“Thou shalt not covet…”
Ex. 20:17
“…for I had not known lust, except the law had said, ‘Thou shalt not covet.’ But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence… but I am carnal, sold under sin. For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I… Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing… But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. O wretched man that I am!”
Rom. 7:15-24
“But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.”
James 1:14-15
.
.
Subsection
Internal Relations of Adam’s Soul in Integrity
Classifications & Degrees of Sin, & on Venial vs. Mortal Sin
.
.
Order of Contents
Intro
Heidelberg & Westminster
Articles 12+
Book 1
Quotes 7+
Does Ignorance Excuse Sin? 7+
Regards Natural Law, Not Positive 1
Sinful Dreams 1
Guilt of Culpability vs. Punishment 4
Latin 12+
.
Intro
.
.
Heidelberg Catechism 1563
“113th Q: What does the Tenth Commandment require of us?
A: That not even the slightest thought or desire contrary to any of God’s commandments should ever arise in our heart. Rather, we should always hate all sin with all our heart, and delight in all righteousness.[1]
[1] Ps. 19:7-14; 139:23, 24; Rom. 7:7, 8″
.
.
Westminster
Shorter Catechism
“Q. 14. What is sin?
Sin is any want of conformity unto, or transgression of, the law of God. (1 John 3:4)”
.
Q. 18. Wherein consists the sinfulness of that estate whereinto man fell?
A. The sinfulness of that estate whereinto man fell, consists in the guilt of Adam’s first sin, the want of original righteousness, and the corruption of his whole nature, which is commonly called Original Sin; together with all actual transgressions which proceed from it.[f]
[f] Rom. 5:12,19. Rom. 5:10-20. Eph. 2:1-3. James 1:14,15. Matt. 15:19“
.
Confession of Faith
Ch. 6.2-6
“II. By this sin they [our first parents] fell from their original righteousness, and communion with God,[c] and so became dead in sin,[d] and wholly defiled in all the faculties and parts of soul and body.[e]
[c] Gen. 3:6-8. Eccl. 7:29. Rom. 3:23.
[d] Gen. 2:17. Eph. 2:1.
[e] Tit. 1:15. Gen. 6:5. Jer. 17:9. Rom. 3:10-18“
III… and the same death in sin and corrupted nature conveyed to all their posterity, descending from them by ordinary generation.[g]
[g] Ps. 51:5. Gen. 5:3. Job 14:4. Job 15:14
IV. From this original corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good,[h] and wholly inclined to all evil,[i] do proceed all actual transgressions.[k]
[h] Rom. 5:6. Rom. 8:7. Rom. 7:18. Col. 1:21.
[i] Gen. 6:5. Gen. 8:21. Rom. 3:10-12.
[k] James 1:14,15. Eph. 2:2,3. Matt. 15:19.
V. This corruption of nature, during this life, doth remain in those that are regenerated:[l] and although it be through Christ pardoned and mortified, yet both itself, and all the motions thereof, are truly and properly sin.[m]
[l] 1 John 1:8,10. Rom. 7:14,17,18,23. James 3:2. Prov. 20:9. Eccl. 7:20.
[m] Rom. 7:5,7,8,25. Gal. 5:17
VI. Every sin, both original and actual, being a transgression of the righteous law of God, and contrary thereunto,[n] doth, in its own nature, bring guilt upon the sinner,[o] whereby he is bound over to the wrath of God,[p] and curse of the law,[q] and so made subject to death,[r] with all miseries spiritual,[s] temporal,[t] and eternal.[u]
[n] 1 John 3:4.
[o] Rom. 2:15. Rom. 3:9,19.
[p] Eph. 2:3.
[q] Gal. 3:10.
[r] Rom. 6:23.
[s] Eph. 4:18.
[t] Rom. 8:20. Lam. 3:39.
[u] Matt. 25:41. 2 Thess. 1:9“
.
Larger Catechism
Q. 99.1-2
“1. That the law is perfect, and bindeth every one to full conformity in the whole man unto the righteousness thereof, and unto entire obedience for ever; so as to require the utmost perfection of every duty, and to forbid the least degree of every sin.[o]
[o] Ps. 19:7. James 2:10. Matt. 5:21,22.
2. That it is spiritual, and so reacheth the understanding, will, affections, and all other powers of the soul; as well as words, works, and gestures.[p]
[p] Rom. 7:14. Deut. 6:5 compared with Matt. 22:37-39. Matt. 5:21,22,27,28,33,34,37-39,43,44“
.
Q. 194. What do we pray for in the fifth petition?
A. In the fifth petition, (which is, Forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors,[v]) acknowledging, that we and all others are guilty both of original and actual sin, and thereby become debtors to the justice of God; and that neither we, nor any other creature, can make the least satisfaction for that debt:[w] we pray for ourselves and others, that God of his free grace would, through the obedience and satisfaction of Christ, apprehended and applied by faith, acquit us both from the guilt and punishment of sin,[x] accept us in his Beloved;[y] continue his favour and grace to us,[z] pardon our daily failings,[a]…
[v] Matt. 6:12.
[w] Rom. 3:9-22. Matt. 18:24,25. Ps. 130:3,4.
[x] Rom. 3:24-26. Heb. 9:22.
[y] Eph. 1:6,7.
[z] 2 Pet. 1:2.
[a] Hos. 14:2. Jer. 14:7“
.
Articles
Early Church
Augustine
City of God, 14.19-26
On Marriage & Concupiscence, 1.7 & 25
Against Julian, 5.3, 6.18
On Augustine, see Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, vol. 3, p. 142.
.
1500’s
Vermigli, Peter Martyr – ‘Whether the first motions should be accounted sins’ in The Common Places… (London: Henrie Denham et al., 1583), pt. 2, ch. 14, ‘The Last Precept’, pp. 565-73
Chemnitz, Martin – 5 sections in Examination of the Council of Trent, vol. 1
Chemnitz was a Lutheran.
Musculus, Wolfgang – Common Places of the Christian Religion (1560; London, 1563)
7th Commandment
Not only the act, but the will and endeavor also of adultery is forbidden 86.a
The concupiscence of the heart 86.a
Difference to be made between the judgment of God and the judgment of man 86.a
10th Commandment
1. What concupiscence is 103.a
The strength of concupiscence 103.a
The contrary unto concupiscence 103.b
The nature of concupiscence 103.b
2. How many sorts of concupiscences there be 103.b
Concupiscence before sin 103.b
The affects of concupiscence are of two sorts 103.b
Whereof the corruption of our concupiscence is 103.b
We must mark in us the work of God and the work of Satan 103.b
The cause of the natural affections in us 103.b
To desire no thing belongs to the dead and not to the living 104.a
3. What kind of concupiscence is forbidden 104.a
The concupiscence of the spirit is not forbidden, Gal. 5 104.a
Nor natural concupiscence is forbidden 104.a
The concupiscence of the corrupt flesh is forbidden 104.b
Josh. 7; Dt. 7 104.b
4. Of the motions of naughty concupiscence 104.b
By what means the naughty concupiscence is moved 104.b
The natural senses 104.b
Concupiscence is stirred by thought only 104.b
Ps. 119 105.a
The loathsomeness of honest and lawful things 105.a
5. Of the naughtiness and malice of inordinate desire 105.a
Evil concupiscence placed within, even in the affections of our hearts 105.a
Concupiscence is the minister of sin 105.a
Rom. 6 105.b
Concupiscence blinds 105.b
Concupiscence does choke the Word of God in the heart, Mk. 4 105.b
Concupiscence does provoke the man altogether to sin 105.b
Concupiscence does torment the heart 105.b
Concupiscence is rather stirred up by law of justice than restrained, Rom. 7 106.a
Concupiscence is not extinguished by age 106.a
Concupiscence is unsatiable 106.a
In what account this concupiscence is before God 106.a
How concupiscence alone is sin in the sight of God 106.a
Mt. 5, a similitude 106.a
If the desire is before god as the fact, what avails it to abstain form the doings? Mt. 5;1 Cor. 6 106.b
Gen. 34; 2 Sam. 11 106.b
…
Whether that ignorance do excuse the desire of another man’s goods or no 108.b
Of the concupiscence of a [married] woman not known [to be such] 108.b
Whether we may buy that which we cannot covet 109.a
Naboth’s vineyard, 1 Kings 21 109.a
“Nor anything that is they neighbor’s” 109.b
The eyes be ministers of concupiscence, 2 Kings 20 109.b
We must chasten the unlawful concupiscence 110.a
Musculus in the above distinguishes a natural good concupiscence from that which is inordinate and sinful. See also his quote below.
Viret, Pierre – A Christian Instruction… (d. 1571; London: Veale, 1573), The Exposition of the Preface of the Law
Prime, John – ’Concupiscence is very sin in whomsoever’ in A Fruitful & Brief Discourse in Two Books: the One of Nature, the Other of Grace, with Convenient Answer to the Enemies of Grace, upon Incident Occasions Offered by the Late Rhemish Notes in their New Translation of the New Testament, & Others (London, 1583), bk. 1
Prime (c.1549-1596) was a reformed Anglican clergyman and Oxford scholar.
Willet, Andrew – Synopsis Papismi… (1592)
12th Controversy, Of Baptism, Question 6, 1st Part, ‘Whether in Baptism our Sins be Clean Taken Away?’, pp. 437-8
Controversies on the Benefits of Our Redemption, 2nd Part, 1st Question, Of Sin, 1st Part, ‘Of Original Sin’, pp. 558-9
Willet (1562–1621) was a reformed, conforming Anglican clergyman, controversialist and prolific writer. He was known for his anti-papal works.
Perkins, William – ch. 2, ‘Of Original Sin [After Baptism]’ in A Reformed Catholic… ([Cambridge] 1598)
Perkins (1558-1602) was a father of puritanism in England.
Rollock, Robert – 26. ‘Concupiscence’ in A Treatise of Effectual Calling (1603) in Select Works of Robert Rollock… (d. 1599; Edinburgh, 1849), vol. 1, pp. 178-80
.
1600’s
Abbot, Robert – ch. 2, ‘Original Sin [After Baptism]’ in The Second Part of the Defense of [William Perkins’s] The Reformed Catholic… (London, 1607)
Abbot (1560-1617) was a reformed Anglican and a professor of divinity at Oxford who wrote extensively against Romanism.
A Roman seminary professor, Dr. Bishop had systematically replied to William Perkins’s The Reformed Catholic, which was a systematic refutation of Romanism. Perkins was deceased, so Abbot systematically refuted Bishop. Block quotes of Bishop alternate with Abbot’s commentary thereon.
Davenant, John – The Determinations, or Resolutions of Certain Theological Questions, Publicly Discussed in the University of Cambridge trans. Josiah Allport (1634; 1846) bound at the end of John Davenant, A Treatise on Justification, or the Disputatio de Justitia... trans. Josiah Allport (1631; London, 1846)
Q. 1, ‘Concupiscence in the Regenerate is Sin’, pp. 209-217
Q. 16, ‘A Proneness to Evil does Not Flow From the Principles of Uncorrupt Nature’, pp. 301-306
The philosophical doctrine of many Romanists has been that Adam, by nature, in his uncorrupt state, was prone to what is sinful by the lower attractions and impulses of his nature not being fully subordinate to his higher reason. Thus he was given supernatural grace to prevent this.
However, at the Fall, Romanists hold, this supernatural grace was taken away, and the attractions and impulses of man’s lower nature unto sin, not being fully subordinate to good ends by his higher reason, remains; but this concupiscence (Rom. 7) is not actually sinful, they hold, when it is not fully consented to by the will.
“Certain Jesuits have eagerly embraced this error, with no other design (as it appears to me) than that they might ground their other most grievous errors upon this foundation.” – p. 301
Rutherford, Samuel – in Rutherford’s Examination of Arminianism:
The Tables of Contents with Excerpts from Every Chapter trans. Johnson & Fentiman (1638-43; 1668; 2019)
Ch. 5, ‘Of the Estate of the First Man’
4. ‘Whether sinful concupiscence is a negative entity or positive quality? We distinguish.’, pp. 82-83
Ch. 6, On Original Sin
2. ‘Whether, because original sin is not committed by personal volition, it is therefore not sin, properly so-called? We deny against the Arminians.’, pp. 83-84
6. ‘Whether concupiscence is sin when one does not give consent of the will? We affirm against the Pelagians.’, pp. 84-85
Turretin, Francis – Institutes of Elenctic Theology, tr. George M. Giger, ed. James Dennison Jr. (1679–1685; P&R, 1992)
vol. 1, 9th Topic
Turretin, Francis – 2. ‘Whether the hekousion or voluntary (inasmuch as it is of him who knowingly and willingly does anything) is of the essence of sin? We deny against the papists and Socinians.’, pp. 593-94
vol. 2, 11th Topic, ‘The Law of God’
Q. 21, ‘What Concupiscence is Prohibited by the Tenth Precept? Are the Incipient Motions Sins? We Affirm.’ 134-137
van Mastricht, Peter – Theoretical-Practical Theology (RHB), vol. 3, bk. 4, ch. 2
section 22, ‘For the Constitution of Sin, is the Consent of the Will Prerequisite?’, pp. 457-9
section 28, ‘Is Concupiscence, at Least in the Baptized, Not Sin?, pp. 466-8
.
2000’s
Wedgeworth, Steven – ‘Is Concupiscence Sin?– Gay Christianity, Desire & Orientation’ (2018) 37 paragraphs at Calvinist International
.
Book
1600’s
Owen, John – The Nature, Power, Deceit & Prevelancy of the Remainders of Indwelling Sin in Believers
.
Order of Quotes
Augsburg Confession
Vermigli
Musculus
39 Articles
Ursinus
Perkins
Ames
Davenant
Rutherford
Owen
Mastricht
.
1500’s
The Augsburg Confession
Article 2, ‘Of Original Sin’, sections 1-2
“Also they teach that since the fall of Adam all men begotten in the natural way are born with sin, that is, without the fear of God, without trust in God, and with concupiscence; and that this disease, or vice of origin, is truly sin, even now condemning and bringing eternal death upon those not born again through Baptism and the Holy Ghost.”
.
Peter Vermigli
Commentary on Romans (d. 1562; London, 1568), Ch. 7, p. 166
“[W]e ought certainly to hold, that in this precept, ‘Thou shalt not lust’, are prohibited our corrupt inclination and evil motions of the mind, which we should not acknowledge to be sins, unless the law had showed them unto us. Aristotle, Pigghius and such other like, for that they were ignorant of the law of God, contend that these are not precepts.”
.
Wolfgang Musculus
Common Places of the Christian Religion (1560; London, 1563), The Tenth Precept, fol. 103.a – 104.a
“What concupiscence is, it is better known of itself than that it need any declaration. It is a desire and an affection of the mind which the Greeks do rightly call epithumian, by which we endeavor to draw unto our use by any means that which does like us.
And the strength of this desire is so great that unless we do obtain the things which we do desire, we do judge ourself to be here utterly unhappy. The contrary of concupiscence is the withdrawing of the mind, whereby we do turn and flee with a certain horror and abomination from those things which do mislike us, as the contrary of love is hate and the contrary of joy is sorrow.
The nature of it is to extend itself unto those things which we have not. Else (as Paul says) how shall a man hope for that which he has already; so likewise is here to be said: Those things which a man has already, why shall he hope for them? Wherefore those things truly be in the reach of our concupiscence which by no right pertain unto us, but be in the power of others.
.
2. How many sorts of concupiscences there be
Before the sin of our first parents, the concupiscence in our nature was simple, natural, orderly (and necessary, like as other affections were, so that it was subject unto no malice: such as that which is in us yet, as when we be hungry we be desire meat; when we thirst, drink; when we be a cold, we desire warmth; when we be too hot, we desire to be cooled; when we be in prison, we desire liberty; when we be sick, we desire health etc. and this we do by the only course of nature, without any matter of sin. But after that our first parents had drunk of the poison of the Serpent, this strength of concupiscence is depraved in our hearts, and thereby it came that (passing the limits of nature and necessity) it extends itself unto those things which it is not lawful to desire: for that it is not lawful to take things away which pertain to others.
Therefore the affections of concupiscence are of two sorts, natural and corrupt. The natural be set in us by God, and so much not unlawful, but that they be also necessary. Wherefore they do very unadvisedly teach us which do refer the crying of infants when they be hungry and desire meat unto the forbidden concupiscence and do ascribe them unto original sin. The corrupt affections of concupiscence be they when the limits of necessity are exceeded and men follow pleasures, curiosity, glory, ambition and other vices, and that contrary unto the law of charity and the purity of holiness.
This corruption of our concupiscence is gotten of the old serpent, not grafted in our flesh of God. Wherefore we must beware that we do not ascribe our whole concupiscence neither to God, neither to Satan. The strength of desiring is given us from God, the strength of evil desiring from Satan: like as we do take it of God that we do live, and that we live evil we take it of Satan, the beginner of our malice. By this distinction we do foresee that we do not deny the work of God in us for the work of Satan, nor attribute the work of Satan unto God.
It is the part of a wise man to consider diligently in himself the work of Satan and the work of God. I call it the work of God whatsoever is naturally given us. We take of God not only this outward body and soul whereby we do live, and the mind whereby discoursing we do understand and judge, but also the affections of the heart, such as desire is, the power to withstand, love, hate, hope, fear, joy, sorrow, anger, favor and mercy, etc. And these affections be to great use: and there is great cause why they be grafted in our nature. He made us in such sort that we do not receive those things that be necessary simply at his hand without any perseverance of necessity going before, or affection of desire, like stocks and stones, but moved by the perseverance of our necessity we do desire it even as the dry ground does most gladly receive and drink up the moisture that comes by the dews poured from heaven.
The reason of this is that first when we do covet things necessary for us, we must turn to our Creator, the fountain of all goodness and the preserver of all things that be made: and ask of Him such things as we have need of. Secondly, that the gifts of God be so much the more welcome unto us after we have received them the more that we desired and besought them. God grafted in us also a sense of rejoicing, which we feel in the use of his gifts, and an effect of joy which rises in our hearts as oft as we do obtain our purpose. The cause of them is, that rejoicing and pleasantly using the gifts of God, we may be carried up in our minds to God the giver of them and give thanks unto his goodness with all our heart. He gave us also the strength of hope. The use of it is that we must trust and tarry for those things which we do desire and ask of God when they are not given by and by, and that we do travail with earnest endeavoring, devising and working in those things which are to be achieved by our own industry and labor. So these be trimly linked together: to have need, to desire, to ask of god, to hope in faith, to receive with joy, to use with liking, to give thanks to the giver of all good things, heartly to commend his goodness and with affection of love to be ravished unto Him. All these things would be utterly decayed if you take away the desire from them.
Thus far forth desire and concupiscence is good, the rather necessary, and put into our nature by God. Take away all desire and concupiscence and the knot of wedlock shall decay, the desire of issue [children], the multiplication of our kind, the commodity of eating and drinking, the conservation of life, the study of wisdom, justice, humanity, goodness, mercy, the fellowship and company of man’s life, and all things shall be half dead in man. If it cannot be that we may lack all things, and that nothing that we do, see or hear should like us while we be in this flesh, then it cannot be that we may desire nothing. Therefore to desire nothing pertains not to the living, but to the dead.
When we do consider these things, let us weigh withal how great the wickedness of Satan was that he came at the beginning in our first parents with the poison of his malice, corrupted and depraved a thing so necessary, and sticking fast in the very bowels of our life.”
.
Article 9, ‘Of Original or Birth Sin”
“Original sin standeth not in the following of Adam (as the Pelagians do vainly talk), but it is the fault and corruption of the nature of every man that naturally is engendered of the offspring of Adam, whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness, and is of his own nature inclined to evil, so that the flesh lusteth always contrary to the spirit; and therefore in every person born into this world, it deserveth God’s wrath and damnation. And this infection of nature doth remain, yea, in them that are regenerated, whereby the lust of the flesh, called in Greek phronema sarkos (which some do expound the wisdom, some sensuality, some the affection, some the desire of the flesh), is not subject to the law of God. And although there is no condemnation for them that believe and are baptized, yet the Apostle doth confess that concupiscence and lust hath itself the nature of sin.”
.
Zacharias Ursinus
Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism (d. 1583; 1852; repr. P&R), p. 606
“The design and end of this [10th] commandment is the internal obedience and regulation of all our affections towards God, and our neighbor and his goods… it is not superfluous, seeing that it is added to the other commandments, as a general rule and interpretation, according to which the internal obedience of all the other commandments must be understood, because this is spoken of the whole Decalogue generally.
This commandment, therefore, enjoins original righteousness towards God and our neighbor, which consists in a true knowledge of God in the mind, with an inclination in the will to obey the will of God as known. It also forbids concupiscence, which is an inordinate desire or corrupt inclination, coveting those things which God has forbidden.”
.
1600’s
William Perkins
Works (RHB), vol. 4, pp. 484-485
“They [Romanists] disannul the last Commandment [of the Ten Commandments] by holding concupiscence before consent to be no sin, when as we know by God’s Word that the first evil motions in us are sins.”
.
William Ames
Conscience with the Power & Cases Thereof (1639), bk. 3, ch. 19, ‘Of a Voluntary Act’, p. 93
“Question 5. What are we to judge of those actions which are done through concupiscence.
10th Answer. Concupiscence does not make an act cease to be voluntary, neither does it indeed diminish the voluntariness of it in respect of the act, but increases it rather. For he that does a thing out of concupiscence, has a will strongly inclined to that which it does, as is appears either delightful or profitable to him; if therefore the concupiscence be fixed, the sin’s the greater, as it was in Judas, who betrayed Christ out of covetousness of [money].”
.
John Davenant
A Treatise on Justification tr. Allport (1844), vol. 1, ch. 18, pp. 126-27
“…original sin consists in this, that it opposes the same law as to the inclination or habitude. Consequently this inbred propensity or habit of inordinate concupiscence, which makes man prone to transgress the law of God, is Original Sin.
…he who has within him a defect, habit, or propensity contrary to the law of original creation is infected by Original Sin…
…we must understand that the word concupiscence sometimes denotes the mere faculty of desire… we grant that it is a good creature of God. Sometimes it denotes the contagion or unruly tendency, which has infected the faculty itself; and this disorder, we say, is formally repugnant to that rectitude which God has impressed upon the same faculty….
…the corrupt disposition, which inclines internally to actual sin, is most properly Original Sin. …so although the faculty of desire itself is not sin, yet the inclination and propensity of it to evil is sin; even in one asleep, when it does not at all actually incline to sin.”
.
Samuel Rutherford
Free Disputation, p. 346
“I may argue no man can pretend to be free of sin in the inclination of the heart and original guiltiness, Job 4:4; Ps. 51:5; Gen. 8:21; Prov. 20:9; 1 John 1:8,10; Eccl. 7:20.”
.
John Owen
The Nature, Power, Deceit & Prevelancy of the Remainders of Indwelling Sin in Believers, ch. 4
“And this also lies in it as it is enmity, that every part and parcel of it, if we may so speak, the least degree of it that can possibly remain in any one, whilst and where there is any thing of its nature, is enmity still. It may not be so effectual and powerful in operation as where it has more life and vigor, but it is enmity still. As every drop of poison is poison, and will infect, and every spark of fire is fire, and will burn; so is every thing of the law of sin, the last, the least of it, — it is enmity, it will poison, it will burn.
That which is any thing in the abstract is still so whilst it has any being at all. Our apostle, who may well be supposed to have made as great a progress in the subduing of it as any one on the earth, yet after all cries out for deliverance, as from an irreconcilable enemy, Rom. 7:24. The meanest acting, the meanest and most imperceptible working of it, is the acting and working of enmity.
Mortification abates of its force, but does not change its nature. Grace changeth the nature of man, but nothing can change the nature of sin. Whatever effect be wrought upon it, there is no effect wrought in it, but that it is enmity still, sin still.”
.
Peter van Mastricht
Theoretical Practical Theology (RHB), vol. 3
bk. 3, ch. 9, section 44
“5. Was original righteousness natural to man? The opinion of the papists
XLIV. It is asked, fifth, whether original righteousness was natural to man. The Pelagianizing papists—so that they may obtain: (1) that concupiscence, whose second acts only does original righteousness control, and whose first act it does not take away, is not itself sin, and accordingly, if it does not stand in the way, man can be perfect here and now; (2) that man was created in purely natural things, that is, by nature, neither just nor unjust; (3) that the natural things of man survived whole after the fall—admit indeed an original righteousness, but one that is supernatural to man, added to nature, so that it may check the natural discord of the flesh and spirit. Meanwhile, they do not deny that it arose with man, and that it would have helped him even in natural things. And the opinion of the Reformed with their reasons
The Reformed, although they do not acknowledge that original righteousness (as Flacius [a radical Lutheran] desired) is the very nature of man, yet do acknowledge that it is natural to man, insofar as it was owed to his integral nature in such a way that it could not be morally whole without it. For if (1) it were supernatural, then its opposite, that is, carnal concupiscence or the discord of flesh and spirit, would be natural to man, and thus good and from God, which is contrary to the Scriptures (Rom. 7:7–8; 1 John 2:16). (2) Thus the rebellion of the flesh against the spirit would be natural to man, without any previous demerit, by the condition of nature that was conferred by God, and accordingly, God would be the author of sin. Then (3) blessedness was the natural end of man, and accordingly, so also was righteousness and holiness, without which he could not have achieved blessedness (Rev. 21:27; 1 Cor. 15:50).
Objections
The arguments of the papists for the most part coincide with the Socinian arguments against original righteousness. For they allege:
(1) that there is a natural contrariety of flesh and spirit, of body and soul, and thus original righteousness was not natural. I respond, We previously denied against the Socinians that this obtained in the state of integrity, where a most perfect harmony thrived until the point of sin.
(2) That the gifts conferred upon the first man are called honor and glory (Ps. 8:5), which without a doubt are extrinsic and accessory to man, not natural. I respond: (a) The psalmist calls “honor and glory” not only original righteousness, but also the rule of man over the earthly creatures. Then also (b) in a sound sense, original righteousness is honor and glory (Rom. 3:23), insofar as it is the foundation of all honor and glory, and in that sense it was not something extrinsic to man, but something especially intrinsic. Bellarmine has certain other arguments (vol. 4, bk. 1), but they are of no significance; if anyone desires to know more, he may consult his antagonists: Ames, Pareus, and others.85
85. Bellarmine, De controversiis Christianae Fidei in Opera Omnia (Paris: L. Vivès, 1870–91), 5:169–213; William Ames, Bellarminus Enervatus, 4 vols. (Amsterdam: Joannes Janssonius, 1628–29), 4: 5–12; e.g. David Pareus, Quaestiones controversae theologicae…adversus Bellarminum (Schönfeld, 1612); idem, Rob. Bellarmini de justificatione impii libri explicati et castigati studio Davidis Parei (Heidelberg: Jonah Rosa, 1615).”
.
bk. 4, ch. 3
section 2, pp. 490-91
“However, from the fact that the apostle assigns death to consummated sin, the Romanists wrongly infer that non-consummated sin is not worthy of death, but only of temporal punishments, that is, so that they may hold to venial sin, and from that, their purgatory. They attend too little to the fact that the apostle does not say that only sin consummated by the full consent of the will gives birth to death, since elsewhere Paul assigns death to concupiscence (Rom. 7:5), namely that concupiscence which he did not know was sin (v. 7). Accordingly, he intends only that consummated sin gives birth preeminently to death, insofar as it includes two degrees of sin, internal as well as external.”
.
section 21
“2. Are the primary-first motions of concupiscence sins?
XXI. It is asked, second, whether actual concupiscence toward evil, with respect to its primary-first motion, is sin… The papists, so that they may keep safe the idea of a perfection of every sort in man, at least in the regenerate, since they observe that the primary-first motions obtain even in the most holy persons, conclude that they are not sins, because they are devoid of all consent of the will, that the secondary-first motions are only venial sins, because they lack the full consent of the will, and moreover that only the second motions are mortal sins, because they are perpetrated with full consent. In this sense Bellarmine (vol. 4, bk. 5, “On Sin,” ch. 5–7) upholds that concupiscence, in itself and from its own nature, the sort that is found even in the baptized and justified, is not properly sin.
The Reformed on the contrary state that all the acts of concupiscence, even the primary-first, are sins, because the contrary opinion is: (1) contrary to the express words of the apostle (Rom. 7:7); (2) contrary to the express demand of the law (Ex. 20:17); (3) contrary to the force and strictness of the law, which under the penalty of an eternal curse demands the most exact obedience (Matt. 22:37; Deut. 27:26; Gal. 3:10), and therefore condemns all concupiscence. Finally, (4) it is also the cause of all sin (James 1:14–15). Therefore it is sin, for nothing is the cause of sin that does not sin, since the causation of sin, if it is permitted to speak this way, is a transgression of the law.
Objections
Accordingly, it is not valid to say: (1) it begets sin, therefore it is not sin. For a man, because he begets a man, does not cease to be a man; indeed, as we have said, it is sin by the very fact that it begets sin. And (2) that there is said to be no condemnation (κατάκριμα) in those who are in Christ Jesus (Rom. 8:1) does not argue that there is nothing in them that is condemnable, or sin, but that there is no actual condemnation, as its guilt has been transferred to Christ. Furthermore, (3) that in baptism concupiscence is taken away, as sin. I respond, It is taken away with respect to guilt and dominion… not with respect to its existence.”
.
Does Ignorance Excuse Sin?
See also, ‘On Non-Moral Actions, Ignorance, Fear & Guilt’.
.
Order of Quotes
Rutherford
Westminster
Mastricht
.
1600’s
Samuel Rutherford
A Peaceable & Temperate Plea... (1642), p. 145
“…the meat is infected to me, whether I know it or no[t], and if I be obliged to know it, and know it not, my ignorance is sinful, and does not excuse me.”
.
Lex Rex… (1644; Edinburgh: Ogle, 1843), question 16, p. 66 rt col mid
“If a people trusting in the goodness of their prince, enslave themselves to him, and he shall after turn tyrant; a rash and temerarious surrender obliges not, Et ignorantia facit factum quasi involun∣tarium: Ignorance makes the fact some way involuntary; for if the people had believed that a meek king would have turned a roaring lion, they should not have resigned their liberty into his hand; and therefore the surrender was tacitly conditional to the king as meek, or whom they believed to be meek, and not to a tyrannous lord; and therefore, when the contract is made for the utility of the one party [only], the law says their place is for after wits, that men may change their mind, and resume their liberty…”
.
The Due Right of Presbyteries… (1644)
pt. 1, ch. 3, Section 3, Question 4
pp. 41-49
“1. Because in a question of law all ignorance is moral and culpably evil to any who undertakes actions upon conscience of obedience to others; for to all within the visible Church the Word of God is exactly perfect for faith and manners, and everyone is obliged to know all conclusions of law that are determinable by God’s Word.
2. Every one in his actions is to do out of a plerophory, and a full persuasion, of heart, that what he does pleases God, Rom. 14:14, ‘I know and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean of itself.’
3. We are to do nothing but what is lawful and what in our consciences we are persuaded is lawful, and are to know what is sin and what is no sin… because every one is obliged to know morally what concerns his conscience, that he be not guilty before God…”
.
p. 45
“…and the ignorance of any questions which may be cleared by God’s Word, is vincible and culpable, for the Law says, ‘The ignorance of these things which we are obliged to know is culpable, and excuses not.’ (Reg. juris Culpabilis est ignorantia rerum quas scire tenemur.)
But thirdly, a question of fact is properly a question whether this Corinthian committed incest or no, whether Titus committed murder, or no, and in this there is sometimes invincible ignorance when all diligence morally possible is given to come to the knowledge of the fact.”
.
pt. 2, p. 378
1. The object of these opinions would be distinguished: 2. The persons, weak or strong. 3. The manner of refusing instruction, or of admitting light, of mere weakness, or of obstinacy. For the first, if the matter be faultless or light, as eating meats or not eating meats, in time when they are merely indifferent, and the person weak and scarce capable of disputation, he is to be tolerated, and not received into knotty and thorny disputations about things indifferent: for so Paul, Rom. 14, is to be understood, when he will not have the weak taken in [Greek]: so Michael strove with the angel [the Devil] disputing, [Greek].
If the matter concern an institution of Christ, and our necessary practice in a Church, and the party be not weak: It is a question what makes obstinacy, and what tenderness and weakness. Turrecremata says, he who is ready to yield to light, is not obstinate; Scotus: gross ignorance; Canus says, affected ignorance makes obstinacy; Malderus says that gross ignorance may leave a man ready to yield to the information of the Church; Alphonsus a Castro says better, he is obstinate who 1. defends an opinion against the Scripture, or, says he (which is his error) against the definition of a general Council, or of the Pope. 2. Who being admonished, does not amend. 3. Who seeks not resolution from the learned, with a purpose to render himself truth’s captive. 4. Who swears that he shall adhere to the end to that opinion.
By the light and knowledge of the holder of the opinion, it may be collected whether he seeks truth, and is ready to yield himself and his understanding thereunto: and except the point be fundamental, it can hardly be judged heresy: if the point may be holden without any scandal, or breach of peace, much tolerance is required where error seems to be a temptation to holy men, but final tolerance, and unlimited, where the party is of great knowledge, and has sway in the minds of many, to prevail to draw others after him, is harder.”
.
A Free Disputation Against Pretended Liberty of Conscience… (1649)
ch. 2, p. 34
“That a man should duly, and as he ought, believe, and receive the decision of a synod, it must be both true and he must believe and know that it is true; but [on the other hand,] that it may oblige him and does oblige him, whether his conscience be erroneous, or no[t], is as true, for then this Commandment, ‘Thou shalt not kill’, ‘Honor thy father and thy mother’, should lay no obligation on a man that believes it is service to God to kill the apostles, as, John 16, some do. For no man is exempted from an obligation to obey God’s Law because of his own sinful and culpable ignorance, for we speak not now of invincible ignorance of these things which we are not obliged to know or believe.
But if our sinful and erroneous conscience free us from actual obligation to be tied by a law, then our erroneous conscience frees us from sinning against a law, and so from punishment; for whatever frees a man from actual obligation frees him also from actual sinning: for all sin is a doing against a Law-obligation; and if so, then are none to be led by any rule but their own conscience: the written Law and Gospel is not henceforth our rule any more.”
.
p. 34
“For no man is exempted from an obligation to obey God’s Law because of his own sinful and culpable ignorance, for we speak not now of invincible ignorance of these things which we are not obliged to know or believe.
But if our sinful and erroneous conscience free us from actual obligation to be tied by a law, then our erroneous conscience frees us from sinning against a law, and so from punishment, for whatever frees a man from actual obligation, frees him also from actual sinning, for all sin is a doing against a Law-obligation, and if so, then are none to be led by any rule but their own conscience, the written Law and Gospel is not henceforth our rule any more.”
.
p. 106
“…for the most malicious sin against knowledge has an interpretative ignorance conjoined with it, as the Pharisees who sinned against the Holy Ghost, in crucifying Christ (some of them as is clear, John 8:28; 9:40-41 and elsewhere) yet they sinned ignorantly also, for had thy known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory, 1 Cor. 2:8.”
.
p. 189
“…yet while they are heathen fathers and heathen masters, they neither can, nor are obliged actually to teach anything of the Gospel, they never hearing of the Gospel, are obliged not to believe in a Christ of whom they never heard, Rom. 10:14-16, and those that Christ was never preached to, are not condemned for Gospel-unbelief, John 15:22.”
.
p. 190
“it’s a sin in an Indian prince, and he sins against his magistratical office in that he punishes not an Indian false-teacher who teacheth against the Law of nature [which is universally known], because an Indian should not worship the Devil; but the Indian ruler invincibly ignorant of the Gospel sins not against his office as a magistrate because he punishes not a Gospel-heretic, for he is not obliged to every magistratical act as a magistrate, not to those of which he is invincibly and faultlessly ignorant, as an Indian husband and master invincibly ignorant of the Gospel sins not against the duty of a husband and head of a family, though he teach not wife, children and servants, the principles of the Gospel, which a Christian husband and head of a family is obliged to do, not as a husband and head of a family simply, but as such a husband and head as hears the Gospel, and so either hears and knows, or may hear these Gospel principles if he were not thereof ignorant through his own sinful neglect.”
.
p. 343
“If he take vincible, as opposed to invincible ignorance, he Popishly then says that the Scripture offers to us many things whereof we may be invincibly ignorant. Now invincible ignorance, Protestants acknowledge only in matters of fact, or of gospel-truths never so much as in the letter revealed, as heathens may be invincibly ignorant of Christ, and their ignorance not be sinful, as John 15:22, and Jacob was invincibly ignorant in lying with Leah instead of Rachel.
There can be no such vincibleness, or invincibleness, in an heretic that hears the Gospel, for whoever hear the Gospel and yet remain ignorant, their ignorance is not invincible, Nulla est invincibilis ignorantia juris [Nothing is invincible ignorance in law].”
.
Westminster
“Q. 14. What is sin?
Sin is any want of conformity unto, or transgression of, the law of God. (1 John 3:4)”
.
Peter van Mastricht
Theoretical Practical Theology (RHB), vol. 3, bk. 4, ch. 3, ‘Actual Sin’, section 23, p. 510
“Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics (bk. 3): “Ignorance of good and evil does not make an action involuntary, but vicious; by ignorance of right and of duty guilt is not excused, but rather increased.”
.
Articles
1500’s
Viret, Pierre – A Christian Instruction… (London: Veale, 1573)
A Familiar Exposition of the Principal Points of the Catechism, 12th Dialogue
Of those which Offend more through malice than by ignorance
Of those which Sin more through ignorance than through malice
Of the Comparison between those which offend of malice, and those which offend through ignorance
The Exposition of the Preface of the Law
.
1600’s
Davenant, John – Question 45, ‘Ignorance Does Not Excuse Sin’ in The Determinations, or Resolutions of Certain Theological Questions, Publicly Discussed in the University of Cambridge trans. Josiah Allport (1634; 1846), pp. 469-74 bound at the end of John Davenant, A Treatise on Justification, or the Disputatio de Justitia... trans. Josiah Allport (1631; London, 1846), vol. 2
Rutherford argues above from Scripture that invincible ignorance excuses from sin. Davenant argues the contrary.
van Mastricht, Peter – Theoretical Practical Theology (RHB), vol. 3, bk. 4, ch. 3, section 23, ‘Ought there be admitted the distinction of actual sin into philosophical [done out of ignorance] and theological sin? [No]’
“Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics (bk. 3): ‘Ignorance of good and evil does not make an action involuntary, but vicious; by ignorance of right and of duty guilt is not excused, but rather increased.'”
.
Latin Articles
1500’s
Aretius, Benedict – Locus 98, ‘Ignorance’ in Sacred Problems of Theology: Common Places of the Christian Religion Methodically Explicated (Geneva, 1589; Bern, 1604), pp. 296-99
Aretius (1505–1574)
.
1600’s
Rutherford, Samuel – Ch. 1, ‘On the Scriptures & Fundamental Articles’, 6. ‘What is Overcomeable Versus Absolute Ignorance of the Fundamentals [of the Christian Faith]? Explained.’ in The Examination of Arminianism (1639-42; Utrecht, 1668), pp. 38-42
Of the Sin of Ignorance, Contra the Conscience, & of Malice in Syllabus of Theological Problems (Utrecht, 1643), pt. 1, section 1, tract 4 Abbr.
Select Theological Disputations (Utrecht, 1659), vol. 3, pp. 632-68
42. Ignorance 632
43. pt. 2 642
44. pt. 3 652
45. On having been Taught Ignorance 668
46. pt. 2 681
Ecclesiastical Politics (Amsterdam: Waesberge, 1663), vol. 2, pt. 1, bk. 3, tract 1, ‘Of Marrying’, Section 3, Of that which is Against Marriage
5. Of Various Marriage Incompatibilities, the Contempt and Condemnation of Marriage, of Having Multiple Wives, a Changing [Giving, Selling, etc.] of the Same, a Barren Marriage, Incest, an Abominable Confusion of the Sexes, Polygamy, a Rendering of Service, Concubinage, Promiscuous Desire [Vaga Libidine], Perfidious Repudiations, Divorces, Desertions and of Marriages and Promiscuous Desire in the Future World 197
Maetz, Carolus – A Forest of Eminent Questions: Philological, About Antiquity, Philosophical, a True & Most Able View of Theology (Utrecht, 1650) ToC
‘Of invincible ignorance’
…
‘Of prayer for ignorant persons’
Maetz (1597-1651) was of Flemish lineage and a professor of theology at Utrecht. This is not a systematic theology, but it treats of quite a number of systematic topics.
van Mastricht, Petrus – ch. 4, ‘Of Knowledge & Ignorance’ in Theoretical & Practical Theology… new ed. (Utrecht, 1724), The Idea of Moral Theology, bk. 1, ‘Of the Observance of Faith in General’, p. 1205
.
Affections & Motions Against Natural Law are Sinful, but not Necessarily Against Positive Laws, even Divine
Quote
Samuel Rutherford
Christ Dying & Drawing Sinners to Himself (London: 1647), pp. 138-41
“‘But for this cause came I to this hour.’
Here is the fifth article in this prayer: a sort of correction, in which Christ does resign his will, as man, to the will of God; as Mt. 26:39; Lk. 22:42. ‘Nevertheless, not my will, but thine be done.’
In this there is offered to us a question, Whether or no there be in this prayer any repugnancy in the human will of Christ to the will of God? For:
1. A correction of the human will seems to import a jarring and a discord; 2. Christ desired that, the contrary whereof He knew was from eternity decreed of God. 3. The Law of God is so spiritual, straight and holy that it requires not only a conformity to it, and our will, actions, words and purposes, but also in all our affections, desires, first-motions and inclinations of our heart, that no unperfect and half-formed lustings arise in us even before the complete consent of the will that may thwart or cross the known Law and command of God; and by this, ‘Thou shalt not lust,’ Rom. 7, and the duty of the highest love we owe to God, to love him with all the heart, soul, mind, and whole strength, Mt. 22:37; Mk. 12:33; Lk. 10:27.
Some Arians and Arminians, John Geysteranus at the Synod of Dort, have said blasphemously that there was concupiscence and a will repugnant to God’s will in the second Adam, as in the first. But this they spoke against the consubstantiality and deity of the Son of God. To which we say:
Assertion 1. Jesus Christ that holy thing, Lk. 1:35, was a fit high priest, holy, harmless, undefiled, separated from sinners, Heb. 7:26. Which of you (says Christ to the Jews) convinces me of sin, Jn. 8:46. There could not be a spot in this Lamb sacrificed for the sins of the world, no prick in this Rose, no cloud in this fair Sun, no blemish in this beautiful Well-beloved.
Assertion 2. An absolute, resolved will or desire of heart to lust after that which God forbids in his Law must be a sinful jarring between the creature’s and the Creator’s will. Now, Christ‘s will was conditional and clearly submissive; it lay ever level with his Father’s holy will.
Assertion 3. I shall not with some affirm that which in the general is true, a will contrary to God’s revealed command and will, called voluntas signi, which is our moral rule to oblige us, is a sin [see Assertion 4 below]; but a will contrary to God’s decree, called voluntas beneplaciti, which is not our rule obliging, except the Lord be pleased to impose it on us as a moral Law, is not a sin.
Peter and the apostles, after they heard that prophecy of their denying of Christ and their being sinfully scandalized, and their forsaking of Christ when the Shepherd was smitten, were obliged to have a will contrary to that decree and to pray that they might not be led into temptation, but might have grace to confess their Savior before men and not flee, nor be scattered: Here is a resolute will of men lawfully contrary to the revealed decree of God, yet not sinful. But the Lord’s will that Christ should die for man, as it was a decree of the wise and most gracious Lord pitying lost man, so was it also a revealed commandment to Christ, that He should be willing to die and be obedient to the death, even the death of the cross, Phil. 2:8; yea, a rule of such humble obedience as we are obliged to follow, as is said, verse 5, ‘Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus,’ etc. If the Lord’s will that Christ should die be nothing but his mere decree, it could not oblige us in the like case to be willing, as John says to lay down our life for the brethren. Yea, Jn. 10:18, Christ has a commandment of God and the revealed will of God to die for us:
‘No man takes it from Me, but I lay it down of myself: I have power to lay it down; I have power to take it again: this commandment have I received of my Father.’
Here is an express commandment given to Christ to die for sinners; and the Father loves Christ for obedience to this commandment.
Assertion 4. A conditional and a submissive desire, though not agreeable to a positive law and commandment of God, is no sin, nor does the Law require a conformity in all our inclinations and the first motions of our desires to every command of God, though most contrary to nature and our natural and sinless inclinations.
1. If God command Abraham to kill his only begotten son and offer him in a sacrifice to God, which was a mere positive commandment, for it’s not a command of the law of nature (nor any other than positive) for the father to kill the son, if yet Abraham retain a natural inclination and love commanded also in the law of nature to save his son’s life and to desire that he may live, this desire and inclination, though contradictory to a positive command of God, is no sin; because the Fifth Command, grounded on the law of nature, does command it. Nor did God’s precept (‘Abraham, kill now thy son, even Isaac thine only begotten son’) ever include this, ‘Abraham, root out of thine heart all desire and inclination natural in a father to preserve the life of the child.’ So the positive command of the Father that the Son of God should lay down his life for his sheep, did never root out of the sinless nature of the man-Christ a natural desire to preserve his own being and life, especially He desiring it with special reservation of the will of God commanding that He should die.
2. A martyr dying for the truth of Christ may have a natural and conditional desire and inclination to live, though his living be contrary to the Lord’s revealed will commanding him to seal the Gospel with his blood and to confess Christ before men.
3. If the brother, son, daughter, wife or friend that is as a man’s own soul, Dt. 13:6, blaspheme God, yea if father or mother do it, Dt. 33:8-9, yet is a father obliged to stone the son or daughter, the son being a magistrate or a Levite and priest, to judge according to law (the priests’ lips should preserve knowledge, Mal. 2:8) that his father or mother ought to be stoned to death; yet ought not father or son to lay aside that natural desire of being and life to son, father, brother which the law of nature in the Fifth Command does require, especially the desire being conditional, with submission to God’s will, as the desire of Christ is here; and the command to stone the blasphemer, that the father stone the son, the son the father, being positive, and though founded on the law of nature, that a man prefer his Lord Creator and God before son or father and mother, yet are they not precepts of the law of nature such as is the precept of nature that a man desire his own life and being, the father the life and being of the son.
Assertion 5. The apparent opposition (for it is not real) is rather between Christ‘s sensitive and his sinless mere natural desire and affection, and his reasonable will, than his [human] will and the will of God: Nor can any say there is a fight or jarring between the conditional desire of Christ subjected in the same act of praying, to the Lord’s decree and the resolute and immutable will of God. The Law of God, because holy and spiritual, does require a conformity between all the inclinations and motions of our soul and the law of nature; but an absolute conformity between all our inclinations and every positive command of God, such as was the Lord’s command that Christ should die for sinners, is not required in the Law of God. If Adam submit his natural hunger or desire to eat of the forbidden tree, to God’s Law, and eat not, there is no sinful jarring between his will and God’s positive Law, ‘Thou shalt not eat of the tree of Knowledge of good and evil.’”
.
On Dreams: What is Sinful & What is Not?
Article
Durham, James – Practical Exposition of the Ten Commandments, Introduction to the 10 Commandments
.
Quote
Samuel Rutherford
The Divine Right of Church Government (London, 1646), ch. 7, pp. 284-85
“Night pollutions are not altogether against our will; they are sinful pollutions except concupiscence and lustful habitual day lusts, the cause of them, be not sinful pollutions, yea and forbidden in the Seventh Commandment…
…we conceive legal [Mosaic] uncleanness, as the monthly diseases of women, night pollutions, want [lack] of circumcision, did typify much natural and original heart corruption, which cannot be punished by men or the Church…”
.
On the Romanist Distinction Between the Guilt of Culpability & the Guilt of Punishment We Deny
Articles
1500’s
Musculus, Wolfgang – ‘Whether not the fault only, but the punishment also be forgiven’ in Common Places of the Christian Religion (1560; London, 1563), ‘Remission & Forgiveness of Sins’, folio 244.a
Willet, Andrew – 14th Controversy, Of Penance, 7th Question, Of Satisfaction, 1st Part, ‘Whether the Punishment Remain, the Sin being Once Pardoned?’ in Synopsis Papismi… (1592), pp. 437-8
Willet (1562–1621) was a reformed, conforming Anglican clergyman, controversialist and prolific writer. He was known for his anti-papal works.
.
1600’s
Davenant, John – Question 33, ‘When Guilt is Remitted, its Punishment is Remitted’ in The Determinations, or Resolutions of Certain Theological Questions, Publicly Discussed in the University of Cambridge trans. Josiah Allport (1634; 1846), pp. 391-93 bound at the end of John Davenant, A Treatise on Justification, or the Disputatio de Justitia... trans. Josiah Allport (1631; London, 1846)
Turretin, Francis – Institutes of Elenctic Theology, tr. George M. Giger, ed. James Dennison Jr. (1679–1685; P&R, 1994)
vol. 1, 9th Topic
Romanists, in not considering a nature of concupiscence to be sin, thus explain its existence after the Fall to not be due to the guilt of culpability, but only as the punishment due upon Adam’s transgression, which does not involve culpability itself.
vol. 2
11th Topic
16th Topic
.
van Mastricht, Peter – section 24, ‘In the demerit of sin, can temporal punishment be separated from eternal punishment?’ in Theoretical-Practical Theology (RHB), vol. 3, bk. 4, ch. 4, ‘The Penalty & State of Sin’, pp. 534-35
.
Latin Articles
1500’s
Szegedin Pannonius, Stephan – II. ‘Of Man’, ‘Things which are of Man’, ‘Concupiscence’ in Common Places of Pure Theology, of God & Man, Explained in Continuous Tables and the Dogma of the Schools Illustrated (Basil, 1585/93), pp. 223-24
Szegedin (1515-1572) also was known as Stephan Kis.
.
1600’s
Pareus, David – 6 Books on the Loss of Grace & the State of Sin by Robert Bellarmine… to which three following are joined, on Original Sin, are Explicated & Castigated (Heidelberg, 1613)
Selections 88-100 ToC
Selection 108 ToC
Pareus (1548-1622) was a German Reformed Protestant theologian and reformer.
Rutherford, Samuel – An Examination of Arminianism… (c. 1639-43; Utrecht, 1668)
4. ‘Whether concupiscence is sin, particularly after baptism and regeneration? We affirm against the Remonstrants and Papists.’, pp. 314-316
5. ‘Whether concupiscence is formally prohibited by the law of God? We affirm against the Remonstrants and Papists’, pp. 316-18
7. ‘Whether the wrestling between the flesh and the Spirit in the reborn is simply natural, and on the part of the resisting flesh, so minimally culpable? We deny against the Remonstrants.’, p. 319
8. ‘Whether the wrestling between the Spirit and the flesh in the regenerate is perpetual and culpable? We affirm against the Remonstrants.’, pp. 524-7
Chamier, Daniel
Panstratiae Catholicae, or a Body of the Controversies of Religion Against the Papists, vol. 3 (Man) (Geneva, 1626)
Bk. 10, ‘Of Sanctification & Justification’, chs. 4-20, pp. 274-313 ToC
Chamier (1564–1621)
“The name of Chamier (d. 1621) is one of the greatest, not only among Calvinistic divines, but in all theological literature. His Panstratiae Catholicae (1626) is the ablest work from a Calvinistic hand in in the great Roman Catholic Controversy, and takes its general rank with books like Chemnitz’s Examen and Gerhard’s Confessio Catholica. It was prepared at the request of the Synod of Larochelle. There is no difference of opinion among competent judges as to its distinguished merits, and it is justly regarded among all Calvinists as one of the highest authorities.” – Krauth, a Lutheran, p. 47
A Body of Theology, or Theological Common Places (Geneva, 1653)
Bk. 4, ch. 11, ‘Of Concupiscence’, pp. 141-43
Bk. 5, ch. 18, ‘Of Concupiscence in the Regenerate’, pp. 233-36
Du Moulin, Pierre – ch. 54, ‘Of the Perfection of Righteousness, or the Fulfillment of the Law, & is Concupiscence a Sin?’ in A Collection of the Theological Disputations held at Various Times in the Academy of Sedan, vol. 1 (Geneva, 1661), pp. 474-81
Du Moulin (1568-1658)
Hoornbeek, Johannes – Bk. 10, ch. 23, ‘Of Concupiscence’ in Practical Theology, vol. 2 (Utrecht, 1663; 1689), pp. 607-611
Rissen, Leonard – Locus 9, ‘Of Sin’, Controversy 2, ‘Whether Concupiscence, which Remains in the Regenerate After Baptism, is Truly Sin, Worthy of Death?’ in A Sum of Didactic and Elenctic Theology, out of Our Theologians, especially out of Francis Turretin’s Institutes of Theology, so augmented & Illustrated (Bern, 1676; 1690)
Here is an introduction to the life of Rissen (1636-1700).
.
1700’s
Vitringa, Sr., Campegius – ch. 10, ‘Of Concupiscence’ in The Doctrine of the Christian Religion, Summarily Described through Aphorisms, vol. 2 (d. 1722), pp. 292-295
Vitringa, Sr. (1659-1722) was a professor in Franeker and a Hebraist. “…Vitringa… maintained a fairly centrist Reformed position… Vitringa and De Moor serve as codifiers and bibliographers of the earlier tradition, the former from a federalist, the latter from a nonfederalist perspective.”
“Admirable text-book, full of quotations.” – Howard Malcom
van Mastricht, Petrus – Bk. 3, ch. 8, ‘Of Contention & Perverse Concupiscence’ in The Idea of Moral Theology in Theoretical & Practical Theology (Utrecht, 1724), pp. 1257-1258
Van Mastricht (1630-1706)
.
.
.
“whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.”
Mt. 5:28
.
.
.
Related Pages
Expositions of the Ten Commandments