Text

_Isaiah, 50. 4._The Lord God has given me a tongue of the learned, that I should know, to minister a word in due time, to him that is wearie.

IN that part of the Prophecy which goes before, the Holy Ghost setteth downe & foretelleth the Calling of the Gentiles, which was to begin at the death of Christ, and from thence to continue unto this day, and so consequently to the ende of the world. In the former verses of this Chapter, there is mention made of the rejection of the Jews; I meane not a general, but a particular rejection, namely then, when they were in affliction in the daies of Isaiah. Now in this, and so in all other prophecies of the like kind, which intreat of this point; Christ himselfe is brought in, speaking in his own person; and the words of this Chapter from the beginning, to this present verse and the rest that follow, are the words of Christ the Mediatour.

In the verses going before, he disputes the case of their reiection, and the summe of the whole disputation is: that either he or they themselues were the causes thereof; but he was not the cause, and therefore they themselues by their sins. The reason, whereby he prooues that they themselues were the cause, is framed in this sort. You Jews cannot bring any writing or bill of diuorce, to show that I reiected you: therefore I appeale even to your own consciences, whether you have not brought this judgment upon your selues, by your iniquities. vers. 1. On the other side, the reason why God was not the cause is: because he for his part called them in great mercy and loue: but when he called they would not obey. ver. 2.

Now in the ende of the second verse, is contained an answer to a secret reply, that some obstinate Jew might make after this manner: God has no nowe the like power in saving and deliuering vs, as he has had in former times: therefore we cannot hope or expect any deliuerance from him, and howe then shall we doe in the meane while? To this the Lord himselfe makes answere, ver. 2, 3, 4. that his hand is not shortned, not his power lessened in regard of greater works, much lesse in respect of their deliuerance; and though the present affliction which they indured, was great and tedious, yet they were not to be ouermuch dismaied in themselues, but rather to be comforted: because God had given him the tongue of the learned, to minister a word in season to the wearie and distressed, and consequently, that he had power to ease & refresh that their wearines and affliction.

In this text then, there is set downe one principal dutie of Christs propheticall office, by allusion to the practises of the Prophets in the olde Testament, especially those which belonged to the schooles of Elijah and Elisha, who are here tearmed, the learned. And out of the words thereof, one special point of instruction may be gathered, namely, That there is a certaine knowledge or doctrine reuealed in the word of God, whereby the consciences of the weake may be rectified and pacified. I gather it thus. It was one special dutie of Christs propheticall office, to give comfort to the consciences of those that were distressed, as the Prophet here recordeth. Now as Christ had this power to execute and performe such a dutie, so he has committed the dispensation thereof to the Ministers of the Gospel. For we may not thinke that Christ in his own person, ministered and spoke words of comfort to the wearie, in the times of the Prophets, because he was not then exhibited in our nature; and yet he did then speake, but how? in the persons of the Prophets. So likewise, because Christ nowe in the new Testament, speaks not unto the afflicted in his own proper person, it remains therefore, that he performes this great work in the Ministry of Pastours and Teachers upon earth, to whome he has given knowledge and other gifts to this ende and purpose. There must needs therefore be a certaine and infallible doctrine, propounded & taught in the Scriptures, whereby the consciences of men distressed, may be quieted and relieved. And this doctrine is not attained unto by extraordinarie reuelation, but must be drawne out of the written word of God.

The point therefore to be handled is, What this doctrine should be? It is not a matter easie and at hand, but full of labor and difficultie: yea very large, like unto the maine sea: I will onely (as it were) walke by the bankes of it, and propound the heads of doctrine, that thereby I may at least occasion others, to consider and handle the same more at large.

That I may proceede in order; First, I am to lay downe certaine Grounds or Preambles, which may give light & direction to the things that followe: and in the next place, I will propound and answer the maine & principal Questions of Conscience.

The Grounds or Preambles are especially foure. The first touching Confession. The second touching the degrees of Goodnesse in things and actions. The third touching the degrees of Sin. The fourth and last concerning the Subiection and Power of conscience. Of these in order.

The first Ground is, That in the troubles of conscience, it is meete and conuenient, there should alwaies be used a private Confession. For James says, Confess your faults one to another,and pray one for another, thereby signifying that Confession in this case, is to be used as a thing most requisite. For in all reason, the Physitian must first know the disease, before he can apply the remedie: and the grief of the heart will not be discerned, unlesse it be manifested by the confession of the partie diseased; and for this cause also in the grief of conscience, the scruple, that is, the thing that troubleth the conscience must be knowne. Nevertheless in private confession, these caueats must be obserued. First, private confession must not be vrged, as a thing simply or absolutely necessarie, without which there can be no saluation. Againe, it is not fit that confession should be of all sins, but onely of the scruple it selfe, that is, of that or those sins alone, which doe trouble and molest the conscience. Thirdly, though confession may be made to any kinde of man, (Confess one to another, says James,) yet is it especially to be made to the Prophets and Ministers of the Gospel. For they in likelyhood of all other men, in respect of their places and gifts, are the fittest and best able to instruct, correct, comfort, and enforme the weake and the wounded conscience. Lastly, the person to whome it is made, must be a man of trust and fidelitie, able & willing to keepe secret things that are reueiled, yea to buie them (as it were) in the graue of obliuion, for Loue couereth amultitude of sins.

The next ground is touching the degrees of Goodnes in humane things and actions. Goodnesse in things is twofold; uncreated, and created. Uncreated is God himselfe, who never had beginning, and who is Goodnesse it selfe, because his nature is absolutely and perfectly good, and because he is the author and worker thereof in all things created. Created goodnes is that whereby the creature is made good; and it is nothing else, but the fruit of that goodnesse that is essentially in God. Now the degrees therof are these. There is a general or natural goodnesse in creatures, and a more special or moral goodnesse.

General goodnesse is that, whereby all creatures are accepted and approved of God, by whome they were both created and ordained. Thus euery creature is good, partly by creation, and partly by ordination. By creation it is, that the substance of each creature, as of the Sunne, the Moone, the Earth, Water, Meate, Drinke, &c. is good, hauing the being thereof fron God. Hence also the essentiall properties, quantities, qualities, motions, actions and inclinations of the creatures, in themselues considered, with all their euents, are good. By the same general goodnesse also, even the Devil himself and his actions, as he is a substance, and as they are actions, hauing their being from God, are good. Things againe doe take unto them the condition of goodnesse, not onely by creation, but also by Gods ordination, whereby they are directed and appointed, to some certen uses and endes. Thus the euil Conscience, Hel, & Death are good, because they are ordained of God, for the execution of his justice, however in themselues and to vs they be euill.

Besides this general and natural goodnesse, there is also a special or moral goodnesse properly so called: and it is that, which is agreeable to the eternal and unchangeable wisdome of God, reuealed in the moral lawe, wherein it is commaunded; and things as they are therein commanded to be done by God, are good morally. Nowe of actions morally good, there be two degrees; for they are either good in themselues alone, or good both in thenselues and in the doer. In themselues alone some things be morally good; for example, when a wicked man giues almes, it is a good work onely in it selfe, but not good in the doer, because it is not done in says, and from a good conscience; and so are all the vertues of the Heathen, morally good in themselues, but they are not good in heathen men: for in them they are but beautifull sins. The next degree of goodnesse is, whereby things and actions are both good in thenselues, and in the doer also. Of this sort were the praiers & almes of Cornelius good in themselues, & in him also, because he was a believer.

Now opposite to things and actonis morally good or euill, are actions and things of a middle nature, commonly tearmed Indifferent, which in themselues being neither good nor euill may be done or not done without sin; In themselues I say, for in their circumstances, they are and may be made either euill or good. And here we must remember, to put a difference betweene conueniencie, and inconuenience, which ariseth from the nature of indifferent things. Conueniencie is, when a thing or action is so fitted to the circumstances, and the circumstances fitted to it that thereby it becomes a thing Conuenient. On the otherside, Inconuenience is, when the thing or action is done in unmeete circumstances, which bring some hurt or losse to the outward man, or stand not with decencie: and therefore doe make it to be Inconuenient. And by this that has beene said, we may discerne, when an action is good, euill, indifferent, conuenient, or inconuenient.

The third Ground, is touching the degrees or differences of Sin. And here we must first of all search, what is sin properly, and what is properly a sinner. Sin in his proper nature (as S. John says) is an anomie, that is, a want of conformitie to the law of God. For the better understanding whereof, we must know, that there were in Adam before his fall, three things not to be seuered one from the other: the Substance of his body and of his soul: the Faculties and powers of his body and soul: and the Image of God consisting in a straightnes, and conformitie of all the affections, and powers of man to Gods will. Nowe when Adam falls, and sins against God, what is his sin? Not the want of the two former, (for they both remained,) but the very want, and absence of the third thing, namely, of conformitie to Gods will. I make it plaine by this resemblance; In a musicall instrument, there is to be considered, not onely the instrument it selfe, and the sound of the instrument, but also the harmonie in the sound. Nowe the contrarie to harmonie, or the disorder in musicke, is none of the two former, but the third, namely the discord, which is the want or absence of harmonie, which we call disharmonie. In the same manner, the sin of Adam, is not the absence either of the substance, or of the faculties of the soul and the body, but the want of the third thing before named, & that is, conformitie, or correspondencie to the will of God, in regard of obedience. But some may say: the want of conformitie in the powers of the soul, is not sin properly: because in sin, there must be not onely an absence of goodnesse, but an habite or presence of euill. I answer, that this very want of conformitie, is not onely the absence of goodnesse, but also the habite or presence of euill. For as this want enters in, and is received into mans nature, it is properly a want or absence of goodnesse: againe, after it is received into the nature of man, it continues and abides in the powers and faculties thereof, and so it caries the name of an habit.

It may be said againe, that lust and concupiscence, that is, Original sin, drawes the heart away from the seruice of God, and entises it to euill. Now to entise or drawe away, is an action, and this action cannot proceede of a meere priuation or want. Ans. We must consider sin two waies: first jointly with the thing or subiect, in which it is; secondly by it selfe in his own nature. If we consider it with his subiect, it is an euill inclination or action, but if we consider it in it own nature, it is no inclination, or action, but a want. For example: in a murther we must consider two things: one is, the action of moving the body, and of holding vp the weapon, &c. which is no sin properly, if it be considered as an action: because euery action comes from God, who is the first cause of all things and actions. Againe, in murther there is a second thing, namely the killing or slaying of the man, which is the disorder or aberration in the action, whereby it is disposed to a wrong use and end; and thus the action is a sin, namely in respect it wants conformitie to the will of God. The nature then of the sin lies not in the action, but in the manner of doing the action: and sin properly is nothing formally subsisting, or existing (for then God should be the author of it, in as much as he is the creatour and ordainer of euery thing and action,) but it is an ataxie, or absence of goodnes and vprightnes, in the thing that subsisteth: therefore it is well and truly said in Schooles, In sin there is nothing positiue: but it is a want of that which ought to be, or subsist, partly in the nature of man, and partly in the actions of nature. Thus we see what sin is.

The second thing to be considered is, what is a Sinner properly? For the knowledge hereof, we must consider in euery sin foure things: first, the fault whereby God is offended: then, the guilt which binds ouer the conscience unto punishment: thirdly, the punishment it selfe, which is eternal death. Of these three, not the guilt or punishment, but the fault or offense, makes a man a sinner. But here is a further difficultie. When a man has committed some offense, and the saide offense is done and past, it may be some twentie or thirtie yeares: yet the partie offending, does not therefore cease to be a sinner. Now then I demaund, what is the very thing, for which he is named and rearmed still a sinner in the time present, the offense being past? The answer is, that euery actual sin, beside the three former, must be considered with a fourth thing, to wit, a certaine staine, or blotte, which it imprints and leaues in the offender as a fruite, and that is an inclination, or euill disposition of the heart, whereby it becomes apter or pronener to the offense done, or to any other sin. For looke as the dropsie man, the more he drinks, the drier he is, and the more he still desires to drinke: even so a sinner, the more he sins, the apter is he to sin, and more desirous to keepe still a course in wickednesse. And as a man that lookes upon the Sunne, if he turne his face away, remaines turned untill he turne himselfe againe: so he that turnes from God by any sin, makes himselfe a sinner, and so remaines, untill he turne himselfe againe by repentance. Thus David was a sinner, not onely in the very acte of his adulterie and murther: but even when the acte was done and past, he remained still a murtherer and an adulterer; because a newe, or rather a renewed pronenesse to these, and all other sins, tooke place in his heart by his fall, and got strength, till he turned to God by repentance, upon the admonition of the Prophet. The thing then, whereby a sinner is tearmed a sinner, is the Fault together with the fruit thereof, namely, the blotte imprinted in the soul, so oft as men doe actually offend.

The use of this doctrine touching sin, is two fold. First, by it we learne and see what is Original sin, whereby an Infant in the first conception and birth is indeed a sinner. Euery Infant must be considered as a part of Adam, proceeding of him and partaking of his nature: and thereby it is made a sinner, not onely by imputation of Adams offense, but also by propagation of an aptnesse, & pronenesse unto euery euil, received together with nature from Adam. And thus ought we to conceive Original sin, not to be the corruption of nature alone, but Adams first offense imputed, with the fruit thereof the corruption of nature, which is an inclination unto euery euill, deriued together with nature from our first parents. Secondly, by this we are taught, to take heed of all and euery sin, whether it be in thought, word, or deed: because the committing therof, though in respect of the act it passeth away in the doing, yet it breedeth and increaseth a wicked disposition in the heart, (as has beene said) to the offense done, or any other sin. Men deceive thenselues, that thinke all the euill of sin, to be only in the act of sinning & to go no further; wheras indeed euery offense has a certen blot going with it, that corrupteth the heart, and causes man to delight and lie in his offense, which lying in sin is a greater cause of damnation, then the very sin it selfe. This therefore must admonish vs, to take heed least we continue in any sin, and if it fall out, that through infirmity we be ouertaken by any tentation, wee must labor to rise againe, and turne from our sin to God, by new and speedy repentance.

Thus much of Sin it selfe. Now follow the differences thereof, which are manifold. The first sort are to be gathered from the causes and beginnings of sin in man, which are threefold, Reason, Will, and Affection.

The differences of sin in respect of Reason are these. First, some are sins of knowledge, some of ignorance. A sin of knowledge is, when a man offends against his knowledge, doing euill when he knows it to be euill: and this is greater then a sin of ignorance, for he that knows his masters will, and does it not, shall be beaten with many stripes. A sin of ignorance is when a man does euill, not knowing it to be euill. Thus Paul was a blasphemer, an oppressour, and persecuted the Church of Christ ignorantly, and in a blind zeale, not knowing that which he did to be euill. Nowe by ignorance here I meane, an ignorance of those things which ought to be knowne, and this is twofold: simple, or affected. Simple ignorance is, when a man after diligence and good paines taking, still remaines ignorant; this ignorance will not excuse any man, if it be of such things as he is bound to know: for it is faide, He that does not his masters will, by reason he knew it not, shall be beaten with stripes, though fewer.

And in this regard, even the Heathen which knew not God, are inexcusable, because they were bound to have knowne him: for Adam had the perfect knowledge of God imprinted in his nature, and lost the same through his own default, for himselfe and his posteritie. And it is the commandement of God, whereunto euery man is bound to performe obedience, that man should know him, that is, his will and word. But some may demand, how any man can be saved, seeing euery man is ignorant of many things which he ought to know? Ans. If we know the grounds of religion, and be carefull to obey God according to our knowledge, hauing withal a care and desire, to increase in the knowledge of God and his will, God will hold vs excused: for our desire and endeavor to obey, is accepted for obedience it selfe. And the greater this simple ignorance is, the lesser is the sin: and hereupon Peter lesseneth, & (in some sort) excuseth the sin of the Jews, in crucifying Christ, because they did it through ignorance: and so does Paul his sin in persecuting the Church, when he alleadgeth, that it was done ignorantly in unbeleefe. But however this sin by such meanes may be lessened, yet remaines it still a sin worthie condemnation. Affected ignorance is, when a man takes delight in his ignorance, and will of purpose be ignorant: not using, but contemning the meanes, whereby to get and increase knowledge. And that carelessely and negligently, because he wil not leave sin which he loves, nor forsake the euill trade of life, wherein he delighteth This is the sin of those, whereof Job speaks, who say unto God, Depart fromvs: for we desire not the knowledge of your waies. And of whome David complaineth, that theyflatter them selues in their own eyes, and have left off to understand, and to doe good. This ignorance is damnable and deuillish: it excuseth no man, but does rather aggrauate and increase his sin: yea it is the mother of many grievous enormities.

Againe, Ignorance is twofold: of the Law, or of the thing the Law requireth. Ignorance of the Law is, when a man knowes not the law of God written, nor the law of nature. This ignorance may somewhat lessen the sin, but it excuseth no man: because it is natural, and euery man is bound to know the Law. Ignorance of the thing the law requireth, is the ignorance of the fact: and that is either with the fault of the doer, or without the fault. Faultie ignorance, is the ignorance of a fact, which he might have preuented. As when a man in his drunkennes killeth another: in this fact, not knowing what he does, he also knows not that he has offended: and yet because he might have preuented his drunkennes, therefore he is faultie, and sins. Faultlesse ignorance is, when a fact is done, which could not be either knowne, or auoided before hand. For example: if a man be lopping a tree, and his axe head fall from the helue, out of his hand, and kills another passing by; here is indeede manslaughter, but no voluntarie murther: because it was a thing that could not be auoided, and did not fall out through his default. And this ignorance is excusable.

The second fountain of sin, is the Will, from whence arise these three differences of sins: some are from the will immediatly, some besides the will, and some are mixt, partly with the will, and partly against the will. Sins proceeding from the will, are properly tearmed voluntarie; such as the doer moved by his own will commits, though he know them to be euill. And here, the more free the will is, the greater is the sin: for wil added to knowledge, makes the sin the greater. Under voluntarie sins, are comprehended all such, as proceede from stirred affections; as when a man tells a lie for feare, or striketh another in anger: and the reason is, because these offenses, though they are not done upon deliberation, but arise from the violence of affection, yet they doe not exclude Consent. Hither also we may referre, sins conmitted by compulsion: as when a man is forced to denie his religion, his offense in deede and in truth is voluntarie, (though some otherwise thinke it to be a mixt action.) For compulsion does not reach to the will, but to the outward man, and serues to draw forth a consent: and when consent is yeelded, he denies his religion voluntarily: for the will cannot be constrained. In the next place, sins beside the will are such, as are neither directly from the will, nor against it. Of this sort are the first sudden motions unto sin, conceived in the heart with some inward pleasure and delight: and these are truly sins, though in respect little sins, condemned in the last commandement. And they are not from the will, because they go without and before consent: neither yet are they against the will, because then the heart would not take delight in them. Here by the way, we are to note, against the doctrine of the Papists, that all sins are not voluntarie: for whatever wanteth conformitie to the law of God, it is sin, whether it be with consent of will or no. But many such desires and delights, arise suddenly in the heart of man, which are not according to the law of God, and have no consent or approbation of will. In like manner, when one man kills another, thinking that he killeth a wild beast: if the same man remembreth after wards what he has done, and is not grieved for the fact: in this case he has sinned, because his not grieving, is offensiue unto God, though the fact were meerely besides his will.

Mixt Sins are partly from the will, partly against it. Of this sort are the works of the man regenerate, which are done partly with his will, and partly against his will, being partly good, and partly euill. The reason hereof is this. There are in man after regeneration, two contrarie grounds or beginnings of actions, to wit, natural corruption, or the inclination of the minde, will, and affections, to that which is against the Law, called the Flesh and a created quality of holines, wrought in the said faculties by the holy Ghost, tearmed the Spirit. And these two are not seuered, but joined and mingled together, in all the faculties and powers of the soul. Now betweene these, there is a continuall combate, corruption fighting against grace, & grace against corruption Hence it is, that there being even in one & the same will, contrarie inclinations, there must necessarily flow from the man regenerate, contrary actions; the flesh in euery action, willing that which is euill, and the Spirit on the otherside, that which is good. This Paul confessed and acknowledged, upon his own experience, after his conuersion, when he said, To will ispresent with me, but I find no meanes [perfectly to doe] that which is good. Again, I delight in thelaw of God, concerning the inner man, but I see another law in my members, rebelling against the law of my minde, and leading me captiue to the law of sin, which is in my members.

The third Ground or fountain of sin in man, is Affection, fron whence doe proceede two kinds, namely, sins of Infirmity, and sins of Presumption. Sins of Infirmity are such, as proceede from the sudden passions of the mind, and the strong affections of the heart: as from hatred, grief, anger, sorrow, and such like. These sins are conmonly thought to be in all men: but the truth is, they are properly incident to the regenerate. For infirmity cannot be said properly to be in them, in whome sin has firmitie or strength, and where is no power of grace at all. Againe, the man that is regenerate, sins not either when he would, because he is restrained by the grace of God that is in him: or in what manner he would, partly because he sins not with all his heart, the strength of his flesh being abated by the Spirit; and partly, for that being fallen, he lies not stil, but recouers himselfe by speedy repentance. An euident argument, that the sins whereinto he falleth, are not presumptuous, but arise ordinarily of weaknes and infirmity. Sins of Presumption are such, as proceede fron pride, arrogancy, wilfulnes, and haunes of mans heart. Against these David praieth, saying, Letnot presumptuous sins have dominion ouer me. And of them there be three degrees. The first is, when a man wilfully goeth on in his sins, upon an erronious perswasion of Gods mercy, and of his own future repentance; this is the sin of most men. The second is, when a man sins wilfully, in contempt of the law of God this is called by Moses, a sin with a high hand, & the punishment thereof was, by present death to be cut off from among the people. The third, when a man sins, not onely wilfully and contemptuously, but of set malice & spight against God himselfe, and Christ Jesus. And by this we may conceive what is the sin against the holy Ghost: which is not euery sin of presumption, or against knowledge and conscience: but such a kind of presumptuous offense in which true religion is renounced: and that of set purpose and resolued malice, against the very Maiestie of God himselfe and Christ. Heb. 10. 29.

Now follow other differences of sin in regard of the obiect thereof, which is the Law. In respect of the Law, sin is twofold: either of commission, or of omission. I say, in respect of the Law, because God has reuealed in his Law two sorts of precepts: the one wherein some good thing is commanded to be done, as to loue God with all our hearts, and our neighbor as our selues: the other wherein some euill is forbidden to be done, as the making of a grauen Image, the taking of the name of God in vaine, &c. Now a sin of commission is, when a man does any thing, that is flatly forbidden in the Law and word of God: as when one man kills another contrarie to the Law, which says, You shall not kill. A sin of Omission is, when a man leaves unperformed, some dutie which the Law requireth: as for example, the preseruing of his neighbors life, or good estate, when it lieth in his power so to doe. These also are truly sins, and by them as well as by the other, men shall be tried in the last judgment. Sins of Omission have three degrees. First, when a man does nothing at all, but omits the dutie commanded, both in whole and in part; as when hauing opportunity and abilitie, he does not move so much as one finger, for the saving of his neighbors life. Secondly, when a man performes the dutie inioyned, but failes both in the manner and measure thereof. Thus the heathen men failed in doing good works, in that the things which they did, for substance and matter, were good and commendable, being done upon ciuill and honest respects, and referred to common good; yet in truth their actions were no better then sins of omission, in as much as they issued from corrupted fountains, hearts void of faith: and aimed not at the maine end, and scope of all humane actions; the honor and glory of God. Thirdly, when a man does things in a right manner, but faileth in the measure thereof. And thus the children of God doe sin, in all the duties of the law. For they doe the good things the law commandeth, as loue God and their neighbor: but they cannot attaine to that measure of loue, which the law requireth. And thus the best men living, doe sin in euery good work they doe, so as if God should enter into judgment, deale with them in the rigour of his justice, and examine them by the strict rule of the Law, he might justly condemne them, even for their best actions And in this regard, when we pray daily for the pardon of our sins, the best works we doe, must come in the number of them: because we faile, if not in substance and manner, yet at the least in the measure of goodnes, that ought to be in the doing of them. We must also have care to repent vs, even of these our sins of Omission, as well as of the other of Commission: because by leaving undone our dutie, we doe ofter offend, then by sins committed: and the least omission is enough to condemne vs, i it should be exacted at our hands.

The next difference of Sins may be this. Some are Crying sins, some are sins of Toleration. Crying sins I call those, which are so hainous, and in their kind so grievous, that they hasten Gods judgments, and call downe for speedie vengeance upon the sinner. Of this kind there are sundrie exanples in the Scriptures, principally foure. First, Cains sin in murthering his innocent brother Abel; whereof it was saide, Thevoice of your brothers blood crieth unto me from the earth. The next is, the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah, which was pride, fulnes of bread, abundance of idlenesse, unmercifull dealing with the poore, and all manner of uncleannesse, Ezech. 16. and of this, the Lord said, that the crieof Sodom and Gomorrah was great, and their sins exceeding grievous. The third, is the sin of Oppression, indured by the Israelites in Egypt, at the hand of Pharaoh, and his task-masters. The fourth, is mercilesse Iniustice in wrongful withholding, and detaining the labourers hire. Now they are called Crying sins, for these causes. First, because they are now come to their full measure & height, beyond which, God will not suffer them to passe, without due punishment. Againe, the Lord takes more notice, and inquires further into them, then into others, by reason that they exceede, and are most eminent where they be committed. Thirdly, they call for present helpe to the afflicted and wronged, and consequently, for speedie exequution of vengeance, upon the authors and committers of them. And lastly, because God is wont to give eare vn to the cries of those, that endure so heavy measure at the hands of others, and accordingly to helpe them, and reward the other with deserued punishment.

Next unto these are sins of Toleration, lesser then the former: which though in themselues they deserue death, yet God in his mercy shewes his patience and long sufferance, upon the committers thereof, either deferring the temporal punishment, or pardoning both temporal and eternal to his Elect. Such a sin was the ignorance of the Gentiles before Christs comming: which God deferred to punnish, and (as we may say) winked at it. More especially there be three sorts of sins of Toleration: the first is Original sin, or concupiscence, in the regenerate after regeneration: for it is not in our conuersion quite abolished, but remaines more or lesse molesting and tempting vs till death. And yet if we carrie a constant purpose not to sin, and endeavor our selues to resist all tentations: this concupiscence of ours, shall not be imputed unto vs, nor we condemned for it. And to this purpose the holy Apostle says, There is no condemnation to them thatare in Christ. Yet says he not, There is nothing worthie condemnation in them: for Original sin remaines till death, truly deseruing damnation, though it be not imputed. The second kind of sins of Toleration, are unknowne and hidden sins in the regenerate. For who can tellhow of the offends? says David. When a man that is the child of God, shall examine his heart, and humble himselfe even for all his particular sins, which he knows by himselfe: there shall yet remaine some unknowne sins, of which he cannot have a particular repentance: and yet they are not imputed but pardoned, when there is repentance for knowne sins. As for example, David repents of his murther and adulterie, and yet afterwards (erring in judgment, by reason of the corruption of the times,) he lived to his death, in the sin of polygamie, without any particular repentance, that we heare of. In like manner did the Patriarks, who may not altogether be excused: yet they were not condemned therefore: neither were they saved without repentance for this sin, but God in mercy, accepted a general repentance for the same. And the like is the case of all the Elect, in regard of their secret and hidden faults: for unlesse God should accept of a general repentance for unknowne sins, few or none at all should be saved. And herein does the endlesse mercy of God notably appeare, that he vouchsafeth to accept of our repentance when we repent, though not in particular as we ought to doe. Nevertheless, this must not incorage, or imbolden any man to live in his sins, without turning unto God. For unles we repent in particular, of all the sins we know, not only our knowne offenses, but even our secret sins shall condemne vs. Many sins are conmitted by men, which afterwards in processe of time be quite forgotten. Others are conmitted, which notwithstanding are not known, whether they be sins or no. And in doing the best duties we can, we offend often, & yet when we offend, we perceive it not: and all these in the regenerate, through the mercy of God, are sins of Toleration, in respect of particular repentance. The third kind of sins of Toleration, are certain particular facts of men reprooued in Scripture, and yet never punished. Such was the fact ofZipporah, in circuncising her child, in the presence of her husband, he being able to have done it himselfe, and shee hauing no calling, to doe that which shee did. For though the hand of God was against him, yet was he not sick, (as some would excuse the matter) neither is there any such thing in the text: but it is rather to be thought, that she her selfe circuncised her sonne in have, to preuent her husband: for the deede was done in some indignation, and shee cast the foreskin at his feete. And yet, because this fact was some manner of obedience, in that the thing was done which God required, (though not in that manner that he required,) God accepted the same, & staied his hand from killing Moses. Thus God accepted of Achabs humility, though it were in hypocrisy, because it was a show of obedience: and for that deferred a temporal punishment, till the daies of his posteritie. God sent lyons to destroy the Assyrians, that dwelt in Samaria, for their Idolatry: yet soone as they had learned to feare the Lord, after the manner of the God of Israel, though they mingled the same with their own Idolatry, God for that halfe obedience, suffered them to dwell in peace.

The Sixt distinction of Sins may be this. Some are sins against God, some against men. This distinction is grounded upon a place in Samuel: If one man sin against another, theIudge shall judge it: but if a man sin against the Lord, who shall plead for him? Sins against God are such, as are directly and immediately committed against the Maiestie of God. Such are Atheisme, Idolatry, Blasphemy, Petiurie, Profanation of the Sabbaoth, and all the breaches of the first table. Sins against men, are injuries, hurts, losses, and damages; whereby our neighbor is, in his dignitie, life, chastitie, wealth, good name, or any other way justly offended, or by vs hindred. And such actions must be considered two waies. First, as they are injuries & hurts done unto our neighbor: and secondly, as they are breaches of Gods law, forbidding vs so to doe: and in this second respect they are called sins, because sin is properly against God: and therefore by sins against men, we are to understand, injuries, losses, or damages done unto them. In this sense, must that place in Matthew be expounded: Ifthy brother sin against you, &c.

The seauenth difference of sins, is noted by S. Paul, where he says, Euery sin that a mandoth, is without the body: but he that commits fornication, sins against his own body. In which place, sins are distinguished into those that are without the body, and those that are against a mans own body. Sins without the body, are such sins as a man committeth, his body being the instrument of the sin, but not the thing abused. Such are Murther, Theft, & Drunkennesse: for in the committing of these sins, the body is but a helper, and onely a remote instrumentall cause, and the thing abused is without the body. For example: in drunkennes, the thing abused by the drunkard, is wine or strong drinke: in theft, another mans goods: in murther, the instrument whereby the fact is committed. The body indeede conferres his helpe to these things, but the injury is directed to the creatures of God, to the body and goods of our neighbor. And such are all sins, adulterie onely excepted. Sins against the body are, those in which it selfe is, not onely the instrument, but the thing abused too. Such a sin is Adulterie only, and those that are of that kind, properly against the body: first, because the body of the sinner, is both a furthering cause of the sin, and also that thing which he abuseth against his own selfe. Secondly, by this offense, he does not onely hinder, but loose the right, power, and proprietie of his body, in that he makes it the member of an harlot. And lastly, though other sins in their kind, doe bring a shame and dishonour upon the body, yet there is none that sits so nigh, or leaves a blot so deepely imprinted in it, as does the sin of uncleannes.

The eight distinction of sins, is grounded upon Pauls exhortation to Timothie: Communicatenot with other mens sins. Sins are either Other mens sins, or Conmunication with other mens sins. This distinction is the rather to be knowne and remembred, because it serues to extenuate or aggrauate sins committed. Communication with sin is done sundrie waies: first, by counsell: thus Caiphas sinned when he gaue counsell to put Christ to death: Secondly, by commandement: so David sinned in the mutner of Vrias. Thirdly, by consent, or assistance, Rom. 1. 31. Thus Saul sinned in keeeping the garments of them that stoned Steuen. Act. 22. 20. Fourthly, by prouocation: thus they sin that prouoke others to sin, and hereof Paul speaks when he says, Fathers must not prouoke their children to wrath. Eph. 6. 4. Fiftly, by negligence, when men are called to reprooue sin, and doe not. Sixtly, by flatterie, when men sooth vp others in sin. Seauenthly, by winking at sins, or passing them ouer by slight reproofe, Eph. 5. 11. Thus Eli sinned in rebuking his sonnes, and thereby brought a temporal judgment upon himselfe, and his family. 1. Sam. 2. chap. and 4. Eightly, by participation, Eph. 5. 7. & thus they do sin, that are receivers of theeues. Ninthly, by defending another man in his sin: for he that justifies the wicked, and condemneththe just, even they both are an abomination to the Lord.

The Ninth distinction follows. Some mens sins (says Paul) are open before hand, somefollow after. Which place by some is expounded thus: Some mens sins are kept secret, till the last judgment, and some are reuealed in this life, before that day. This I thinke is a truth, but not the meaning of the text. For in the 23. verse the Apostle spoke of Ordination, giving charge to Timothie, that he should not suddenly admit any into Ecclesiasticall offices, least he did partake with their sins. Now in this 24. verse, he rendereth a reason thereof, saying, Some mens sins are open before hand: that is, some mens faults and wants are knowne, before their ordination to Ecclesiasticall offices, and of such the Church may know what to judge and say. But some againe follow after, that is, they are not reuealed till after their ordination: and thus Iudas his wickednes, did not appeare at the first, but was reuealed after he was called to be an Apostle.

And thus we see what be the Differences of Sins: touching all which, this must be held and remembred for a Ground, That euery sin, in what degree so ever it be, is mortall of it selfe: and no sin is veniall in it own nature. For the ages of euery sin is death. Rom. 6. 23. And, Cursed is euery one, that continueth not in all things, that are written in the booke of the law, to doe them. Gal. 3. 10.

This Ground must be holden against the Church of Rome: who in her Case-diuinitie, vseth to pacifie the conscience, by teaching men, that sundrie of their sins be veniall. And though euery sin of it selfe be mortall, yet all are not equally mortall: but some more, some lesse: because in sin there be sundrie degrees, as has beene in part showed.

Againe, the same sin may be encreased, or lessened, and consequently made more or lesse hainous, sundrie waies. First, by the Circumstances, which are principally seauen. The first is, the subject or person sinning. Thus the sin of a publike person, is more beinous, yea more mortall, then the sin of a private man: because he is in eminent place, and his actions are more exemplarie and scandalous, then are the actions of inferiour men. The seruant, that knowes his masters will, if he does it not, is the greater sinner, and shall endure a greater punishment, then he that neglectes the same upon simple ignorance. Matth. 10. 15. The Minister and dispenser of the word, if he be unfaithfull and unprofitable, his offense, and consequently his punishment, is farre greater then other mens. Matth. 5. 13. The second is, the obiect or partie which is offended: thus the Jews did more heinously sin in crucifying Christ the sonne of God, the Lord of glory, then did their fathers which persequuted and killed the Prophets. The injury that is done unto those whome God tenderly loves, is farre more displeasing unto him, then if it were done to others. He that toucheth you (saies the Prophet, meaning the Jews his chosen & beloved people) toucheth the apple of his eie. Zach. 28. The man that deniseth mischief against his harmelesse brother that dwelleth peaceably by him, committeth a sin most odious unto God and man. Prov. 3 29. Psal. 7. 4. He that is called and conuerted unto God and Christ, and makes not honest provision for his own, which are of his family, is so notorious an offendour, that S. Paul holds him a denier of the faith, and worse then an Infidell. 1. Tim. 5. 8. The person that shall raile upon the Judge, or speake euill of the Ruler of his people, is a greater transgressour of Gods commandement, then he that reuileth, or abuseth an ordinarie man. Exod. 22. 28. The third is the Thing done in which the offense is committed. Thus, to falsifie the word of God, and to prophane his worshippe and Seruice, is much more abominable in his sight, then is the falsifying of the word of a man, or the abuse of humane lawes and ordinances. The hurting and indamaging of the person and life of our neighbor, is a more odious offense, then is the diminishing of his goods and outward estate: and the hurt that redoundeth by our default unto his soul, is more offensiue euery way, then the wrong that is offered unto his body. The fourth, is the place where it is done. According to this Circumstance, if a man shall either speake or doe any thing, that comes under the name of a breach of piety or justice, in publike place, as in the congregation, in open court, or general assembly, and that with publike and general scandall: he is a greater offendour, then if he spoke or did the same at home, in his house or closet. The fist is the End, in respect whereof, he that stealeth from another, that whereby he may satisfie his hunger, and save his life, being driuen to extreame necessity: offends in a lower and lesser degree, then the theefe that robbeth by the high way side, for this ende, to enrich himselfe by the losses of other men. The sixt is the Manner how? Thus he that committeth uncleannesse in the outward act, doeth more grievously sin, and with greater scandall, then if he onely entertained an uncleane thought into his heart. And he that sins of set purpose and presumption, or of obstinate and resolued malice against God, has proceeded unto a higher degree of iniquitie, then if he had fallen upon ignorance, infirmity, or disordered and distempered affection. In like manner, the sin of the Jews, in forcing Pilate by their threatning tearmes, (as that he was an enemie to Caesar, &c.) to the vniust condemnation of Christ Jesus, was in a higher degree, then the sin of Pilate himselfe, who yeilding unto their importunitie, pronounced sentence against him, Ioh. 19. 11. The last is the Time, which also serues to aggrauate the sin. For ordinarie disobedience in the time of grace, and wilfull neglect of gods calling, in the aboundance of meanes, is a great deale more damnable, then the conmission of sin, in the daies of ignorance and blindnesse, when the like means are wanting.

Now from this doctrine of the increasing and lessening of Sin in these respects, we may gather, that all sins are not alike or equall, as the Stoicks of ancient times, and their followers have falsely imagined. For it has bin proved at large, by induction of sundrie particulars, that there are degrees of sins, some lesser, some greater: some more offensiue and odious to God & man, some lesse. And that the circunstances of time, place, person, and manner of doing, doe serue to enlarge or extenuate the sin committed.

If it be here alleadged, that Sin is nothing but the doing of that, which is unlawfull to be done, and that this is equall in all men that sin: and therfore by consequent, offenses are equall. I answer, that in euery sin, men must not consider the unlawfulnesse thereof onely, but the reason why it should be unlawfull: and that is properly, because it a breach of Gods law, and repugnant to his will reuealed in his word. Nowe there is no breach of a divine Law, but it is more or lesse repugnant unto the will of the Lawgiuer, God himselfe. And many transgressions, are more repugnant thereunto then fewer: for the more sin is increased, the more is the wrath of God inflamed against the sinner upon his due desert If it be said again, that the nature of Sin stands onely in this, that the sinner makes an aberration from the scope, or marke that is set before him, and does no more then passe the bondes of duty prescribed by God, and that all are alike in this respect; The answer is, that it is a falshood to affirme, that he which makes the lesse aberration from the dutie commanded, is equall in offense to him that makes the greater. For the same sin for substance, has sundrie steppes and degrees, in respect whereof, one man becommeth a more heinous offender then another; for example, in the seauenth commandement when God forbiddes the committing of Adulterie, he forbiddeth three degrees of the same sin; to wit, adulterie of the heart, consisting of inordinate and uncleane affections; adulterie of the tongue in corrupt, dishonest, and unseemely speeches; and the very act of uncleannesse and filthinesse committed by the body. Nowe it cannot be said, that he which breakes this commandement onely in the first degree, is as great a transgressour, as he that has proceeded to the second, and so to the third. And therefore it remaines for an undoubred trueth, that Sins committed against the Law of God are not equall, but some lesser, some greater.

The second way to aggrauate sin, is by addition of sin to sin: and that is done sundry waies: first, by committing one sin in the necke of another; as David sinned, when he added murther to adulterie. Secondly, by doubling and multiplying of sin, that is, by falling often into the same sin. Thirdly, by lying in sin without repentance. And here it must be remembred, that men of yeares living in the Church, are not simply condemned for their particular sins; but for their continuance and residence in them. Sins committed make men worthie of damnation; but living and abiding in them without repentance, is the thing that brings damnation. For as in the militant Church, men are excommunicate, not so much for their offense, as for their obstinacie; so shall it be in the Church triumphant; the kingdome of heaven shall be barred against men, not so much for their sin committed, as for their lying therein without repentance. And this is the manner of Gods dealing with those that have lived within the precincts of the Church; they shall be condemned for the very want of true faith and repentance. This should admonish euery one of vs, to take heed, least we lie in any sin and that being any way ouertaken, we should speedily repent, least we aggrauate our sin by continuance therein, and so bring upon our selues swift damnation.

Thirdly, the same sin is made greater or lesser, 4. waies: according to the number of degrees in the committing of a sin, noted by S. James, Temptation Conception, Birth, and Perfection. Actual sin in the first degree of tentation is, when the minde upon some sudden motion, is drawne away to thinke euill, and withall is tick led with some delight therein. For a bad motion cast into the minde, by the flesh and the devil, is like unto the baite cast into the water, that allureth and delighteth the fish, and causes it to bite. Sin in conception is, when with the delight of the minde, there goes consent of will to doe the euill thought on. Sin in birth is, when it comes forth into action or execution. Sin in perfection, when men are growne to a custome and habit in sin, upon long practise. For the often committing of one and the same sin, leaues an euill impression in the heart, that is, a strong or violent inclination, to that or any other euill, as has bin taught before. And sin thus made perfect, brings forth death: for custome in sinning, brings hardnes of heart: hardnes of heart, impenitencie: and impenitencie, condemnation. Now of these degrees, the first is the least, and the last is the greatest. One and the same sin is lesser in tentation, then in conception: and lese in conception, then in birth: and greater in perfection, then in all the former.

Sundry other Distinctions there are of sins as namely, That the maine sins of the first Table, are greater then the maine sins of the second Table. And yet the maine sins of the second, are greater then the breach of ceremoniall duties, against the first table. But this which has beene said shall suffice.

The use of this doctrine is manifold. First, by it we learne, what the heart of man is by nature: namely, a corrupt and uncleane fountain, out of which issueth in the course of this life, the streams of corruptions infinite in number, noysome in qualities, hainous in degrees, dangerous in effects. For from thence doe flow, all the differences of sins before named, with their seuerall branches, and infinit many more, that cannot be rehearsed. This must move vs humbly to sue unto God, & earnestly to intreat him, to wash vs throughly from our wickednes, & clense vs fron our sins: yea to purge and to rinse the fountain thereof, our uncleane and polluted hearts. And when by Gods mercy in Christ, apprehended by faith, our hearts shal be purified, then to set watch & ward ouer them and to keep them with all diligence. Secondly it teaches vs, that miserable mortall man, is not guiltie of one or more sins, but of many & sundrie corruptions, both of heart and life. Who can understand his faults? says David. Now the alowance of sin being death by gods ordinance, & God being justice it selfe: answerably to the number of our offenses, must we needs be lyable to many punishments, yea to death it selfe, both of the body and of the soul. This being our wofull estate, litle cause is there, that any man should thinke himselfe to be in good case, or presume of Gods mercy in regard of the small number of his sins. And much lesse cause has he, falsely to imagine with the Popish sort, that he can merit the favor of God by any work done by him, aboue that which the Law requireth; considering that it is impossible for him to know either the number, or the nature, or the measure of his sins. Lastly, the consideration of this point, must be a barre to keepe vs in, that we be not too secure or presumptuous of our own estate: for as much as we learne out of the word of God, that in respect of the multitude of our corruptions, this our life is full of much euill, and many difficulties, that we have whole armies of enemies to encounter withall, not only out of vs in the world abroad, but within vs, lurking even in our own flesh. And upon this consideration, that we should be at continuall defiance with them, using all holy meanes to get the victory ouer them, by the daily exercises of inuocation and repentance, and by a continuall practise of new obedience, unto all the lawes and commandements of God, according to the measure of grace received. And so much of the third Ground.

The fourth and last Ground, is touching the subiection & power of Conscience. Conscience is a knowledge joined with a knowledge. For by conscience we know what we know; and by it we know that thing of our selues which God knows of vs. The natural condition of euery mans conscience is this; that it is placed in the middle betweene man and God, under God and aboue man. And this natural condition has two parts: the one is the subiection of conscience to God and his word; the second is a power whereby the conscience is ouer the man to vrge and binde him. Of the first, we have this rule, that God alone by his word doeth onely binde conscience properly: for he is the onely Lord of the conscience, which created it, and gouerns it. He againe is the onely lawe-giuer, that has power to save or destroy the soul, for the keeping and breaking of his Lawes. Iam. 4. 12. Againe, mans conscience is knowne to none but to God, and it is he onely that giues libertie to the conscience, in regard of his own lawes. Upon this it follows, that no mans commandement or Lawe can of it selfe, and by it own sovereigne power binde conscience, but doeth it onely by the authority and vertue of the written word of God, or some part thereof. Nowe the Power of conscience appeares in Pauls rule: Whatever is not of faith, that is, whatever man doeth, whereof he is not certainly perswaded in judgment and conscience, out of Gods word, it is sin. More plainely: a thing may be said, not to be done of faith two waies. First, when it is done, with a doubting and unresolued conscience, as in those that are weake in knowledg. Of which sort were some in the Primitiue Church, who notwithstanding they heard of the doctine of Christian libertie, yet they were of opinion, that after Christs ascension, there was a difference to be made of meats, and therevpon thought, they might not eat of some kind of meats. Suppose now, that these persons (by accident) should have bin drawne to eate swines flesh, which themselues had holden a thing forbidden these men upon this very fact have sinned, because that which they did, was upon an unresolued conscience. Secondly, when a thing is done upon an erronious conscience, it is done not of faith, and therefore a sin. The reason is, because the conscience, though it erre and be deceived, yet it binds so sarre forth, as that if a man judge a thing to be euill, either simply or in some respect, (though falsely) and yet afterward doeth it, he has sinned and offended the Maiestie of God, as much as in him lieh.

THus much touching the Preambles, or Groundes of this doctrine. Nowe it remains that we come to the Questions of Conscience.

These Questions may be fitly deuided, according to the matter or subiect of them, which is Man. Now as Man is considered divers waies, that is to say, either apart by himselfe, or as he standes in relation to another, and is a member of a Society: so the Questions of Conscience are to be distinguished, some concerning man simply considered by himselfe: some againe, as he stands in relation to another.

Man stands in a twofold relation: to God, or to Man. As he stands in relation to man, he is a part of a body, and a member of some society. Nowe the Questions that concerne him, as a member of a society, are of three sorts, according to the three distinct kinds of societies. For euery man is either a member of a Family, or of the Church, or of the Conmonwealth And answerably, some Questions concerne man as a member of a family: some as he is a menber of the Church: some as he is a member of the Commonwealth.

In a word therfore, all Questions touching man, may be reduced to 3. general heads. The first wherof is, concerning man simply considered as he is a man. The second, touching man as he stands in relation to God. The third, concerning him as he is a member of one of the three societies, that is, either of the Family, or of the Church, or of the Commonwealth.

QVestions of the first sort, as man is a Christian, are especially three.

- The first: What a man must doe, that he may come into the favor of God and be saved? - The second, Howe he may be assured in conscience of his own saluation? - The third, Howe he may recouer himselfe, when he is distressed or fallen?

Isaiah 50:4 — The Lord God has given me a tongue of the learned, that I should know how to speak a word in season to the weary.

In the portion of the prophecy that comes before this verse, the Holy Spirit sets forth and foretells the calling of the Gentiles, which was to begin at Christ's death and continue from that point to this day, and so on to the end of the world. In the earlier verses of this chapter, mention is made of the rejection of the Jews — not a general rejection, but a particular one, namely during the affliction they endured in the days of Isaiah. Now in this passage, as in all other prophecies of this kind that deal with this subject, Christ Himself is introduced speaking in His own person. The words of this chapter from the beginning to the present verse and those that follow are the words of Christ the Mediator.

In the preceding verses, He argues the case of their rejection. The heart of the whole argument is this: either He or they themselves were the cause of it — but He was not the cause, and therefore they themselves were, through their sins. The reasoning by which He proves they were the cause runs like this. You Jews cannot produce any written bill of divorce to show that I rejected you. Therefore I appeal to your own consciences: have you not brought this judgment upon yourselves by your own iniquities? (verse 1). On the other side, the reason God was not the cause is this: because He for His part called them in great mercy and love, but when He called they would not obey (verse 2).

Now at the end of the second verse is contained an answer to a secret objection that some stubborn Jew might raise in this way: God does not now have the same power to save and deliver us as He had in former times. We cannot therefore hope or expect any deliverance from Him — so what are we to do in the meantime? To this the Lord Himself answers in verses 2, 3, and 4: that His hand is not shortened, nor His power diminished even for greater works, much less for their deliverance. And though the present affliction they were enduring was great and prolonged, they should not be overly dismayed, but rather should be comforted. For God had given Him the tongue of the learned, to speak a word in season to the weary and distressed, and consequently He had power to ease and refresh their weariness and affliction.

In this text, then, one principal duty of Christ's prophetic office is set forth, by way of analogy to the practices of the prophets in the Old Testament — especially those belonging to the schools of Elijah and Elisha, who are here called the learned. From its words, one special point of instruction may be gathered: that there is a certain knowledge or doctrine revealed in the word of God, by which the consciences of the weak may be corrected and quieted. I draw this conclusion as follows. It was one special duty of Christ's prophetic office to give comfort to the consciences of those who were distressed, as the prophet records here. Now just as Christ had the power to perform such a duty, so He has entrusted the dispensing of it to the ministers of the Gospel. We should not think that Christ in His own person ministered and spoke words of comfort to the weary in the times of the prophets, because He had not yet appeared in our nature. Yet He did speak — but how? Through the persons of the prophets. Similarly, because Christ in the New Testament does not speak to the afflicted in His own visible person, it follows that He performs this great work through the ministry of pastors and teachers on earth, to whom He has given knowledge and other gifts for this very purpose. There must therefore be a certain and reliable doctrine, set forth and taught in the Scriptures, by which the consciences of distressed people may be quieted and relieved. And this doctrine is not obtained through extraordinary revelation, but must be drawn from the written word of God.

The question to be addressed, then, is: what is this doctrine? It is not a simple or readily accessible matter, but one full of labor and difficulty — indeed vast, like the open sea. I will only walk along its shores, as it were, and set forth the main heads of the doctrine, so that I may at least prompt others to consider and develop it more fully.

In order to proceed with some structure, I will first lay down certain foundations or preambles that may give light and direction to what follows. After that, I will set forth and answer the main and principal questions of conscience.

The foundations or preambles are four in particular. The first concerns confession. The second concerns the degrees of goodness in things and actions. The third concerns the degrees of sin. The fourth and last concerns the subjection and power of conscience. I will address each of these in order.

The first foundation is that in troubles of conscience, it is fitting and appropriate for private confession always to be used. For James says, Confess your faults to one another and pray for one another — indicating that confession in such cases is to be used as something most necessary. It stands to reason that a physician must first know the disease before he can apply the remedy. The grief of the heart will not be discerned unless it is revealed through the confession of the one suffering. For this same reason, in the distress of conscience, the scruple — that is, the thing troubling the conscience — must be made known. Nevertheless, in private confession, certain cautions must be observed. First, private confession must not be urged as something simply or absolutely necessary, without which there can be no salvation. Also, it is not appropriate for confession to cover all sins, but only the scruple itself — that is, only those sin or sins that are actually troubling and distressing the conscience. Third, while confession may be made to any person — Confess to one another, says James — it is especially to be made to the prophets and ministers of the Gospel. For they, by virtue of their office and gifts, are in all likelihood the most fit and able of all people to instruct, correct, comfort, and guide the weak and wounded conscience. Finally, the person to whom confession is made must be someone trustworthy and faithful — one who is able and willing to keep what is revealed confidential, and to bury it, as it were, in the grave of forgetfulness. For love covers a multitude of sins.

The second foundation concerns the degrees of goodness in human things and actions. Goodness in things is of two kinds: uncreated and created. Uncreated goodness is God Himself, who never had a beginning and who is goodness itself, because His nature is absolutely and perfectly good and because He is the author and source of all goodness in created things. Created goodness is that by which the creature is made good. It is nothing other than the fruit of the goodness that is essentially in God. The degrees of created goodness are these. There is a general or natural goodness in creatures, and a more special or moral goodness.

General goodness is that by which all creatures are accepted and approved by God, who both created and ordained them. Thus every creature is good — partly by creation, and partly by ordination. By creation, the substance of each creature — the sun, the moon, the earth, water, food, drink, and the like — is good, having its being from God. For the same reason, the essential properties, quantities, qualities, motions, actions, and inclinations of creatures, considered in themselves together with all their effects, are good. By this same general goodness, even the devil himself and his actions, insofar as he is a substance and they are actions having their being from God, are good. Things also take on the quality of goodness not only by creation, but also by God's ordination, whereby they are directed and appointed to certain uses and ends. Thus an evil conscience, hell, and death are good, because they are ordained by God for the execution of His justice — even though in themselves and to us they are evil.

Beyond this general and natural goodness, there is also a special or moral goodness properly so called. It is that which is agreeable to the eternal and unchangeable wisdom of God, revealed in the moral law, where it is commanded. Things that are commanded by God to be done are morally good. Now of actions that are morally good, there are two degrees. They are either good in themselves alone, or good both in themselves and in the person doing them. Some things are morally good in themselves only. For example, when a wicked person gives alms, it is a good work in itself — but not good in the doer, because it is not done in faith and from a good conscience. In the same way, all the virtues of people who do not know God are morally good in themselves, but they are not good in those people. In them, such virtues are nothing but beautiful sins. The next degree of goodness is when things and actions are both good in themselves and good in the person who does them. The prayers and alms of Cornelius were of this sort — good in themselves and good in him also, because he was a believer.

Now opposite to things and actions that are morally good or evil are actions and things of a middle nature, commonly called indifferent. In themselves they are neither good nor evil and may be done or left undone without sin — in themselves, I say, for in their circumstances they can be and may be made either evil or good. Here we must remember to distinguish between what is convenient and what is inconvenient, which arises from the nature of indifferent things. Convenience is when a thing or action is so suited to its circumstances, and the circumstances so suited to it, that it becomes fitting. Inconvenience, on the other hand, is when a thing or action is done in unsuitable circumstances that bring some harm or loss to the outward person, or that fail to meet the standard of decency — and therefore make it unfitting. By what has been said, we may discern when an action is good, evil, indifferent, convenient, or inconvenient.

The third foundation concerns the degrees or distinctions of sin. Here we must first inquire what sin properly is, and what properly makes a person a sinner. Sin in its proper nature, as John says, is a violation of the law — that is, a lack of conformity to the law of God. For a better understanding of this, we must know that in Adam before his fall there were three things that could not be separated from one another: the substance of his body and soul; the faculties and powers of his body and soul; and the image of God, consisting in a straightness and conformity of all the affections and powers of the person to God's will. Now when Adam fell and sinned against God, what was his sin? Not the loss of the first two — for both remained — but the very loss and absence of the third thing, namely, conformity to God's will. I make this plain by this comparison. In a musical instrument, we consider not only the instrument itself and the sound it produces, but also the harmony in the sound. Now the opposite of harmony, or the disorder in music, is neither the first nor the second of these, but the third — namely, discord, which is the want or absence of harmony, what we call disharmony. In the same way, Adam's sin is not the absence of either the substance or the faculties of soul and body, but the want of the third thing named before — conformity, or correspondence to the will of God in regard to obedience. But someone may say: the lack of conformity in the powers of the soul is not properly sin, because sin requires not only an absence of goodness but a habit or presence of evil. I answer that this very lack of conformity is not only an absence of goodness, but also the habit or presence of evil. For as this lack enters in and is received into human nature, it is properly a want or absence of goodness. But once received into the nature of a person, it continues and abides in the powers and faculties thereof — and in that way takes on the character of a habit.

It may be objected again that lust and concupiscence — that is, original sin — draws the heart away from the service of God and entices it to evil. Now to entice or draw away is an action, and this action cannot proceed from a mere privation or absence. In answer, we must consider sin in two ways: first, together with the thing or subject in which it resides; and second, by itself in its own nature. If we consider sin together with its subject, it is an evil inclination or action. But if we consider it in its own nature, it is not an inclination or action but a lack. For example, in a murder we must consider two things. One is the action of moving the body, of raising the weapon, and so on — which is not properly sin when considered simply as an action, because every action comes from God, who is the first cause of all things and actions. Again, in a murder there is a second thing: the killing or slaying of the person, which is the disorder or deviation in the action — the fact that the action is directed to a wrong use and end. In this respect the action is sin, namely because it lacks conformity to the will of God. The nature of sin, then, lies not in the action itself but in the manner in which the action is done. Sin properly is nothing that formally exists or subsists on its own — for if it did, God would be its author, since He is the creator and ordainer of every thing and action. Rather, sin is a disorder, or an absence of goodness and uprightness, in the thing that does subsist. It is therefore rightly and truly said in the schools: In sin there is nothing positive — it is only the want of what ought to be, or to subsist, partly in the nature of the person and partly in the actions that flow from that nature. So now we see what sin is.

The second thing to be considered is: what properly makes a person a sinner? To understand this, we must consider four things present in every sin: first, the fault by which God is offended; second, the guilt that binds the conscience over to punishment; and third, the punishment itself, which is eternal death. Of these three, it is not the guilt or the punishment but the fault or offense that makes a person a sinner. But here is a further difficulty. When a person has committed some offense — and that offense was done and past, perhaps twenty or thirty years ago — the person who committed it does not thereby cease to be a sinner. I ask, then: what is the very thing for which a person is still called and reckoned a sinner in the present, when the offense itself is past? The answer is that every actual sin, beyond the three things already mentioned, must be considered alongside a fourth: a certain stain or blot that it imprints and leaves upon the offender as its fruit. This is an inclination or evil disposition of the heart, by which it becomes more prone to the offense committed, or to any other sin. For just as the person with dropsy, the more he drinks, the thirstier he is and the more he desires to drink — so a sinner, the more he sins, the more prone he is to sin and the more he desires to continue in wickedness. And just as a person who looks at the sun, if he turns his face away, remains turned until he turns back again — so the one who turns from God through sin makes himself a sinner and remains so until he turns back again through repentance. Thus David was a sinner not only in the very act of his adultery and murder. Even after those acts were done and past, he remained a murderer and an adulterer, because a new — or rather renewed — proneness to these and all other sins took hold in his heart through his fall, and gained strength, until he turned to God through repentance upon the rebuke of the prophet. The thing, then, that makes a sinner a sinner is the fault together with its fruit — namely, the stain imprinted on the soul each time a person actually offends.

The practical use of this doctrine about sin is twofold. First, from it we learn and see what original sin is — the sin by which an infant in its very conception and birth is already a sinner. Every infant must be seen as a part of Adam, proceeding from him and sharing in his nature. Through this, each child is made a sinner not only by the imputation of Adam's offense but also by the propagation of a proneness and inclination to every evil, received together with human nature from Adam. This is how we ought to understand original sin: not as merely the corruption of nature alone, but as Adam's first offense imputed, along with its fruit — the corruption of nature — which is an inclination to every evil, passed down together with our nature from our first parents. Second, from this we are taught to guard against every sin, whether in thought, word, or deed. For even though the act of sinning passes away in the doing, it breeds and increases a wicked disposition in the heart — as has been said — toward the offense committed or any other sin. People deceive themselves who think that all the evil of sin lies only in the act of sinning and goes no further. In truth, every offense carries with it a certain stain that corrupts the heart and causes a person to delight in and persist in their offense. This persistence in sin is a greater cause of damnation than the sin itself. This should warn us to take care that we do not linger in any sin. And if it happens that through weakness we are overtaken by some temptation, we must labor to rise again and turn from our sin to God through new and speedy repentance.

That is enough regarding sin itself. Now follow the distinctions of sin, which are many. The first set of distinctions is drawn from the causes and origins of sin in a person, which are three: reason, will, and affection.

The distinctions of sin in regard to reason are these. First, some sins are sins of knowledge, and some are sins of ignorance. A sin of knowledge is when a person offends against his own understanding — doing evil knowing it to be evil. This is greater than a sin of ignorance, for the one who knows his master's will and does not do it will be beaten with many stripes. A sin of ignorance is when a person does evil without knowing it to be evil. Paul was a blasphemer, an oppressor, and a persecutor of the church of Christ in this way — acting out of ignorance and blind zeal, not knowing what he was doing was evil. By ignorance here I mean an ignorance of things that ought to be known, and this is of two kinds: simple, or willful. Simple ignorance is when a person, even after diligent effort and earnest study, still remains ignorant. This ignorance will not excuse anyone if it concerns things they are bound to know. For it is said: the one who does not do his master's will, because he did not know it, will still be beaten with stripes — though fewer.

In this regard, even the pagans who did not know God are without excuse, because they were bound to have known Him. Adam had the perfect knowledge of God imprinted in his nature and lost it through his own fault, both for himself and his posterity. And it is God's commandment — one to which every person is bound to render obedience — that a person should know God, that is, His will and word. But someone may ask: how can anyone be saved, seeing that every person is ignorant of many things they ought to know? Answer: if we know the foundations of religion and are careful to obey God according to our knowledge — having at the same time a concern and desire to grow in the knowledge of God and His will — God will hold us excused. For our desire and effort to obey is accepted in place of obedience itself. The greater the simple ignorance is, the lesser the sin. This is why Peter diminishes and in some sense excuses the sin of the Jews in crucifying Christ, because they did it through ignorance — and Paul likewise excuses his sin in persecuting the church, pleading that it was done ignorantly in unbelief. Yet however such means may lessen this sin, it remains a sin worthy of condemnation. Willful ignorance is when a person takes delight in his ignorance and deliberately chooses to remain ignorant — not using, but despising the means by which he might gain and grow in knowledge. This is done carelessly and negligently, because the person does not want to leave the sin he loves or forsake the evil way of life in which he takes pleasure. This is the sin of those of whom Job speaks, who say to God, Depart from us, for we do not desire the knowledge of Your ways. And of whom David complains: that they flatter themselves in their own eyes and have stopped understanding and doing good. This ignorance is damnable and devilish. It excuses no one, but rather aggravates and increases sin. It is indeed the mother of many serious wickednesses.

Again, ignorance is of two kinds: ignorance of the law, or ignorance of what the law requires. Ignorance of the law is when a person does not know the written law of God nor the law of nature. This ignorance may somewhat lessen the sin, but it excuses no one — because it is a natural obligation and every person is bound to know the law. Ignorance of what the law requires is ignorance of fact. And this is either with the fault of the person who does it, or without fault. Faulty ignorance is when a person is ignorant of a fact that he could have prevented. For example, when a drunk person kills another, not knowing what he is doing — and also not knowing he has done wrong. Yet because he could have prevented his drunkenness, he is at fault and has sinned. Faultless ignorance is when a thing is done that could not have been either known or avoided beforehand. For example, if a man is trimming a tree and the axe head flies off the handle and kills someone passing by — this is indeed manslaughter, but not intentional murder. It could not have been avoided and did not happen through his fault. This kind of ignorance is excusable.

The second source of sin is the will, from which arise three distinctions: some sins come directly from the will, some are beside the will, and some are mixed — partly from the will and partly against it. Sins proceeding from the will are properly called voluntary. These are sins that a person commits, moved by his own will, though knowing them to be evil. Here, the freer the will is, the greater the sin — for will added to knowledge makes the sin greater. Under voluntary sins are included all those that proceed from stirred affections — such as when a person tells a lie out of fear, or strikes another in anger. The reason is that these offenses, though not committed with deliberation but arising from the force of emotion, still do not exclude consent. We may also include here sins committed under compulsion, such as when a person is forced to deny his religion. His offense is in truth voluntary — though some think otherwise, regarding it as a mixed action. For compulsion does not reach the will, but only the outward person, and serves only to draw out consent. When consent is yielded, the person denies his religion voluntarily, for the will cannot be coerced. Next, sins beside the will are those that are neither directly from the will nor against it. Of this sort are the first sudden motions to sin, conceived in the heart with some inward pleasure and delight. These are truly sins, though relatively small ones, condemned in the tenth commandment. They are not from the will, because they arise without and before consent. Yet neither are they against the will, because otherwise the heart would take no delight in them. Here, as a side note, we must observe — against the doctrine of the Roman Catholics — that not all sins are voluntary. For whatever lacks conformity to the law of God is sin, whether it involves the consent of the will or not. Many desires and delights arise suddenly in the human heart that are not in accordance with God's law and have no consent or approval of the will. Similarly, when one person kills another while thinking he is killing a wild animal, and afterward remembers what he has done and is not grieved by it — in this case he has sinned, because his lack of grief is offensive to God, even though the act itself was entirely beside his will.

Mixed sins are partly from the will and partly against it. Of this sort are the works of the regenerate person, which are done partly with his will and partly against his will, being partly good and partly evil. The reason for this is as follows. After regeneration there are in a person two contrary foundations or sources of action: natural corruption, which is the inclination of the mind, will, and affections toward what is against the law — called the flesh; and a created quality of holiness, worked in those same faculties by the Holy Spirit — called the Spirit. These two are not separate from each other, but joined and mingled together in all the faculties and powers of the soul. Between these two there is a continual battle — corruption fighting against grace, and grace against corruption. Because there are always contrary inclinations present in one and the same will, contrary actions must necessarily flow from the regenerate person. In every action, the flesh wills what is evil, and the Spirit on the other side wills what is good. Paul acknowledged this from his own experience after his conversion when he said, To will is present with me, but I find no means perfectly to do that which is good (Romans 7:18). Again, I delight in the law of God concerning the inner man, but I see another law in my members, rebelling against the law of my mind, and leading me captive to the law of sin, which is in my members (Romans 7:22-23).

The third source or fountain of sin in a person is affection, from which proceed two kinds: sins of infirmity, and sins of presumption. Sins of infirmity are those that proceed from the sudden passions of the mind and the strong affections of the heart — such as hatred, grief, anger, sorrow, and the like. These sins are commonly thought to be found in all people, but the truth is that they are properly characteristic of the regenerate. For infirmity cannot properly be said to exist in those in whom sin has strength and firmness, and in whom there is no power of grace at all. Moreover, the regenerate person does not sin whenever he would, because the grace of God in him restrains him. Nor does he sin in whatever way he would — partly because he does not sin with his whole heart, since the strength of the flesh is restrained by the Spirit; and partly because, having fallen, he does not lie still but recovers himself through speedy repentance. This is clear evidence that the sins he falls into are not presumptuous but arise ordinarily from weakness and infirmity. Sins of presumption are those that proceed from pride, arrogance, willfulness, and a haughty heart. Against these David prays: Let not presumptuous sins have dominion over me (Psalm 19:13). Of these there are three degrees. The first is when a person willfully persists in his sins on the mistaken assumption of God's mercy and his own future repentance. This is the sin of most people. The second is when a person sins willfully in contempt of the law of God. This is what Moses calls sinning with a high hand, and the punishment for it was to be cut off from among the people by immediate death (Numbers 15:30). The third is when a person sins not only willfully and contemptuously, but out of deliberate malice and spite against God Himself and Christ Jesus. From this we may understand what the sin against the Holy Spirit is. It is not every sin of presumption, or every sin against knowledge and conscience. Rather, it is a particular kind of presumptuous offense in which true religion is renounced — and that with deliberate purpose and resolved malice against the very majesty of God Himself and Christ (Hebrews 10:29).

Now follow other distinctions of sin with respect to its object, which is the law. In respect of the law, sin is of two kinds: sins of commission, or sins of omission. I say in respect of the law, because God has revealed in His law two kinds of precepts: one in which some good thing is commanded to be done — such as to love God with all our heart and our neighbor as ourselves; and another in which some evil is forbidden — such as the making of a graven image, the taking of God's name in vain, and so on. A sin of commission is when a person does something flatly forbidden in the law and word of God — for example, when one person kills another contrary to the law, which says, You shall not kill. A sin of omission is when a person leaves undone some duty that the law requires — for example, failing to preserve his neighbor's life or well-being when it is in his power to do so. These too are truly sins, and by them, just as by sins of commission, people will be judged on the last day. Sins of omission have three degrees. First, when a person does nothing at all and omits the commanded duty entirely — as when, having opportunity and ability, he does not so much as lift a finger to save his neighbor's life. Second, when a person performs the duty commanded, but fails in both the manner and the measure of it. This is how people who do not know God fail in their good works. For the things they did were, in their substance and matter, good and commendable — done for civil and honest reasons, with a view to the common good. Yet in truth their actions were no better than sins of omission, because they flowed from corrupted hearts void of faith and were not directed toward the primary end and aim of all human actions: the honor and glory of God. Third, when a person does things in the right manner, but falls short in the measure. This is how God's children sin in all their obedience to the law. They do the good things the law commands — such as loving God and neighbor — but they cannot attain to the full measure of love that the law requires. In this way, even the best people alive sin in every good work they do, so that if God were to enter into judgment, deal with them in the strictness of His justice, and examine them by the rigorous rule of the law, He could justly condemn them even for their best actions. For this reason, when we pray daily for the forgiveness of our sins, even our best works must be included in that prayer — because we fall short, if not in substance and manner, then at least in the measure of goodness that ought to characterize what we do. We must also take care to repent of our sins of omission just as we do of sins of commission, because by leaving our duty undone we offend more often than by sins committed. And the smallest omission is enough to condemn us, if God should hold us strictly to account for it (Matthew 25:42-43).

The next distinction of sins may be this. Some are crying sins, and some are sins of toleration. By crying sins I mean those that are so heinous and so grievous in their kind that they hasten God's judgments and call down swift vengeance on the sinner. There are several examples of this in Scripture, and especially four. First, Cain's sin in murdering his innocent brother Abel, of which it was said, The voice of your brother's blood cries to me from the ground. The next is the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah, which was pride, fullness of bread, abundance of idleness, merciless treatment of the poor, and all manner of uncleanness (Ezekiel 16). Of this, the Lord said that the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah was great and their sins exceeding grievous. The third is the sin of oppression suffered by the Israelites in Egypt at the hands of Pharaoh and his taskmasters. The fourth is merciless injustice in wrongfully withholding and keeping back a laborer's wages. These are called crying sins for the following reasons. First, because they have now reached their full measure and height, beyond which God will not allow them to pass without due punishment. Moreover, the Lord takes greater notice of them and inquires more deeply into them than into other sins, because they exceed and are most conspicuous wherever they are committed. Third, they call for immediate help for the afflicted and wronged, and consequently for swift execution of vengeance upon those who commit them. And lastly, because God is accustomed to hear the cries of those who endure such heavy treatment at the hands of others, and accordingly to help them and to repay the perpetrators with the punishment they deserve.

Next to these are sins of toleration — lesser than the former. Though they deserve death in themselves, God in His mercy shows patience and forbearance toward those who commit them, either deferring the temporal punishment or pardoning both temporal and eternal punishment for His elect. Such was the ignorance of the Gentiles before Christ's coming, which God deferred to punish and, as we might say, overlooked. More specifically, there are three kinds of sins of toleration. The first is original sin, or concupiscence, in the regenerate after regeneration. It is not entirely abolished at conversion, but remains, troubling and tempting us to a greater or lesser degree until death. Yet if we carry a constant purpose not to sin and make an effort to resist all temptations, this concupiscence of ours will not be imputed to us, nor will we be condemned for it. To this end the holy apostle says, There is no condemnation to those who are in Christ. Yet he does not say there is nothing in them worthy of condemnation. For original sin remains until death, truly deserving damnation, even though it is not imputed. The second kind of sins of toleration is unknown and hidden sins in the regenerate. For who can tell how often he offends? says David. When a person who is a child of God examines his heart and humbles himself even for all his particular sins that he knows about himself, there will still remain some unknown sins for which he cannot have a particular repentance. And yet these are not imputed but pardoned when there is repentance for known sins. For example, David repented of his murder and adultery, yet afterward — mistakenly, due to the corruption of the times — he lived until his death in the sin of polygamy, without any particular repentance that we know of. The patriarchs acted similarly and are not entirely excusable. Yet they were not condemned for it. Nor were they saved without repentance for this sin — but God in mercy accepted a general repentance for it. The same is the case for all the elect in regard to their secret and hidden faults. For unless God were willing to accept general repentance for unknown sins, few or none at all would be saved. And here the endless mercy of God is remarkably displayed, that He graciously accepts our repentance when we repent, even if not with the particularity that we ought. Nevertheless, this must not encourage or embolden anyone to live in his sins without turning to God. For unless we repent particularly for all the sins we know, not only our known offenses but even our secret sins will condemn us. Many sins are committed by people that are afterward completely forgotten. Others are committed and afterward remain uncertain as to whether they are sins at all. And in doing the best duties we can, we often offend without even noticing it. All of these, in the case of the regenerate, are through God's mercy sins of toleration in regard to particular repentance. The third kind of sins of toleration involves certain particular acts of people that are reproved in Scripture yet never punished. Such was the act of Zipporah, who circumcised her child in her husband's presence when he was able to do it himself and she had no calling to do what she did. Although God's hand was against Moses, he was not sick at the time — as some would explain the matter. There is nothing in the text to suggest this. It is more likely that she circumcised her son in haste, to get ahead of her husband. The deed was done with some indignation, and she threw the foreskin at his feet. Yet because this act was in some sense an act of obedience — since the thing God required was done, even if not in the manner He required — God accepted it and stayed His hand from killing Moses. In the same way, God accepted Ahab's humility, even though it was hypocritical, because it was a show of obedience. For that reason He deferred a temporal punishment until the days of Ahab's descendants. God sent lions to destroy the Assyrians living in Samaria for their idolatry. Yet as soon as they had learned to fear the Lord after the manner of the God of Israel — though they mixed this with their own idolatry — God, for that partial obedience, allowed them to live in peace.

The sixth distinction of sins may be this. Some sins are against God, and some are against other people. This distinction is grounded in a passage from Samuel: If one person sins against another, the judge shall judge it; but if a person sins against the Lord, who shall plead for him? Sins against God are those that are directly and immediately committed against the majesty of God. Such are atheism, idolatry, blasphemy, perjury, profaning the Sabbath, and all the violations of the first table. Sins against others are injuries, hurts, losses, and damages by which our neighbor is unjustly harmed or hindered by us — in his dignity, life, chastity, wealth, good name, or in any other way. Such actions must be considered in two ways. First, as injuries and hurts done to our neighbor. Second, as violations of God's law, which forbids us to act in such ways. In this second respect they are called sins, because sin is properly against God. Therefore, when we speak of sins against others, we mean injuries, losses, or damages done to them. In this sense must that passage in Matthew be understood: If your brother sins against you, etc.

The seventh distinction of sins is noted by Paul, where he says: Every sin that a person commits is outside the body, but the one who commits sexual immorality sins against his own body. In this passage, sins are distinguished into those that are outside the body and those that are against a person's own body. Sins outside the body are those in which the body is the instrument of the sin, but not the thing being abused. Such are murder, theft, and drunkenness. In committing these sins, the body is only a helper — only a remote, instrumental cause — and the thing being abused is something outside the body. For example: in drunkenness, the thing being abused is wine or strong drink. In theft, it is another person's goods. In murder, it is the instrument by which the act is carried out. The body contributes its help to these things, but the injury is directed toward God's creatures — toward the body and goods of our neighbor. And all sins are like this, with the single exception of adultery. Sins against the body are those in which the body is not only the instrument but the very thing being abused. Adultery alone — and those acts of the same kind — is properly a sin against the body, for two reasons. First, the body of the sinner is both a contributing cause of the sin and the thing he is misusing against his own self. Second, through this offense he does not merely hinder but altogether forfeits his right, power, and ownership of his own body, by making it the member of a prostitute. And finally, while other sins in their own way bring shame and dishonor upon the body, none of them strikes as deep or leaves a stain as deeply imprinted in it as the sin of sexual immorality.

The eighth distinction of sins is grounded in Paul's charge to Timothy: Do not share in other people's sins. Sins are either other people's sins, or participation in other people's sins. This distinction is worth knowing and remembering because it helps to either diminish or aggravate the sins committed. Participation in sin occurs in several ways. First, by counsel: this is how Caiaphas sinned when he advised that Christ be put to death. Second, by command: this is how David sinned in the murder of Uriah. Third, by consent or assistance (Romans 1:31). This is how Saul sinned by holding the garments of those who stoned Stephen. (Acts 22:20). Fourth, by provocation: this is how those sin who incite others to sin, as Paul speaks of when he says fathers must not provoke their children to wrath. (Ephesians 6:4). Fifth, by negligence, when people are called to rebuke sin and do not. Sixth, by flattery, when people encourage others in their sin. Seventh, by winking at sins or passing them over with only a token rebuke (Ephesians 5:11). This is how Eli sinned by rebuking his sons too leniently, bringing a temporal judgment on himself and his family (1 Samuel 2 and 4). Eighth, by participation (Ephesians 5:7) — this is how those sin who receive stolen goods. Ninth, by defending another person in his sin: for the one who justifies the wicked and condemns the righteous is an abomination to the Lord.

The ninth distinction follows. Some people's sins (says Paul) are evident beforehand; the sins of others appear only later. Some interpret this to mean: some people's sins are kept secret until the last judgment, while some are revealed in this life before that day. I believe this is true, but it is not the meaning of the text. In verse 23, the apostle was speaking about ordination, charging Timothy not to hastily admit anyone into church office, lest he share in their sins. In verse 24, he gives a reason for this: Some people's sins are evident beforehand — that is, some people's faults and deficiencies are known before their ordination to church office, and the church can form a clear judgment about such persons. But others appear only afterward — that is, they are not revealed until after ordination. This is how Judas's wickedness did not show itself at first, but was revealed after he was called to be an apostle.

And so we see what the distinctions of sins are. Concerning all of them, this must be held and remembered as a foundation: every sin, in whatever degree, is mortal in itself, and no sin is venial by its own nature. For the wages of every sin is death. (Romans 6:23). And, Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things that are written in the book of the law, to do them. (Galatians 3:10).

This foundation must be held against the Church of Rome, which in her case-divinity is accustomed to quieting the conscience by teaching people that various sins are venial. And though every sin is mortal in itself, not all are equally mortal — some are more so, some less — because sin has various degrees, as has been shown in part.

Again, the same sin may be increased or lessened — and thus made more or less heinous — in several ways. First, by circumstances, which are principally seven. The first is the person who sins. The sin of a public figure is more heinous — indeed more mortal — than the sin of a private person, because he holds a prominent position and his actions are more visible and scandalizing than those of ordinary people. The servant who knows his master's will and does not do it is the greater sinner and will suffer greater punishment than the one who neglects it through simple ignorance. (Matthew 10:15). The minister and dispenser of the word, if he is faithless and unfruitful, bears a far greater offense and consequently a far greater punishment than other people. (Matthew 5:13). The second is the person who is offended. The Jews sinned more heinously in crucifying Christ, the Son of God, the Lord of glory, than their fathers did in persecuting and killing the prophets. The injury done to those whom God tenderly loves is far more displeasing to Him than if it were done to others. The one who touches you, says the prophet — meaning the Jews, His chosen and beloved people — touches the apple of His eye. (Zechariah 2:8). The person who schemes against his harmless brother who dwells peaceably beside him commits a sin most odious to God and man. (Proverbs 3:29; Psalm 7:4). The one who is called and converted to God and Christ, and does not make honest provision for his own household, is so notorious an offender that Paul regards him as a denier of the faith and worse than an unbeliever. (1 Timothy 5:8). The person who rails against the judge or speaks evil of the ruler of his people is a greater transgressor of God's commandment than one who abuses an ordinary person. (Exodus 22:28). The third is the thing done in which the offense is committed. To falsify the word of God and to profane His worship and service is far more abominable in His sight than falsifying the word of a person or abusing human laws and ordinances. Harming or endangering the person and life of our neighbor is a more odious offense than diminishing his goods and outward estate. And harm done by our fault to his soul is worse in every way than wrong done to his body. The fourth is the place where the sin is committed. According to this circumstance, if a person speaks or does anything that comes under the name of a violation of piety or justice in a public setting — in the congregation, in open court, or in a general assembly — and that with public and widespread scandal, he is a greater offender than if he had spoken or done the same thing at home, in his house or private room. The fifth is the end. For this reason, the person who steals from another to satisfy his hunger and save his life when driven to extreme necessity offends in a lower and lesser degree than the thief who robs by the highway for the purpose of enriching himself at the expense of others. The sixth is the manner. The person who commits sexual immorality in the outward act sins more grievously and with greater scandal than if he had only entertained an impure thought in his heart. And the person who sins with deliberate purpose and presumption, or with obstinate and resolved malice against God, has proceeded to a higher degree of wickedness than if he had fallen through ignorance, weakness, or disordered and undisciplined emotion. Similarly, the sin of the Jews in forcing Pilate — through threatening language such as accusing him of being an enemy of Caesar — to unjustly condemn Christ Jesus was in a higher degree than the sin of Pilate himself, who yielded to their pressure and pronounced sentence against Him (John 19:11). The last is the time, which also serves to aggravate sin. For ordinary disobedience in a time of grace and willful neglect of God's calling in the abundance of means is far more damnable than committing sin in days of ignorance and blindness, when such means are lacking.

From this doctrine of how sin is increased and lessened in these respects, we may gather that all sins are not equal, as the ancient Stoics and their followers have falsely imagined. For it has been demonstrated at length through numerous examples that there are degrees of sin — some lesser, some greater; some more offensive and odious to God and others, some less. And the circumstances of time, place, person, and manner of doing serve to enlarge or diminish the sin committed.

If it is objected here that sin is nothing but the doing of what is unlawful, and that this is equal in all who sin, and therefore offenses are equal — I answer that in every sin, people must consider not only its unlawfulness but the reason why it is unlawful. And that reason is properly because it is a violation of God's law, contrary to His will as revealed in His word. Now no violation of God's law is equally contrary to the will of the lawgiver. And many transgressions are more contrary to His will than fewer. For the more sin increases, the more God's wrath is kindled against the sinner in proportion to what he deserves. If it is said again that the nature of sin consists only in making a departure from the appointed standard — in passing the boundaries of duty prescribed by God — and that all are equal in this respect: the answer is that it is false to say that the one who makes a smaller departure from the commanded duty is equal in offense to one who makes a greater departure. For the same sin in substance has various steps and degrees, by which one person becomes a more heinous offender than another. For example: in the seventh commandment, where God forbids adultery, He forbids three degrees of the same sin — namely, adultery of the heart, consisting of inordinate and impure affections; adultery of the tongue, in corrupt, dishonest, and indecent speech; and the very act of sexual immorality committed by the body. Now it cannot be said that the person who breaks this commandment only in the first degree is as great a transgressor as the one who has proceeded to the second, and then to the third. Therefore it remains an undoubted truth that sins committed against the law of God are not equal, but some are lesser and some are greater.

The second way that sin is aggravated is by the adding of sin upon sin. This happens in several ways: first, by committing one sin on the heels of another — as David sinned by adding murder to adultery. Second, by doubling and multiplying sin — that is, by falling repeatedly into the same sin. Third, by lying in sin without repentance. Here it must be remembered that people of mature years living in the church are not simply condemned for their particular sins, but for their continuance and residence in them. Sins committed make people worthy of damnation, but living and abiding in them without repentance is what actually brings damnation. Just as in the church on earth, people are excommunicated not so much for their offense as for their obstinacy — so it will be in the church triumphant. The kingdom of heaven will be barred against people not so much for the sin committed as for their lying in it without repentance. This is how God deals with those who have lived within the precincts of the church: they will be condemned for the very absence of true faith and repentance. This should warn each of us to take care that we do not lie in any sin. And if we are in any way overtaken, we should repent speedily, lest we aggravate our sin by continuing in it and thereby bring swift damnation upon ourselves.

Third, the same sin is made greater or lesser in four ways according to the stages in committing it, as noted by James: temptation, conception, birth, and perfection (James 1:15). Actual sin in the first degree — temptation — is when the mind, upon some sudden impulse, is drawn to think evil and at the same time experiences some delight in it. For an evil impulse cast into the mind by the flesh and the devil is like bait cast into the water, which allures and pleases the fish and causes it to bite. Sin in conception is when, together with the delight of the mind, consent of the will is given to commit the evil that was thought on. Sin in birth is when it comes forth into action or execution. Sin in perfection is when a person has grown into a custom and habit of sin through long practice. For the repeated committing of one and the same sin leaves an evil impression in the heart — a strong and violent inclination toward that sin or any other evil, as has already been taught. Sin thus brought to full maturity brings forth death: for a habit of sinning produces hardness of heart, hardness of heart produces impenitence, and impenitence produces condemnation. Of these degrees, the first is the least and the last is the greatest. The same sin is lesser in temptation than in conception, lesser in conception than in birth, and greatest in perfection — worse than all the former stages combined.

There are also various other distinctions of sin — for example, that the chief sins of the first table are greater than the chief sins of the second table. Yet the chief sins of the second table are greater than violations of ceremonial duties under the first table. But what has been said is sufficient for our purposes.

The practical use of this doctrine is extensive. First, from it we learn what the human heart is by nature: a corrupt and unclean fountain, from which flows throughout this life an endless stream of corruptions — infinite in number, harmful in quality, heinous in degree, and dangerous in effect (Matthew 15:19). From it flow all the distinctions of sin named above, with their various branches, and countless more that cannot be rehearsed. This should move us humbly to seek God and earnestly ask Him to wash us thoroughly from our wickedness and cleanse us from our sins — yes, to purge and cleanse the very fountain of them: our unclean and polluted hearts (Acts 15:9). And when, by God's mercy in Christ apprehended by faith, our hearts are purified, we must then stand watch over them and keep them with all diligence (Proverbs 4:23). Second, this doctrine teaches us that miserable mortal persons are guilty not of one or a few sins, but of many and various corruptions both of heart and life. Who can understand his faults? says David (Psalm 19:12). Now since the penalty for sin is death by God's ordinance, and since God is justice itself, we must be liable to many punishments in proportion to the number of our offenses — yes, even to death itself, both of body and soul. Given this sorrowful condition, no one has any reason to think himself in a good state or to presume on God's mercy because he supposes his sins to be few. Still less reason does anyone have — in the false manner of the Roman Catholics — to imagine that he can merit God's favor by some work done above and beyond what the law requires, given that it is impossible for any person to know either the number, the nature, or the measure of his sins. Lastly, the consideration of this point should serve as a check to keep us from becoming too secure or presumptuous about our condition. For from God's word we learn that, given the multitude of our corruptions, this life is full of much evil and many difficulties — that we have whole armies of enemies to face, not only outside us in the world, but also within us, lurking in our own flesh. This should cause us to be in constant opposition to those enemies, using every holy means to gain the victory over them — through daily exercises of prayer and repentance, and through a continual practice of new obedience to all the laws and commandments of God, according to the measure of grace received. And that is enough for the third foundation.

The fourth and last foundation concerns the subjection and power of conscience. Conscience is knowledge joined with knowledge. By conscience we know what we know, and by it we know about ourselves what God knows about us. The natural condition of every person's conscience is this: it is placed in the middle — between the person and God, under God and above the person. This natural condition has two parts. The first is the subjection of conscience to God and His word. The second is a power by which conscience is over the person, to press and bind him. Concerning the first, this rule holds: God alone, by His word, properly binds conscience, for He is the only Lord of the conscience — He who created it and governs it. He also is the only lawgiver who has power to save or destroy the soul by the keeping or breaking of His laws (James 4:12). Again, no one knows a person's conscience but God, and it is He alone who gives liberty to the conscience in regard to His own laws. From this it follows that no human commandment or law can by its own sovereign power bind the conscience. It can only do so by the authority and virtue of the written word of God, or some part of it. Now the power of conscience is seen in Paul's rule: Whatever is not of faith — that is, whatever a person does without being certainly persuaded in his judgment and conscience, from God's word, that it is lawful — is sin (Romans 14:23). More precisely, a thing may be said not to be done in faith in two ways. First, when it is done with a doubting and unresolved conscience, as in the case of those who are weak in knowledge. Some in the early church were of this sort. Though they had heard the doctrine of Christian liberty, they still believed that after Christ's ascension a distinction between foods ought to be made, and therefore thought they must not eat certain kinds of food. Suppose that such persons were by some accident drawn to eat pork, which they themselves had held to be forbidden. By that very act they would have sinned, because what they did was done with an unresolved conscience. Second, when a thing is done on the basis of a mistaken conscience, it is not done in faith, and is therefore sin. The reason is this: the conscience, even when it errs and is deceived, still binds to this extent — that if a person judges a thing to be evil, either absolutely or in some respect, even if that judgment is false, and yet afterward does it, he has sinned and offended the majesty of God as much as lay in him to do.

That concludes the preambles or foundations of this doctrine. It now remains to proceed to the questions of conscience.

These questions may be conveniently divided according to their subject matter, which is the human person. Now just as a person may be considered in different ways — either by himself, or in relation to others as a member of a society — so the questions of conscience are to be divided: some concern the person simply considered in himself, and some concern the person as he stands in relation to others.

A person stands in two kinds of relationship: to God, and to other people. As he stands in relation to others, he is a part of a larger whole and a member of some society. The questions that concern him as a member of a society are of three kinds, corresponding to the three distinct types of societies. For every person is either a member of a family, a member of the church, or a member of the commonwealth. Accordingly, some questions concern a person as a member of a family, some as a member of the church, and some as a member of the commonwealth.

In short, all questions concerning the human person may be reduced to three general heads. The first concerns the person simply considered as a human being. The second concerns the person in his relationship to God. The third concerns the person as a member of one of the three societies — that is, either the family, the church, or the commonwealth.

Questions of the first kind — concerning a person as a Christian — are especially three.

The first: What must a person do to come into the favor of God and be saved? The second: How can a person be assured in conscience of his own salvation? The third: How can a person recover himself when he is distressed or has fallen?