to desire good things and eschew hurtfull things is not sinne because it is a thing made of God but such is Concupiscence Sol. To the Major the Appetites and motion of nature are good in themselves as they are meerly motions not as they are inordinate motions and are carryed to such objects as God hath forbidden as all motions and appetites of corrupt nature are Because either they affect not such objects as they ought or affect them not in such sort and to that end which they ought And therefore are all vicious and very sinnes Mat. 7.18 An evill tree cannot bring forth good fruit To desire the fruit of a tree was naturall but to desire it contrary to Gods expresse commandement as it was desired of Eve was a motion in its own kinde and nature corrupt and very sinne Ob. 2 That which is not in our power to cause either to be in us or not to be in us is no sinne Concupiscence is so in us that it is not in our power to shake and put off therefore it is no sinne Sol. The Major is false for sinne is not to be esteemed by the liberty or necessity and bondage of our nature But by the Will and Law of God whatsoever disagreeth here with is no sinne whether men have power to avoyd it or no. And God requiring of us impossible things doth not injure us because he commanded them when they were possible Though we have now lost our ability of performing yet God hath not lost his right of requiring that of us which he left with us Ob. 3 Sinne maketh men obnoxious to the wrath of God but Concupiscence doth not make the regenerate obnoxious to the wrath of God for there is no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus therefore Concupiscence at least in the regenerate is no sinne Sol. There is a fallacy of Accident in the Minor for it is but by Accident that Concupiscence doth not make the regenerate obnoxious to Gods wrath that is by reason of the Grace of God not imputing it to the faithfull But this commeth not thereof as if Concupiscence were not sinne For neither doe other sinnes condemn the regenerate not because they are no sinnes but because they are remitted by Christ Ob. 4 In Baptism originall sinne is taken away therefore Concupiscence is not sinne in those that are baptized Sol. To the Antecedent originall sinne is taken away in Baptism not simply but as touching the guilt of it But corruption and inclination to sinne remaineth in them that are baptized And this is it that the Schoolmen say the formall of sinne is taken away and the materiall remaineth Rep But they say where the formall is taken away there also the thing it self is taken away because the form of every thing is the cause of the being of it But in Baptism the formall of origall sinne is taken away therefore originall sinne in it self is taken away in Baptism Sol. Here is a fallacy taking that to be generally meant of the whole which is spoken but in part The formall of sinne is taken away not simply but as touching the guilt of it For there is double formall of sinne First a repugnancy with the Law and an inclination to sinne Secondly the guilt which is the ordaining of it to punishment the guilt is taken away but the inclination abideth Rom. 7.23 I see another Law in my members rebelling against the Law of my minde c. And this you see that although originall Concupiscence is not a free and voluntary transgression of Gods Law and so not sinne as actuall sinnes be but an inbred perversity of nature that opposeth the Law of God and makes us apt to transgresse the same it being like a fiery furnace so hot though it yeeld no flames yet it is ever ready to burn every combustible substance that lights upon it Yet it is most apparent that it is a sinne and that prohibited in the tenth Commandement This I hope may suffice in answer to these objections which have been so fully confuted in former ages that were not these men past all shame they would never goe about to revive such Heresies that we had hoped had long since been buried amongst us But so long as there is a Devill in Hell and a Pope at Rome we must never expect to be free from such disturbers of our peace Come we now to the Scriptures which they alledge and wrest to maintain their errors and against the truth of our position that sinne will have a being in the best of men so long as their Souls have a being in these houses of clay The first Scripture that we may take notice that they cite may be that in the Rom. 6.6 we that are baptized into Christ are baptized into his death That the whole body of sinne might be destroyed From whence they conclude That the corruption of old Adam is quite abolished and that they are perfectly quitted from sinne and perfectly renewed by Grace Unto this I answer as in part before that the guilt of sin which the Schools term the form of sin this is taken away in baptisme Secondly the corruption of sin which they call the matter of sin and this is likewise to be considered two wayes First in respect of the dominion of sin and thus the matter of sin is taken away from the elect because sin in them is not like a Prince that ruleth over them but like a Slave that rebelleth against them Secondly in respect of the being of sinne and thus the matter of sinne is not taken away from Gods Saints because St. Paul saith The flesh lusteth against the spirit Gal. 5.17 and as he saith of himself Rom. 7.23 And therefore seeing the Apostle saith not let not sin be in your mortal bodies but let not sinne reign If no sin did remain there were no danger of reigning And as Aug. hath well observed it is apparent that sinne and concupiscence is taken away in Baptisme Non ut non sit sed ut ne obsit not as touching the being of it that we should be without sin but as touching the rule of sin that it should not hurt us nor hinder us to attain unto everlasting happinesse And so Anselme saith in Rom. 6.6 That the body of sinne is destroyed Not that our inbred corruption should on the sudden be consumed in our flesh that liveth but that it may not be imputed to him that is dead though it was in him while he lived Because sin is destroyed not from having a being in us while we are alive but that we should not be compelled to serve it in our life and that it should not deprive us of eternall life Script 2 Rom. Rom. 6.2 cap. 7.4 1 John 3. 6.2 We are dead to sinne dead to the Law free from sinne And they that are born of God that is regenerated and sanctified doe not sin And that our old man that is all the corruption
this we answer we must distinguish of the Major The Parents indeed convey not to their posterity that which by nature they have not But they are freed from the guilt of sinne not by nature but by grace and benefit of Christ wherefore Parents derive unto their posterity not righteousness which is freely imputed but unrighteousness unto which themselves by nature are subject And the cause why they derive their guilt unto them and not their righteousness is this Because their posterity is not born of them according to grace but according to nature Neither is grace and justification tyed to carnal propagation but to the most free election of God as Rom. 9. Esau and Jacob. Again the death of Infants prove they have sinne because God being most just inflicts not this punishment but for sin stipendium peccati mors Death went over all men for as much as all men have sinned Although Infants doe neither good nor evill nor offend not after the similitude of Adams transgression yet they have sinne in them for which death reigneth over them They want not the faculty of will though in act they will not sin yet they will it by inclination and corrupt inclinations are sinnes Rom. 7.7 I had not known lust to be sinne unlesse the Law had said thou shalt not lust And thus saith Ireneus and Chrysostome Adams sinne was no personal offence in uno universi Adam stood at the root of all mankinde His sinne was his hand writing by which he made all his posterity debtors unto God even for that sinne though themselves should have sinned no more Secondly They say concupiscence without consenting to it is no sinne and to maintain this error they bring Thomas Aquinas who saith the first motion of the lust of Adultery is not sinne because it is an imperfect act but if consent be given to it then it is a perfect act and is sinne So Coster in his little Enchiridion affirmeth that concupiscence proceeds from sin and tendeth unto sinne but is not sinne and this he labours to expresse by this similitude He that heares saith he another man speaking filthy language and consents not to it but rather is angry at it and reproves it sinneth not but merits a greater reward Even so when our concupiscence sends out any sinfull motion if we consent not we sinne not And the Fathers of that Councell of Trent which have as many Curses as Canons have decreed in this manner Concupiscence which sometimes the Apostle called sin the holy Synod declares that the Catholique Church did never understand it to be called sinne as it is truly and properly sinne in the Regenerate But because it commeth from sinne and inclineth to sinne But for answer We say that the Apostle in 7. Rom. towards the latter end condemneth concupiscence for sinne even when consent is not given unto it For he protests of himself that he resisted these motions of sin but was oftentimes sore against his will captivated by them He condemnes them as evill albeit he gave no consent unto them For the Law doth not only condemn sinne in the branch but also in the root There shall not be in thee any evil thought against the Lord thy God Resp I will lay you down a reason to confirm this truth Consent in its own nature is a thing indifferent If that whereunto I consent be good my consent is good but if it be evill my consent is evill If the first motion of sinne be not an evill in it self as they say then it is not an evill thing to consent unto For that which is not evill in it self by my consenting cannot become evill It is not then the consent following that makes the preceding motion to be evill but it is the preceding evill motion that makes the subsequent consent evill Now as for Coster his similitude it makes plainly against himself For it is true indeed that he who heareth evill spoken and reproves it is worthy of praise But it is also true that he who spake the evill hath sinned Even so albeit we doe well when we consent not to the motions of concupiscence in us Yet concupiscence is not the lesse to be condemned because it hath sent out into the eare of our Soul the voyce of a filthy deslre which is not agreeable to Gods most holy Law And of this Judgement with us are also the ancient Fathers Aug. Ser. de temp 45. When I lust saith he albeit I consont not to my lust yet that is done in me which I will not and which also the Law will not And again thy desire should in such sort be unto God that there should not be in thee at all so much as concupiscence which hath need of resistance for thou resistest and by not consenting thou overcomest but it were better not to have an enemy than to overcome him With him agrees also Bernard That kinde of sinne saith he which so often troubles us I mean Concupiscence and evill desires may and should be repressed by the Grace of God so that it reigns not in us and that we give not our Members weapons of unrighteousnesse to sin and that way there is no damnation to them who are in Christ yet it is not cast out but in death From all which it is evident that the motions of Concupiscence are evill and sinfull even when they are repressed and no consent given unto them The Pelagians denyed Concupiscence to be sinne but the Law saith the contrary Thou shalt not covet and Rous. 7.7 Paul saith I know no sinne but by the Law c. The Pelagians were condemned in many Councells summoned and gathered together for confutation of Pelagius and Celestius their heresies about the year 420. and sometime after as in the Milevitan Councell the fifth Councell of Carthage and the Councell of Palestina in the East I shall lay you down one or two of their main Objections Ob. Naturall things are not sin Concupiscence which is a propension to those things which are forbidden by the Law is a naturall thing therefore it is no sinne Sol. There is a fallacy in the Accident in the Minor for inordinate Concupiscence was not before the fall but happened unto our nature after the fall So then it is naturall not of it self but by Accident to wit in as much as since the fall it is born and bred with us As it is naturall that is an evill accident inseparably cleaving to a nature good in it self Secondly there are severall termes in the Syllogisme by reason of the ambiguitie of the word naturall for in the Major it signifieth a good thing created of God in nature to wit mans Appetite before the fall which was not contrary to the Law and Will of God In the Minor it signifieth a thing which we have not by Creation but which we have purchased unto us after the fall Rep. But say they An affection or appetite even in nature now corrupted
made our selves unable so much as to think a good thought 2 Cor. 3.5 But our Adversaries have and doe further object That a regenerate man hath sufficientia principia rectae operationis sufficient causes and means of well doing as knowledge to understand what is good will to desire what is good and power to effect what is good his soul being enlightned sanctified and assisted by Gods Spirit therefore he may doe what is good and all what God commands I answer That we grant a regenerate man to be enabled to doe good but how farre enabled Surely not perfectly for our knowledge is but in part obscured with ignorance our will is distempered with many turbulent affections and our power hindred to doe many good things we would doe by many lustfull temptations And therefore these principia operationis being not perfecta principia our actions cannot be perfect which proceed from them Who can tell saith David how oft he offendeth Cleanse thou me from my secret sinnes You see Gods Saints have secret sinnes I may have many sinnes and fail in many things which no man knoweth of nor my self but only known to God I may sin and not know mine own sin yet God seeth the same We cannot judge mens hearts for we know not our own it is Gods preroagative to search and try the Reines Jer. 17.9.1 John 3.20 And it is our duty to pray with Nehemiah 13.12 Accept my obedience but pardon mine iniquity That chosen vessell was compelled to say this although he knew nothing by himself yet he knew that thereby he could not be justified And this I hope may suffice for the cleering the first Branch of the second Position That no man can perform such perfect obedience to the Law of God as not to offend against the same or by his obedience thereunto be justified before God And for further confirmation of the truth thereof I dare appeale to any mans conscience if he be not too arrogant how upon the confirmation of Gods strict Judgement and his own manifold infirmities he dares justifie himself in any one act against God And I doubt not but the proudest heart would soon tremble and the boldest face would blush and be ashamed and affraid to have his best works even his prayers scan'd according to the strictnesse of Gods Law or the rigor of Gods Justice And of the adversaries to this truth I require this one thing That they will either produce a man and prove it That hath ever performed in his own person such perfect obedience to the Law of God as not to offend against the same Or else let them acknowledge their error with shame and forbear opposing the truth and disturbing the peace of Gods Church Lest by persisting in their malicious wickednesse their sinne become unpardonable I shall pray for them as for my self that the Lord would be pleased to convince us of the errors of our waies humble us in the sense of our sinnes and be mercifull to our poor Souls Come we now to the second Branch of the second Position which hath in it these two parts to be considered First That no man can be justified by the works of the Law Secondly That we are only justified by the righteousnesse of Christ And first of the first In part I have cleered it before but for further confirmation The Apostle Paul reasons admirably and plainly in this point saying Rom. 15.6 If Salvation be of Grace it is no more of works for else were Grace no more Grace And if it be of works it is no more of Grace for else works were no more works But Salvation is of Grace for by Grace yee are saved through Faith and that not of your selves It is the gift of God not of works lest any man should boast Eph. 2.8 And our Saviour tells us plainly that when we have done our best We are but unprofitable Servants Ergo Salvations is not of works Again Reason it self drawn from the Scriptures doth sufficiently prove that we cannot be justified by our works For if any works doe justifie us they must be done either before or after justification But First no works done before the Grace of justification can justifie us Because evill trees cannot bring forth good fruit and being not done of Faith they must needs be sinne for whatsoever is not done of Faith is sinne and without Faith it is impossible to please God Heb. 11.6 Whereupon Saint Paul saith That all men before they be ingrafted into Christ by Grace are the Servants of sinne farre from righteousnesse and bringing forth nothing but fruits deserving shame and death Rom. 6.20 Secondly Our works done after Grace Reason it self sheweth That they cannot be the cause of Grace for how can that which commeth after be any cause of that which goeth before The cause must precede the effect And so August tells us That good works doe not goe before him that is to be justified but doe follow him that is already justified And therefore as good fruits cannot be the cause of the goodnesse of the tree so good works cannot be the cause of justification And that place of the Apostle which I cited before Rom. 3.20 makes it cleer By the works of the Law no flesh shall be justified For first in the 9. ver he tells us That both Jews and Gentiles are under sinne because all are transgressors of the Law Therefore all the world must be guilty before God and can no wayes be justified by pretending innocency in keeping the Law Secondly He sheweth the Reason why no flesh can be justified by the Law because the Law convinceth us of sinne for by the Law commeth the knowledge of sinne But the Law convinceth them that are under Grace and which hath the greatest measure of Grace to be sinners Phil. 3.9 Therefore they that doe the works of the Law by the help of Grace cannot be justified by the Law because the Law sheweth them likewise to be sinners as well though not as great as they that endeavour to keep the Law without the help of Grace And therefore the Apostle concludeth That we are all justified by the righteousnesse of God without the Law as you may see in Rom. 3. from 2. ver therefore not by any righteousnesse of the Law done either by the help of Grace or without Grace For he that obeyeth the Law how ever he doth it with the help of Grace or his own strength yet he hath the same righteousnesse The righteousnesse of the Law because the different manner of obteining it altereth not the nature of the thing But the Apostle sheweth a great difference betwixt the righteousness of the Law and the righteousness of Faith For Moses describeth the righteousnesse which is of the Law That the man which doth these things however he doth them by his own strength or some other help if he doth them he shall live by them Rom. 10.5 But the righteousnesse of Faith speaketh on