An exact collection of the works of Doctor Jackson ... such as were not published before : Christ exercising his everlasting priesthood ... or, a treatise of that knowledge of Christ which consists in the true estimate or experimental valuation of his death, resurrection, and exercise of his everlasting sacerdotal function ... : this estimate cannot rightly be made without a right understanding of the primeval state of Adam ...

CHAP. XII.

Containing the true and solid Definition of sin, whether Original or Acquired by vitious Acts or dispositions.

1. THe best attempt that I have read or heard to this purpose, was made long ago by One who hath been so buffeted on both sides, which he sought to teach or instruct, as would make an ordinary Souldier in our Chri∣stian warfare afraid either to be his Second or to come unto his Rescue, Flac∣cius Illyricus I mean; a man most happy in Political undertakings and at∣chivements, which were rather below then beyond his profession: Yet in his Treatise Concerning the Nature of Original Sin, or the nature of sin in general, Two wayes unfortunate: First, in that he was not so profound a Philosopher or exquisite Artist, as it were fitting Every Divine, which will undertake to handle this part of Divinity, or others which have connexion with it, should be: Secondly, in that he was a better Philosopher and more exquisite Artist by much, then such Divines, whether in reformed Churches or others, which have taken upon them to rectifie or confute his Errors. These for the most part run a wider Byaz on the left hand towards the No∣minals, then he doth on the right hand from the Real Philosophers or Divines. This man went the right way to his work, and begun it like a good Artist, by defining or displaying the Nature or Essence of Original Righteousness, be∣fore he entred into that dispute Concerning the Nature of Original Sin, or unrighteousnesse. He rightly and upon demonstrative grounds denies Ori∣ginal Righteousness to be any quality supernatural, any Accident or property

adventitious to the Humane nature; if we consider that in the Estate wherein it was first created. Nor did he commit any error (much lesse incur any censure of Heresie) by avouching Original Righteousness to have been the Essential form of man, if he had expressd his meaning with this addition, or limited his expressions thus; [

As the First man was the work of God, or considered as he was created in His Image.

] For (as I am forced often to repeat) there were not in mans Creation Two works of God really distinct, either in order of nature or in respect of time; nor so distinct, as that The One might be imagined to be the Nature of the first man, or of Gods image in Him, The other, a Coronation of his Nature, or image of God, with a Grace or righteousnesse supernatural. For Righteousness original, to speak properly, could be no other work or Effect imaginable, save only the Re∣sultance of that image of God wherein our Nature was first moulded. And this Resultance was as immediate unto, and as unseparable from the image of God wherein the first man was created, as Roundness is from a perfect sphere, or well moulded bullet; or as Equality is from Identity of quantity: Of none of which there can be two distinct Causes or Operations.

2. To make the Image of God or that righteousnesse, which by immediate necessity resulted from Gods image or work, the substance, nature, or essen∣tial form of man, quâ talis, as he is man; would be a grosse Error or grie∣vous Soloecism in Philosophy: For so Adam should not have been the same individual Party or Person after his Fall, which he was before. And this Error in Philosophy uncontrol'd, would necessarily induce a more dangerous Heresie in Divinity, to wit; [That the same party which was made righte∣ous by God, should not be punished for losing this Righteousnesse, but some other for him.] By the same reason the Humane Nature it self, which is now polluted by sin▪ should not be so much as specifically the same with that which God did in the beginning create; Our Nature as now it stands, should be wholly a work or Creature of the Devil.

3. But this Good writer, I mean Illyricus, iterum & identidem, often and again disclaims all Opinion or thought conceived by him of any Specifical change of the Essence or nature of mankind, from the first Creation to the worlds End; or of any Essential Change or destruction of the Individual Nature or Persons of our First Parents. Yet his Expressions of his meaning sometimes may seem to infer either a change of Nature or a destruction of the Two Indi∣viduals first created by God It may be that Opinion of some late Philosophers [Principium Individuationis est à materia; that, The root of Individuation or distinction of one particular Person from another was wholly from the Matter, not from the Form, which is the principal pa••t of every mans Essence or person;] was imbraced by him. But seeing he utterly disclaims the former Conclusi∣ons or Inferences, which some would put upon him: it would not be inge∣nuous to charge him with them upon Consequences, not of his own, but of other mens making. The Learned and ingenuous Reader will easily excuse him from this One Error in Philosophie, seeing he hath taught such as will be taught by him so many good useful Lessons, as no Divine (which I have read) in modern Churches, hath taught more, for avoyding Sceptical or meerly Dialectical, and making solid and theological Definitions in substantial or Fundamental points of Divinity.•• or no Definition, of sin especially, or of Free-will or other Controversie depending upon their Determination, can be truly Theological or such as a professor of Divinity, if he be a true Artist, can brook; unlesse it be truly and solidly Philosophical.

4. The difference between a Nominal or meerely Dialectical, and a true Philosophical or Physical Definition of one and the same Reall Effect, affection, or propertie, is Excellently set down in sundry Treatises by the Great Philo∣sopher. If this question [Quid est ira? what is that which we call Wrath or An∣ger?] were proposed to a meere Logician, or Dialecticall Grammarian: His an∣swer is upon his tongues end; Ira est appetitio vindictae: V•• rath or Anger is a es••••e or appetition of revenge. But this is only 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a meere Ex∣pression what the Word doth signifie; or at the ••est but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a Definition only of the Abstract Essence of the Accident or Affection. But if the same question were proposed to a true Philosopher, to a good Naturalist or Learned Physitian, his answer would be; Ira est ebull•• tio sanguinis circa cor; Wrath or Anger is in truth and indeed neither lesse nor more then the boyling of the blood about the heart: This is the only root or Real Cause whence Anger im∣mediatly growes. Yet if we would take a full Definition of this most unruly passion (which is the usual Commander in chief, of greatest Commanders:) it must be This, according to the rules of Art; Ira est appetitio vindictae prop∣ter Ebullitionem sanguinis circa cor; Wrath or Anger, is an appetition of revenge caused by the boyling of blood about the heart. And from this Definition Every good Moralist, (such all true Divines should be, and somewhat more) may Learne in part how to curbe or tame This unruly Beast: according to the old proverb, Equo ferocientisubtrahendum pabulum; by abstaining from all Cho∣lerick meates, and by withdrawing his self from all probable occasions, which by one sense or other may set his best blood on boyling.

5. He that saith, An Eclipse is the privation of light in the moone or other heavenly starr, speakes properly Enough: For this is the Essential Definition of that which we call an Ecliose, whether in the Sun or in the Moone: Yet but a Nominal Definition, which every young Scholar or Academick may Learne out of his Lexicon. What more then is required to a Philosop••icall or Real Definition of an Eclipse, whether in the Moon, Sun, or other stars? No∣thing besides the assignation of the Reall Cause by which this defect of light is wrought, whether in the Sun or Moon. The Reall cause of this privation of Light in the moon is the Diametral interposition of the shadow of the earth between the Moon and the Sun, from whom as from the Fountain of Light, this second Light or Governesse of the night doth borrow its Light or Splen∣dor. Albeit of these two Definitions, the Grammatical or Nominal be most proper: Yet the Causal, (though taken alone as Philosophers use to express it) is most Reall and more satisfactorie. An Eclipse in the Moon is the interposi∣tion of the Earth betwixt the Sun, and it: The Eclipse of the Sun is the interpositi∣on of the body of the Moon betwixt the Sun, and us, that be inhabitants of the Earth. Hence we may Learne that however the Nominal or Essential Defi∣nition of an Eclipse, whether in the Sun or Moon or other Starr, that is, a Privation of Light, be One and the same: Yet we may Learne more from the Causal Definition of either of them, then we can from the Nominal Definition of both. In an Eclipse of the Sun there is no defect or privation of Light in it: We inhabitants of the Earth onely are deprived of the light or Lustre of this glorious starr, by the interposition of the body of the Moon between it, and our bodily sight. Whence we may truly inferr, that the body of the Moon is in it self as impenetrable by Light, or as uncapable of Transmission or free passage of Light through it, as the body of the Earth is; That the sur∣face only of this great starr is capable of Light by reflexion, as a Globe of steel or other solid Body, whose surfaces are smooth and Equable: It doth not, it cannot transmit Light, or suffer it to be transfused through it after

the manner of glass. Yet if we should give a perfect and absolute Definition of an Eclipse in the Moon, we must add the Abstract or nominal Definition of the Eclipse unto the Reall or Philosophicall: As thus; The Eclipse of the moon is a true and reall privation of light or splendor, not in respect of us only, but in it self; caused by the interposition of the body of the Earth, which hindereth the trans∣mission of light which it borrowes from the Sun. But the Eclipse of the Sun is only a privation of our sight or view of it, occasioned or caused by the interposition of the dark body of the Moone betwixt this glorious Starr and fountaine of light and our eyes.

6. The maine businesse wherein Illyricus is so Zealous, was to banish all such Nominal or Grammatical Definitions as have been mentioned out of the precincts of Theologie, and to put in continual Caveats against the Admission of Abstracts or mere Relations, into the Definition of Original Sin, or of that Unrighteousnesse which is inherent in the man unregenerate. And howe∣ver St. Austin, Aquinas, and Melancthon say in effect as much as Illyricus did, if their meanings were rightly apprehended or weighed by their Follow∣ers: Yet his Expressions of the Nature, Cause, and Properties of Original Sin, were to his own, and so they are to my apprehension more cleare, more full and real, then any Definitions of Aquinas or Melancthon, Even where they speake most fully according to their own Principles, unto this point. Aquinas (as this Author quotes him) some where grantes, Originale peccatum non esse meram privationem justitiae originalis; that Original Sin is not only a meere privation or want of Original Righteousnesse, but a positive or forcible inclination contrary to it. Melancthon with many Others of the most Learned writers which have been in the Germane or French Church since Luther began to re∣nounce the Romish Church, acknowledge and Define the same Sin to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a Disorder of our faculties and Affections, or which is more, a Depra∣vation of our nature, Or in other tearmes, whether Greek or Latin, fully equivalent unto these. Wherein then doth this singular writer (as some do censure him) either differ from, or go beyond Aquinas, Melancthon, or O∣thers? all of whom respectively grant as much, and some of them more then is included in the Definitions or descriptions of Sin, forecited out of Aqui∣nas and Melancthon.

7. Illyricus defines Originall Sin not by the

Abstract, but by the Concrete, as thus: Original Sin is the Nature of man corrupted, or the affections or Facul∣ties of our soules and bodyes disordered and depraved &c..

He no where de∣fines it to be the Nature, the Substance, or Faculties of men absolutely conside∣red, or without Limitation; Yet to be All these so farr as they are depraved and corrupted, or transformed out of that Image of God which was seated in them by Creation, into the image or real similitude of Satan. In man considered as he was the work of God or made after his image, there was an exact Har∣mony or consonancie of Will unto the Law and Will of God; an Exact Harmonie of Faculties and Affections amongst themselves, and a sweet sub∣ordination of them unto the reasonable will or conscience, whil'st that held consort with the will and Law of God. But by the First Mans Fall or will∣full transgression, all parts of this Harmony are lost: The sensitive desires, Faculties, or Affections are at continuall jarr and discord amongst them∣selves. The best consort they hold is to fight joyntly against the Reasona∣ble Soul and Conscience or spirituall part of our nature; especially so far as it holds any Consort with the Will of God. His Definition then of Sin by the substance or Nature of man as that is depraved or corrupted; and the Defi∣nitions, of other Writers which define it to be the Depravation of our nature: or

the difference between him when he defines it by the Faculties or parts of our nature as these are disordered or instamped with the image of Satan, and other Divines, who define it, to be an Ataxie or disorder of the Affections and Faculties, if we calculate their severall Expressions aright, they come all to one Reckoning: there is no more materiall question or reall difference betwixt them, then if we should dispute, whether Three times foure, or foure times three: Or two times six, or six times two, do better expresse or deci∣pher the number of twelve: Or whether Harmonie be a Consonancie of true voi∣ces or sounds; Or true voices or sounds perfectly Consonant.

Notes

• Illyricus his Definition of Sin Original how far blam∣able, how farr Commendable.
• The difference between meer∣ly Dialectical and Philoso∣phical or Theological Definitions.