitatio mala, an evil thought; but the will cannot be carried out to evil, but preſently it is an evil will. The underſtanding by knowing evil is not polluted, but the will is by willing of it, becauſe the underſtanding receiveth the object intentionally into it ſelf, and ſo is abſtracted from its exiſtency; but the will that goeth to the object in it ſelf, and as it doth really exiſt, but this occaſionally onelyonly. Original ſinne may well be called luſt, becauſe the acting and working parts of the ſoul, whereof the will is the ſupreme and chief, being polluted by it, the vigour and efficacy of it is moſt diſcovered by them, and this is that which makes grace ſo admirable and wonderfull, that it can bind the ſtrong ones of the ſoul, yea that it can turn ſinfull luſtings into glorious, heavenly and holy luſtings; Thus it is marvellous in the eyes of the godly.
Secondly, Original ſinne may well be called Luſt, Becauſe it's general to every ſinne; Every actual ſinne is a luſt in ſome ſenſe: So that although Aquinas (upon the Text ſaith,) That original ſinne is, Commune malum non communitate generis aut ſpeciei, sed cauſalitatis, not by a community of genus, but of cauſe, yet in ſome ſenſe we may ſay, that concupiſcence hath a generical community, becauſe as a genus it is included in every ſinne: So that if we do take notice of any ſinne, this is in the general nature of it, that there is a ſinfull deſire or appetite; What is covetouſneſs but an inordinate deſire of wealth? What is ambition but an inordinate deſire of honour, and ſo of every ſinne? But to be ſure, it is a common ſinne by way of cauſality. The Apoſtle James informeth us, Chap. 1. 14. That every man, when he ſinneth is tempted aſide by that luſt which is in him: So that all the ſinfull thoughts, words and actions, which all the men of the world, ſince Adam's fall till the end of the world ſhall commit, and be guilty of, do ariſe from this fountain, yet how little do we affect our hearts with the hainouſneſs and dreadfulneſs of it?
Laſtly, It may well be called Luſt, Becauſe it is alwayes an acting vigorous principle within us. Whatſoever we are doing, eating, drinking, working, this luſt is moving in us; yea in ſleep, in frantick mad men, in children and infants in ſome ſenſe (as is to be ſhewed) This luſt is putting forth it ſelf; we may as well keep the wind within our fiſts, as make this original luſt lie ſtill; So that by this we may evidently ſee, the greateſt part of our evil lieth Inwardly and ſecretly in the ſoul; our actual and outward impieties, they are but the leaſt part of that ſinne, which cleaveth to us; Pray therefore to know and underſtand this myſtery more: Look upon thy ſelf in all thy external righteouſneſs, but as a painted Sepulchre, full of loathſome and noiſome thoughts and luſts: Neither be thou afraid to look into this vile dungeon, do not turn thy eyes from ſeeing this monſter, for this is the only way to drive thee to that full and dear eſteem of the Lord Chriſt as a Saviour, which is abſolutely neceſſary.