A treatise of original sin ... proving that it is, by pregnant texts of Scripture vindicated from false glosses / by Anthony Burgess.

¶. 2.

Reasons for this Exposition.

THat there is no godly man living free from this spiritual combate, because of the flesh which still abideth in him, hath been proved by Reasons and Scripture. To this Text we have joyned Paul's Discourse, Rom. 7. which you heard was to be understood of no other then a regenerate person. But because such an Exposition, as also the Doctrine of the imperfection of Regeneration may be abused; You heard with what limitations that Chapter was to be inter∣preted, though of a godly man.

It is remarkable what Austin saith in defence of himself, expounding this place of a regenerate person, whereas he had interpreted it otherwise former∣ly, Non ego primus aut solus, &c. (Lib. 6. contra Julianum. lib. 11.) He was not the first, or only man that did interpret it so. Yea he confesseth he under∣stood it of unregenerated persons once himself; and his greatest reason was, because he thought Paul could not say of himself, That he was carnal and sold under sinne; but afterwards (saith he) Melioribus & intelligentioribus cessi, vel potius ipsi veritati, &c. The example of this excellent man might much con∣vince, but that prejudice doth blind mens eyes.

Let us see what Reasons are cogent for this Exposition.

First, This is very considerable, That the Apostle in the former verses speaking of himself, useth the Preterperfect tense, speakth of that which was past: onely at the fourteenth verse, there he changeth the tense, and speaketh of the present time; which may perswade us, that he speaketh of himself, what he was once, before regenerated, and what he hath experience of in himself, though sanctified. This changing of the time, argueth a change also in the person; for so his Discourse run∣neth from the seventh verse to the fourteenth, I had not known lust, and sinne wrought in me all manner of concupiscence, I was alive without the Law once, and sinne deceived me, &c. All these expressions are concerning what was done in him. Then at the fourteenth verse, with the rest following, he speaketh of the present time, I am carnal, I do that which I allow not, &c. This altering of the time may incline us to think, that it is very probable the Apostle doth compare his former estate of unregeneracy with the present of sanctification that he is now in. It is true indeed, we grant that the Apostle doth sometimes assume the person of another man; he supposeth such a thing in himself, which yet we must not conclude to be in him, as Rom. 3. 7. For if the truth of God hath abounded more through my life unto his glory, why yet am I judged as a sinner?

Here it is certain, he personateth a wicked object or and caviller. So 1 Cor. 13. 2. If I have all faith, and not charity, &c. As also Gal. 2. 18. If what I have destroyed, I build the same again, I make my self a transgressor. But who doth not see a vast difference between these expressions and Paul's Discourse in this Chapter? For they are spoken hypothetically by way of supposition. And therefore every one may perceive that the Apostle doth not intend an absolute speech of him∣self. Had the Apostle used such conditional expressions here, then there had been some colour, If I do the evil I would not, if I do not the good I would, if I delight in the Law, if the Law of God, &c. then we might have doubted whether he spake of himself or no. Or had the Apostle as absolutely and peremptorily spo∣ken in those places, as he doth here, we should have wondred at it. Should he after a large Discourse to that purpose have concluded, So then I my self distroy what I have built, it would have greatly amazed us? As for that place insisted upon by so many, 1 Cor. 4. 6. These things I have in a figure transferred to my self and Apollo, &c. and from thence gathering, That it is ordinary with Paul by a figure to assume another habit (as it were) then his own. Suppose it be grant∣ed, Doth it therefore follow he doth here in this place? What, doth the Apo∣stle never speak in his own person? If we will not take this as spoken of him∣self, Why do the Dissentients take the second verse in the next Chapter, as to be understood of his own person? The Law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus, hath freed me from the Law of sinne and death. Besides this very place maketh against them: for when the Apostle doth thus assume a person, he plainly dis∣covereth he doth so; you see he doth expresly say, that what he did, he did by a figure, but here is not the least hint given of any such thing, there is not a syllable by which we may gather any such transfiguration: So that it is a won∣der that the Apostle should continue in such a long discourse, and that with so much vehemency, and yet give no discovery that he doth not mean it of him∣self, especially when the Adversaries to this Exposition say, That to understand it of Paul, is so contumelious to the Spirit of God, and so destructive to all godliness. Certainly if so, the Apostle would have manifested something to remove this stumbling block. Although I may adde that even that very Text, I have in a figure transferred to my self and Apollo, &c. doth not necessarily allude, to that mention made of th••••, 1 Cor. 2. 12. where speaking of their factions, some said they were of Paul, others of Apollo; as if the Apostle did by figure, use their names, intending thereby the false Apostles; for (say they) The Corinthians made their divisions by occasion of the false Apostles glorying in them, and exalting them against those that were faithfull. But if so, what argument could there be in Paul's words? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized in the name of Paul? If he did mean false Apostles, and not him∣self, why should he thank God that he had baptized so few? Therefore Pareus acknowledgeth, that the common Interpretation of that Text, as if Paul by a figure use his name and Apollo for the false Apostles, is no wayes agreeable with the scope of the place: For how could that be an example to teach them humility, as he there enlargeth himself. Heinsius also doth not like the translation of the Greek word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, for such a transmutation of names and persons, but maketh it the same with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, but enough of this.

2. A second Argument is, In that this person is said to hate evil, not to will what is evil, not to know or approve of it, and then he is said to will that which is good. Now this is the Description of godliness, to love good, and to hate evil. It is true, that in convinced men, who yet retain their lusts, as also in legal men, they would not do the evil that they do, but yet they cannot be said to hate it: No they love their lusts; therefore when any fear doth abate, they presently fall unto those sinnes again, but this man doth hate sinne; So that

in this property two things discover a regenerate person, 1. That not only his conscience and his judgement is against sinne, but his will, his heart and affecti∣ons also, whereas in all unregenerate men, their judgements, and their conscien∣ces being enlightned and terrified, maketh them afraid to commit sinne; but their will, then affections 〈◊〉〈◊〉 not against it. And then secondly, The Apostle speaketh generally of evil and good, he doth not say, I do this evil, I would not, or I do not this good that I would, but evil and good indefinitely, and this is only proper to the regenerate, he only hateth all evil, be only loveth all good, whereas the unregenerate person doth hate only some evil, and it is some good only that he would do, though if a man truly hate any sinne, he hateth all sin, because odium is circa genus.

Thirdly, This person must be a regenerate person, because there are two distinct principles in him, Sinne and He are made two different things, vers. 17. It is no more I that do it, but sinne that dwelleth in me: And ver. 18. I know that in me (that is my flesh) dwelleth no good thing; Here then are (as it were) two distinct persons; this person hath two selfs, which doth necessarily demonstrate that this is a sanctified person. For can a man under legal convictions say, It is not I, but sinne within me? Can he that hath only errors upon his soul say, It is not I, but sinne within me? How absurd and false were that, for their hearts are set upon evil, only the terrours of the Law restrain them? Now a man is, what his heart is, not what his conviction is. It is true, the Libertines did abuse this Doctrine, and would thereby acquit themselves, it was not they, but the flesh: Yea some blasphemously would attribute it to God himself; but till a man be regenerated, he hath but one self, and that is the flesh. But (saith

Ar∣minius) those legal preparatory workings by the Law, are the good gift of God, and are to be reckoned among the works of the Spirit, and therefore the Apostle may oppose them and sinne together.

To this it is answered, Though those legal operations are from Gods Spirit, yet because the person is not regenerated, he is still in the state of the flesh, he is still without Christ, and therefore cannot distinguish himself from the flesh within him. As long as those good gifts of God are not in a subject regenerated, the same person and the flesh are all one. Yea though those good effects come from Gods Spirit, and so are in themselves spiritual, yet as they are in a person unregenerated, they are improved carnally, they are managed only to self-respects; and thus tem∣porary believers, though they do enjoy the good and common gifts of Gods Spirit, yet as they are in them, they are carnally improved, spiritual things being prostituted to temporal ends. It is plain then, that onely a godly man may say, It is not I, but sinne in me; and thus Aquinas on the place saith, it may be easily understood of a man in the state of grace, and of a sinner, it can be only interpreted extortè, by violence: His reason he goeth upon is, because that a man is said to do, which his reason doth, not which his sensitive appetite in∣clineth unto, because homo est id quod est secundum rationem; By reason we must understand sanctified reason, otherwise a mans reason is corrupted, as well as his sensual part. Besides, there is a further Argument used by the Apostle in this distinction he maketh, It is no more I that do it. No more, that implieth, once it was he that did it, formerly he could not make such a distinction as now he doth.

Fourthly, The person here spoken of must needs be a regenerate person, Because it is said, He delighteth in the Law of God after the inward man, ver. 22. This is one of the places that compelled Austin to change his former opinion. Certainly to delight in the Law of God, is an inseparable property of a regene∣rate person: David expresseth his holy and heavenly heart thereby; yea the Greek word is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, I delight with. Arminius doth well observe the em∣phasis of the word, for he maketh the Preposition 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 not redundant, but signi∣ficant.

So that the meaning is, he delighteth in the Law of God, that is, he delighteth in Gods Law, and Gods Law delighteth in him; there is a mutual sympathy and delight (as it were) which maketh the reason the stronger for a regenerate person. For can any but he delight in Gods Law, and Gods Law (as it were) delight in him again? It is true, it is 〈◊〉〈◊〉 in the inward man, but that is not a diminution, but a specification of the cause, whereby he doth de∣light in Gods Law. I will not say that the inward man doth alwayes signifie the regenerate man, and so is the same with a new-creature. For although some understand that place so, 2 Cor. 4. 16. The outward man perisheth, but the in∣ward man is renewed daily; yet happily the context may enforce it another way, yet here it must be understood of the mind as regenerated, because it is opposite to the flesh, and so signifieth the same with the hidden man of the heart, in which sense a Jew is called one inwardly, because of the work of grace upon his soul.

Fifthly, The sad complaint he maketh concerning his thraldom, doth evidently shew, that it is a regenerate person: O wretched man that I am, who shall deliver me from the body of this death! If we take body for the material body, which is mortal, and so sinfull; or else for that body of sinne, which abideth in the godly, it cometh much to one point. It argueth that the person here spoken of, feeling this weight, this burden upon him, is in sad agonies of soul, judgeth himself miserable and wretched in this respect, and thereupon doth earnestly groan for a total redemption; he longs to be in heaven, where no longer will evil be present with him, where he shall do all the good, and as perfectly as he would. It is true, a godly man cannot absolutely be called a wretched and mi∣serable man, but respectively quoad hoc, and comparatively to that perfect holi∣ness we shall have hereafter. So we may justly account our selves miserable, not so much from external evils, as from the motions and stirrings of sinne within us, that do press us down, and thereby make our lives more discon∣solate. Hence it is that Austin calleth this Gemitum saactorum, &c. the sighs and groans of holy persons fighting against concupiscence within them.

Sixthly, The affectionate rejoycing and assured confidence that he hath, about the full deliverance of him from this bondage expressed in those words, I thank God through Jesus Christ, doth greatly establish this exposition also of a regenerate ate per∣son. It is true, there is variety about reading of this passage; however this plainly cometh from an heart affected with assurance of Gods grace to give him a full redemption, though for the present he lie in sad conflicts and agonies. This is so palpable a conviction, that some of the Dissentients will make Paul here to speak in his own person, as if he did give God thanks for that freedome which the person spoken before had not obtained. Neither is it any wonder to see such a sudden change in Paul from groaning under misery, presently to break forth into thanks and praises of God: For we may often observe such ebbings and flowings in David's Psalms, that we would hardly think the same Psalm made by the same man, at the same time; one verse speaking dejection and disconso∣lateness, the next it may be strong confidence, and rejoycing in God.

Lastly, The conclusion which Paul maketh from this excellent experimental Discourse, is fully to our purpose, So then I my self serve the Law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin. To serve God, and to serve the Law of God is all one, and this none but a godly man doth. Yea to serve him with the mind and the spirit is a choice expression of our grace. But because this is not perfect and compleat, he addeth, He serveth also the flesh, and the law of sin. It is true, None can serve God and mammon, Christ and sin, but yet where there is not a perfect freedom from thraldom to sin, there, though in the principal and chief manner we are carried out to serve God, yet the flesh retardeth, and so snatcheth to it some service: you heard contraries might be together, while they are in fight. Neither is our redem∣ption from sin full and total. It is to be done successively and by degrees, that so

we may be the more humbled and grace exalted. Besides that expression 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, is emphatical; this is used when Paul expresseth himself in some remarkable manner, I the same, and no other man, as it is used in other places, 2 Cor. 10. 1. Now I Paul my self beseech you, &c. 2 Cor. 12. 13. except it was, because I my self was not burdensom to you. Rom. 9. 3. I could wish that myself were accursed, &c. which is enough to convince such as are not refractory.