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

SECT. II.

The word Lust expounded.

HAving therefore considered this Title or Name given to original sinne (viz. Flesh.) which doth denote the Positivenesse of it: I come to a second, which shall also be the last, and that is the word lust or concupiscence, which both in the Scripture, and in the writings of several Authors is attributed to it; For which purpose the Text pitched upon is very usefull.

To understand which, consider that the Apostle having asserted some things,

which in an outward appearance did seem to dishonour the Law, he maketh this Objection to himself, Is the Law sinne? A cause of sinne, and so sinne, and God the Law-giver a commander of sinne; To which he answers, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, by defiance, God forbid, and in the next place giveth a reason, why the Law cannot be the cause of sinne, because that doth discover and detect sinne, that judgeth and damneth it, therefore it cannot be the cause of sinne; and that the Law is the manifester and reprover of sinne, he instanceth in himself, and his own experi∣ence, I had not known lust to be sinne, except the Law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

Now ere we can understand this Text, we must answer some Questions. And

First, It's demanded, What is meant by the Law here? Some say, the Law of Nature, which is not so probable; Others, the written Law of Moses, and this is most probable by the whole context. But yet some, though they understand it of the Law of Moses, yet they do not mean any particular command, but the Law in the general, saying, the Apostle useth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for all one; As if the meaning were, The Law in general did not only forbid sinfull actions, but also inward lust, and motions of the soul thereunto, as our Saviour fully expound∣eth it, Matth. 5. Others they understand this Law of a particular Command∣ment, viz. the tenth; and therefore Beza observeth the Article 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, by this, or by that Commandment in particular; And this seemeth most probable, because they are the very words of the tenth Commandment.

But secondly, If the Apostle alledge that command, Why doth he instance onely in the sinne forbidden, not mentioning the objects that are specified in the command, Thy neighbours Oxe or his Asse, &c?

The Answer is, that is not material, for the Apostle speaking of lusts in the heart, what latent and unknown sins they were without the light of the Law, it was enough to name the sinne it self, seeing the objects about which they are con∣versant are of all sorts, and can hardly be numbred.

In the third place, It's doubted how the Apostle could say, that he did not know lust to be sinne, but by the Law of Moses, seeing that by the very Law of nature, even Heathens have condemned inward lusts, and unjust thoughts and plots, though but in the soul, and never put into practice. Aquinas makes the meaning of it, as if Paul's sense was, He did not know lust to be sinne, as it was an offence to God, and a dishonour to him, because the Law of Moses represents the sin∣fulness of these lusts in a more divine and dreadfull way, then the Law of nature doth. Grotius maketh the sense thus,

Paul did not know lust, but by Gods Law, because the Laws of men punish nothing but sinfull actions, never at all medling with the thoughts and purposes of the heart.

Beza expounds the ex∣pression comparatively, I had not known lust to be sinne, viz. so evidently, so fully, so unquestionably, as I did when I understood the Law. But the general Interpretation is, That the Apostle speaketh here of his thoughts and knowledge, while he was a Pharisee, and it's plain by our Saviours correcting of pharisaical glosses about the Law, Matth. 5. That they thought the Law did onely require external obedience, and whatsoever thoughts or sinfull lusts men had, so that they did not break out into the practice of them, they were not guilty of sinne, He did not then know lust to be sinne, following the traditional exposition of his Ma∣sters, till he came to understand the Law aright.

Another Question of greater consequence is, What is meant by lust? Thou shalt not covet, for the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, though in Exod. 20. there be the same Hebrew word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 yet Deut. 5. 21. There is another Hebrew expression, which is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which because in Hithpael, and so of a reciprocal signification, they translate fecit se concupiscere, to stirre up a mans self to desire, and thereby say, such lusts are only forbidden that a man nourisheth, and yeelds himself up

unto, but that rule is not a general one, see Prov. 23. 3. Some limit this Com∣mandment too much, as it did only command contentation of spirit, and that we should not sinfully desire, that which others have. But the Apostle doth plainly extend it further than so. The Papists they likewise limit it too much, making only those lusts andmotions of sinne, which we consent to to be forbid∣den, denying that those motions to evil, which arise antecedently to our reason and will, to be truly sinnes; hence is their Rule concerning them, Non sensus, but consensus is that which doth damn, which in a good sense, we also will ac∣knowledge to be true. But we are not to limit Scripture, where it hath not li∣mited it self, and therefore we conclude, That the command doth forbid a three∣fold concupiscence or lust.

First, That lust which is actually consented to, though not breaking forth into act, and if this were all, the Law of God would hereby be exlted above all humane Laws, which reach no further than external actions, And how many are ignorant of, at least not affected, with the spiriruality of this Law in this particular? Would they dare to entertain such heart-sinnes as they doe, could they make their souls cages of uncleane, unjust and ungodly thoughts, as they do?

Secondly, The Law goeth higher, and doth not only forbid those lusts in thy heart, which thou yeeldest consent unto; but all those suggestions and suddain surreptitious motions, which do suddenly arise in thy soul, though thou doest not con∣sent to them, yea though thou doest resist them, hate them, and pray against them, for of such lusts Paul doth especially speak in this Chapter, and the Law of nature did never condemn these for sinnes in any Heathens, where∣as the Apostle doth chiefly complain of these, and that as sinnes properly so called, for to be mortified and crucified, as being contrary to the holy Law of God.

Lastly, By lust is meant original sinne, as being the fountain, the root of all these lusts, that hot furnace, from which those sparks of sinfull motions do con∣tinually arise, and that by lust is meant at least secondarily, and by contequent original corruption is plain, because this lust is the same with the Law of the mem∣bers, the Law of sinne, and the sinne dwelling in him. It is true, he saith, this sinne he complaineth of, wrought in him all manner of concupiscence or lust. But then we must distinguish between lust habitual, and lust actual; Lust habitual is original sinne, and that is the cause of lusts actual; And if you say, Why doth the Apostle call original sinne lust, as if it were an actual sinne? The reason is (as is further to be insisted on) because it is a fountain alwayes running over; Its not a sluggish dull habit, but is continually venting it self forth into all poisonous and sinfull acts. So that by lust forbidden in the Text is meant.

1. Lusts consented to, though not accomplished in act.

2. Lusts arising in the soul, but rejected and striven against.

Lastly, Original sinne, as the root of all; In which sense the Apostle James Chap. 1. 14. calleth it likewise lust. Some learned men there are, that do not like it should be said original sinne is forbidden by the Law of God, (as Molineus, Rivet. in Expos. Dec. Martinius in Exposit. Decal) although they grant the Law doth damn it and judge it. But surely their meaning is no more, as Marti∣nius doth expresly afterwards affirm, than that original sin is not primarily and directly forbidden, but secondarily and by consequent; As also that it is thus forbidden, that we should not obey but resist it, as Rivet. But whereas they reason, That a prohibition is not of those things that already are present in us, but of what is future or may be, that is no wayes solid, because past sins and present actual sins, are truly forbidden by the Law, although the sinne past cannot but be past, and the sinne present cannot but be present, because quic∣quid est, quando est, necesse est esse. Other learned men, though they grant

original sinne is truly and properly forbidden by the Law of God, yet they say, It is not in this Commandment, partly because it's forbidden in every Command∣ment, for where any branch of sin is forbidden, there the root also is forbidden, and where pure streams of holiness are required, there also a pure fountain of holiness; Original righteousness is commanded, and that partly because this tenth Commandment doth belong to the second Table onely, whereas original sinne is not onely the cause of evil lusts towards man, but also towards God. Now in this we shall not much disagree; For it must be granted, That seeing an holy heart is required in every particular command, it followeth, That an evil sinfull heart is forbidden in every command; and for the later we grant also, That original sinne is not forbidden in this last Commandment in the universal la∣titude and utmost extent of it, but so farre as it doth break out in sinfull lusts to∣wards man.