Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	act_n	faith_n	justification_n	3,419	5	9.8335	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A32857	The religion of Protestants a safe way to salvation, or, An answer to a book entituled, Mercy and truth, or, Charity maintain'd by Catholiques, which pretends to prove the contrary to which is added in this third impression The apostolical institution of episcopacy : as also IX sermons ... / by William Chillingworth ...	Chillingworth, William, 1602-1644.; Chillingworth, William, 1602-1644. Apostolical institution of episcopacy.; Chillingworth, William, 1602-1644. Sermons. Selections.	1664 (1664)	Wing C3890; Wing C3884A_PARTIAL; ESTC R20665	761,347	567

Epistle to the Romans be of sufficient force for their sense of Justification Then certainly an Argument from as express words in the Epistle to the Galatians will be as concluding for mine in which Epistle he also purposely states the same questions Gal. 3.11 The words are Gal. 3.11 That no man is justified by the Law in the sight of God it is evident for the Just shall live by faith Now to live I hope does not signifie to have ones sins forgiven him but to be Saved Therefore unless S. Paul include a right unto Salvation within the compass of Justification that Text might have been spared as nothing at all serving for his purpose Besides Is not Salvation as free as gracious as undeserved an act of God as Remission of sins Is it not as much for Christs sake that we are saved as that our sins are forgiven us Thus much for what I suppose is meant by Justification I will now as briefly and as perspicuously as I can without using Allegories and Metaphorical expressions with which this point is ordinarily much obscured shew you the combination of these two words in what sense I suppose S. Paul may use this proposition We are Justified by Faith without the Works of the Law 38. In the first place therefore I will lay down this Conclusion as an infallible safe foundation That if we have respect to the proper meritorious cause of our Justification we must not take Faith in that Proposition for any virtue or Grace inherent in us but only for the proper and principal object thereof Jesus Christ and his Merits And the meaning of that Proposition must be that we are not justified for the merits of any Righteousness in our selves whether Legal or Evangelical but only for the Obedience and Death of our Blessed Saviour Jesus Christ Though this be most true yet I suppose that S. Paul in that proposition had not a respect to the Meritorious Cause of our Justification but to that Formal Condition required in us before we be Justified as I think may appear by that which follows 39. I told you even now that I would in this point purposely abstain from using Metaphors and Figurative Allusions and the reason is because I suppose and not without reasonable grounds that the stating of this point of Justification by Metaphors has made this Doctrine which is set down with greater light and perspicuity in holy Scripture than almost any other to be a Doctrine of the most Scholastical subtilty the fullest of shadows and clouds of all the rest For example In that fashion and dress of Divinity as it is now worn slic'd and mangled into Theses and Distinctions we find this point of our Justification thus express'd That Faith is therefore said to Justifie us because it is that which makes Christs righteousness ours it is as it were an instrument or hand whereby we receive lay hold on and apply Christ unto our selves Here 's nought but flowers of Rhetorick Figures and Metaphors which though they are capable of a good sense yet are very improper to state a Controversie withall 40. But let us examine them a little We must not say they conceive of Faith as if it were a Vertue or Grace or any part of Righteousness inherent in us For Faith as a Grace has no influence at all into our Justification Mark the Coherence of these things Faith is considered as an hand or an instrument in our Justification and yet for all it is a Hand it is nothing in or of us for it seems Hands are not parts of mens bodies Again Faith puts on Christ receives him layes hold upon him makes his righteousness ours and yet it does nothing for all that Besides How can Faith be properly call'd an instrument of Justification An Instrument is that which the principal Cause the Efficient makes use of in his operation Now Justification in this sense is an immanent internal action of God in which there is no co-operation of any other agent nor any real alteration wrought in man the object thereof Does God then use Faith as an instrument in producing the Act of Justification No but it is Instrumentum Passivum saith one That is a thing never heard of in nature before and the meaning is sure Faith certainly is something but what a kind of thing we know not By these means it comes to pass that the Doctrine of our Justification as some men have handled it is become as deep as unsearchable a mystery as that of the Trinity 41. Without question there is nothing can be more evident to a man that shall unpartially consider S. Paul's method in his discourse of Justification then that by Faith he intends some operative working grace in us For instance The Apostle proves that we Christians are to seek for Justification the same way that Abraham attained unto it namely by Faith for saith the Scripture in his quotation Abraham believed God and it was accounted to him for righteousness What was that which was accounted to him His believing That is say some Christ who was the object of his Belief This is a forc'd interpretation certainly and which a Jew would never have been perswaded to But that Christ was not at all intended in that place it is evident for Abraham's belief there had respect to Gods promise made to him of giving him a Son in his old age and by that Son a Seed as innumerable as the stars in heaven as appears Gen. 15.4 5 6. whereas the Promise of Christ Gen. 15.4 5 6. Gen. 18.18 follows three Chapters after to wit Gen. 18.18 Again the Apostle in many places useth these words We are Justified by Faith in Christ and by the Faith of Jesus Christ which speeches of his will admit of no tolerable sense unless by Faith he intends some work or obedience perform'd by us This therefore being taken for granted that by Faith is meant some condition required at our hands and yet my former conclusion of our Justification only for the merits of Christ remaining firm we will in the next place consider what kind of obedience that of Faith is and in what sense it may be said to justifie us 42. What satisfaction I conceive may be given to this Quaery I will set down in this Assertion Assertion That since Justification even as it includes Remission of sins is that Promise to perform which unto us God has oblig'd himself in the New Covenant it must necessarily presuppose in the person to be so justified such an obedience as the Gospel requires namely first Repentance from dead works a conversion to a new obedience of those holy Moral Commands which are ratifi'd in the Gospel and a relying upon Christ as the only meritorious cause of our Justification and Salvation by a particular Evangelical Faith All this I say is pre-required in the person who is made capable of Justification either in the exercise or at least in

between these two We receive the Books of the New Testament as they are commonly received and we receive those that are commonly received because they are so To say this were indeed to make being commonly received a Rule or reason to know the Canon by But to say the former doth no more make it a Rule then you should make the Church of England the Rule of your receiving them if you should say as you may The Books of the New Testament we receive for Canonical as they are received by the Church of England 45. You demand Upon what infallible ground we agree with Luther against you in some and with you against Luther in others And I also demand Upon what infallible ground you hold your Canon and agree neither with us nor Luther For sure your differing from us both is of it selfe no more apparently reasonable than our agreeing with you in part and in part with Luther If you say Your Churches infallibility is your ground I demand again some infallible ground both for the Churches infallibility and for this that Yours is the Church and shall never cease multiplying demands upon demands until you settle me upon a Rock I mean give such an Answer whose Truth is so evident that it needs no further evidence If you say This is Universal Tradition I reply your Churches infallibility is not built upon it and that the Canon of Scripture as we receive it is For we do not profess our selves so absolutely and undoubtedly certain neither do we urge others to be so of those Books which have been doubted as of those that never have 46. The Conclusion of your Tenth § is That the Divinity of a writing cannot be known from it self alone but by some extrinsecal Authority Which you need not prove for no wise man denies it But then this Authority is that of Universal Tradition not of Your Church For to me it is altogether as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the Gospel of S. Matthew is the Word of God as that all which your Church sayes is true That Believers of the Scripture by considering the Divine matter the excellent precepts the glorious promises contained in it may be confirmed in their faith of the Scriptures Divine Authority and that among other inducements and enforcements hereunto internal arguments have their place and force certainly no man of understanding can deny For my part I professe if the Doctrine of the Scripture were not as good and as fit to come from the Fountain of goodness as the Miracles by which it was confirmed were great I should want one main Pillar of my faith and for want of it I fear should be much stagger'd in it Now this and nothing else did the Doctor mean in saying The Believer sees by that glorious Beam of Divine light which shines in Scripture and by many internal Arguments that the Scripture is of Divine Authority By this saith he he sees it that is he is moved to and strengthened in his beliefe of it and by this partly not wholly by this not alone but with the concurrence of other Arguments He that will quarrel with him for saying so must finde fault with the Master of the Sentences and all his Schollers for they all say the same The rest of this Paragragh I am as willing it should be true as you are to have it and so let it passe as a discourse wherein we are wholly unconcerned You might have met with an Answerer that would not have suffered you to have said so much Truth together but to me it is sufficient that it is nothing to the purpose 48. In the next Division out of your liberality you will suppose that Scripture like to a corporal light is by it self alone able to determine and move our understanding to assent yet notwithstanding this supposal Faith still you say must go before Scripture because as the light is visible only to those that have eyes so the Scripture only to those that have the Eye of Faith But to my understanding if Scripture do move and determine our Understanding to assent then the Scripture and its moving must be before this assent as the cause must be before its own effect now this very assent is nothing else but Faith and Faith nothing else than the Understanding's assent And therefore upon this supposal Faith doth and must originally proceed from Scripture as the effect from its proper cause and the influence and efficacy of Scripture is to be presupposed before the assent of Faith unto which it moves and determines and consequently if this supposition of yours were true there should need no other means precedent to Scripture to beget Faith Scripture it self being able as here you suppose to determine and move the Understanding to assent that is to believe them and the Verities contained in them Neither is this to say that the eyes with which we see are made by the light by which we see For you are mistaken much if you conceive that in this comparison Faith answers to the Eye But if you will not pervert it the Analogie must stand thus Scripture must answer to light The eye of the soul that is the Understanding or the faculty of assenting to the Bodily eye And lastly assenting or believing to the act of Seeing As therefore the light determining the Eye to see though it presupposeth the Eye which it determines as every Action doth the object on which it is imployed yet it self is presuppos'd and antecedent to the act of seeing as the cause is alwaies to its effect So if you will suppose that Scripture like light moves the Understanding to assent the Understanding that is the eye and object on which it workes must be before this influence upon it But the Assent that is the beliefe whereto the Scripture moves and the Underis moved which answers to the act of seeing must come after For if it did assent already To what purpose should the Scripture do that which was done before Nay indeed How were it possible it should be so any more than a Father can beget a Son that he hath already Or an Architect built a house that is built already Or than this very world can be made again before it be unmade Transubstantion indeed is fruitful of such Monsters But they that have not sworn themselves to the defence of Error will easily perceive that jam factum facere and factum infectum facere are equally impossible But I digress 49. The close of this Paragraph is a fit cover for such a dish There you tell us That if there must be some other means precedent to Scripture to beget faith this can be no other than the Church By the Church we know you doe and must understand the Roman Church so that in effect you say no man can have faith but he must be moved to it by your Churches Authority And that is to say that the King and all other Protestants

damnable if the manner of propounding the contrary Truths be not different which for ought I know all Protestants and all that have sense must grant Yet I deny your Illation from hence That the distinction of points into Fundamental and Unfundamental is vain and uneffectual for the purpose of Protestants For though being alike proposed as divine Truths they are by accident alike necessary yet the real difference still remains between them that they are not alike necessary to be proposed 24. Ad § 5. The next Paragraph if it be brought out of the clouds will I believe have in it these Propositions 1. Things are distinguished by their different natures 2. The Nature of Faith is taken not from the matter believed for then they that believed different matters should haue different Faiths but from the Motive to it 3. This Motive is Gods Revelation 4. This Revelation is alike for all objects 5. Protestants disagree in things equally revealed by God Therefore they forsake the formal motive of Faith and therefore have no Faith nor Unity therein Which is truly a very proper and convenient Argument to close up a weak Discourse wherein both the Propositions are false for matter confused and disordered for the form and the Conclusion utterly inconsequent First for the second Proposition Who knows not that the Essence of all Habits and therefore of Faith among the rest is taken from their Act and their Object If the Habit be general from the Act and Object in general if the Habit be special from the Act and Object in special Then for the Motive to a thing that it cannot be of the Essence of the thing to which it moves who can doubt that knows that a Motive is an efficient cause and that the efficient is always extrinsecal to the effect For the fourth that Gods Revelation is alike for all objects It is ambiguous and if the sense of it be that his Revelation is an equal Motive to induce us to believe all objects revealed by him it is true but impertinent If the sense of it be that all objects revealed by God are alike that is alike plainly and undoubtedly revealed by him it is pertinent but most untrue Witness the great diversity of Texts of Scripture whereof some are so plain and evident that no man of ordinary sense can mistake the sense of them Some are so obscure and ambiguous that to say this or this is the certain sense of them were high presumption For the fifth Protestants disagree in things equally revealed by God! In themselves perhaps but not equally to them whose understandings by reason of their different Educations are fashioned and shaped for the entertainment of various opinions and consequently some of them more enclined to believe such a sense of Scripture others to believe another which to say that God will not take into his consideration in judging mens opinions is to disparage his goodness But to what purpose is it that these things are equally revealed to both as the light is equally revealed to all blind men if they be not fully revealed to either The sense of this Scripture Why are they then baptiz'd for the dead and this He shall be saved yet so as by fire and a thousand others are equally revealed to you and to another Interpreter that is certainly to neither He now conceives one sense of them and you another And would it not be an excellent Inference if I should conclude now as you do That you forsake the formal motive of Faith which is Gods Revelation and consequently lose all Faith and Unity therein So likewise the Jesuits and Dominicans the Franciscans and Dominicans disagree about things equally revealed by Almighty God and seeing they do so I beseech you let me understand why this reason will not exclude them as well as Protestants from all Faith and Unity therein Thus you have failed of your undertaking in your first part of your Title and that is a very ill omen especially in points of so streight mutual dependance that we shall have but slender performance in your second Assumpt Which is That the Church is infallible in all her Definitions whether concerning Points Fundamental or not Fundamental 25. Ad § 7. 8. The Reasons of these two Paragraphs as they were alledged before so they were before answered Cap. 2. and thither I remit the Reader 26. Ad § 9 10 11. I grant that the Church cannot without damnable sin either deny any thing to be true which she knows to be Gods Truth or propose any thing as his Truth which she knows not to be so But that she may not do this by ignorance or mistake and so without damnable sin that you should have proved but have not But say you This excuse cannot serve for if the Church be assisted only for Points Fundamental she cannot but know that she may err in points not Fundamental Answ It does not follow unless you suppose that the Church knows that she is assisted no farther But if being assisted only so far she yet did conceive by errour her assistance absolute and unlimited or if knowing her assistance restrained to Fundamentals she yet conceived by errour that she should be guarded from proposing any thing but what was fundamental then the consequence is apparently false But at least she cannot be certain that she cannot err and therefore cannot be excused from headlong and pernicious temerity in proposing points not fundamental to be believed by Christians as matters of Faith Ans Neither is this deduction worth any thing unless it be understood of such unfundamental points as she is not warranted to propose by evident Text of Scripture Indeed if she propose such as matters of Faith certainly true she may well be questioned Quo Warranto She builds without a foundation and says Thus saith the Lord when the Lord doth not say so which cannot be excused from rashness and high presumption such a presumption as an Embassadour should commit who should say in his Masters name that for which he hath no Commission Of the same nature I say but of a higher strain as much as the King of Heaven is greater than any earthly King But though she may err in some points not-fundamental yet may she have certainty enough in proposing others as for example these That Abraham begat Isaac that S. Paul had a cloak that Timothy was sick because these though not Fundamental i. e. no essential parts of Christianity yet are evidently and undeniably set down in Scripture and consequently may be without all rashness proposed by the Church as certain divine Revelations Neither is your Argument concluding when you say If in such things she may be deceived she must be always uncertain of all such things For my sense may sometimes possibly deceive me yet I am certain enough that I see what I see and feel what I feel Our Judges are not infallible in their judgments yet are they certain enough that

evident and therefore according to your doctrin no formal Heresie The third saies indeed that of the Professors of Christianity some shall arise that shall teach Heresie But not one of them all that says or intimates that whosoever separates from the Visible Church in what state soever is certainly an heretique Heretiques I confess do always do so But they that do so are are not always Heretiques for perhaps the state of the Church may make it necessary for them to do so as Rebels always disobey the command of their King yet they which disobey a King's command which perhaps may be unjust are not presently Rebels 21 Your Allegations out of Vincentius Prosper and Cyprian are liable to these exceptions 1. That they are the sayings of men not assisted by the Spirit of God and whose Authority your selves will not submit to in all things 2. That the first and last are meerly impertinent neither of them affirming or intimating that separation from the present Visible Church is a mark of Heresie and the former speaking plainly of separation from Universality Consent and Antiquity which if you will presume without proof that we did and you did not you beg the Question For you know we pretend that we separated only from that present Church which had separated from the doctrin of the Ancient and because she had done so and so far forth as she had done so no farther And lastly the latter part of Prospers words cannot be generally true according to your own grounds For you say a man may be divided from the Church upon meer Schism without any mixture of Heresie And a man may be justly excommunicated for many other sufficient causes besides Heresie Lastly a man may be divided by an unjust excommunication and be hoth before and after a very good Catholique and therefore you cannot maintain it Universally true That he who is divided from the Church is an Heretique and Antichrist 22. In the 19. § we have the Authority of eight Fathers urg'd to prove That the separation from the Church of Rome as it is the See of S. Peter I conceive you mean as it is that particular Church is the mark of Heresie Which kind of argument I might well refuse to answer unless you would first promise me that whensoever I should produce as plain sentences of as great a number of Fathers as ancient for any doctrin whatsoever that you will subscribe to it though it fall out to be contrary to the doctrin of the Roman Church For I conceive nothing in the world more unequal or unreasonable then that you should press us with such Authorities as these and think your selves at liberty from them and that you should account them Fathers when they are for you and Children when they are against you Yet I would not you should interpret this as if I had not great assurance that it is not possible for you ever to gain this cause at the tribunal of the Fathers nay not of the Fathers whose sentences are here alleadged Let us consider them in order and I doubt not to make it appear that far the greater part of them nay al of them that are any way considerable fal short of your purpose 23. S. Hierome you say writing to Pope Damasus saith I am in the Communion of the Chair of Peter c. But then I pray consider he saith it to Pope Damasus and this will much weaken the Authority with them who know how great over-truths men usually write to one another in Letters Consider again that he says only that he was then in Communion with the Chair of Peter Not that he alwayes would or of necessity must be so for his resolution to the contrary is too evident out of that which he saith elsewhere which shall be produced hereafter He says that the Church at that present was built upon that Rock but Not that only Nor that alwayes Nay his judgment as shall appear is express to the contrary And so likewise the rest of his expressions if we mean to reconcile Hierome with Hierome must be conceived as intended by him of that Bishop and Sea of Rome at that present time and in the present State and in respect of that doctrin which he there intreats of For otherwise had he conceiv'd it necessary for him and all men to conform their judgment in matters of faith to the judgment of the Bishop and Church of Rome how came it to pass that he chose rather to believe the Epistle to the Hebrews Canonical upon the authority of the Eastern Church than to reject it from the Canon upon the authority of the Roman How comes it to pass that he dissented from the Authority of that Church touching the Canon of the Old Testament For if you say that the Church then consented with S. Hierome I fear you will lose your Fort by maintaining your Out-works and by avoiding this run into a greater danger of being forc'd to confess the present Roman Church opposite herein to the Ancient How was it possible that he should ever believe that Liberius Bishop of Rome either was or could have been brought over by the sollicitation of Fortunatianus Bishop of Aquileia Hierom. de scrip Eccl. tit Fortunatianus and brought after two years banishment to subscribe Heresie Which Act of Liberius though some fondly question being so vain as to expect we should rather believe them that lived but yesterday 1300 years almost after the thing is said to be done and speaking for themselves in their own Cause rather than the dis-interessed time-fellows or immediate-Successors of Liberius himself yet I hope they will not proceed to such a degree of immodesty as once to question Whether S. Hierome thought so And if this cannot be denyed I demand then If he had lived in Liberius his time could he or would he have written so to Liberius as he does to Damasus Would he have said to him I am in the Communion of the Chair of Peter I know that the Church is built upon this Rock Whosoever gathereth not with thee scattereth Would he then have said the Roman faith and the Catholique were the same or that the Roman faith received no delusions no not from an Angel I suppose he could not have said so with any coherence to his own belief and therefore conceive it undeniable that what he said then to Damasus he said it though perhaps he streined too high only of Damasus and never conceiv'd that his words would have been extended to all his Predecessors and all his Successors 24. The same Answer I make to the first place of S. Ambrose viz. That no more can be certainly concluded from it but that the Catholique Bishops and the Roman Church were then at unity so that whosoever agreed with the later could not then but agree with the former But that this Rule was perpetual and that no man could ever agree with the Catholique Bishops but he must

praeparatione cordis in a full resolution of the heart and entire disposition of the mind So that though God be the sole proper Efficient Cause and Christ as Mediatour the sole proper Meritorious Cause of our Justification yet these inherent dispositions are exacted on our part as causae sine quibus non as necessary conditions to be found in us before God will perform this great work freely and graciously towards us and only for the Merits of Christ 43. This Assertion may Reas 1 I suppose be demonstrated first from the nature of a Covenant For unless there be pre-required conditions on man's part to be perform'd before God will proportion his reward the very nature of a Covenant is destroy'd And it will not boot to answer that though there be no qualifications required in a man before he obtain Remission of sins yet they are to be found in us before we be made capable of Salvation For as I have shew'd before Sol. 1 Salvation is as properly a gracious Act of Mercy as free and undeserved a gift as truly bestowed on us only for the Merits of Christ as Remission of sins and therefore may as well consist without any change in us as the former And secondly If that proposition of S. Paul We are Justified by Faith Sol. 2 without the works of the Law exclude all conditions to be perform'd by man If it exclude not only the righteousness of the Law which indeed it doth but the obedience of Faith or the Gospel likewise from being necessary dispositions in us before we receive remission of sins Then another saying of his parallel to this will exclude as well the necessity of an Evangelical Obedience to our salvation For saith S. Paul Eph. 2.8 Eph. 2.8 By Grace are ye saved through Faith and that not of your selves it is the gift of God not of Works lest any man should boast Put I hope no man will be so unchristian-like as to exclude the necessity of our good works to salvation for all this saying of S. Paul therefore they may as well be pre-required to Remission of sins notwithstanding the former place 44. Secondly Reas 2 If there be no necessity of any pre-disposition in us before Remission of sins then a man may have his sins forgiven him and so become a person accepted of God whilest he is a person unregenerate unsanctified whilest he is dead in trespasses and sins Eph. 2.1 c. whilest he walks according to the course of this world according to the prince of the power of the air the Spirit that worketh in the children of disobedience whilest he has his conversation in the lusts of the flesh fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind being notwithstanding his Justification a child of wrath as much as the profanest heathen though the veriest reprobate in the world lastly though he be no child of Abraham according to faith that is not having in him that faith which was imputed to Abraham for righteousness Now whether this Divinity be consonant to Gods Word let your own consciences be Judges 45. A third Argument to prove the Truth of the former Assertion Reas 3 shall be taken from several Texts of Scripture where Justification even as it is taken for Remission of sins is ascribed to other virtues besides Faith whether it be taken for a particular virtue or for the object thereof For example Our Saviour saith expresly Mat. 12.37 By thy words thou shalt be justified and by thy words thou shalt be condemned where we see Justification is taken in that proper sense in which we maintain it against the Papists Again If you forgive men their trespasses Mat. 6.14 45. your heavenly Father will also forgive you But if you forgive not men their trespasses neither will your Father forgive your trespasses Again our Saviour speaking concerning Mary saith Her sins are forgiven her because she loved much Luk. 7.47 If the time or your patience could suffer me Reas 4 I might add a fourth Reason to prove my former Assertion which is the clearness and evidence of agreement and reconciliation between S. Paul and S. James in this point upon these grounds without any new invented Justification before men which is a conceit taken up by some men only to shift off an Adversary's argument which otherwise would press them too hard they think for S. Paul's Faith taken for the obedience of the Gospel would easily accord with S. James his holy and undefiled Religion before God Jam. 1.27 or works which is all one And S. James would be S. Paul's expositour without any injury or detraction at all from the merits of Christ or Gods free and undeserved mercy to us in him But I must hasten 46. The full meaning then of S. Paul's Proposition We are justified by Faith and not by the works of the Law and by consequence the state of the whole controversie of Justification in brief may be this That if we consider the efficient cause of our Justification it is only God which Justifies if that for which we are justified that is the meritorious cause thereof it is not for any thing in our selves but only for the obedience and satisfaction of our Blessed Saviour that God will Justifie us But if we have respect to what kind of Conditions are to be found in us before Christ will suffer us to be made partakers of the benefit of his Merits then we must say that we are not justified by such a Righteousness so perfect absolute and complete as the Law of Works does require but by the righteousness of the Gospel by a Righteousness proportionable to that Grace which God is pleased to bestow on us not by the perfection but sincerity of our obedience to the New Covenant And the Apostle's main argument will serve to prove this to any understanding most undeniably S. Paul has demonstrated that if we consider the rigour of the Law all men both Jews and Gentiles are concluded under sin and most necessarily obnoxious to Gods wrath Which Reason of his would not be at all prevailing unless by works of the Law he intended only such a perfect obedience as the Law requires which by reason of mans weakness is become impossible unto him For it might easily be reply'd upon him thus We confess no man can fulfil the Law but the conditions of the Gospel are not only possible but by the assistance of Gods Spirit easie to be performed so that though for this reason the former Righteousness be excluded from our Justification not only quoad meritum but also quoad praesentiam yet the later Evangelical Righteousness is excluded from our Justification only quoad Meritum 47. But I perceive an Objection ready to assault me and I will impartially assist the force and strength thereof against my self with all the advantage I can It is to this purpose When men are disputing in the Schools or discoursing in the Pulpit they