A30247:2483
A treatise of original sin ... proving that it is
A treatise of original sin ... proving that it is, by pregnant texts of Scripture vindicated from false glosses / by Anthony Burgess.
London : s.n., 1658
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.
Objections against the Relics of sin in a regenerate man answered.
Objections against the Reliques of sinne in a regenerate man answered.
Let us examine what is usually objected against this truth. And
LEt us examine what is usually objected against this truth. And
First, The command of God requiring we should not lust, and that we should love God with all our heart, and all our soul, and might: From hence they argue, if these two commands cannot be perfectly fulfilled, why are they required of us.
First, The command of God requiring we should not lust, and that we should love God with all our heart, and all our soul, and might: From hence they argue, if these two commands cannot be perfectly fullfilled, why are they required of us.
To this it is answered, that it must be granted, no man living is able to answer the perfection and exactness of this law: who can say he loveth God, as much as the command requireth? that he never faileth in the least degree? who can say that he never finds any sinful motions? any irregular workings of heart? though he do not consent to them; suppose that were always true, which is not to be granted, yet such motions being in the heart, the very having of them maketh us to fall short of the exactness of the law; But yet these commands are necessary; for the rule must always be perfect, not wanting or failing in any thing. The command doth represent the perfect Idea of complete righteousness, as Statues that are erected up in high and eminent places, are commonly of greater length, then the ordinary stature of men is. Thus it is one thing the righteousness commanded in the law, and the participation of it in the subject, that receiveth it according to its proper capacity; The law then is perfect, but we are imperfect, true obedience and imperfect must not be confounded, as Castellio most ignorantly doth, and therefore abandoneth that opinion (De Justificat. pag. 46.) which maketh imperfection a sin: but he calumniateth the orthodox, when he saith, we hold nothing a virtue, but what is chiefest (ibid. pag. 43.) neither do we call that imperfection, which may have a greater degree; Adam was not imperfect, because he had not so much holiness, as the Angles have; In heaven it may be judged, that one Saint shall have more grace then another, yet every one perfected in their measure; and though it be so, he that hath not so much holiness as the chiefest, shall not be judged sinfully imperfect; there is a negative imperfection, and a privative; this later is, when the subject doth not partake of what degrees it ought to do, and then it is always a sin: The star hath not as much light as the Sun, but this is no privative imperfection, because it is not bound to be the Sun: Now the command of God requireth of us the chiefest love that we can by grace put forth, not the highest degree of love, which is possible, but what we are bound to do, and any defect herein is a sin; We admit that all graces are not alike, no more then all sins, one may be more holy then another; yet he that is the highest attainer doth not reach to the utmost of the command;