The Court of the Gentiles Part 4, Part 4 · Book 1 · Chapter 4

The Court of the Gentiles Part 4 · Part 4 · Book 1 · Chapter 4

p. 108CHAP. IV. Of Sin and moral Servitude.

Sin a Tranſgreſſion of the Law. Sin, as to its formal reaſon, privative. The cauſes of Sin, (1) Mans defectibilitie, (2) The Vitioſitie of human Nature, (3) Practic Error, (4) Self-love. Sins are either of Ignorance, of Paſſion, or wilful. The moral Servitude of Sin, as (1) Repugnant to human Nature, (2) Repugnant each to other. (3) The Diſeaſe of the Soul. (4) Defilement. (5) Shame and Reproche. (6) Tyrannie. (7) Penurie. (8) Captivitie. (9) Folie and Madneſſe. (10) It makes men Brutes. The Adjuncts of this Servitude. It is (1) Voluntary. (2) Neceſſary. (3) Infinite. (4) Moſt penal. Sin the worſt puniſhment. Other puniſhments of Sin. It brings (1) Fear and ſhame, (2) Inſtabilitie, (3) Anxietie, (4) Eternal puniſhment. Al naturally Slaves of Sin. No ſeeds of Virtue in corrupt Nature. Natural impotence to what is good. No moral Free wil. A ſum of the Pelagian Hiſtorie.

§. 1. HAving examined the nature of moral Good, Virtue, and Libertie, we now paſſe on to the diſcuſſion of moral Evil, and that Servitude which attends it. It's a good Notion of Ariſtotle, Rhet. l. 3. c. 2. foreign, Parallel oppoſites illuſtrate each other. So in his Ethics, l. 5. c. 1. a. 17. foreign, For the moſt part therefore the contrary habit is known by its contrary. Which holds true here; in as much as the beautiful Idea of moral Good ſerves greatly to illuſtrate the deformitie of moral Evil.Sin a Tranſgreſſion of the moral Law. Doth al moral Good conſiſte in conformitie to the moral divine Law? What then is moral evil or ſin but a Tranſgreſſion of the Law, as 1 Joh. 3.4? That al moral Evil or Sin is a Tranſgreſſion of the Law, is an Hypotheſis frequently inculcated, as wel in Platonic as in ſacred Philoſophie. Thence Definit. Platon. pag. 416. foreign Sin is defined, foreign, a practice against right reaſon, which muſt be underſtood objectively, of the Law of Nature, as before. Whence Plato himſelf, Rep. 9. ſaith, That Sin is most diſtant from Law and Order. Again, Leg. 10. he affirmes, foreign, That Sin is an intemperate exceſſe of the Soul. foreign is of the p. 109ſame import with foreign, and ſignifies primarily the exceſſe of any humor in the bodie: and thence the inordinate and irregular exceſſe of the Soul and its Affections. For look as Virtue is foreign, the Concent and Symmetrie of the Soul; ſo ſin is foreign, Aſymmetrie and Ataxie. Hence alſo Plato, in his Epinom. pag. 978. cals Sin, foreign, &c. A motion void of reaſon, order, decorum, meaſure, yea a confuſed agitation, whereby the Soul is depraved, and contaminated. Whence foreign, injuſtice, Definit. Platon. is defined, foreign, an habit over-looking, or deſpiſing Laws. Yea, Plato, Repub. 9. pag. 574. cals ſin foreign, Tranſgreſſion of the Law, as ſacred Philoſophie, 1 Joh. 3.4. Thus alſo Aristotle, 1 Joh. 3.4.1 John 3:4both in his Ethics and Rhetoric, ſtiles ſin foreign and foreign, a Tranſgreſſion of the Law. But this Hypotheſis ſhines with more illuſtrious beams in ſacred Philoſophie, whence Plato borrowed his choiſeſt Philoſophemes. Thence in the O. T. al the notions, whereby ſin is expreſſed, ſignifie a Tranſgreſſion of the Law. We find three ſeveral notions of ſin together, Pſal. 32.1, 2. (1) foreign,Pſal. 32.1, 2.Ps 32:1Ps 32:2 which denotes Defection, Rebellion, Prevarication againſt God. (2) foreign, which ſignifies Aberration and Deviation from the right way of Gods Law. (3) foreign, which importes Perverſitie, Obliquitie, Iniquitie, Privation of Rectitude. (4) Sin is ſtiled, Pſal. 101.3. foreign,Pſal. 101.3.Ps 101:3 a mater of Belial: i. e. a lawleſſe mater, ſuch as wil not come under the yoke. From foreign, without a yoke: which the LXX. tranſlate foreign; and whereto Paul ſeems to allude, 2 Cor. 6.14, 15. (5) Sin is ſtiled a Violation, or making void the Law, Pſal. 119.126. Zeph. 3.4. & Hoſ. 4.2. foreign They break the bounds of the Law. An alluſion to Inundations, and Land-flouds, that break down al bounds. So great is the violence, which ſin offers to the Divine Law. (6) Sin is ſaid to be a Tortuoſitie or wreſting of the Law, Pſal. 125.5. foreign, Obliquations or crooked ways. (7) Sin is called a Declination, Aberration, Deflexion, Pſal. 119 51, 67. & Pſal. 101.3. yea, v. 4. it is ſtiled foreign, perverſe. (8) It is termed Rebellion, Pſal. 5.10. & 66.7. Which termes, though different in themſelves, yet they al import Tranſgreſſion of the Law. Thus alſo in the N. T. foreign, with other notions, whereby ſin is expreſſed, do al import Tranſgreſſion of the Law. Hence the Stoics held, foreign, That al ſins are equal; becauſe the leaſt deviation from the Law is a Tranſgreſſion, as p. 110wel as the greateſt. Yet hence it follows not, but that there are degrees and aggravations of ſins, according to their various objects, and circumſtances.

Hence it follows,Sin as to its formal Reaſon privative. that ſin, as to its formal Idea, Reaſon, or Nature is not poſitive, but privative. For the clearing whereof we may conſider theſe following Propoſitions. (1) Al moral Evil or Sin is founded in ſome natural Good. For albeit there be pure good, which has no mixture of evil, either natural or moral, as the chiefeſt Good; yet there is no pure Evil, which has not for its ſubject ſome natural good. It's true there are ſome Acts that are intrinſecally evil, that is, ſo far evil, as that they can never be good: as the hatred of God, and the like. Yet theſe Acts are called intrinſecally evil, not as if their evil were intrinſecal to the natural entitie of the acts; for it's poſſible that the evil may be ſeparated from the acts; but becauſe they cannot be put forth towards ſuch an object morally conſidered without ſin. (2) Al Sin is an aggregate compoſite Being, compoſed of poſitive and privative. The material Subject or natural Act is poſitive; but the formal Reaſon, or moral deficience of Rectitude is privative. The poſitive Act of it ſelf, abſtracted from the privation, is not ſinful; but both together, as mater and forme, make up one Compoſitum. It's a Queſtion in the Scholes, Whether Sin thus compounded of privative and poſitive be unum per ſe, or per accidens? And Suarez wel ſolves this difficultie, telling us, That if we conſider ſin as a phyſical real Being, it is unum per accidens; but if we conſider it as a moral Being, ſo it is unum per ſe; becauſe the poſitive act and privative deficience, are ſo intimately conjoined for the conſtitution of one moral Evil, that they may be looked on under the notion of act and power, or mater and forme; ſo that the act cannot be evil without the privation; nor the privation without the act. (3) Every Privation as ſuch is evil, as every Forme or Act good. For what is a privation but the want of ſome due perfection? And is not every want of due perfection evil to that ſubject that wants it? Every thing, if it want any good that belongs to it, is ſo far evil. (4) When we ſay the formal reaſon of Sin is privative, the terme formal must not be taken ſtrictly, but in a laxe notion, and morally. For the foreign, or Obliquitie of ſin being that by which it is formaliſed, and yet not formally intended by the Agent, hence ſin in a ſtrict ſenſe cannot be ſaid to have any formal Cauſe: yet becauſe this obliquitie or privation of Rectitude p. 111doth morally conſtitute the act ſinful, it may in a more laxe notion be rightly termed the formal Reaſon or Cauſe. (5) Sin, as to its formal reaſon, is not a Phyſic or Logic privation, nor yet pure nothing; but a moral privation, or deficience as to moral rectitude. In this reſpect ſome Divines aſcribe to ſin ſomething poſitive, not abſolutely, as if it were ſomewhat ſubſiſtent, but relatively and morally, as it is oppoſed to pure nothing: for, ſay they, ſin is a privation, which makes the act whereto it belongs ſinful; and therefore it is not mere nothing. So Suarez ſaith, that ſin is not a real Being, yet it is ſuch a Being as may ſuffice to the truth of a propoſition. Thus indeed Plato, in his Sophiſt, teacheth us, that foreign, non-ens may be conſidered as pure nothing, and ſo it is foreign, unintelligible, and ineffable: or elſe it may be conſidered, as foreign, that which truly is not, yet not ſimply, foreign, non-ens, or nothing. And ſuch is ſin, not ſimply and purely nothing, yet according to its formal reaſon, not a poſitive real Being, but a moral privation, or as others, a privative relation.

That Sin, according to its formal Idea and Nature, is privative, was generally aſſerted by the ancient Philoſophers, both Platoniſts and others. Thus Plato, Repub. 2. pag. 380. denies God to be foreign, the moral cauſe of ſins; becauſe there cannot be foreign, a poſitive idea of ſin. So Proclus argues from this place, That there cannot be foreign, an Idea of ſins; becauſe then it would follow, that God ſhould be the Cauſe and Author of ſin. And Plato himſelf informes us, that foreign, Sin is foreign, an irregular affection; and foreign, privation of order: alſo foreign, Injuſtice against Law: Again, foreign, a privative Being: and laſtly, foreign, privation of moral Being, as the night is, foreign, the privation of the Suns light. But among the ancient Philoſophers none hath more acutely and ſolidly defended this Hypotheſis, than Simplicius, on Epicbet. cap. 34. pag. 171. where he largely demonſtrates, that, foreign, Sin really is not in the nature of Beings, but foreign, a privation of good. Of which ſee Philoſ. Gen. P. 1. l. 3. c. 3. ſect. 4. §. 2. Among the Schole-men this is ſtrongly proved by Ariminenſis, Sent. 2. D…ſt. 34. Quaeſt. 1. Suarez in 1.2. Tract. 3. Diſput. 7. ſect. 3. pag. 275-278. & Barlow Exercit. 2.

§. 2. Having diſcuſſed the formal Nature of moral Evil or Sin, we now procede to its Cauſes; among which,Mans Defectibilitie the first Origine of Sin. if we wil aſcend up to its firſt Origine, we muſt reckon firſt the Defectibilitie p. 112of the human Creature, as the original cauſe of al ſin. For, to ſpeak in the Platonic mode, Man, as al other Creatures, being compoſed of ſomething and nothing, yea more of nothing than ſomething; hence paſſive power and defectibilitie is eſſential to his Being. For whatever ſprang out of nothing is capable of returning to its originary nothing. Where there is place for Proficience, there alſo remains a capacitie of Deficience. Every Creature, becauſe made by God, is capable of Proficience; but becauſe made out of nothing, it is alſo capable of Deficience. It's true, Man, as made by God, was void of al moral deficience or ſin; yet as Man, he was never void of Defectibilitie and Mutabilitie: he had a moral free-wil for good; but a natural free-wil or defectibilitie as to ſin: which paſſing from power into act gave being to the firſt ſin. This is wel explicated by Suarez: In a free Agent, ſaith he, the mode of failing in an act, ariſeth from the dominion he has over his act: hence ſin in a free cauſe doth not always ſuppoſe the like ſin in the ſame cauſe: for it may ariſe merely from the libertie of the Creature, which is good. That the Wil of Adam, in his innocent ſtate, was capable of ſinning, was a natural defect, conjoined with a natural perfection: for it was alſo capable not to ſin: and this mutable capacitie being drawen forth towards a prohibited object, was the firſt origine and root of al ſin. Thus moral Evil ſprang out of natural libertie in it ſelf good, but evilly applied.

Adam's perſon being vitiated by that firſt Sin,The Vitioſitie of human Nature. he thereby vitiated his own and our Nature. Yea, his perſonal actual ſin is originally ours by imputation: whence there adheres a vitioſitie to our natures, whereof we find frequent and great notices in Plato, and other Philoſophers. Plato, in his Timaeus, pag. 90. makes mention of a Sin contracted, foreign, in our head, [which I underſtand of Adam] whereby our nature, from the firſt generation, is corrupted. And Timaeus Locrus, from whom Plato borrowed many phyſic Philoſophemes, pag. 103. explicates the origine of this Vitioſitie thus: Vitioſitie comes from our Parents and firſt Principes, rather than from negligence and diſorder of public manners; becauſe we never depart from thoſe actions, which lead us to imitate the primitive ſins of our Parents. A great confeſſion of a Pagan, beyond what many that profeſſe Chriſtianitie wil allow. So Plato, in his Critias, ſaith, That in times paſt the Divine nature flouriſhed in men [i. e. in the ſtate of Innocence] p. 113but at length it being mixed with mortal, [i. e. upon the Fal] foreign, human cuſtome [or ſin] prevailed to the ruine of mankind: and from this ſource there followed an inundation of evils on men. So Leg. 5. pag. 731. foreign, The greateſt Sin is ingenite in mens Souls. And Grotius aſſures us, That the Philoſophers confeſſed, foreign, that it was congenite or connatural to men to ſin; whence the Platoniſt makes mention foreign, of an evil nature: which, Definit. Plat. pag. 416. is defined, foreign, a Vitioſitie in nature: alſo foreign, the natural diſeaſe, or diſeaſe of nature. Thence Plato, in his Politicus, pag. 274. being about to treat of Civil Politie, gives this demonſtration of its neceſſitie; becauſe the nature of mankind is greatly degenerated and depraved, and al manner of diſorders infeſte human Nature: and men being impotent are torne in pieces by their own luſts, as by ſo many wild Horſes. And thence he concludes, That from this plague of vitioſitie men were driven to great ſtraits and confuſions. The like Stobaeus, Serm. 2. pag. 31. out of Lycurgus's Dictates, foreign [or foreign.] foreign, &c. Phy! how depraved is mans nature altogether! otherwiſe there were no need of Laws. Dost thou thinke that man is any thing more excellent than Bestes? Truly but little, except only in figure: Brutes look towards the earth; but man has an erect countenance. Thus alſo Plato, Leg. 10. pag. 906. affirmes, That Souls living on the earth are foreign, of a brutiſh nature. And it is ſaid of Democritus, that he affirmed, The diſeaſes of the Soul to be ſo great, that if it were opened, it would appear to be a ſepulchre of al manner of evils. Yea Aristotle, albeit he were too much a friend to corrupt nature, yet he hath left this ingenuous confeſſion of its vitioſitie, Eth. lib. 1. cap. 13. pag. 64. That there is in us ſomewhat, foreign, naturally repugnant to right reaſon. But Seneca doth greatly illuſtrate this Vitiolitie of Nature. So Epist. 50. Why do we deceive our ſelves? our evil is not from without; it is fixed in our very bowels. Again, Al Sins are in al men, but al do not appear in each man: He that hath one Sin hath al. We ſay that al men are intemperate, avaricious, luxurious, maligne; not that theſe Sins appear in al; but becauſe they may be, yea are in al, although latent. A man may be nocent, although he do no hurt. Al Sins are perfect, [i. e. in corrupt nature] before they break forth into effect. Theſe and ſuch like great confeſſions, touching the Vitioſitie of human Nature, made Janſenius break forth into a rapture p. 114of admiration, that Socrates, Plato, and other poor Heathens ſhould leave us truer and better Philoſophemes hereof, than the Pelagians and later Schole-men.

Yet it cannot be denied, but that many of the ancient and moderne Schole-men have given us great notices of this natural Vitioſitie, ſpecially ſuch as were Sectators of Augustine, as Aquinas, Ariminenſis, Bradwardine, Alvarez, &c. We may reduce the explication of the whole to the following Propoſitions. (1) Adams perſonal actual Sin becomes the natural original Sin of al his Posteritie. This the Gentile Philoſophers were ignorant of: they had ſome notices of the corruption of nature, but were ignorant of the originarie cauſe and manner of its traduction, as Augustine hath wel obſerved.Iſte Tullius rem vidit, cauſam neſcivit. August. Peccatum introivit non per modum imitationis, ſed per modum originis. This Traduction of original Sin from Adam to his poſteritie is wel demonſtrated by Aquinas, contra Gentiles, lib. 4. cap. 50. where he demonſtrates, from Rom. 5.12, 19. againſt the Pelagians, That this original Sin infects al Mankind, not only in a way of imitation, which the Pelagians grant, but by propagation and traduction. And Cap. 52. he farther explicates, how Adams perſonal, actual Sin, by imputation becomes our original and natural ſin. This original Sin is termed natural; becauſe congenite with, proper to, and inſeparable from corrupt nature, as to any power of its own. It conſiſtes formally in the privation of original Righteoùſneſſe: which privation is both our puniſhment and ſin: as original Righteouſneſſe, upon the imputation of Adams Sin, is by divine Juſtice denied to us; ſo this privation is our puniſhment: but as it ought to be in us, and is wanting, by reaſon of Adam's Sin become ours, ſo it is our ſin. (2) The Vitioſitie of Nature or original Sin is ſaid to be voluntary as it inheres in the Wil, and corrupts the ſame. Aristotle tels us, Acts are voluntary, becauſe they paſſe from the Wil; but habits, becauſe they are received into the Wil, and impreſſed thereon. Such is original Sin as to its Vitioſitie, which is as an habitual Pondus impacted on the Wil, and inclining it to al manner of vitioſe acts. Others make original Sin to be voluntary, with reſpect to the commun repreſentative Wil of our firſt Parent, whoſe Wil, as he was a commun Head, politically included ours. So Davenant, and the Schole-men. (3) The Vitioſitie of corrupt Nature is ſeminal, radical and univerſal both extenſively and intenſively. As every man naturally conſidered is a Microcoſme or little abridgement of the greater World; ſo morally conſidered, he is a Macrocoſme or a p. 115great World of corruption. Yea, al that is of contagion in the greater World comes from the ſuperfluitie of Vitioſitie ſhut up in the heart of man. If corrupt human Nature were not on the earth, there would be nothing in the World but what was good. Yea farther, there is more of Vitioſitie in one corrupt Nature, than a world of Sinners can vent. Every man hath ſin enough in his own nature to defile the whole Creation. And this corruption of nature is ſo deep, that al the fire in the World, yea of Hel, wil not fetch it out. It is univerſal both as to extenſion of parts and degrees. The man is infected with it from top to toe: it poiſons his eye, ear, tongue, hand and every part: it dogs him from place to place. This Plague of corrupt Nature is greater in ſome than in others, and uſually greateſt in thoſe of greateſt condition. Al ſins in the heart do not act alike at al times; yet al are there in the ſeed and root of corrupt nature. Many luſts worke indirectly as Principes that lie low: men act in the power of them, and yet obſerve them not. (4) This univerſal Vitioſitie of corrupt Nature is the ſoverain reigning Sin, which breeds, foments, and influenceth al other Sins. Adams perſon firſt corrupted our Nature; and human Nature being corrupted, corrupts our perſons: and our perſons being corrupted, corrupt al our actions, and thereby encreaſe the corruption of our Natures. It is a great Queſtion in practic Theologie, What is a mans reigning Sin? But if we conſider reigning ſin ſimply and abſolutely, it is no other than corrupt nature. It's true, there are in particular perſons, according to their particular inclinations, tentations, and circumſtances, particular ſins that bear ſway and rule: but theſe are but as Viceroys and Vicegerents under the vitioſitie of corrupt nature; which is the ſupreme Soverain and Lord, as a cruel beſte nouriſhed in our bowels, ever ready to devour us. The main part of our enmitie againſt God, and his enmitie againſt us lies in the vitioſitie of our natures, and its contrarietie to God, Rom. 8.6.

§. 3. The firſt product of Original Sin,Practic Error the cauſe of al Sin. and that which has a maligne efficacious influence on al ſin, is practic Error, or Ignorance. How great, univerſal, and venimous the Ignorance of al Mankind by nature is, Plato frequently inculcates. He gives us a lively deſcription hereof in his Repub. 7. pag. 514. Suppoſe, ſaith he, a ſubterraneous Dungeon, in which men ſhould be, from their infance, bound neck and heels together; ſo that they can ſee nothing, but ſome glimmerings of light, or rather p. 116ſhadows juſt before them: ſuch is the barbaric ignorance of Mankind by Nature. It's true, many attain to great ſpeculation and contemplation of things divine, even by natures light and heat, aſſiſted by commun illuminations; yet how defective are they as to al practic knowlege, which is the worſt ignorance? Thus Plato, Leg. 3. pag. 689. What is the worſt ignorance? foreign, Lo, when a man loves not but hates, what he knows and eſtimes to be honest and good: but, on the contrary, loves and embraceth what he knows to be evil and injuſt. Wherein he inſtructes us, that ſpeculative knowledge conjoined with practic error renders our ignorance moſt inexcuſable and dangerous. And that which yet addes greater malignitie to our ignorance is, when men fondly conceit they ſufficiently underſtand, what indeed they are really ignorant of: ſuch proud conceits are the worſt ſelf-deceits and errors: al the uſe ſuch make of their knowlege is to concele their ignorance from themſelves and others: their very light addes to their darkneſſe. And their terrible darkneſſe is by ſo much the more deplorable, in that they take it for light; which they follow with pleaſure, as children do the Ignis Fatuus, which leads them to Precipices. Thus Plato, Leg. 5. pag. 732. From the ſame ſin this a ſo happens to men, foreign, that every one counts his ignorance his wiſdome: Hence it comes to paſſe, that whiles we know nothing, we thinke we know althings. And are not thoſe greatly to be pitied, who make no other uſe of their reaſon but to render themſelves more unreaſonable and ignorant? Is any thing more worthy of compaſſion, than the blindneſſe of ſuch as ſeem moſt quick-ſighted and ſage in the World? And whence comes this proud affected ignorance, but from mens not knowing God and themſelves? Is it not a ſtrange thing, that the Soul which knows althings elſe, ſhould be ſo ignorant of it ſelf, and of its Maker? Thence Plato, Alcibiad. 2. pag. 144. ſaith, It is no wonder, that they who are ignorant of God, ſhould account that which is worst best. Whence he concludes, That the ignorance of the beſt good is the worſt evil. And as to the ignorance of our ſelves, he openly affirmes, Theaecet. pag. 176. That thoſe are by ſo much the more what they thinke they are not, [i. e. ignorant] by how much the leſſe they thinke they are ſo. And that this proud affected practic Ignorance of God and our ſelves is the root of al ſin, he further p. 117demonſtrates, Alcibiad. 1. pag. 117. Thou ſeeſt therefore that Sin is appendent to action by reaſon of that ignorance, whereby a man thinkes he knows, what indeed he is ignorant of. And he ſubjoins the reaſon: Thoſe are left under error, foreign, who knowing nothing, thinke they know every thing. Confidence of knowlege is a ſure marque of ignorance. Whence he concludes, pag. 118. foreign, This very ignorance therefore is the cauſe of Sins, and most opprobrioſe. Laſtly, Leg. 5. pag. 732. he aſſures us, That when we attemt thoſe things whereof we are ignorant, we groſſely erre. Such a venimous, maligne, efficacious influence has proud, conceited, practic Error on al ſin. Indeed the power of ſin lies in the power of darkneſſe or ignorance: practic Errors foment and maintain luſts. The mind, like a ſilk-worme, lies intangled in thoſe errors, that came out of its own bowels: when luſt hath put out Reaſon, it ſoon takes the Chair: men of corrupt minds, are men of ſinful lives: Mind and Wil do reciprocally vitiate each other: whiles luſt bribes conſcience out of office, it cooperates with ſin. Divine light is a burden to a corrupt conſcience; which delights to ſpin out of it ſelf ſick dreaming errors, thereby to create its own chains and fetters: a carnal mind vainly puffed up out-reaſons al good convictious of dutie: ſurely there is no dutie done by that man, whoſe conſcience doth not its dutie: for there is nothing in man active for God, when conſcience is not firſt active. It's evident then, that practic error of conſcience opens the door to al ſin.

And as Plato, ſo Aristotle, his Scholar, hath greatly explicated and demonſtrated the peſtiferous influence which practic error hath on al ſin. Thus Eth. l. 3. c. 2. pag. 121. where he makes this difference between Sins of ignorance, and ignorant Sins. A drunken man, that kils another in his drunken fit ſins ignorantly; and yet his ſin is not a Sin of Ignorance, becauſe that ignorance was voluntarily contracted. Thence he concludes: foreign, &c. Therefore every wicked man is ignorant of what he ought to do, and from what he ought to abſtain: and by this they are made unjuſt and wicked. And Eth. l. 3. c. 7. pag. 144. he diſtributes this practic ignorance into its ſeveral kinds. (1) There is, ſaith he, an ignorance, the cauſe of which is in our ſelves. As when drunken men ſin ignorantly; which ignorance was contracted by their voluntary drunkenneſſe. (2) There is an Ignorance of Right or Law: when men are ignorant of their dutie, which they ought p. 118to know. (3) There is an ignorance from our own neglect: which had we been diligent in the uſe of means we might have avoided. (4) There is an ignorance from depraved affections and cuſtome in ſinning.

We may reduce theſe Philoſophemes of Plato and Ariſtotle to this more formal diſtribution. Man is directed in his action by a twofold knowlege, the one univerſal, the other particular: a defect in either of theſe cauſeth ſin. Whence it follows, that a man may have an univerſal knowlege, that this or that is ſinful in general, and yet want a particular judgement of its ſinfulneſſe in this or that caſe. So that particular ignorance is very wel conſiſtent with univerſal knowlege. But now, ſithat univerſal knowlege, though moſt certain, is not ſo influential on our actions, as particular; becauſe actions are about ſingulars; hence it follows, that particular ignorance has more force to lead men into ſin, than univerſal knowlege has to prevent it. This particular ignorance may be again diſtributed into natural or voluntary: and voluntary may be again divided into that which is antecedent, or that which is conſequent to the act. Yea al ignorance which ariſeth from the Wil, may be looked on as voluntary. For what is involuntary, if it ariſe from ſome precedent voluntary act, it may be judged voluntary, according to moral eſtimation. As in that inſtance which Ariſtotle gives of a Drunkard, whoſe ignorance is voluntary; becauſe ariſing from the act of his own Wil. For it is a good Rule of Ariſtotle, That thoſe Acts whoſe Principe is in us, may be ſaid to be ours and voluntarily undertaken by us. Laſtly we may, with Ariſtotle, diſtinguiſh between ſins which are per ignorantiam, i. e. when ignorance is the cauſe of the ſin: and ſuch as are cum ignorantia: i. e. when albeit ignorance attends the ſin, yet the proper cauſe of that ignorance lies in the ſinners wil: The former are thoſe which we cal ſins of ignorance, but the later not; becauſe the ignorance is voluntary. Men want not ſo much means of knowing what they ought to do, as wil to do what they know. Reaſon may rightly diſcerne the thing which is good, and yet the wil of man not incline it ſelf thereto, as oft as ſenſual paſſions, prejudice, or affected ignorance prevail. So that ſome practic error or inconſideration lies at the root of every ſin: either becauſe men do not practically conſider al circumſtances; or if they do conſider them, yet they do not practically determine this or that Act to be evil; but inſtead thereof they foiſt in another falſe p. 119Concluſion, That this or that ſinful Act is ſweet, or profitable. A corrupt Conſcience may aſſent to good premiſes, and yet diſſent from the concluſion, yea conſent to a bad concluſion. Luſts pervert Conſcience, and ſil it with partialitie and prejudice in its inquiries. The light of a carnal mind is eaſily reconciled with luſt: for a ſecure Conſcience takes up ſuch a Religion as wil not diſtaſte its luſts; nor yet its luſts moleſt it. There is a peace between the luſt and light of a carnal heart: It's eaſie for a ſecure Conſcience to caſt light into priſon, and detain the truth of God in unrighteouſneſſe: to believe as it liſt, not as it ought. A corrupt Conſcience hath many turnings and windings, various coverts and hiding places for luſt: Sometimes the veil of hypocriſie, yea of Religion is made uſe of to cover ſin, as Mat. 23.14. Sometimes a good name is put on a bad thing, or a bad deſigne is juſtified by a good end: or a good cauſe is made uſe of to juſtifie a bad action: or when mens luſts wil not comply with the rule, men bring down the rule to their luſts. Again, ſometimes new lights are pleaded to maintain old errors: Mens luſts make many controverſies about ſin: they make great ſins little, and little none at al. Thus practic error and ignorance is the cauſe of al ſin. Of which ſee more fully Philoſ. Gen. P. 1. l. 3. c. 3. ſect. 4. §. 5.

§. 4. Not only practic Error,Self-love a radical cauſe of Sin. but alſo Self-love has a maligne venimous influence on al ſin. Plato hath excellent Philoſophemes on this Theme. So Repub. 9. pag. 574, &c. he deſcribes to the life, the ſervile condition of a wicked perſon, under the Tyrannie of Self-love; how he is thereby violently impelled and hurried into al ſin. So alſo in what follows, pag. 577. of which hereafter. Thus likewiſe in his Leg. 5. pag. 731. he lively demonſtrates, foreign, That Self-love is foreign, an ingenite evil, in which they who indulge themſelves, have no remedie againſt ſin. Then he addes: foreign, And to ſpeak the truth, ſelf-love is altogether the cauſe of al thoſe evils, in which the life of man is involved. And he gives the reaſon of it: foreign, For he that loves is truly blind about what he loves; and thence misjudgeth things juſt, good, and honeſt; being in this opinion, that there is more honor due to him than to truth. And Ariſtotle gives us the reaſon hereof; Becauſe foreign, a ſelf-lover p. 120acts a! for himſelf, according to his profit. Every ſelf-lover is chained to that great Idol Self, which he makes his God, and the only Centre, in which al the lines of his Affections and Actions meet. Self is the laſt end of ſelf-lovers, even in their higheſt acts of ſelf-denial: if they give their goods to the poor, or their bodies to be burned for Religion, it is al to pleaſe ſelf. They may croſſe their own wils, but never croſſe ſelf as their laſt end: if they ſeek after God, it is to advance ſelf: ſelf-love formes al their actions and paſſions into a ſubſervience unto ſome carnal ſelf-intereſt. What makes ſuperſtitioſe perſons ſo much to vilifie, mortifie, and with ſo much ſeveritie torment their bodies, but thereby to exalt their inward excellences? And as ſelf-lovers make ſelf the laſt End, ſo alſo the first Principe of al they do. Self-love ever affects ſelf-dependence: it would fain have a World of its own to live, act, and breathe in: it lays the whole weight of religioſe ſervices on ſelf as the bottome of its dependence: it would live and die within the ſphere of its own activitie, as wel as intereſt. It's exceeding ſweet to ſelf to have a ſtock of its own even in things religioſe to trade with, and thereby merit divine favor. And alas! how ſoon are men overcome by tentations, when they are ſelf-dependent and ſelf-ſtrong? He that thinkes to keep himſelf from ſin by ſelf-ſtrength, wil ſoon be overcome by it. Now Self being the laſt End and first Principe of ſelf-love, it hence becomes a ſpermatic univerſal cauſe of al ſin. Every ſelf-lover is his own Idol: and whiles he inordinately embraces and adheres to himſelf, he is ſoon overcome thereby, and ſo hurried into ſin. Yea ſelf-love makes the beſt duties and ſervices for God moſt carnal, vile, and abominable to God. Where ſelf is predominant, the intention of the Soul is ſpurious and rotten: and a bad intention makes the beſt workes bad. Where ſelf rules, it formes even religioſe ſervices into a conformitie to carnal luſts: wherefore he that cannot depart from ſelf, wil ſoon depart from God, and tumble headlong into al ſin. Self-love is the ſtrongeſt carnal concupiſcence, and moſt directly oppoſite to divine love. The ſoverain power of Luſt increaſeth according to the obedience men render to themſelves and ſelf-love: by obeying ſelf and its particular movements men make it a God: yea, the more men endeavor to humor and gratifie it, the more tyrannie it is. Man has not a worſe or more dangerous Companion than himſelf, his carnal ſelf, which is ſo potent to draw him into ſin. It has always been the ambition of p. 121the Creature to deifie it ſelf, not by being equal in nature with God, but by being its firſt Cauſe and laſt End, which is the ſpring of al departure from God, and converſion to the Creature. And that which makes ſelf-love more potent to promote ſin is its policie and many artifices to concele its ſelf and ſin. How oft doth carnal ſelf-love put on the maſque of true lawful ſelf-love, and thereby delude the Soul into ſin? There is a great reſſemblance between ſpiritual ſelf-love and carnal: whence the later oft conceles it ſelf under the vizard of the former. The more a man loves himſelf, the leſſe he conceits he loves himſelf: as the more mad a man is, the leſſe he judgeth himſelf ſo. Self-love is ſo artificial in its colors, as that it can diſcolor virtue with the face of vice, and vice with virtues face. Thus by its fraudes and deceits in conceling it ſelf and ſin, it greatly advances ſin. The members of ſelf-love are principally three. (1) Concupiſcence, or adherence to the Creature as our laſt end. (2) Carnal confidence, or dependence on ſelf as the first cauſe. (3) Spiritual pride, or an over-valuing eſtime of ſelf-excellences. Each of theſe have a venimous influence on al ſin, as we have largely demonſtrated out of Plato and others, Philoſ. General. P. 1. l. 3. c. 3. ſect. 4. §. 8, 9, 10.

§. 5. Next to the Cauſes of moral Evil we may conſider its Species or Kinds. Al moral Evil or Sin may be diſtributed into involuntary, Sins are either of Ignorance, of Paſſion, or wilful.or voluntary: again involuntary, into ſins of Ignorance, or of Paſſion. We find the foundation of this diſtribution in Plato, Phileb. pag. 22. where he ſaith, That thoſe who chooſe ſin, do it either involuntarily and ignorantly, or out of a voluntary miſerable neceſſitie. 1. As for involuntary Sins, they are, (1) Sins of Ignorance, when the ignorance is not affected, either from prejudice, voluntary neglect, or cuſtome in ſin, as before, §. 3. (2) Sins of Paſſion or Infirmitie, when the paſſion is antecedent to the wil, and doth as it were extort the conſent of the wil, being vehement and violent. For if the paſſion be conſequent to the act of the wil, or but a languid remiſſe motion, ſuch as doth not force the wil, the ſin is not ſo much of paſſion, as voluntary: whence paſſions that ariſe from evil cuſtomes, and follow the wil, do not conſtitute a ſin of paſſion. Thence Ariſtotle. Eth. l. 3. c. 3. ſaith, That every ſin from paſſion is not involuntary. Thus alſo Suarez, 1.2. Tract. 5. Diſp. 4. pag. 395. Now involuntarineſſe, in ſins either of ignorance or of paſſion, takes away ſomething of their aggravation: where there is real unaffected ignorance, paſſion or perturbation, there is leſſe p. 122of ſin. Where there is involuntary Ignorance, there is want of that which might help the underſtanding: where antecedent involuntary paſſions hurrie men into ſin, there is voluntary diſſent or ſubſequent repentance. Hence the Diſciples of Ariſtippus ſaid, That they who ſin from perturbation, not voluntarily, deſerve pardon, as Laertius. 2. Voluntary wilful Sins, are ſuch as procede from a ſtrong bent of wil, without ignorance or paſſion as the original cauſe thereof. Such ſins are of greater aggravation, becauſe of leſſe provocation, and excuſe. From a perſeverance in voluntary ſins, and frequent repetition thereof procedes a fixed cuſtome and rooted habit of ſin, touching which we find many good Philoſophemes in Plato, of which hereafter §. 7. of the neceſſary ſervitude of Sin.

§. 6. The Nature, The moral ſervitude of Sin.Cauſes, and Kinds of moral Evil being laid open, we may with more facilitie explicate and demonſtrate, what that moral Servitude is which attends it. That al moral Evil or Sin is attended with the higheſt moral Servitude is evident from ſacred Philoſophie, as alſo the Philoſophemes of Plato and others. There were three ways whereby men were brought under civil ſervitude among the Ancients: ſome were made ſervants by being taken in war; others were bought with a price; others became ſuch by being borne in the houſe of ſervants, as Iſhmael. Sacred Philoſophie, in treating of the ſervitude of ſin, alludes to al theſe three kinds of ſervice. (1) Sinners are ſaid, 1 Kings 21.20. & 2 Kings 17.17. To ſel themſelves, to worke evil: i.e. deliberately and voluntarily to commit ſin, and that with a ful bent of heart: which is oppoſed to Pauls being ſold under ſin, Rom. 7.14. (2) The ſervants of ſin are ſaid to be led captive by ſin, 2 Pet. 2.19. (3) Al men by nature are ſaid to be borne ſlaves of ſin,Epheſ. 2.2. & 5.6.Eph 2:2Eph 5:6 Eph. 2.2. Children of diſobedience: i.e. addicted, devoted, given up to it. So Epheſ. 5.6. & Col. 3.6. This is an Hebraic Idiotiſme: for among them foreign, a Son, being put in the ſtate of Regiment, and conſtrued with a Noun ſignifying an inanimate thing, is emphatically uſed to note that ſuch a perſon or thing is addicted or given up to that which is predicated of it. Thus a child of diſobedience, is one that is a perfect ſlave or devoted to it. And Plato, Rep. 9. pag. 575. tels us, That he who is ſubject to the Tyrannie of his own Luſts, is the greateſt ſlave imaginable: for he cannot do what he would; but is ſhut up in the priſon of his own unbridled luſts. Therefore in his Cratylus, as he derives foreign, Virtue, from p. 123foreign, always to flow, which importes libertie; ſo he derives foreign, Vice, from foreign, becauſe a wicked man is ever fettered and chained by his luſts. But to illuſtrate the miſerable vaſſalage and ſlaverie which attends al Sinners by nature, we ſhal conſider this ſervitude of Sin, (1) In regard of the Adjuncts and Effects that attend Sin. (2) In the proper Adjuncts, or Attributes that attend this ſervitude. Firſt as to the Adjuncts and Effects that attend Sin, we ſhal draw them forth according to the mind of ſacred and Platonic Philoſophie, in the enſuing Propoſitions.

1. Al moral Evil or Sin is repugnant to human Nature. The Civilian,Sin repugnant to human Nature. Juſtin. Inſtitut. l. 1. tit. 3. defines Civil Servitude, a conſtitution of the Law of Nations, whereby one is ſubject to the Dominion of another against Nature. And is not this moſt true of the moral ſervitude of Sin? What more againſt human Nature, than to be ſubject to the tyrannie of irregular paſſions? Yea doth not Sin make not only the Creatures an enemie to man, but alſo himſelf the greateſt enemie to himſelf? That Sin is moſt repugnant to human Nature, may eaſily be evinced out of Plato's Philoſophie. Thence he cals it foreign and foreign, Diſcord and Confuſion; becauſe it cauſeth an inteſtine war, diſcord, and confuſion in human Nature. Thus alſo in his Lyſis, he ſaith, Al good is foreign, proper and agreable to human Nature, but foreign, evil is aliene and repugnant to it. Good, albeit it ſlow not from Nature, yet it inclines us to what is moſt for the perfection of human Nature; whereas al Sin tends to its ruine. As al moral Libertie conſiſtes in Virtue, which gives an elevation and advance to human Nature; ſo al moral ſervitude ariſing from Sin implies a depreſſion of human Nature. Thus Pſal. 106.43. And were brought low for their iniquitie. foreign ſignifies attenuated, depreſſed. Pſal. 106.43. Vitium contra naturam eſt, ut non poſſit niſi nocere naturae. Non ita que eſſet vitium recedere à Deo, niſi naturae, cujus id vitium eſt, potiùs competeret eſſe cum Deo. August. de Civ. Dei, l. 11. c. 17.Ps 106:43It's here ſpoken of their being brought down from an high to a low condition. Then follows the cauſe of this their being brought down: foreign, for, or in their iniquitie. Their iniquitie was not only the meritorious cauſe, but alſo the inſtrument or machine by which they were brought down. Nothing doth ſo much empoveriſh and bring down human Nature, as Sin. So Pſal. 107.12. Therefore he brought down their heart with labor: they fel down, and there was none to help. foreign with toilſome labor. The toilſome labor of Sin is moſt potent to bring down human Nature. (1) Sin brings down human Nature, and is moſt repugnant to it, in that it importes an averſion and falling from God, who is our moſt laudable p. 124and excellent Being, our firſt Principe and laſt End. This is implied in that dreadful interrogation of God to Adam, Gen. 3.9.Gen 3:9Gen. 3.9. Where art thou? In this Queſtion we may conſider [1] That it regards not Adams place, but ſtate: Where art thou? Not in what place, but in what ſtate? How is it with thee now Adam? How doeſt thou do? Is al wel? What is the condition of thy Soul? Art thou in that ſtate I placed thee in? [2] It's a queſtion not of ignorance as to God, but of conviction as to Adam: it is the queſtion of a Judge making inquiſition after the Malefactor. Where art thou? Where is now thy confidence in thine own ſtrength? Doeſt thou ſee unto what a condition thy pride, thy unbelief has reduced thee? Thou aimedſt to be as God, free from my yoke and Law. But is it ſo with thee? Art thou not fallen into a miſerable bondage? Doth not thy fear, thy running away, and endeavor to hide thy ſelf, diſcover thy guilt and ſervitude? [3] It is a ſarcaſtic, biting, upbraiding queſtion. Where art thou? O! how is it with thee now Adam? Haſt thou not brought thy ſelf to a ſine paſſe? Where is the Deitie thou affectedſt? Plato ſeems to give frequent hints and intimations of this Fal of Man, and the ſervitude that attends it. So in his Phaedrus, pag. 245. he compares the Soul, in its innocent ſtate, to a winged Chariot, that ſlies aloft; but in its lapſed ſtate, he makes it to have loſt its wings, and to be impriſoned in the bodie. And the Platoniſts generally complain of the Souls ſervitude in the bodie, as a puniſhment of ſome former ſin. Which makes Steuch. Eugubinus and others to thinke, that Plato knew more of the Fal, than he would diſcover, which he diſguiſed under that Hypotheſis, of the Preexiſtence of Souls. So Euſebius, Praep. Evang. lib. 12. cap. 11. pag. 584. thinkes that Plato, in his Sympoſium, expreſſed the Fal allegorically under the Symbol of Porus, of which ſee Court Gent. P. 1. B. 3. C. 5. §. 1-6.

(2) Sin puls down and is repugnant to human Nature,Sin strips off the Image of God. as it diveſtes men of the Image of God. Thus in ſacred Philoſophie, Gen. 3.7.Gen. 3.7.22.Gen 3:7Gen 3:22 And they knew that they were naked: i.e. they perceived themſelves diveſted of the image of God. Thence v. 22. God ſaid: Behold man is become like one of us! i.e. Ironically, moſt unlike unto us, a ſad ſpectacle, a prodigioſe monſter, unlike the Creature made by us. It alludes to the words of Satan, v. 5. And ye ſhal be as Gods. It is ſaid, Gen. 5.1. That Adam was created in the likeneſſe of God. But v. 3. it's added, That he begat a ſon p. 125in his own likeneſſe, i.e. ſinful, as he was. This deprivation of the image of God is wel expreſſed by Paul, Rom. 3.23.Rom. 3.23.Rom 3:23 For al have ſinned and come ſhort of the glorie of God. foreign, are deprived, ſpoiled, diveſted of the glorie of God. This may be taken (1) Actively: Al have come ſhort of the glorioſe image of God, and conformitie to his Law, which Adam was at firſt inveſted with. (2) Paſſively, as to future Glorie. The former ſenſe ſeems primarily intended here. Adams Soul was ſilled with the glorioſe image of God; but ah! alas! how has ſin defaced and diſſigured the Soul! how far ſhort doth it now come of that glorioſe Image! This Fal of man from the Image of God Plato was not altogether a ſtranger unto: for, in his Critias, he ſaith, that anciently there flouriſhed in our firſt Parents, foreign, or foreign, a divine nature, which rendred them happy, but human cuſtome or ſin prevailing, an inundation of evils followed.

(3) Sin brings down human Nature and is repugnant thereto,Sin is enmitie against God. in that it infuſeth a Principe of confuſion, enmitie, and rebellion againſt God. The perfection of human Nature conſiſtes in an intimate adherence and ſubjection to God; but ſin puts a law of enmitie and rebellion into the heart, Rom. 8.7.Rom. 8.7.Rom 8:7 The carnal mind is enmitie against God, i.e. a complexe or ſyſteme of al manner of enmitie: yea nothing but enmitie: enmitie in the higheſt-degree: for abſtractes ſpeak formes and eſſences. Greg. Nazianzen, in Apolog. makes three Species of the carnal minds Rebellion and Reluctance againſt Grace. (1) foreign, a ſervile departure from God. (2) foreign, a contentioſe averſion and obstinate reluctation againſt God. (3) foreign, a ſtupor in ſin: when men ruſh into ſin, foreign, with a bare face. The carnal mind is the greateſt enemie God has. Al ſin in corrupt nature is a kind of Antipathie againſt God; that which puts men upon al acts of rebellion againſt, and averſation from him. Hoſ. 4.12. A ſpirit of fornication: Hoſ. 4.12, 16.Hos 4:12Hos 4:16i.e. of Idolatrie, which is ſpiritual fornication. foreign a Spirit denotes a vehement fervor, flame, or impetus of luſt: ſuch as carries with it the higheſt impetuoſitie, effort, and force. For the Hebrews cal al the extraordinary motions or perturbations of the mind, Spirit. Thence it follows: from under God: i.e. from under his Power, Empire, and Dominion. From under hath the force of a privation, and denotes their averſion from God. Thence he addes, v. 16. For Iſrael ſlideth back, as a back-ſliding heifer. foreign, as a rebellious, contumacious, refractary heifer: ſuch as thinketh her ſelf p. 126free, caſts off the yoke from her neck, and is impatient of ſubjection, as Deut. 32.15. The meaning is, that Iſrael, like a laſcivious refractary Heifer, had caſt off al regard to divine Commands, and wandred up and down according to her own luſts. Thence follows her puniſhment anſwerable to her ſin: The Lord wil feed her in a large place. She affects a wandring, vagrant, licentious courſe of life, and ſhe ſhal have it: The Lord wil feed her in a large place, or barren deſert, not in a fruitful place. When Churches or people wander from God, he wil feed them in a deſert of affliction, as Hoſ. 2.14. Such is the ſtate of thoſe that wander from God. Sacred Philoſophie and the Greek Fathers expreſſe this enmitie of the carnal mind againſt God, by ſuch expreſſions as theſe: foreign, to reſiſt God; foreign, to reſiſt the Spirit; foreign, to affect to overcome the power of God; foreign, to make void, or repel Grace; foreign, to deride God. And what greater bondage can there be, than for a rational Creature to turne his back on God, and flie from his chiefeſt good? Doth not this pul down and impoveriſh human Nature? Thence Plato, in his Politicus, tels us, That after the Golden Age, i.e. the ſtate of Innocence, had its period, ſin brought into the world a deluge, foreign of confuſion and diſorder, &c.

(4) Sin is moſt repugnant to human Nature,Sin strips men of Humanitie. in that it ſtrips men of the right uſe of their Reaſon, Wil, Affections, yea of their comfortable Being and Humanitie. Plato, in his Theaetetus, aſſures us, That the excellence of man conſiſtes in his Reſſemblance unto God; but ſo far as he fals ſhort thereof, he fals under, foreign, Nothingneſſe, and Inhumanitie. Sin reduceth human Nature to a kind of Inhumanitie and Nothingneſſe, in that it ſpoils it of the right uſe of its rational Being and operations. For man having an intrinſec relation unto God, as his firſt efficient and laſt End, he ſo far enjoys his Being, as he doth adhere to God: he that bids farewel to, or departs from God, bids farewel to, and departs from himſelf, as to al right uſe of what he has. Man is then ſaid to live, when he uſeth and enjoyeth things as he ought; which ſin deprives him of, in that it makes him uſe things that are to be enjoyed, and enjoy things that are to be uſed. Thus it invertes the order of things. Hence it was a commun Saying with Socrates, as alſo the Stoics, That al Vice is against Nature; becauſe human Nature as ſuch, was made to adhere unto God as its firſt Cauſe and laſt End; which ſtate man by ſin doth relinquiſh; and ſo by p. 127conſequence loſe the right uſe of his Being, Life, Reaſon, Wil, Affections, and al human Acts. Such is the Repugnance of Sin to human Nature.

2. Moral Evils or Sins are not only repugnant to human Nature, Sins repugnant each to other.but to themſelves. This greatly demonſtrates the ſervitude and bondage of Sin: for al moral Libertie implies Order, Harmonie, and Ʋniformitie, which ariſeth from Virtue: but Luſts are extreme jarring, diſſonant and oppoſite each to other. Oh! what ſtrange diſcords, confuſions, and ſeditions are there among luſts in the heart? How is the heart diſtracted and as it were torne in pieces by them? Luſts are extreme mutinous and lawleſſe; they keep no order. Thence in ſacred Philoſophie it is ſaid, The corrupt mind cannot ſubject it ſelf to the law of God. Rom. 8.7. foreign,Rom. 8.7.Rom 8:7 cannot keep the place, order, and ranke the Law of God has put the Soul into. It alludes to Military order: for foreign primarily denotes the order and diſcipline of Soldiers. Yea it's added, foreign, neither indeed can be: namely, becauſe the Law is the rule of order, but Luſts are al for diſorder: they diſagree among themſelves, as wel as from the Law of God. Luſts have no end, bounds, meaſure: what is ſin, but a confuſed Chaos of al manner of diſorders? How do ſenſual paſſions fight, not only againſt Gods Law, but againſt each other? And oh! what a ſlavery ariſeth herefrom? Thence ſinners are deſcribed, Tit. 3.6.Tit. 3.6.Titus 3:6 Serving luſts and diverſe pleaſures. Theſe ſinful pleaſures are not only diverſe as to Number, but alſo as to Qualitie, as different and oppoſite each to other. Thence Jam. 4.1. Luſts are ſaid to maintain an inteſtine war in mens Souls, whence al externe wars and conteſts ariſe. Thus Plato makes frequent mention of the diſcords and inteſtine wars of Luſts. So Repub. 5. pag. 444. he makes injuſtice to be foreign, a Sedition of the Soul, or Inſurrection. So foreign, pag. 214. he makes al virtroſe perſons to be like each other, and friends; but as for profligate wicked men, they differ as wel from themſelves, as each from other. And in his Phaedo, pag. 92. he ſaith: foreign, &c. Al ſin is ful of diſcord, but virtue is harmonious. The reaſon of this Diſcord and Repugnance among luſts is this: Al concord and agreament in the Soul ariſeth from its adherence to God, who is the firſt Unitie: ſo far as men depart from this prime Unitie, ſo far they fal under confuſion, Nulla major poena nequitiae eſt, quàm quod ſibi & ſuis diſplicet. Sen. Epiſt.difformitie, and diſorder. And what greater puniſhment of ſin is there than this, that it is diſpleaſing, yea repugnant to it ſelf? p. 128How oft do men relinquiſh the luſts they longed for, and then reaſſume what they relinquiſhed? What a conflict is there between avaricious and prodigal luſts? But of this more in what follows.

3.Sin most impotent and infirme. Sin is the Diſeaſe of the Soul, ful of impotence and infirmitie. Al moral Libertie implies health, vigor, force and ſtrength: and wherein conſiſtes the vigor and ſtrength of any thing, but in adherence to its firſt Principes? The more any thing departes from Ʋnitie, the more Diviſion, Contrarietie, Diſſolution, and Infirmitie. And is not God the firſt Principe or Cauſe of the Soul? Doth it not by departing from him depart from its firſt Unitie and ſtrength? O! then how impotent and infirme is ſin? This is every where intimated in ſacred Philoſophie.Ezech. 16.30.Ezek 16:30 So Ezech. 16.30. How weak is thy heart! i.e. how ſick, faint, and impotent by reaſon of luſt. Yet it follows: Seing thou doeſt al theſe things, the workes of an imperioſe whoriſh woman. She had potent imperioſe luſts, but a weak heart to reſiſt tentations. Sin is ſaid to be a poiſonous bitter root, which ſheds its maligne influences on al our Affections and Actions.Deut. 29.18.Deut 29:18 Thus Deut. 29.18. Apoſtaſie is ſaid to be a root bearing gal and bitterneſſe. The Hebrew foreign rendred Gal, ſignifies a poiſonous herbe; and ſo it muſt be rendred here, a root, whoſe influences and fruits are poiſonous and bitter. Thence the LXX. render it, foreign, ſpringing up in gal, or poiſon and bitterneſſe. For foreign ſignifies both gal and poiſon, anſwerable to foreign, becauſe the poiſon of ſome Serpents lies in their gal.Act. 8.23.Acts 8:23 Peter alludes hereto, Act. 8.23. where foreign, ſignifies the bitter poiſonous root of corrupt nature. So Heb. 12.15.Heb. 12.15.Heb 12:15 Root of bitterneſſe: i.e. poiſonous root of ſin. Nothing ſo poiſonous and killing as ſin. Whence ſinners are ſaid to be, Jer. 17.9. foreign, deſperately ſick, even unto death. So Eſa. 24.4. languiſheth, as a feeble, crazy, conſumtive bodie, as v. 5. Baſil, in Pſal. ſaith, That men are rendred by Virtue or Grace foreign, without wound and blemiſh: whence they become, foreign, inexpugnable and free, as before, Chap. 3. Thence it neceſſarily follows, that ſin is the wound and blemiſh of the Soul, that which renders it moſt impotent and ſervile. That ſin is ful of impotence and infirmitie Plato once and again inculcates. So Repub. 4. pag. 430. he ſaith, An intemperate man foreign, weaker than himſelf; whereas a temperate man is foreign, more potent than himſelf, i.e. than his ſenſual appetite. p. 129Thus in his Timaeus, pag. 86, 87. he proves, That the irregularitie of our affections is the worſt diſeaſe. So Repub. 10. pag. 608. he informes us, That evil is that which diſſolves and corrupts things, but good conſerves and relieves. And thence he concludes, That a ſervile Sinner hath nothing ſound. Laſtly, Repub. 1. he ſaith, Ʋnrighteouſneſſe is the diſeaſe of the Soul.

4. Sin is the ſpot, ſtain and defilement of the Soul,Sin the defilement of the Soul. and therefore the greateſt ſervitude. Virtue gives a Nitor, Luſtre, Splendor, Beautie, and Glorie to the Soul; but Sin is the Blot and blemiſh of human Nature: indeed nothing can pollute and defile the Soul but Sin, and ſinful Idols. Hence we find mention,Deut. 29.17. Ezech. 23.7.Deut 29:17Ezek 23:7 Deut. 29.17. & Ezech. 23.7. of foreign, gillulim, filthy Idols. The word ſignifies both filth and Idols, or ſordid, dunghil, filthy Idols, ſuch as pollute by the very touch. So Levit. 26.30. Pſal. 106.28. The Soul, by its luſts, running into and being made one with filthy Idols, is thereby made filthy and impure: as on the contrary, when it mingles with things above it, God and things virtuoſe, it's thereby made more pure and excellent. We read alſo, Tit. 1.11. of filthy lucre. Lucre is not filthy in it ſelf, but being beneath the Soul, it defiles the ſame when it is coveted thereby. For when the heart of man runs down into things beneath it ſelf, it is thereby defiled, whence ſuch things are called filthy Idols. This alſo Plato obſerved: whence in his Minos, he tels us, foreign, A good man is of al most ſacred: but a wicked man most impure and polluted. Sin indeed pollutes the whole man. (1) It defiles mens perſons: whence ſinners are termed Swine, Mat. 7.6. which are the moſt unclean Creatures. (2) It defiles mens Minds and Conſciences, Tit. 1.15. (3) It defiles mens Diſcourſes, words, and communications: Eſa. 9.17. Every mouth ſpeaketh folie. foreign, which is rendred villanie, Chap. 32.6. ſignifies the flowers and leaves of plants putrified and rotten. So Epheſ. 4.29. No corrupt communication. foreign ſignifies rotten, ſtinking, noiſome, like rotten fruits or ſtinking breath. (4) It defiles mens Actions and Fruits: Mat. 7.17. foreign maligne fruits. (5) It pollutes whole Nations and Churches. Hence Iſrael in her Apoſtaſie is ſaid to be,Hoſ. 8.8.Hos 8:8 Hoſ. 8.8. a veſſel wherein is no pleaſure: i.e. as ſome expound it, like ſuch veſſels as are moſt abject, and expoſed to the moſt ſordid uſes, to retein only excrements. So Lam. 1.8, 9. Zeph. 3.1. (6) Yea Sin pollutes our very Righteouſneſſe and makes it unclean.Eſa. 64.6.Isa 64:6 Eſa. 64.6. As an p. 130unclean thing, or perſon; becauſe the terme is maſculine. As a lumpe of ſome filthy mater, or ſuch unclean ſtuffe, as by the Law was to be burned, Lev. 13.55, 57. or like ſome leproſe perſon; or one laboring under ſome noiſome diſeaſe, even from the crown of the head to the ſole of the foot, as Chap. 1.6. Thence he addes: And al our righteouſneſſes as filthy rags. There are different interpretations of theſe words: ſome take them as an alluſion to Beggers Ragges: others, to Ragges polluted by putrified ſores: others, to garments defiled by bloud: others, to menſtruous ragges: but al generally agree in this, that the terme notes much defilement. In ſum, there is this univerſal defilement on human Nature: Adams perſon firſt polluted our nature; and our natures polluted defile our perſons and whatever procedes from us, or is inherent in us. Hence,

5. Sin is the Reproche, Sin ful of ſhame and reproche.Diſhonor, Shame, and Diſgrace of the Soul. As God has entailed honor and renown on true Virtue, ſo ſhame and diſgrace on Sin: neither can the wit and power of man cut off this Entail. This is frequently inculcated in ſacred Philoſophie, which teacheth us, That Sin doth degrade men, and ſtrip them of their higheſt excellence, clothing them with ſhame and reproche.Eſa. 32.5.Isa 32:5 Thuch Eſa. 32.5. The vile perſon ſhal no more be called liberal, nor the churle ſaid to be bountiful. foreign nabal ſignifies primarily a vile perſon, a man of no worth, like a withered flower, or leaf in Autumne. Thence it ſignifies a fool, as Abigal's ſpeech importes, 1 Sam. 25.25. Such a vile fooliſh ſinner ſhal no more be called foreign nadib, i.e. free, noble, ingenuous, generoſe Prince. No Nabal or vile ſinner, ſhal, in the days of Chriſts glorioſe reigne, (which this Text refers to, as v. 1, &c.) be called Nadib, free, generoſe Prince. Eſa. 14.20.Isa 14:20This is more fully expreſſed, Eſa. 14.20. The ſeed of evil-doers ſhal never be renowned. foreign, ſhal not be named: or ſhal not be men of name, or renown for ever. The great God delights to clothe proud ſinners with ſhame and reproche. Thus Eſa. 22.17.Eſa. 22.17.Isa 22:17 Behold the Lord wil carrie thee away with a mighty captivitie, and wil ſurely cover thee. Hebr. in covering wil cover thee. This repetition, according to the Hebrew Idiome, importes, (1) Certainty, (2) Expedition, (3) Abundance, (4) Continuance. He ſhal certainly, ſpeedily, abundantly, and continually cover thee. Ay but with what? With ſhame and reproche. It implies ſuch a covering as perſons fallen into diſgrace, or carried captive, or condemned to die were wont to have, whoſe faces were covered, as p. 131unworthy to ſee light. And who was it, who ſhould be thus covered? It was Shebna the Kings Treaſurer, a man covered and clothed with gorgeous apparel, and many Titles of Honor, as v. 18. God firſt or laſt clothes the higheſt of ſinners with ſhame and reproche. Sin ſtrips men of their higheſt excellences, and then God, in juſt judgement, clothes them with diſgrace.Exod. 32.25.Exod 32:25 So Exod. 32.25. And when Moſes ſaw the people were naked. foreign, naked, in the ſhame of their ſins, diveſted of the glorie of God. So it follows: For Aaron had made them naked unto their ſhame amongst their enemies. Ʋnto their ſhame, foreign, or, unto their infamie. LXX. a rejoicing and mockery, namely to their adverſaries. Sin makes men a ſhame, infamie, and reproche to their friends, and the ſcorne, mockery, and rejoicing of their adverſaries. What more contumelioſe and reprocheful to human Nature, than to be a voluntary drudge of Sin and Satan? Whiles Nations and Churches keep cloſe to God, they are formidable and terrible to their enemies; but when by ſin they depart from God, they are the reproche of al. Thus Ephraim, Hoſ. 13.1. When Ephraim ſpake trembling, Hoſ. 13.1, 2.Hos 13:1Hos 13:2he exalted himſelf in Iſrael. Some read it thus: Ephraim was a tremblement to him that heard him: i.e. ſo long as he kept cloſe to God, he was formidable to al his enemies, he was exalted in honor and renown. But when he offended in Baal he died: i.e. he is now moſt abject and contemtible in the eyes of al. And why? becauſe he hath departed from the Worſhip of God to worſhip Baal. Thence it follows, v. 2. And now they ſin more and more. Hebr. They adde ſin to ſin. O! what an ignoble thing is ſin? Doth it not bring al under a ſcorne? Thus Iſrael in Babylon, Lam. 3.14. I am made a deriſion to al my people. Or, as others, to al people, namely round about. Thence Paul demands of the Romans, Rom. 6.21. What fruit had ye then in theſe things whereof ye are now aſhamed? The ſtate of ſin is always attended with ſhame and bondage. This was alſo wel obſerved by Plato and many of the wiſer Heathens. Thus Plato, in his Phaedrus, cals foreign, concupiſcence, foreign, the contumelie or reproche of human Nature. So in his Gorg. pag. 477. he ſaies, foreign, The pravitie of the Soul is the baſeſt and vileſt of althings. Yea, he affirmes: foreign, It is not only by Law, but by Nature more baſe to do an injurie than to receive it. So in his Sympoſium, pag. 183. he ſaith, That love is of it ſelf neither excellent nor vile; but if it be irregular, it is moſt vile. p. 132Whence he concludes: foreign, It is therefore a vile thing, vily to obey any vile thing, ſuch as ſin is. And he addes, pag. 184. foreign, To luſt after riches or civil power is moſt baſe and vile. The like in his Leg. 5. foreign, Injuſtice is the baſeſt thing imaginable. And he ſubjoins the reaſon: For he that fils his Soul with ſins, foreign doth reproche it, and make it vile. Indeed nothing can make man vile, unleſſe he firſt make himſelf vile by ſin. Thence Anacharſis being upbraided by an Athenian, that he was a Scythian, of a baſe Countrey; he replied, My Countrey is a diſgrace to me, but thou art a diſgrace to thy Countrey: meaning by his vitioſe courſes. And is not this too true of too many Engliſhmen? It's true, many, by reaſon of their high condition in the world, may be exemted from the puniſhment of their ſin, yet aſſuredly none is or can be exemted from the ſhame of it. Thence Baſil, Pſal. ſaith, foreign, That there is a turpitude and impreſſed ſtampe or print of ſin, as it were of an indeleble tincture. Al other excellences cannot keep a man from being vile, if ſinful. Antiochus a King is ſaid to be a vile perſon, becauſe wicked. Seneca tels us, That none is contemned by another, but he who firſt makes himſelf contemtible by ſin: a free noble mind may live in a Cottage; whereas ſervitude may inhabit a marble golden Palace. Pious humilitie exalts the Soul by making it ſubject to God, but proud ſelf-exaltation brings down the Soul: nothing more ſervile and baſe than to be ſubject to the imperioſe dictates of proud vile luſts.

6. Sin is the greateſt Tyrannie, Sin the Tyrannie of the Soul.and therefore its ſervitude greateſt. Plato, Repub. 9. pag. 574, &c. gives us a copioſe, lively, and emphatic illuſtration of the Tyrannie of Self-love: foreign, &c. When the Soul has ſubjected it ſelf to the Tyrannie of Love, it's hurried into al manner of flagitioſe vices, neither can he abſtain therefrom: but that tyrannic Love living in him, foreign, in al manner of Anarchie and lawleſſe Empire, as a great Monarch, precipitates him into al manner of vices. So alſo pag. 577. The mind being ſubject to tyrannic Luſt cannot do what it would, but is torne in pieces by violent aſſaults, &c. Yea he affirmes, That by how much the more men indulge and obſerve the commands of Luſt, by ſo much the more tyrannic and inſolent it is. So in his Gorg. pag. 478. He muſt needs live miſerably, who p. 133carries about with him unrighteouſneſſe, that imperioſe Lady, whoſe commands he can never be free from. And indeed thus much ſacred Philoſophie informes us, That he who refuſeth to be under the ſweet Empire of the divine Law, fals under the miſerable ſervitude of ſins tyrannie. Thus Rom. 5.21. foreign,Rom. 5.21.Rom 5:21 Sin is brought in as a great Tyrant, ruling with the greatest rigor imaginable, even unto death. So Rom. 6.12.Rom. 6.12.Rom 6:12 Let not ſin therefore reign in your mortal bodies, that you ſhould obey it in the luſts thereof. foreign, he brings in Sin as an infamous imperioſe Lady, whom to ſerve is moſt unworthy of a free ingenuous Spirit. Thus Rom. 3.9. For we have before proved, both Jews and Gentiles, Rom. 3.9.Rom 3:9that they are al under ſin. Schmidius reads the firſt part thus: For we have been al long ago accuſed and convinced, namely Pſal. 14.1, 2, 3. of what? That al are under ſin. foreign, to be under ſin, is to be under the Juriſdiction, Tyrannie, and Subjection of Sin; which is here brought in as ſome imperioſe domineering Lord, that delights to tyranniſe over his Vaſſals. Sin is the baſeſt thing in the world: O then how ſervile is ſubjection to its Tyrannie! A ſinner addicted to any baſe tyrannic Idol he luſts after, doth not poſſeſſe that beloved Idol, but that poſſeſſeth him, and brings him under a miſerable Tyrannie, ſo that he can neither part with, nor enjoy what he luſts after: and by how the more the Idols he luſts after are multiplied, by ſo much the leſſe power has he over himſelf, or the things which he poſſeſſeth. And the ſoverain power and tyrannie of ſin appears in nothing more than in this, that men do voluntarily obey its dicates and commands. Such whoſe hearts are chained to any inferior Idol, have no power over themſelves: they are not their own: they have no dominion over their own perſons, actions, objects of uſe or fruition, in moral eſtimation. There is nothing that human Nature more abhors, than to be under the Tyrannie of others; and yet al ſinners electively embrace a ſelf-tyrannie, to be under the power of tyrannic luſts.

7. Al Sin is ful of Penurie, Want and Neceſſitie; Sin ful of penurie and want.which is another attendent of ſervitude. Plato, Repub. 9. pag. 577. tels us, That the Soul under the Tyrannie of Sin, foreign, must neceſſarily be always under an indigent inſatiable condition. So in his Politicus, pag. 274. foreign, By al theſe things, [meaning ſuch as attended the Fal of Man] men were driven into great ſtraits. Thus alſo, Rep. 9. pag. 579. ſpeaking p. 134of one under the tyrannie of luſt, he ſaith, He is a ſlave; neither are his luſts ever ſatisfied: foreign, and he indeed appears to be a beggar, if any one knows how to look into his Soul. There is nothing ſo indigent and greedy as luſt: the more it has the more it wants: which denotes great ſlaverie.Luk. 15.13, 14, 15.Luke 15:13Luke 15:14Luke 15:15 Thus we find exemplified in the Prodigal, Luk. 15.13, 14, 15. What is ſpoken here of famine, want, feeding on huskes with ſwine, &c. demonſtrates that great penurie, ſlaverie and miſerie, which thoſe who are ſlaves to their luſts are obnoxious unto. This is in a more peculiar manner viſible in ſuch whoſe hearts are captivated by richeſſe,Neminem pecunia divitem facit: imo contrà nulli non majorem ſui cupiditatem incuſſit. Quaeris quae ſit hujus rei cauſa? Plus incipit habere poſſe, qui plus habet. Seneca. pleaſures, or honors. The avaricious man has a vehement deſire to be rich, and yet that very deſire or luſt makes him poor: yea, the richer he is as to this worlds goods, the poorer he is as to the real uſe and comfort of what he has: whiles he endeavors to encreaſe an infinite treaſure of riches, his luſts alſo are infinitely increaſed, which make him moſt poor. Thus alſo ſenſual and ambitioſe men, the more they have the more they want: the encreaſe of what they luſt after makes them poorer as to real comfort and ſatisfaction therein. Sin indeed makes men moſt poor, in that it deprives them of God, who is the beſt riches. O! what a poor, ſhiftleſſe, forlorne, miſerable thing, or rather nothing is Sin.

8. Sin captivates the Soul, Sin the fetters of the Soul.puts chains and fetters on it; which is a great piece of ſervitude. Al luſts do contract, pinion, and bind up the Soul, which is in it ſelf moſt ample and extenſive. Thus Plato, in his Phaedo, pag. 83. ſaith, The mind, foreign, is bound or fettered by ſenſual luſts. And he ſubjoins the reaſon: Becauſe every pleaſure and every dolor of the mind, being as it were armed with a nail, doth faſten it to the bodie, foreign, and makes it corporeous, or ſenſual like the bodie. Wherein he gives us a lively ſymbolic image, how the Soul, by ſenſual luſts, becomes glued and chained to the bodie, yea transformed thereinto. Every Idol luſted after captivates the heart: ſo many luſts ſo many chains: yea every repeted act of ſin brings the Soul under new fetters and bonds: the longer ſuch go on in ways of ſin, the greater ſlaves they are. It's true, ſome mens chains are lined with pleaſures, or gilded over with terrene richeſſe; but yet that addes not to their libertie: yea, the greateſt natures and moſt noble diſpoſitions, if ſinful, have the greateſt chains: for by how much the more free ſuch conceit they are, or affect to be, by ſo much p. 135the more they are intangled in their luſts, as Eſa. 44.20. Such as feed on any Idol, are chained thereto, neither is it poſſible for them to deliver their own Souls. Thus Hoſ. 4.17. Ephraim is joined to Idols, foreign bound, glued, chained. It alludes to the conjunction of unclean perſons, whereby they become as it were one fleſh, as 1 Cor. 6.16. Iſrael was chained to her Idols by indiſſoluble bonds of falſe Worſhip, and it was impoſſible to pul her thence. foreign Idols, from foreign, which ſignifies grief, ſtraits, trouble. Idols do greatly ſtraiten, torment, and vexe ſinners, and yet they cannot part with them. Plato, Repub. 9. pag. 579. tels us, That ſinners are ſhut up in the priſon of their own luſts, and fettered by their irregular deſires. Yea, indeed every ſinner is chained to the worſt of Idols, himſelf, and fettered by his own luſts. This we find exemplified in Simon Magus, Act. 8.9. giving out that himſelf was ſome great one: i.e. potent in miracles,Act. 8.9.23.Acts 8:9Acts 8:23 one that could do great feats. Ambitioſe ſelf was that unhappy Centre, unto which he was chained. And it is worthy our ſerious obſervation to conſider, how this Idol chains and fetters his heart, even by and under a profeſſion of Religion. The caſe ſtood thus: Simon perceiving the Apoſtles to outſhine him in doing miracles, he has a mind to turne Chriſtian, thereby to gain the ſame power, they were inveſted with, as v. 19. Give me alſo this power. Peter ſmelling out his ambitioſe ranke hypocriſie, tels him, in plain termes, v. 23. I perceive thou art in the gal of bitterneſſe and bond of iniquitie. This foreign, bond of iniquitie ſignifies, (1) a Covenant or compact with iniquitie: ſuch as is between Servants and Maſters, or thoſe who are in ſome deep conſpiracie. And ſo the ſenſe is: he was ſtil a ſworne ſlave of iniquitie: one bound to ſin by an Oath of Allegeance and Supremacie. (2) It is uſed by the LXX. to expreſſe the bands of iniquitie, or a chain, ſuch as priſoners are kept in, Eſa. 58.6. (3) It denotes, the binding up of many things together. Thus was Simons heart bound up by the chains of many ſins. And we find ſomething like to this in Plato's Cratylus, pag. 415. where he ſaith, That the vitioſitie of the mind appears much in ſloth: and he thence concludes; foreign, Therefore ſloth indicates, that the bond or chain of the Soul is most potent and tenacious.

9. Sin is the greateſt ſervitude, in that it makes men ſots, fools, Sin folie and madneſſe.and mad men: it deprives of the uſe of reaſon. Thus Plato, Protagor. pag. 332. foreign; Do not p. 136they who act irregularly, act fooliſhly and madly? So, in his Phaedrus, pag. 231. he makes inordinate love a kind of madneſſe. Alſo in his Timaeus, pag. 86. he makes foreign, ignorance, ſpecially of the ſupreme Being and Truth, to be foreign, the diſeaſe and madneſſe of the Soul. And the reaſon is evident; becauſe the proper office and uſe of Reaſon is to unite the mind to its object Truth, and ſo by conſequence to that Truth primarily, which is first, and moſt intelligible in it ſelf, namely God, in the contemplation of whom the minds perfection conſiſtes. But now ſin diſunites the mind from God, and fils it with ignorance, folie, and madneſſe. Hence the knowlege of the wicked is termed by Plato foreign, nocturnal knowlege; becauſe it neither illuminates, nor directs, nor delights them, which are the three main offices of knowlege. Thus our Lord, the firſt Light and Truth, aſſures us, Mat. 6.23. That the very light and knowlege of wicked men, though never ſo much cultivated and elevated by acquired notions, or commun illuminations of the Spirit, is but darkneſſe, yea the blackest darkneſſe. Stobaeus alſo informes us, That, according to Plato, nothing was foreign, ridiculous or abſurd but ſin. And Grotius tels us, That Plato conjoined foreign and foreign, as Luk. 23.41. ſo that nothing is indeed abſurd but ſin. Hence frequently in ſacred Philoſophie ſinners are ſaid to be without foreign, an heart, i.e. practic judgement or conſcience rightly informed, as Jer. 5.21. and in the Proverbs oft. Yea wicked men are ſtiled, Pſal. 5 5. as elſewhere, foreign, mad men. Thence it is ſaid of the Prodigal, Luk. 15.17. When he came to himſelf, i.e. to an awakened conſcience and ſound mind: which denotes, that ſo long as he lived in ſin, he was not himſelf, but like a mad man. And indeed the more wit men have, if under the power of ſin, the greater mad men, fools, and ſlaves they are; becauſe their wit doth but ſerve to entangle them in their luſts: their reaſon doth but fortifie their minds with arguments and cavils againſt the means of their libertie.

10. Sin, Sin when prevalent makes men Bestes.when in its dominion and prevalence, transformes men into mere Brutes, which is the worſt of ſervitude. Plato ſtiles ſenſual affections the brutiſh part of a man, which when they prevail, transforme him into a beſte. For whatever the heart of man doth vehemently adhere unto, it receives a ſtampe and character from; yea is transformed thereinto: if the Soul ſtrongly adhere to God, it has the impreſſe of his image ſtamped on it: if unto p. 137the world, it is transformed into the ſpirit of the world. And the reaſon is evident; becauſe al love is a kind of ingreſſe, or running of the heart into what it loves: Thence follows firſt Ʋnion, and then, if it may be, Ʋnitie with its beloved. And where it cannot attain to Ʋnitie, it affects Reſſemblance and ſimilitude. Thus ſinners having their hearts glued to the Idols of time, are tranſformed into their likeneſſe: by loving ſenſual carnal objects, they become ſenſual and carnal. Hence we find ſenſual ſinners ſtiled, 2 Pet. 2.12. foreign, natural brute beſtes. Neither is this the caſe of ſenſual ſinners only, but of the moſt refined ſpirits under the power of any baſe luſts. The Apoſtle ſpeaking of al mankind in a natural ſtate, ſaith that every man is, 1 Cor. 2.14. foreign, an animal brutiſh man. Sin has made al human Nature inhuman and brutiſh: a man is not a man, in true moral and divine eſtimation, til he be virtuoſe: the wiſeſt and beſt of men, if not ſanctified, are but animal and brutiſh. Thence the Lord makes diligent inquiſition throughout Jeruſalem, If there were a man to be found, Jer. 5.1. How few men then are to be found in this ſenſual age! Al ſinners carrie the image of Satan or of Beſtes: they are either like Satan in ſubtiltie and malice; or like Beſtes in ſenſualitie. And ah! what a miſerable Metamorphoſis is this, for man to be made like a beſte! were it not much better for man to be a beſte, than to be like a beſte? For man by being like a beſte degrades himſelf, yea placeth himſelf below the condition of a beſte, which keeps in that ſtate it was made by God.

§. 7. Having conſidered the ſervitude of Sin in regard of the Adjuncts and Effects that attend ſin, we now come to conſider this ſervitude in its own proper Attributes and Affections, thereby farther to demonſtrate how miſerable it is.

1. The ſervitude of Sin is moſt voluntary and wilful, and therefore moſt miſerable. Electively to eſpouſe evil is the worſt of evils.The ſervitude of Sin is most voluntary. The ſlaverie of ſin is in this moſt miſerable, that men voluntarily elect their ſlaverie. They that take the moſt libertie in ſinning are the greateſt ſlaves; becauſe voluntary ſlaves:Nulla ſervitus turpior quàm voluntaria. Every ſinner naturally eſtimes his Priſon his Palace; his Hel, his Heaven. The wil tamely and voluntarily puts it ſelf into the fetters of ſin, which renders its ſervitude moſt ſordid: for the more there is of the wil in ſin, the more of ſin and ſlaverie: when the ſervitude of ſin becomes a rational choice to the ſinner, it is extreme miſerable: when p. 138men hugge and embrace their chains, love and delight in their ſins, yea take a kind of ſatisfaction therein, what forlorne ſlaves are they! Who can pitie ſuch, who have no pitie for themſelves? Now that al the ſlaves of ſin are voluntarily ſuch, and ſo moſt miſerable, Plato aſſures us, in his Phaedrus, pag. 238. foreign, &c. It's altogether neceſſary, that he who voluntarily ſubjects himſelf to the empire of luſt, be as a ſick man, &c. i.e. reſtleſſe in every condition. So Ariſtotle, Eth. l. 3. c. 15. ſaith, foreign, Old men voluntarily ſerve lucre or profit, as their Idol. This voluntary ſervitude of ſin, the Scripture ſometimes ſtiles a ſelling a mans ſelf to do evil, as 1 Kings 21.20. 2 Kings 17.17. To ſel himſelf to do evil implies a deliberate,Nec voluptates ſibi emit, ſed ſe voluptatibus vendit. Sen. Rom. 6.16.Rom 6:16 voluntary, wilful giving up himſelf to ſin, which is the higheſt ſervitude: for he that ſels himſelf to be a ſlave, is deſervedly ſuch. This is lively expreſſed in ſacred Philoſophie, Rom. 6.16. Know ye not, that to whom ye yield your ſelves ſervants to obey, his ſervants ye are to whom ye obey: whether of ſin unto death, or of obedience unto righteouſneſſe? foreign, to whom ye yield your ſelves ſervants. foreign, is, ſo to yield a mans ſelf a ſervant to another, as to obſerve every beck and nod of him to whom he yields himſelf a ſervant, with al manner of promtitude to obey his commands: yea it ſignifies, to ſeek an occaſion of ſerving him. Thus thoſe that yield themſelves ſervants of ſin to obey it in the luſts thereof become voluntary ſlaves thereof, and ſeek al manner of occaſions to ſerve it. We find the ſame word uſed in the ſame ſenſe, v. 13. Neither yield your members weapons of unrighteouſneſſe unto ſin. foreign, Neither obſerve al the becks and nods of ſin, do not catch at occaſions for the ſerving of it: be not ready to obey its irregular dictates; as it is the practice of thoſe who are ſlaves thereof. The word is no where elſe uſed in the N.T. This voluntary ſervitude of ſin is expreſſed Mich. 7.3. by doing iniquitie with both hands earnestly, or ſtrenuouſly, i.e. with a violent impetuoſe, deliberate bent of heart. The wil is in every thing the beſt or the worſt: when mens wils are in their ſins O! how loth are they to part with their chains, their burdens! how do they hugge themſelves therein! If mens wils be in their ſlaverie, it is by ſo much the worſe: men are never ſo much ſlaves, as when their wils are in their ſlaverie.

2. The ſervitude of Sin is not more voluntary, The ſervicude of Sin most neceſſary.than neceſſary; which addes much to its miſerable ſtate. The more voluntarily p. 139men ſin, the more neceſſarily: and the more neceſſarily, the more voluntarily: the voluntarineſſe of ſin addes to its neceſſitie; and the neceſſitie to its voluntarineſſe; and both to its ſervitude. This neceſſitie, whereby the ſinner is determined only to ſin, ariſeth from his own free and voluntary impietie. Its dura neceſſitas, as Augustine phraſeth it; and therefore the more ſervile, becauſe voluntary. As a perſon laboring under a violent fever the more he drinkes to extinguiſh his heat, the more his heat and thirſt is augmented: ſo ſinners the more greedily they drinke down ſin, the more is the feveriſh heat of luſt inflamed; thence the more neceſſarily do they thirſt after it. Wherefore this wretched neceſſitie, that attends ſin, doth not oppoſe its voluntarineſſe, but ariſe from it: the more the ſinner delights in ſin, the more he is enſlaved to it: and the more neceſſarily he is enſlaved to it, the more freely doth he act it. Such a miſerable neceſſitie is he under: For the more inſuperable and inevitable any ſervitude is, the more miſerable it is: and ſuch is the ſlaverie of ſin: al the wit, power, and conflicts of corrupt Nature cannot deliver the ſinner from it. Men are eaſily drawen into ſin, but not from it. No man ever did by his own forces deliver himſelf from this ſlaverie, and therefore no man can: an argument from the Act to the Power is here valid. Yea, this ſervitude of ſin is ſo invincible and neceſſary, that the ſinner wants not only an active power to deliver himſelf, but the next paſſive power and deſire of being delivered from it. This neceſſary ſervitude of ſin is termed by Plato, a miſerable Neceſſitie. So in his Phileb. pag. 22. he ſaith, That thoſe who chooſe ſin chooſe it either, foreign, ignorantly and against their wil, or from a miſerable neceſſitie. Wherein obſerve, (1) That he diſtinguiſheth ſins into ſuch as are from ignorance and involuntary; and ſuch as are voluntary and neceſſary. (2) He ſaith the neceſſitie that attends ſin is miſerable. He elſewhere makes mention of foreign, a bleſſed Neceſſitie, which attends moral libertie, i.e. when men neceſſarily elect and adhere to what is beſt: but as for this Neceſſitie, which attends mens voluntary adherence to ſin, Oh how miſerable is it! Men are tormented by their ſins, and yet cannot leave them.

This miſerable Neceſſitie of ſinning is both connate and adnate, Neceſſitie of Sin connate and adnate.ariſing partly from the corruption of Nature, partly from cuſtome in ſin. Continuance in frequent voluntary repetitions of ſinful p. 140acts breeds a fixed cuſtome and rooted habit of ſin, whereby the ſervitude of ſin becomes neceſſary and inſuperable. Thus Plato, Repub. 4. foreign, &c. The leaſt prevarication, like a joke, ſecretly and eaſily creeps into mens minds, and by cuſtome becoming familiar to us, by little and little ſteals into private and public manners: wherefore good education is neceſſary. Thence, Leg. 5. pag. 728. he ſaith, It is the greatest puniſhment to be aſſimilated to wicked men; for thereby they imbibe their cuſtomes, and come to have one and the ſame affection with them. So Leg. 7. he ſaith, Man is an Animal, which by good education is made tame and mild; but by bad, wild and fierce. Whence beholding ſome playing at dice, he greatly rebuked them for it: and being asked, Why he ſo ſeverely reprehended them for ſuch a ſmal mater? he replied: But the cuſtome is not ſmal: meaning, that ſinful cuſtomes, though about ſmal maters, were not ſmal, in that they drew on a neceſſitie of ſinning. So in his Timaeus, pag. 86. he ſaith, foreign, By an evil habit or cuſtome an evil man is made evil, in an high degree. Hence Antiſthenes, being demanded, What was chiefly to be learnt? replied, foreign, to unlearne evils, i.e. evil cuſtomes. Radicated cuſtomes produce a neceſſitude of ſin and ſervitude, in that they occecate, indurate and harden conſcience in ſin. This occecation and induration of conſcience was ſtiled by Plato and others, foreign and foreign, Apathie and Inſenſibilitie. foreign, Apathie, Definit. Plat. is defined, foreign, An habit, by which we abhor from affections. foreign or Inſenſibilitie of ſin is wel expreſſed by Ariſtotle, Rhet. l. 2. c. 5. foreign, The greatest ſins are least ſenſible. By how much the more ſtupid and ſenſeleſſe conſcience is, by ſo much the more neceſſary and incurable is the ſervitude of ſin. This Apathie or Inſenſibilitie of conſcience,1 Tim. 4.2.1 Tim 4:2 is wel ſet forth, 1 Tim. 4.2. foreign, Having their conſcience cauteriſed, or marqued with a cauter. foreign, from foreign, to burne, ſignifies a cauter or hot iron, or whatever may be uſed by Chirurgeons to burne the fleſh. Thence foreign, by burning to ſet a marque, or to dead the fleſh. The ſenſe is, that their conſciences were burned, made dead and ſenſeleſſe by luſts; as proud fleſh by a Cauter. Again, this Apathie of Conſcience is in ſacred Philoſophie ſet forth by foreign, which being derived from foreign a ſtone, ſignifies properly a calloſe concretion, like that of ſtones; thence Hardneſſe, Inſenſibilitie, p. 141Inflexibilitie, Immobilitie. It is uſed metaphorically,Mar. 3.5.Mark 3:5 Mar. 3.5. to denote the calloſe concretion and hardneſſe of heart, by reaſon of ſin. Whence it is expounded by Suidas, foreign, occecation. Thence foreign, (whence foreign is immediately deduced) is by Suidas and Phavorinus interpreted, foreign, to harden, and petrifie, or turne into a ſtone: by the LXX. foreign, to hebetate, Gen. 27.1. foreign, to darken, Deut. 34.7. foreign, to make heavy, 1 Kings 3.2. foreign, to exanimate, or diſpirit, Ezech. 21.7. foreign, to excecate, Zach. 11.17. Yet according to the proper ſtrict notion, foreign differs from foreign, as Joh. 12 40. By al which it appears, that frequent repeted cuſtome in ſin renders the conſcience blind, obdurate, and ſenſeleſſe;Difficulter reciduntur vitia, quae nobiſcum creverunt. Definit eſſe remedio locus, ubi quae fuerant vitia mores ſunt. Sen. ſo that the greateſt moral evils are not felt, whereby ſin becomes neceſſary and immobile. For when once conſcience is, by frequent repetition of ſins, cauteriſed, diſpirited and made ſenſeleſſe, it leaves men to the ſwinge of their own luſts; whereupon follows a miſerable neceſſitie of ſin and ſervitude; which ends at laſt in judicial hardneſſe. Neither doth this immobilitie and neceſſitie of ſinning diminiſh, but aggravate the guilt of ſin: for this neceſſitie is contracted by the wils voluntary purſuit after ſin: and is it not juſt with God to leave men under the power of their luſts, ſeing they electively deſire to be under them? The ſum of al is this. (1) There is a natural obduration or hardneſſe of conſcience, which is innate and connate with corrupt Nature. (2) There is an adnate or acquired hardneſſe by cuſtome in ſin, Heb. 3.13. (3) There is a judicial hardneſſe inflicted by God as a puniſhment, which ſeals up ſinners from the darkneſſe of mind to the darkneſſe of Hel. Each of theſe Hardneſſes has a neceſſary ſervitude of ſin attending of it, though gradually different. For the ſecond ſuperaddes to the firſt, as the third to the ſecond.

3. The ſervitude of Sin is infinite. The ſervitude of Sin infinite.This Hypotheſis is frequently inculcated not only in ſacred, but alſo in Platonic Philoſophic. The ſervitude of ſin is infinite, (1) If we regard the object of ſin, as it is a departure from an infinite good. (2) If we conſider the object or mater it turnes unto, which is an infinite number of Idols. So Pſal. 16.4. Their ſorrows ſhal be multiplied, that haſten after another God. Their ſorrows, or according to the Hebrew, their Idols: i.e. They that forſake the true God, ſhal multiplie to themſelves an infinite number of Idol-Gods, according to their luſts: which indeed is a great piece of ſervitude; becauſe every p. 142Idol is a great Tyrant. Thus Plato, Rep. 9. ſaith, An avaricious man foreign, whiles he endeavors to heap up an infinite treaſure of richeſſe, involves himſelf in infinite evils. (3) This ſervitude of Sin is infinite in regard of the Subject, the Soul, its infinite inſatiable deſire after its Idols.Hab. 2.5.Hab 2:5 Thus ſacred Philoſophie, Hab. 2.5. Who enlargeth his deſire as Hel. foreign amplifiath, extendeth, even to infinitie. foreign his Soul, deſire, or luſt foreign, as Hel, or rather as the grave, which is never ſatisfied with dead carcaſſes. Thence it follows: and is as death, and cannot be ſatiſfied. This infinite inextinguible thirſt after terrene goods is wel illuſtrated by Plato, in his Gorg. pag. 507. And therefore he must take care, leſt that giving way to his luſts, and cauſing them to wander up and down unpuniſhed, whiles he endeavors to ſatisfie them, he bring in foreign, an infinite evil, and live a vagrant, robbers life. Natural deſires are finite, but ſinful infinite, as Seneca. (4) The ſervitude of Sin is infinite, if we conſider the nature and kinds of Sin. Thus Plato, Repub. 5. pag. 445. I ſee as it were from a watchtower, that the face of Virtue is one, foreign, but the face of Sin is multiforme and infinite. Which his Scholar Ariſtotle wel explicates, Eth. l. 2. c. 5. pag. 89. Moreover there are many ways to ſin: foreign, for ſin is interminate and infinite, but good terminate and finite, as the Pythagoreans hold. This he expounds thus: There is but one way to hit the marque, but infinite ways to miſſe it. Thence, ſaith Seneca, Men follow ſins without meaſure, without end: for indeed they have neither end nor meaſure. Al moral good is bounded and meaſured by God as its laſt end, and the Law of God as its rule: but ſin knows no bounds either of End or Law. Virtue conſiſtes in number, weight, and meaſure; but ſin is void of each. This infinitude of ſin and its ſervitude is ſet forth to the life in ſacred Philoſophie; Amos 5.12. For I know your manifold tranſgreſſions and your mighty ſins. Here is infinitude both as to multitude and magnitude. This infinite ſervitude of Sin is oft ſet forth by a miſerable Amplitude. So Prov. 5.23. And in the amplitude of his folie, or ſin, ſhal he wander. So Prov. 21.4. Eſa. 57.10. Jer. 13.22.

4. The ſervitude of Sin is moſt penal and afflictive, The ſervitude of Sin most penal.and therefore moſt miſerable. There were among the ancient Romans ſervi poenae, ſervants only of puniſhment, ſuch as were condemned to digge in metallic Mines, or to ſight with wild beſtes: and ſuch is every ſlave of ſin; he is obnoxious to the moſt ſevere puniſhments. p. 143This we ſhal explicate in the following Propoſitions. (1) Al moral Evil has guilt appendent thereto, as its immediate effect. Guilt is not a phyſic accident or mode inherent in the Sinner; but a moral debt contracted by him: which as to God importes a certain moral right he has to puniſh the offender. Whence Guilt is ſaid to be a medium or middle thing between ſin and puniſhment: for as to its terme it belongs to puniſhment; but as to the judge, it belongs to ſin: yet it more properly belongs to the ſin than puniſhment; becauſe it doth indeed antecede the puniſhment, but is inſeparably conjoined with the ſin.Noxa ſequitur caput. Thence foreign ſignifies both Guilt and Sin, denoting that guilt doth eſſentially and inſeparably adhere to al moral evil.

(2) Puniſhment is an evil of paſſion inflicted for ſome moral evil action. Puniſhment is ſaid to be the neceſſary debt of ſin, and naturally due to the Sinner, as he ſtands in relation to divine Juſtice;Qui malum fecit, malum ferat. yet the actual inflicting of this puniſhment is not abſolutely neceſſary in regard of divine Juſtice, but rather the effect of his wil: it is moſt juſt and morally neceſſary that the ſin ſhould be puniſhed: but yet it is not unjuſt for God to remit or relaxe this puniſhment, for the greater advance of his glorie. Every Soul that ſins deſerves puniſhment, and fals under an eſſential, natural, and neceſſary obligation thereto: and the execution of this puniſhment is morally neceſſary for the vindication of divine Juſtice: of which more fully, Chap. 11. Of the Juſtice of God.

(3) Puniſhment is either for the correction and emendation of the perſon offending, or for the ſatisfaction of Juſtice and the perſon offended: the former is uſually ſtiled foreign or foreign, caſtigation, which Plato makes to be foreign, the medicine of the Soul. So Plato, Gorg. pag. 478. tels us, That caſtigation is the medicine of impietie, &c. Thence Definit. Platon. foreign caſtigation is defined, foreign, The curation of the Soul from its ſin. This castigatory puniſhment is wel conſiſtent with moral libertie: for it's a good Maxime among the Civilians,Jure nullus ingenuus fit ſervus ex ſupplicio. Gloſſ. in Justin. Instit. That by right no ingenuous man is a ſervant of puniſhment: i. e. albeit he may be puniſhed as a free Citizen, yet he is not as a ſlave devoted and deſtined thereto. But vindictive, judiciary puniſhment, for the ſatisfaction of Juſtice and the perſon-offended, always carries ſervitude with it. Such offenders are properly poenae ſervi, according to ſacred Philoſophie children of wrath, i. e. ſentenced and adjudged to puniſhment. Hence that Effate among the p. 144Civilians: A Servant, whiles he lives, is, according to the civil Law, reputed as dead. Whence Slaves were anciently by the Grecians called foreign,Rev. 18.13.Rev 18:13 Bodies, as Rev. 18.13. becauſe they had no power over their own life, wils, or perſons, but were wholly their Lords. Hence,

(4) Every Sinner under the Dominion of Sin, is, Servus poenae, a Slave adjudged to the puniſhment of Sin. Puniſhment is the uſual attendent of ſervitude, and the proper effect of ſin. Indeed ſin and puniſhment came into the world together, and al the art of man cannot ſeparate them.Gen. 2.17.Gen 2:17 Thus, Gen. 2.17. In dying thou ſhalt die. This reduplication, according to the Hebrew Idiome, notes the certaintie, ſuddenneſſe, perfection and perpetuitie of this death. The righteous God never intended that any ſhould purchaſe ſin at an eaſie rate: he gathers his rods for puniſhment from the ſame tree, we planted by our ſin: Sin is the proper ſoil wherein puniſhment grows: thoſe that make bold with Gods Law, muſt expect that he make bold with their peace and comforts: Sin is never ſo ſwift in flying from God, but divine vengeance is as ſwift in perſuing of it. Divine wrath, which is the ſoreſt vengeance, lies in the bowels of every ſin: Death is the proper wages of ſin. Rom. 6.23.Rom 6:23So Rom. 6.23. foreign properly ſignifies that ſtipend of fiſh or food, which they gave to their Soldiers, to eat with their bread. Death is the proper ſtipend, which Sin gives to its Soldiers and Slaves to feed on, to preſerve life: it is the reward of al their labors and toil in the ways of ſin: 'tis their ſuſtenance and food; al they have to keep them alive unto al eternitie. And O! what a miſerable life is that, which is maintained by death?

(5) Sin is in it ſelf the greatest puniſhment, Sin in it ſelf the worst Jouniſhment.becauſe the greatest evil. Sin was the firſt evil that came into the world, that which opened the door to al other evils, and conteins in it the ſpirits, venime, and malignitie of al evils: therefore there cannot be a more ſevere puniſhment of ſin, than to be left to a courſe of ſin. This Plato once and again takes notice of. Thus in his Gorgias, pag. 477. foreign, The moral evil of the Soul is of al evils the greateſt. This is an univerſal evil: nothing but evil is in ſin: it is the Spirit and Elixir of al evil: al evil is in ſin; and ſin is in al evil. So pag. 479. Thou accounteſt unjuſt men happy if they eſcape puniſhment; but I account them more miſerable. And he gives the reaſon of it, foreign, For not to be puniſhed for ſin is the ſtabliſſement p. 145of Sin. So pag. 472. According to my opinion, O Polus, foreign, an unjuſt man is of al most miſerable: yet he is more miſerable, who acting unjustly avoids puniſhment. For what greater miſerie or puniſhment can there be, than to be given up by God to the ſwinge of a mans own luſts, without check or rebuke? Are not ſuch puniſhments, which ſeem moſt ſilent, moſt ſevere and deſperate? Albeit men may enjoy ſecuritie in their ſin for a while, yet is not this the worſt part of their puniſhment? Doth not the righteous God oft conveigh his worſt curſes and plagues in the ſweet wine of temporal proſperitie? There is no one bleſſing that ſuch a Sinner enjoys, but there is a curſe ſtamped on it. Divine Juſtice writes a piece of Hel on al his temporal comforts, as he writes a piece of Heaven on al the chaſtiſements of the righteous. Thus alſo Plato, in his Meno, pag. 78. foreign; For what elſe is it to be miſerable, than to deſire evils and to poſſeſſe them? And this indeed is a general Dogme with Plato, as in his Gorgias, That to be puniſhed by a Judge for ſin is not the greatest puniſhment; but even then when they are involved in their ſins, they fal under the most ſevere puniſhment. That ſin that is guilt in the commiſſion of it,Maximum ſcelerum ſupplicium eſt in ipſis. Statim puniuntur cum facta ſunt, imo dum fiunt. Non naſcitur ex malo bonum: ad ſemen nata reſpondent. Sen. Epist. 87. is puniſhment in the power of it: ſo much pleaſure as men take in the commiſſion of their ſin, ſo much torment they find in the iſſue. The evil of puniſhment is anſwerable to the evil of doing: He that departs from God executes on himſelf his own doom: and the farther he departs from God, the more he is involved in chains of darkneſſe. O! what an indiſſoluble connexion is there between ſin and puniſhment? Can any ſin be ſo delicioſe in the commiſſion, as it is bitter in the iſſue? Is not ſin a pregnant mother with child of miſerie? Yea, doth it not carrie Hel in its wombe? He that loſeth his God by ſin, doth he not loſe comforts, life, yea ſelf and al?

(6) Albeit the ſervitude of Sin be in it ſelf the greatest puniſhment, Other puniſhments of Sin.yet there are many other puniſhments that attend it. [1] Al Sin is attended with fear and ſhame. As ſin breeds guilt, ſo guilt breeds fear and ſhame. So Plato, Leg. 5. tels us, That he who fils his Soul with ſin clothes it with reproche and ſhame, as before §. 6. Prop. 6. And that Fear always attends ſin is frequently aſſerted by the ancient Philoſophers; who tel us,Tuta ſcelera eſſe poſſunt, ſecura non poſſunt. Sen. That Fortune may deliver ſome from puniſhment, but none from fear: A nocent p. 146perſon has ſometimes the privilege to lie hid, but never any true confidence: Sins may be ſafe, but not ſecure: it's a great portion of ſecuritie to do no il. Thence Bion ſaid: foreign, That impietie is the worſt companion of confidence. And it was a good obſervation of Tertullian, That Nature hath clothed al Sin either with fear or ſhame.

[2] The ſervitude of Sin is attended with Inſtabilitie. Plato, in his Philebus, Imperitis ac rudibus nullus praecipitationis finis eſt. In Epicureum illud chaos decidunt inane ſine termino. Sen.pag. 59. ſaith, That ſuch things as have no firmitude in them, are most inſtable. Such is Sin. The firmitude of the Soul conſiſtes in its adherence to its firſt Principe and laſt End. Thence by how much the farther men depart from God, by ſo much the more inſtable they are. He that leans on a thing inſtable muſt needs be inſtable in al his ways: and what more inſtable than Sin and ſinful Idols? Whatever the Soul, by inordinate love cleaves unto, it is overcome by, and ſuffers changes, as that object luſted after changeth. As a Ship is poiſed by its ballaſt, and a Bee poiſeth its airy bodie by a gravel; ſo the heart is poiſed by virtue: but corrupt Nature and ſinful paſſions are ful of Levitie and Inſtabilitie, whereby the heart is kept in ſuſpenſe, as a Meteor in the Air, as Luk. 12.29. foreign. This was Cains curſe, and a great part of his ſervile puniſhment,Gen. 4.12, 13.Gen 4:12Gen 4:13 Gen. 4.12. A fugitive and vagabond ſhalt thou be in the earth: i. e. in an inſtable vagrant condition, both as to ſoul and bodie: and what follows? v. 13. And Cain ſaid unto the Lord, My puniſhment is greater than I can bear. foreign my puniſhment, or my ſin. O, what an heavy piece of ſervitude is this to an awakened conſcience, to have a wandring vagrant ſpirit! Jam. 1.6, 8. This inſtabilitie, which attends the ſervitude of Sin,Hoſ. 6.2.Hos 6:2 is wel illuſtrated, Hoſ. 6.2. But they al like men have tranſgreſſed the Covenant, Hebr. like Adam: i.e. like vain inconſtant man. Adam had no ſooner entred into Covenant with God, but he brake it. Thus al his ſeed turne after him.

[3] Another puniſhment that attends the ſervitude of Sin is Anxietie and Torment. Thus Plato, Repub. 9. pag. 579. ſpeaking of the Soul under the Tyrannie of Sin, he ſaith, foreign, It is inflamed with perpetual ſparkes of Fears, Angors, and Agitations. So in his Sympoſium, pag. 206. he informes us, That the Soul, when it adheres to ſin, is under dolors and torments, and yet brings forth nothing but wind, Iſal. 7.14.as Pſal. 7.14. He travelleth with iniquitie, and hath conceived miſchief, and brought forth a lie. It's ſpoken of Sauls miſchievous p. 147yet abortive deſignes againſt David: and it alludes to the pangs and torments of a woman in travel. foreign ſignifies hard toilſome miſerable labor, ſuch as poor ſlaves are tormented with. The LXX. render it foreign, which in the Greek Gloſſary, (found at the end of Cyril) is rendred dolor. So in the N. T. foreign ſignifies vexatious grief and torment, as Rev. 16.10, 11. & 21.4. Hence the Greek word foreign, an evil man received its derivation. For every foreign, conceives and brings forth foreign miſerable torments, David's meaning here is,Qui voluptari tradidere principia—non ipſi voluptatem, ſed ipſos voluptas habet, cujus aut inopia torquentur, aut copia ſtrangulantur. Sen. That Saul had been long hatching miſchievous deſignes ful of torment and anxietie; and endeavored by much travel and ſore labor, like a woman in travel, to bring them forth and accompliſh them; but he could bring forth nothing but a mere lie: he was fruſtrated in al his miſchievous contrivements. Note here an elegant Allegorie in theſe termes, Conceiveth, travelleth, and brought forth: which argues the higheſt vexation, travel, and torment, which Sinners labor under, in al their miſchievous deſignes, as Jer. 4.31. Wicked men are as much tormented with the ſin they love, as with the fear of the puniſhment they hate: al their labor is pain. So Jer. 51.58. & Habak. 2.13. Sinners are ſaid to labor in the fire, Jer. 51.58.Jer 51:58or for the fire: i. e. (1) In vain, without any profit: as if any one ſhould weave a thread over the fire, which brings not only loſſe of labor, but of materials alſo. (2) To labor in the fire, notes a dangerous, tedious, toilſome, ſervile labor, ſuch as is proper to ſlaves. What more tedious, irkeſome, and fruitleſſe than the drudgerie of ſin?Eccleſ. 10.15.Eccl 10:15 So Eccleſ. 10.15. The labor of the fooliſh wearieth every one of them. As in Nature, it is not ſtormes without, but vapors within the bowels of the earth, raiſed up by ſubterraneous fires, that cauſe Earthquakes and Tremblements; ſo in the Soul, it is not afflictions from without, but the interne fire of luſts and ſinful vapors that cauſe torments and tremblement in Conſcience. It's better to be poſſeſſed of the Devil in the bodie, than of luſts in the heart, which always breed labor and pain. No Sinner ever attains to what he aims at: he would be ſomewhat elſe than what he is; and theſe deſires breed anxietie and torment.

[4] The ſervitude of Sin is of al moſt penal, in that eternal puniſhment is annexed to and entailed thereon. This is the top of al puniſhment, that Sinners ſhal be turned into Hel, with al their ſins at their back. Neither was this kind of puniſhment altogether hid from Plato: for in his Gorg. pag. 522. we find this puniſhment p. 148thus deſcribed: foreign, For a Soul to deſcend down to Hel laden with many ſins, is the most extreme of evils. A great Philoſopheme for a Pagan, and that which argues his acquaintance with ſacred Philoſophie; which more fully inſtructes us, that ſin is eternally puniſhed in Hel; becauſe it makes a man eternally willing to ſin. The righteous God takes the ſame courſe in puniſhing ſin, as men take in the committing of it: he ſees men have an eternal love for and delight in ſin, and therefore they ſhal have an eternal puniſhment for ſin: As ſinners lay up eternal treaſures of ſin, ſo God layes up eternal treaſures of wrath and puniſhment. In fine, what more juſt than that he, who by ſin acts eternally againſt the wil of God, ſhould ſuffer eternal torments againſt his own wil? And can there be a more penal afflictive ſervitude than this?

§. 8. Having explicated and demonſtrated the ſervitude that attends Sin,Al men borne ſervants of and dead in Sin. it now only remains to demonſtrate that al mankind are borne in this ſtate of ſervitude. It's a Maxime in the Civil Law, Juſt. Inſtitut. l. 1. tit. 4. That among Servants there is no difference, ſo as one ſhould be more a Servant than another: though among Free-men there are many differences. This holds true in moral ſervitude: for among the Ilaves of ſin there is no difference as to ſtate; becauſe al are dead in ſin; and death as wel moral as natural admits no degrees: al dead men are equally ſuch without difference. Whence the Civilians have another great Saying; That a Servant is reputed dead whiles he lives. Such are al the ſervants of ſin, who are really dead, whiles they ſeem to live. Lapſed man is under a miſerable, natural, yet voluntary neceſſitie of ſinning, wherefore altogether uncapable of erecting himſelf to a ſtate of virtue, as before §. 7. That al men by nature are dead in ſin, is an Hypotheſis avouched not only in ſacred, but alſo in Platonic Philoſophie. Thus Plato, in his Gorgias, pag. 493. I heard this from the wiſe men, foreign, that we are now dead, and that our bodie is the ſepulchre of our Soul. By the wiſe men, I preſume, he means the Barbarians, ſpecially the Egyptians and Hebrews, from whom he received this Tradition, That men are naturally dead in ſin. Thus Clemens Alexandrinus, Strom. 5. pag. 419. In the Barbaric Philoſophie they cal thoſe dead, who have fallen from their Dogmes, and ſubjected their minds to luſts. This Pythagoras expreſſed by the Symbol of a Coffin, p. 149which he placed in the room of any expelled out of his Schole, thereby to indigitate, that he was dead. Thence that other Symbol of Pythagoras: Abstain from the dead: i.e. from converſation with dead ſinners, which Symbol Grotius makes to be derived from the Hebraic Philoſophie, according to that of our Lord, Mat. 8.22. Let the dead burie the dead. Moreover Plato cals the life of men dead in ſin, foreign, a life without life. Alſo he ſaith, That mens Souls are in this life, foreign, of a ferine or brutiſh nature. Yea, Ariſtotle, Problem. S. 10. Prob. 45. aſſures us, That foreign, Nature doth althings that are wicked. Among the primitive Chriſtians nothing more commun than this Hypotheſis, That Virtue or Grace could not be educed out of the potence of corrupt Nature, becauſe al men by nature are dead in ſins. Thus Clemens Alexandr. Strom. 2. proves againſt the ſectators of Baſilides and Valentinus, thoſe fore-runners of the Pelagians, That faith is not, foreign, the good effect of freewil, nor yet the prerogative of Nature. But to explicate and demonſtrate, how al men by nature are under this ſpiritual death and moral ſervitude of ſin, take the following Propoſitions.

1. Prop. This Philoſopheme, That al men are by Nature dead in ſin, is not hyperbolic, but metaphoric and real. Plato ſpeaking of the moral death of the Soul, he underſtands it, in his darke way, according to the mind of ſacred Philoſophie, whence he borrowed this as other of the choiſeſt of his Philoſophemes. Now in ſacred. Philoſophie this moral death of the Soul is not hyperbolic, but real, albeit metaphorically expreſſed.Pſal. 5.9. Rom. 3.13.Ps 5:9Rom 3:13 Thus Pſal. 5.9. cited by Paul, Rom. 3.13. Their throat is an open ſepulchre. What David aſcribes to the throat, Plato, Gorg. 499. attributes to the whole bodie, namely, that it is but the ſepulchre of the Soul. Whence he makes foreign to be, by a Paronomaſie, derived from foreign, a ſepulchre, as before. And Democritus ſaid, That the diſeaſes of the Soul were the greateſt: which if men could open, they ſhould find there, foreign, a ſepulchre ful of evils. David cals the throat an open ſepulchre, becauſe (1) the heart or ſoul of al by nature lies morally dead and rotten in the bodie as in a ſepulchre. (2) The Soul lying dead in this ſepulchre continually ſends forth loathſome and noiſome ſmels: as if you draw nigh to an open ſepulchre, where dead bodies newly rotten lie buried, you wil ſoon ſcent their noiſome ſumes. (3) Mens mouths and throats are as it were the mouth of this ſepulchre, by which p. 150mens dead rotten hearts breathe forth their loathſome ſmels. You may ſcent mens corrupt hearts in their words, which paſſe through their throats, thoſe open ſepulchres Again, that men are borne naturally and morally dead in ſin is wel illuſtrated, Eſa. 1.4. Ah! Eſa. 1.4.Isa 1:4ſinful nation! a people laden with iniquitie, as with a mountain of lead. But leſt men ſhould conceit, that al this iniquitie comes only by cuſtome and frequence of ſinful acts, he addes: a ſeed of evil doers, or maligne ſinners. This notes, that men are borne ſinners, a ſinful brood; that ſin is hereditarie, and not only by cuſtome.Eſa. 57.4.Isa 57:4 Thus Eſa. 57.4. Children of tranſgreſſion: i. e. (1) borne in ſin, of ſinful parents. (2) Addicted to tranſgreſſion, given up to it: for according to the Hebrew Idiome, foreign a child, being uſed with a Genitive Caſe of Appellatives, is taken for ſuch an one as is wholly addicted and devoted to ſuch a thing. Thence it follows: a ſeed of falſehood: i. e. a lumpe or maſſe of hypocriſie: wholly compoſed and made up of iniquitie, an adulterous brood. Al ſin is in the heart of man, and the heart of man is in al ſin, albeit he be not always hurried into al acts of ſin. Hence Plato mentions, foreign and foreign, an innate and connate evil, or vitioſitie of nature, commun to al, as before §. 2. of this Chapter. And Seneca aſſures us, That corrupt Nature has drunke in ſuch deep draughts of iniquitie, which are ſo far incorporated with its bowels, as that you cannot get it out, but by tearing out its very bowels. Hence,

2. Prop. There are no ſeeds of ſpiritual life, No ſeeds of Virtue in corrupt Nature.no active power or diſpoſition to what is ſpiritually good in corrupt Nature. Thence Cyril Alexandr. termes Virtue or Grace foreign, a Prerogative above the Creation. And Chryſoſtome, in Gen. 4. foreign, a Gift above Nature overcoming Nature it ſelf. Where there is a ſpiritual death, there is a total privation, without the leaſt ſeed of active power for the production of a virtuoſe life. Free-wil in corrupt nature is alive to do evil, but dead as to the doing what is good: it is mighty knowing and potent to do evil, as Jer. 4.22. but every way ignorant and impotent as to doing what is good: it can find legs to run away from God, but none to run to him. And if the perſon be dead, can his acts or workes be alive? May we expect a good thought, or word, or deed from ſuch al their days, ſo long as they continue in ſuch a dead ſtate of ſin? Is it poſſible for a dead corps to take up its coffin, and grave upon its back, and thence to ariſe and p. 151walke? And is it not much more impoſſible for a dead Soul to diſpoſe it ſelf towards a virtuoſe life? It is frequently inculcated in ſacred Philoſophie, That there are no ſeeds of ſpiritual life in corrupt nature. A human power is not ſufficient to produce an act more than human. The divine life and motion towards God muſt procede from God. Mans ſin and miſerie come from his own free-wil, but al Virtue and Beatitude from free Grace: he that is not acted by divine Grace, is neceſſarily acted by carnal luſt: corrupt nature is not only emty of, but contrary to al good; and therefore al workes done by it are dead workes; becauſe they procede from a dead nature, and tend to death: wherefore true moral Virtue cannot be extracted out of the power of Nature. Thus Cyril Alexandr. lib. 1. in Eſa. foreign, It's proper to human Nature in no wiſe to receive any heavenly gifts of Grace out of its own nature, but to enrich it ſelf with the gifts of God above Nature. This Hypotheſis, albeit the Stoics and Ariſtoteleans contradict it, is evidently deducible from Socrates and Plato's Philoſophie. Thus Plato, Meno, pag. 99. foreign, Virtue comes not by Nature, neither from the Inſtitutes of Learning, but by divine Afflation or Inſpiration, without the concurſe of the human mind, in thoſe in whom it's produced. It's true, the Stoics held, foreign, That Virtue might be taught; becauſe there were ſparkes or ſeeds thereof in human Nature, which might be drawen forth by good inſtitution: but this Socrates greatly oppoſed, as that which was inconſiſtent with the depraved ſtate of the Soul, and divine concurſe for the production of Virtue. And ſacred Philoſophie is moſt poſitive in this, that there are no ſeeds of ſpiritual life or virtue in man.Pſal. 5.9.Ps 5:9 Thus Pſal. ….9. Their inward part: or the moſt ſublime, refined, intimate part of the Soul, is very wickedneſſe, foreign, wickedneſſes, pravities. The Plural for the Singular, and abſtract for the concrete; which denotes (1) an Ʋniverſalitie both of the predicate and ſubject: that al their inward parts were ful of ſin, and that al ſin was in their inward parts. (2) The perfection of Sin. For abſtracts, ſpecially in the Plural Number, ſpeak Eſſences and Spirits. The Elixir and Spirits of Sin are in the inwards of corrupt Nature, Hence,

p. 1523. Prop. The inclination of corrupt Nature to evil, Natural impotence to what is good.and its impotence as to what is good is univerſal and total. This naturally follows from what precedes: for if the Soul be morally dead in ſin, without any ſeeds of ſpiritual life, or moral virtue, then it follows, that its impotence to good is total: for as in naturals death is a total privation of life; there is not the leaſt ſeed for the reduction of the life loſt; ſo in morals, ſuch as are dead in ſin, are under an univerſal privation of ſpiritual life, and total impotence to what is ſpiritually good. This Hypotheſis may be demonſtrated, (1) From the univerſal ignorance of the natural mind. Plato diſcourſeth accurately of this Theme, as we have in what precedes §. 3. mentioned; but more fully, Philoſ. Gen. P. 1. l. 3. c. 3. ſect. 4. §. 5. Yea ſo great and ſoverain is the natural ignorance of the mind, that thoſe very commun notions of knowlege loged therein are not to be eſtimed, as ſome cal them, the fragments of the Image of God, but rather effects of divine Bountie vouchſafed his lapſed Creature upon the Interceſſion of the Mediator, who illuminates every man that comes into the world, as Joh. 1.9. That al true knowlege of things divine is the effect of divine illumination has been generally confeſt by Platoniſts as wel as Divines. Thence Clemens Alexandr. cals Faith, foreign, a ſupernatural contemplation. So Chryſoſtome cals divine Grace, foreign, that which inſtructes and illuſtrates the mind; Grace from above, not from human Nature. (2) From the formal Idea and nature of moral or ſpiritual good; which conſiſtes in a conformitie to the moral Law, and that not only as to its mater, but alſo as to its end and manner: now it is impoſſible for corrupt nature by its own power to reach a ſupernatural end, or conforme to the moral Law. (3) From the diſproportion and incapacitie of the ſubject. The natural power of the Wil, as now vitiated, has no connatural capacitie, next power, or formal capacitie, for the production of what is ſpiritually good. Alas! what proportion is there between a carnal mind and ſpiritual objects? And can an object be received into the mind, unleſſe there be ſome proportion? Is not every thing received according to the nature and diſpoſition of the recipient? Can then a carnal mind have any other than carnal notions of things ſpiritual; as a ſpiritual mind has ſpiritual notions of things carnal? See 1 Cor. 2.14. Joh. 6.44. & 8.43. & 12.39, 40. So alſo for the corrupt wil, it cannot p. 153poſſibly have any connatural virtue, next power or formal capacitie for the production of any virtuoſe Act. Is it poſſible, that a natural power ſhould have any cauſal connexion with or connaturalitie unto a ſupernatural act or effect? (4) Should we ſuppoſe corrupt Nature to have any moral power for the production of Virtue, would not this ſubvert the whole Oeconomie and Diſpenſation of efficacious Grace? For [1] Thence the whole efficace of Grace would be meaſured and ſpecificated according to the complexion of Free-wil, and ſo variated according to its diverſitie. [2] Whence alſo the laſt differential reaſon whereby Grace is differenced from Nature muſt be reſolved into Nature. [3] Natural Free-wil would, from this Hypotheſis, be of it ſelf and nextly flexible to ſpiritual good; and ſo Virtue not the gift of God. Aristotle himſelf, who was a good Friend to corrupt Nature, confeſſeth, al good to be foreign, the gift of God. (5) From ſacred Philoſophie.Jer. 13.33.Jer 13:33 Thus Jer. 13.23. Can the Ethiopian change his skin? &c. Conſider [1] That this is a proverbial ſpeech, touching the vain attemts of ſuch as endeavor to bring about things impoſſible. Hence that commun Proverb, To waſh a Black-moor, relating to ſuch as attemt things impoſſible. [2] The manner of expreſſing it is very emphatic: for ſuch rhetoric interrogations carrie in them more vehement logic negations. Then he addes: or the Leopard his ſpots? Then may ye alſo do good, who are accuſtomed to do evil. And that this impotence is total and univerſal, on al mankind, is evident from that other Proverb, Ezech. 16.44. As is the mother ſuch is the daughter, Ezech. 16.44.Ezek 16:44i. e. This contagion runs in the bloud, it is an hereditary diſeaſe, commun to al mankind. Hence ſinners are ſaid to be borne in ſin, Pſal. 51.5. and to be in ſin, Exod. 32.22. 1 Joh. 5.19. The whole world is ſaid to be in ſin, i. e. immerſed and plunged thereinto. What this impotence to ſin is, and how far natural, we have explicated Philoſ. Gen. P. 1. l. 3. c. 3. ſect. 5. §. 1.

4. Prop. Man under the ſervitude of Sin cannot diſpoſe or prepare himſelf for the reception of Virtue. Thus Greg. Nyſſ. or de Scopo Chriſt. Man cannot prepare himſelf for Virtue.foreign, The force of human virtue is not of it ſelf ſufficient to elevate Souls void of Grace to a forme of divine life, unleſſe God build the houſe, &c. That there can be no diſpoſition, though never ſo remote, unto true moral Virtue from the alone facultie of Nature, is evident; becauſe nothing can diſpoſe p. 154it ſelf to a condition above its nature, by its own force, unleſſe it be influenced by a ſuperior Agent. A man in the ſtate of corrupt nature cannot by al his own forces natural or moral (1) overcome any one tentation: or (2) mortifie any one luſt: or (3) attain any one good thought, inclination, or deſire: or (4) remove the Remora, or bar in his heart againſt converſion: or (5) by doing what in him lieth lay any obligation on God to give grace. I know it is a Poſition maintained by ſome, That ſuch as improve their natural abilities to their utmost power, ſhal thereby obtain ſupernatural Grace. But for anſwer hereto [1] It's certain, that none ever did or wil improve to the utmoſt their natural abilities. [2] Or if men ſhould improve their natural forces to the utmoſt, what obligation is there on God to give to ſuch ſupernatural Grace? Is God obliged by any law or promiſe to give grace upon the performance of ſuch an act or condition which is in it ſelf ſinful, and hath nothing of true moral virtue in it? And have we not already ſufficiently proved, that there can be no true moral virtue but by ſupernatural Grace? That there is no law or obligation on God to give ſupernatural Grace to natural emprovements is wel demonſtrated by Bradwardine, de Cauſ. Dei, l. 1. c. 37. pag. 316. Yea doth it not implie a contradiction in the Adject, that man ſhould make a right uſe of his natural abilities, or prepare himſelf for the reception of ſupernatural Grace? Is it not alſo a ſacrilegious Hypotheſis to ſuppoſe, that God ſhould fetch the commun rule of his giving or not giving grace from mans dignitie or indignitie? Corrupt nature wants not only an active power to do good, but alſo an immediate paſſive power to receive good: thence it can't diſpoſe it ſelf to virtue, which is above its natural capacitie. Is not al true virtue above the whole ſphere of corrupt nature? The Greek Fathers, ſuch as were more orthodoxe, acknowleged, That the preparation to Grace was from Grace: whence it was by them termed foreign, the direction of the way: alſo foreign, the preparation of the wil: likewiſe, foreign, the attraction of God. That man cannot either de condigno or de congruo merit the firſt grace, is generally aſſerted by the ſober Schole-men, as Bradwardine de Cauſa Dei, l. 1. c. 39. and Greg. Ariminenſis, Sent. 2. Diſt. 26. Quaeſt. 1. Thence the Dominicans in the Council of Trent, (Hiſt. Counc. Trent, pag. 209.) denied, That the workes preceding vocation are truly preparatorie, and ever gave p. 155the firſt place to God. And Alvarez, Auxil. Diſp. 36. Can. 1. demonſtrates, that God never eſtabliſhed any Law for the giving grace to ſuch who ſhould improve to the utmoſt their natural power. But none has more fully improved this Hypotheſis, than Janſenius, August. Tom. 3. l. 1. c. 5. where he proves, that mens actions in their natural ſtate merit damnation; and therefore they cannot thereby merit grace. And ſacred Philoſophic informes us,Jer. 17.9.Jer 17:9 Jer. 17.9. The heart is above althings fraudulent. foreign ſignifies to ſupplant and undermine, whence the word here ſignifies perverſe, ful of wiles, fraud, guile. Thence it follows: and deſperately wicked: foreign, deſperately ſick, diſeaſed, incurable, wicked. And if ſo, then how impoſſible is it, that it ſhould prepare or diſpoſe it ſelf for the reception of virtue? See this more fully demonſtrated, Philoſ. Gen. P. 1. l. 3. c. 3. ſect. 5. §. 1. Hence,

5. Prop. Free-wil in lapſed corrupt Nature hath no moral active power or facultie flexible to any ſpiritual or truly moral good. In corrupt Nature no Free-wil to moral Good.This Propoſition is but the reſult of the former, and may be demonſtrated from theſe following Heads. The Aſſertion of ſuch a moral Free-wil in lapſed Nature doth (1) raiſe up the human corrupt Wil to the condition of God, and is the Nurſe of al Sin. It feeds mens pride and affectation of a Deitie, vain-glorie, carnal confidence, ſecuritie, Atheiſme, unbelief, ingratitude. It alſo cuts the nerves of al divine conſolation and peace of conſcience. (2) It puls down God from his Throne of Grace, and reduceth him to the condition of a Creature. [1] It ſtrikes at the very Being of God, making him to be dependent on, and moved by the human Wil. [2] It ſubvertes al the divine Attributes; the Simplicitie, Immutabilitie, Infinitude, Omnipotence, Science, Goodneſſe, Wil, and al the Decrees of God. [3] It ſtrikes at the Dominion of God over his rational Creatures, and ties him up by Laws and Rules of Juſtice dependent on the merits of his Creatures. [4] It cuts off Gods Providence and Gubernation over the human Wil, making it to be independent as to Gods Concurſe. [5] It abandons and baniſheth out of the world al ſupernatural efficacious Grace: admitting no Grace but what wil ſtoop and ſubmit to the dominion of the human Wil, and its ſoverain Empire. [6] It is blaſphemouſly injurioſe to Chriſt, and al his mediatorie Offices. It ſubvertes his Prieſtly Office, by laying a foundation for human Merits, &c. It ſtrikes at his Prophetic Office, by denying a neceſſitie of divine Revelation and Illumination, in order to Salvation. It p. 156undermines his Imporial Throne as King, by denying him any Juriſdiction over the human Wil. It diſpirits his ſpecial Love to the Elect, by attributing to him univerſal grace and love to al, even Reprobates. [7] It takes away the office of the Spirit of Grace. [8] It enervates the whole Covenant of Grace, by reducing the whole of mans Salvation to a Covenant of Workes. Yea [9] whiles it ſeems to exalt the Law of God, it doth really take away the uſe thereof as a rule of life. Theſe and many other are the injuries which this Free-wil offers to God and man. (3) Sacred Philoſophie is poſitive and expreſſe in denying corrupt Nature any Free-wil to what is morally good.Joh. 1.13.John 1:13 So Joh. 1.13. Not of bloud, i. e. by natural generation. Nor of the wil of the fleſh: i. e. Free-wil in corrupt Nature, which is frequently in the Scriptures termed fleſh by reaſon of its impotence and infirmitie. So Joh. 3.6. Whatever is borne of the fleſh, i. e. of corrupt Nature, or Free-wil in its higheſt elevation and refinement, as adorned with the moſt raiſed commun illuminations and graces, as Eſa. 40.6. Nor of the wi of man: i. e. the beſt of men or Miniſters, as Gods Ambaſſadors. But of God: i. e. by his glorioſe efficacious power. So 2 Pet. 1.3. foreign,2 Pet. 1.3.2 Pet 1:3 by glorie and virtue: i. e. by his glorioſe virtue or power. For foreign Virtue in God is foreign, his divine power, as Heſychius. So it's uſed by the LXX. Hab. 3.3. Zech. 6.17 where it anſwers to foreign, which ſignifies Glorie, Power, or glorioſe Power. And indeed it ſeems to be the grand deſigne of ſacred Philoſophie to diveſt corrupt Nature and Free-wil of al pretence to what is morally or ſpiritually good. Can a vitiated corrupt Wil be ſuppoſed to have any natural connexion with, or Virtue formally effective of a divine life? Is it poſſible that the new Creature ſhould be borne of the wil of the fleſh, which is potent and good for nothing but ſin? And muſt indeed the divine Wil be ſubordinate to mans Free-wil in the diſpenſation of grace? Is it not more becoming the human Wil to be ſubordinate to the divine? Muſt we take the adequate reaſon of Gods diſpenſing grace from the emprovement of Nature? Is not the gift of Grace a participation of the divine Nature? Muſt it not then excede the whole ſphere of create Nature? Is it not ſtrange Theologie, to reduce the diſcrimination of good and evil men to the contingence of mans ambulatorie corrupt Free-wil? May we not juſtly applie Augustins complaint againſt Cicero to ſuch Divines, who, to make men free, make him alſo ſacrilegious, and a p. 157robber of God? In ſum, we denie not, but that the Wil is naturally free as to its phyſic act, but we denie that it is morally free as to the mode or manner of acting wel. Thus we ſee how this Pelagian Philoſopheme doth elevate the Creature to the condition of God, and puls down God to the condition of a Creature. Thence Cyril, Theſ. aſſert. 32. to 5. pag. 268. foreign, For we denie, that there is one natural operation of God and the Creature: that we may not elevate that which is create to the divine Eſſence; nor, on the contrary, depreſſe the excellence of the divine Eſſence to a place agreable to Creatures. Wherein he ſums up the grand deſigne of the Pelagians then newly ſtarted up. Clemens Alexandr. Strom. l. 2. & 5. is very invective againſt the fectators of Baſilides and Valentinus; becauſe they hed, foreign, that Faith is natural: i. e. educible out of the potence of corrupt Nature. Which Hypotheſis al the Aſſertors of moral Free-wil are ſond of. Theodoritus, in Pſal. 118.32. ſaith peremtorily: foreign, Neither can human Nature rightly performe virtue without divine aide. It's a great Effate of Baſil, in his Homilie of Humilitie, where explicating that of the Apoſtle, 1 Cor. 4.7. And what haſt thou that thou didst not receive? 1 Cor. 4.7.1 Cor 4:7&c. he thus philoſophiſeth: foreign, &c. Here al the ſublimitie of pride fals to the ground: there is nothing left thee, O man, as mater of arrogance. Tel me, why doeſt thou lift up thy ſelf, in reference to thine own good workes; whenas thou oughteſt rather to render thankes to the Donor of them? For what haſt thou, which thou hast not received? And if thou haſt received any thing, why doeſt thou glorie, as if thou receivedſt it not? Thou hast not known God by thine own juſtice, but God hath known thee by his own benignitie. Thence he addes: It is the greatest ſtupiditie not to underſtand a man is partaker of grace, but to arrogate to his own Virtue what belongs to Grace.