A10659:311
Three treatises of the vanity of the creature. The sinfulness of sin. The life…Three treatises of the vanity of the creature. The sinfulnesse of sinne. The life…
Three treatises of the vanity of the creature. The sinfulness of sin. The life of Christ. Being the substance of several sermons preached at Lincolns Inn: by Edward Reynolds, preacher to that honourable society, and late fellow of Merton College in Oxford.Three treatises of the vanity of the creature. The sinfulnesse of sinne. The life of Christ. Being the substance of severall sermons preached at Lincolns Inne: by Edward Reynoldes, preacher to that honourable society, and late fellow of Merton Colledge in Oxford.
London: printed by Felix Kyngston for Robert Bostocke, 1631
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
To the second three things are to be answered. First, The sinfulness of a thing is grounded on its disproportion to the Law of God, not to the will of man. Now Gods Law sets bounds, and moderates the operations of all other powers and parts, as well as of the will. And therefore the Apostle complains of his sinful concupiscence, even when his will was in a readiness to desire the good, and refuse the evil. Ro. 7. 18. Secondly, no evil lust riseth or stirreth,1 though it prevent the consent of the will, but the will may be esteemed faulty, not in this that it consented unto it, but in this, that it did not, as it ought to have done, hinder ⟨p. 210⟩and suppress it. For the stirrings of lust before the will, is their usurpation, and inordinateness, not their nature, which therefore the will according to that primitive sovereignty which in mans nature she had ought to rectify, and order again. Thirdly, original sin, though to persons it be not, yet to the nature it was voluntary, and to the persons in Adam as in their common Father, for with them otherwise then in him no covenant could be made, and even in humane laws the Acts of parents can circumscribe their children.
To the second three things are to be answer'd. First, The sinfulnesse of a thing is grounded on its disproportion to the Law of God, not to the will of man. Now Gods Law sets bounds, and moderates the operations of all other powers and parts, as well as of the wil. And therfore the Apostle complaines of his sinfull concupiscence, even when his wil was in a readines to desire the good, and refuse the evill. Ro. 7. 18. Secondly, no evil lust riseth or stirreth,1 though it prevent the consent of the will, but the wil may be esteemed faultie, not in this that it consented unto it, but in this, that it did not, as it ought to have done, hinder ⟨p. 210⟩and suppresse it. For the stirrings of lust before the will, is their usurpation, and inordinatenesse, not their nature, which therefore the will according to that primitive soveraignty which in mans nature shee had ought to rectifie, and order againe. Thirdly, originall sin, though to persons it be not, yet to the nature it was voluntarie, and to the persons in Adam as in their common Father, for with them otherwise then in him no covenant could be made, and even in humane lawes the Acts of parents can circumscribe their children.