God, as he was the first man's Creator, or of the Wisdom of God, as he is our Lord and Redeemer, is intrinsical and formal idolatry, or idolatry in the abstract, without any external object to dote upon, or to entice men to bestow worship upon it. The heathens committed idolatry in their temples or in their houses, but this idolatry is committed within his brain that entertains it: the essence of it formally consists in the reflection of the imagination upon itself, or in the complacency which men take in such reflections; if any man haply (which I much doubt) can be delighted with such imaginations. The very height of heathenish idolatry, as our apostle instructs us, Rom. i. 23, &c. did consist in changing the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Now if the Wisdom of God had sent wise men and prophets unto the Jews, unto the end that Jerusalem should be destroyed, and righteous blood required of them, his weeping over Jerusalem had better resembled or expressed the disposition of a crocodile, than the nature either of God or any good man. Nor was it greater idolatry in the heathen to change the glory of the uncorruptible God into the image or likeness of a crocodile, as the Egyptians did, than it is to ascribe the properties of this noisome beast, or any such disposition as the historical emblem of the crocodile doth represent, unto the Son of God, who came into the world, not to destroy or hurt, but to save sinners, and to be consecrated to be the author of everlasting salvation to all that obey him. These two branches of idolatry— the one planted in the Egyptian, who worshipped the crocodile for his God; the other in such as worship or nourish such sinister imaginations (of the Son of God)

The ori

ginal occa

former

sions.

as have been specified-differ no more than the way from Athens to Thebes doth from the way from Thebes to Athens.

5. The main head or source original whence all or sion of the most of the harsh expressions whether of reformed errors or ill writers or of Roman catholics, whence all the aspersions expres- which both or either of them indirectly, or by way of 16 necessary consequence, cast upon our Lord Creator and Redeemer, naturally issue, is that common or fundamental error, that all things (the changes and chances of this inferior world not excepted) are necessary in respect of God, or of his irresistible decree; that nothing, not human acts, can be contingent, save only with reference to second causes. Now if there be no contingency in human acts, there neither is, nor ever was, nor ever can be, any freewill in man. The original of this common error, 'That all things are necessary in respect of the divine decree,' hath been sufficiently discovered in the sixth book of these Commentaries upon the Apostles' Creed, sect. 2. chap. 12, where the reader may find the truth of this proposition or conclusion clearly demonstrated: That to decree a contingency in some works or course of nature, in human acts especially, was as possible to him unto whom nothing is impossible, as it was to decree a necessity in some other works or courses of nature.' As for instance, to decree or constitute that our father Adam should have a free power or faculty either to eat or not to eat of the forbidden fruit, doth imply no contradiction; and therefore was absolutely possible to the Almighty Creator so to ordain or decree. But many things (as the observant reader will except) are possible, which are not probable, or never are brought into act. True; yet that the Almighty Creator did de facto, or actually, decree a mutual possibility of Adam's falling and not

falling, or between his fall and perseverance, hath been in this present treatise and in some others demonstrated from the article concerning the goodness of God or his gracious providence, by such demonstration as the case now in handling is capable of; that is, by evident deduction of the contradictory opinion to this impossibility, That God otherwise was the only cause of our first parents' sins, and of all other sins which necessarily issue from their sins; unless it be granted and agreed upon, that Adam's falling or not falling should both be alike possible; that neither should or could be necessary either to the first or second causes.' To deny that God did ordain or constitute a true and facible mean between the necessity of Adam's perseverance in the state wherein he was created, and the necessity of his falling into sin, i. e. a mutual possibility of falling or of not falling into sin, would imply as evident a contradiction unto or impeachment of his goodness, as it would do to his omnipotency, if any man should peremptorily deny that the constitution or tenor of such a decree were possible to his almighty power. To say God could not possibly make such a disjunctive decree, or such a tenor of mutual possibility betwixt things decreed, as hath been often mentioned, would be a gross error, yet an error, I take it, not so dangerous as to deny that he did de facto make such a decree. our gracious Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier is doubtless more jealous to have his goodness impeached or suspected, than to have his almighty power questioned.

For

6. Thus much of the main general query, concerning the manner how sin (or that evil which we call malum culpa) did find first entrance into the works of God, and in particular into the nature of man: from the first

6

visible works had this eulogium or commendation, that they were exceeding good: no entrance of sin into the works of God, into man especially, was possible, without the incogitancy or inadvertency of a free cause or agent. The true nature of the first sin and of its heinousness did especially consist in this, that whereas our gracious Creator had endowed our first parents with a power or faculty to do well, exceeding well; and given them good encouragement to persevere in so 17 doing, they should so incogitantly and quickly abuse this power, and the divine concourse or assistance that did attend it, to do that which was evil; that which the Lord their Creator had so peremptorily forbidden them to do, under commination of a dreadful punishment to ensue upon the doing of it. The difficulty or main query which remains (all that hath been said being granted) is principally this- How this one sinful act of our first parents could possibly produce a habit of sin, or that which is more than a habit, an unmovable custom of sin, or an hereditary disease of sinfulness throughout all the successions of the sons of Adam, to the world's end.' The second query (yet in the first place to be discussed) is this-'Wherein the nature of that hereditary disease which we call sin original doth properly consist.' The third- How this hereditary disease doth bring all mankind into a true and proper servitude to sin, and by sin unto Satan,' &c. In the discussion of this and many other difficulties depending upon it, I shall endeavour to observe that rule which Chemnitius in many of his works hath commended to the observation of every student in divinity; and his rule is this: "To state all questions upon those places of scripture out of which they are naturally emergent, or out of those passages upon whose mistakings or non-observance of them many theological controversies

6

were first occasioned, and are to this day abetted or maintained with eagerness of dissension." To begin first with that most heavenly discourse of our Saviour, John viii. 30, &c.

SECTION II.

Of the Properties or Symptoms of Sin Original, and of the Nature of Sin in general.

CHAP. VII.

Containing the State of the Controversy, or Debate betwixt our Saviour and the Jews, John viii. 30-36: "As he spake these words, many believed on him. Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; and ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. They answered him, We be Abraham's seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free? Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin. And the servant abideth not in the house for ever: but the Son abideth ever. If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed."

phrase on

WHETHER that reply or saucy interruption, ver. A para33-We be Abraham's seed, and were never in John viii. bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be 34, &c. made free?-was made by those Jews whom our evangelist avouches did believe on him, ver. 30, or by some other bystanders, hath been discussed in a sermon lately delivered, which by God's assistance shall be annexed to the discussions following, which better befit the press or the schools than the pulpit. So that I