that he is a God that hateth Iniquity If he do hate it theÌ„ certainly he must punish it God cannot see a fault and hate a fault but he must also punish it to If he punish it then he which is iustified shall yet be condemned which is absurd Vnto these Arguments we answere Vnto the two former thus When we say Sin remaines in a Man regenerate and Iustified we must distinguish the ambiguity of the word Sin In Sin to vse that distinction which is authenticall with ouâ— Aduersaries There are three things 1 The offence of God which is the fault 2 The obligation vnto eternall punishment which is the guilt 3 The staine or pollution of the soule viz the inherent vitious inclination of it vnto euill From whence the fault committed first issued and which by committing of the fault is augmented For euill once committed leaues a further pronnesse in the heart to doe it againe This we call the corruption of Sinne. Thus then we answer Sin doth not remaine in those that are iustified regenerate in the two first respects viz. of the fault and the guilt both which are takeÌ„ away by the death of Christ. But Sin doth remain in the regenerate according to the 3 respect viz. the vitious quality and corruption thereof inherent in the soule We shall explaine these answeres and apply them to the Arguments We say then That the fault guilt of sinne in the regenerate is vtterly abolished by the death of Christ. Which we doe not take in such a sense as this That in a man regenerate there is not at all any one fault or guilt to be found for to say that a man regenerate when he sinnes were neither faulty nor guilty were a grosse vntruth â— seeing t is impossible that man should sinne yet God not be offended that man should sinne and yet not be guilty and deseruing eternall death Wherefore we confesse that in the holiest of men if they sinne there 's a true fault and God is displeased with it there is also true guilt and for it they deserue to goe to Hell But yet this truth also must be acknowledged withall that all faultinesse and guiltinesse are quite abolished and taken away from them by Christ because that both are pardoned vnto them God is offended but yet they feele not the wofull effects of his indignation because in Christ hee is graciously contented to be reconciled with them Againe they haue deserued euerlasting death but they come not to the paines thereof because freed from the punishment by Christs satisfaction Thus then we vnderstand the first part of the answere That the fault and guilt of sinne is vtterly abolished that is totally pardoned vnto the Regenerate by meanes of Christ so that no finall eternall punishment shall befall them therefore The other part That Sinne in the uitious quality and corruption if it remaine in Men iustified we vnderstand with this necessary Limitation That it remaines in them not in its power and strength but in its Being and Life It hath vitam but not Regnum It reignes where there is no Grace at all but it liues euen where Grace is which though it mightily a bate to power of it it cannot vtterly dâ—stroy its being Hence now its easy to vnty the Arguments Sinne is taken away bâ—otted out drowned in the bottome of the Sea in regare of those mischieuous effects which sinne would haue brough on vs God is reconciled the obligation to punishment cancelled and all the power force strength of Sin defeated So that like the dead Egyptians they can no longer pursue the Israelites to annoy them not shall stand vp as an aduersary in iudgment to condemne vs. The Guilt of Sinne is washed away totall by the blood of Christ the filthynesse of corrupted Nature is in part by Degrees clensed by the Spirite of Christ powred on vs in his sanctifieing Grace The Fetters and bonds of Sinne whereby we were held in bondage vnder condemnation these are quite broken asunder but those chaines whereby with Paul Rom. 7 we are led captiue to disobedience are some broken all weakened We are freed from the power of Satan and feare of Hell but not wholly freed from Sinne whereby we are often captiues against our will Sinne is a sicknesse and God is the Phisitian a wound and God is the Chirurgian true but the cures neither perectly yet correct that word He cures our sicknesse and sores perfectly but not suddainely where he begines the worke he will finish it but he will not doe all in a day The cure begins and goes onward to perfection during this life but t is neuer finished till after death He forgiues all our iniquity and that 's done â—utirely and totally and healeth all our infirmities but this is by degrees not all at once In which course God hath no cause to feare the censure of a Iesuite for vnskilfulnesse nor stands he in need of Mans counsaile for prescription nor Mans helpe to hold his hand in working if the Cure goe on more slowly then our foolish hastinesse thinkes fit That 's fit and best what God thinkes so and if we count him faithfull and wise in his art t is our duty to take his aduice but saucy persumption to giue him any Lastly where Sinne is said to be the Spirituall Death of the Soule and so Life being restored in Iustification Death must needes be quite abolished the weaknesse of this Argument appeares streight if the metaphoricall terme be changed in to proper The death of Sinne is either the Separation of all grace from the Soule or the Separation of Gods Fauour from the Soule We are dead in trespasses and Sinnes both waies In regard that in the state of vnregeneration the Soule is vtterly destitute of all Grace and goodnesse and also be cause in that condition it is liable to eternall Death Now the Death of Sinne that is eternall death in the perpetuall Losse of Gods fauour this is cleane taken a way from him that 's regenerate Christ by his death hath purchased to him Life and immortality But touching that other death that is the want of all inherent Grace in the Soule They say That in Regeneration Grace and Holynesse is restored to the Soule yet not so perfectly as to abolish euery degree of Sinnefull Corruption Before Regeneration the Soule had no grace atall and so was vtterly dead but it followes not That therefore in Regeneration it hath all grace giuen it in all perfection and so made perfectly aliue what euer harshnesse there is in the Metaphore the plaine termes in this case are smooth enough A Man may be at once a liue and dead that is at once a Man may bee partly holy and partly sinnefull Our old Man is crucified with Christ vpon whose Crosse it receaued a deadly wound because Christ by his sacrifice hath procured the sending of the Holy ghost into the hearts of the Elect who by
grace hath enabled vs to performe the condition of beleeuing then doe we beginne to enioy the benefit of the Couenant then is the sentence of absolution pronounced in our consciences which shall be after confirmed in our death and published in the last iudgement Secondly our faith and no other grace directly respects the promises of the Gospell accepting what God offers sealing vnto the truth thereof by assenting thereto and imbracing the benefit and fruit of it vnto it selfe by relying wholly vpon it This interpretation of that proposition the Reformed Churches do admit none other reiecting as erronious and contrary to the Scriptures such glosses as ascribe any thing to the dignity of faith or make any combination betweene Faith and Workes in the point of our Iustification Amongst which there are three erronious assertions touching mans Iustification by Faith which we are briefly to examine and refute 1 That faith iustifieth vs Per modum Causae efficientis meritoriae as a proper efficient and meritorious cause Which by it's owne worth and dignity deserues to obtaine Iustification Remission of sinnes and the grace of well-doing This is the Doctrine of the Church of Rome which Bellarmine labours to proue in his 17. Chap. lib. pr. de Iustificatione where disputing against Iustification by faith alone hee tels vs. If we could be perswaded that faith doth Iustifie impetrando promerendo suo modo inchoando Iustificationem then we would neuer deny that loue feare hope and other vertues did iustifie vs as well as faith Whereupon he sets himselfe to prooue that there is in faith it selfe some efficacy and merit to obtaine and deserue Iustification His Arguments are chiely two From those places of Scripture wherein a man is said to be iustified 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or absolutely without Article or Preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 per fidem ex fide or fide Wherein these Prepositions signifie saith he the true cause of our Iustification Which he proues 1 By the contrary when a man is said to be iustified 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This notes the true efficient deseruing cause of his Iustification Secondly By the like in other places where we are said to be redeemed saued sanctified Per Christum per sanguinem per mortem per vulnera and in the whole 11. to the Heb. The Saints are said to doe such and such things 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by faith All signifying the proper cause From those places of Scripture which sayth he plainly shew Faith doth impetrare remissionem suo quidem modo mereri Such are those Thy Faithâ— hath saued thee or made thee whole A speech that Christ vsed often as to the woman that washed his feet To her that had an issue of Blood To the blind man recovered of his sight And that to the Cananitish woman O woman great is thy Faith now see what the merit of this Faith was For this saying go thy way the Diuel is gone out of thy Daughter Thus Abraham being strenghened in Faith glorified God who therefore iustified him for the Merit of his Faith And againe in the eleuenth to the Heb. by many examples we are taught that by Faith that is by the merit and price of Faith Enoch and other men pleased God For answeare here vnto 1 Vnto the Argument from the Proposition we reply That if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must be needs strictly taken in the same kind of Causality then the Iesuits should doe well to stand to that and make the similitude betweene Faith and workes runne thus A Man is iustified by workes that is for the proper and only Merits of his obedience so a Man is iustified by Faith that is for the only merit of his Beleeving in Christ aud by that meanes both shall be true and effectuall causes of Iustification But if Bellarmine dare not thus presse the similitude for feare of being found guilty of despising the blood of the New Couenant attributing that to the Merit of Faith which belongs only to the Merit of Christ he must then giue vs that leaue to distinguish which he takes to himselfe and if he fall to his Qualifications and quodammodo's he must pardon if we also seeke out such an Interpretation of those places as may not crosse other Scriptures Which for asmuch as they testifie that We are Iustified by his grace through the Redemption that is in Christ that All sinne is purged by the blood of Christ that By the sacrifice of himselfe he hath put away Sinne and With offering hath consecrated for ouer them that are sanctified we dare not without horrible sacrilege ascribe the grace of our Iustification vnto the worke and worth of any thing whatsoeuer in our selues but wholy and only to the Righteousnesse of Christ. And therefore when the Scriptures say we are iustified by Faith we take not the word By in this formall and legall sense we are iustified by the efficacy of our Faith or for the worth of our Faith according as 't is vnderstood in Iustification by workes but we take it Relatiuely Instrumentally We are Iustified by Faith that is by the Righteousnesse of Christ the benefit whereof vnto our Iustification we are made partakers of by Faith as the only grace which accepts of the promise and giues vs assurance of the performance He that looked to the Brasen serpent and was cured might truly be sayd to be healed by his looking on though this Action was no proper cause working the cure by any efficacy or dignity of it selfe but was only a necessary condition required of them that would be healed vpon the obedient observance whereof God would shew them favor so he that looketh on Christ beleeuing in him may truly be sayed to be saued and Iustified by Faith not as for the worth and by the â—fficacy of that act of his but as it is the Condition of the promise of grace that must necessarily go before the performance of it to vs vpon our Obedience where vnto God is pleased of his free grace to iustifie Nor is this Trope any way harsh or vnusuall to put Oppositum pro opposito Relatum pro Correlato Habitum pro Obiecto In Sacramentall locutions 't is a generall Custome to put the signe for the thing signified and the like is vsed in other passages 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And the word of God grew c. and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the mystery of faith and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the words of Faith and Rom. 8. 24. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Spe seruati sumus id est Christo in quem speramus Hope that is seene is not hope that is res visa non sperata est That of Ignatius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Like to that Christ our Ioy Anni spem
are not able to bridle these vnrulie motions wherefore when Bell. saieth That the Law is giuen to the reasonable will not to the sensiue appetite it is vtterly false Because in Man it is probable of gouernment and so subject to the Law Our Reason hath euen in this our corrupted estate a ciuill command ouer our appetite and affections so that it can moderate them by faire persuasions now and then That which it can doe sometimes it ought to doe alwaies and if any affections can obey Reason at sometimes were they not infected with Sinne they would doe it at all times And if they doe well when they obey certainly they doe euill when they disobey And ergo such motions of them as are repugnant to right reason are nothing but rebellion against God's Law As to the place in the 7. Rom. we answere That that Interpretation of it which Bell. brings is most peruerse and against all Sense The Apostle complaines that he did the Euill which he would not no doubt in so doeing he did sinne But what is it now which committed this guilt or sinne It is not I that doe it saieth the Apostle but that sinne that dwelleth in me That is according to Bell not I in my mind or superior faculties of Reason and Will but my inferior Appetite and affections which doe this euill against my consent So the meaning shal be Concupiscence in that duell in the Apostle committed Sinne but the Apostle himselfe committed it not Which is very absurd As if a cholericke-Man hauing done a mischiefe in his anger should saâ—e It were not he did it but his raging passion or an adulterer that 't was not he committed the Sinne but his sinfull Affection that carried him further then reason would So that if God will punish such a sinne he must not punish him but onely his sensitiue appetite which was in fault This is ridiculous for besides that it crosseth the Romanists Doctrine manifestly in teaching that such disorderly motions of the sensitiue appetite be no sinnes which heere the Apostle contradicts saying plainly that the Sinne which dwelt in him did doe the euill he would not viz Sinne it draweth after it this grosse Error That some faecultie in man may sin and yet the man not sinne himselfe Wherefore the Apostle in that speach 'T is not I doe it but sinne in me doth not oppose one facultie against the other the reasonable will against the sensitiue appetite seeking for a shift to excuse his sinne by putting it off from himselfe to that which was not capable of Sinne but he opposeth grace in euery facultie to Corruption in the same facultie as two contrarie Principles and causes of his actions one mouing to good the other enclining to bad Thence the Apostle saieth that when he doth euill 't is not I that doe it i. e I regenerate according to the Grace that dwelleth in me for that inclines me to doe good but 't is the Sinne dwelling in me which when I would doe well inclines me to doe euill He heere shewes the Roote whence this Euill comes but yet he doth not put off the fault from himselfe As 't is himselfe doth well so 't is himselfâ— doth ill too according as he concludes vers 25. Then I my selfe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doe both well and ill well according to Grace in my mind that is regenerate part both of inferior and superior facultie I serue the Law of God but ill according to corruption remaining in me but in my flesh vnregenerate part the Law of Sinne. Much more might be added but 't is not my purpose heere to enter vpon the common place at large I proceed to the second quaestion of our Aduersaries who teach that albeit our Loue of God be imperfect yet this imperfection is not sinne in vs. They grant That no man hath any grace of the spirit but he may encrease in it daily that the Loue of God and our Neighbours may still grow on to farther degrees of affection That no grace nor good worke hath that full perfection which it might haue in this Life or which we shall attaine vnto in Heauen But they deny this defect to be any fault or sinne 2. Defectus Charitatis quod viz non faciamus opera nostra tanto feruore dilectionis quanto faciemus in patriâ defectus quidemest sed culpa peccatum non est saieth Bell. and againe Charitas nostra quamuis comparata ad Charitatem beatorum sit imperfecta tamen absolute perfecta dici potest This is an Error against which we defend this Conclusion in generall touching both Charity and all man Righteousnes The defects or want of Perfection in Mans Righteousnes is Sinne. For the proofe of this point we are to obserue that the Imperfection or Perfection of any thing is to be considered of two waies 1 Comparatiuely When any thing set by another is more or lesse perfect then that other 2 Absolutely When considered in it selfe it hath or wantes that Perfection which it should haue by its proper Nature Betweene these there is great difference For Comparatiue imperfection is not euill absolute imperfection is Euill We may see it in an example The Senses that are in Man being compared with their like in other creatures 't is manifest they are much excelled by them as by an Eagle for sight a spider for touch c. Heere we say that the eie of a man is not perfect as the eie of an Eagle but yet we doe not account this imperfection any Naturall euill of the eie of a man God might haue giuen a stronger and a clearer sight to men but we blame not his workes nor count our sight imperfect because it hath not that singular Temper which is in other Creatures but because it wants at any time that temper which is agreeable to our nature Such a defect only is properly an Euill in Nature when something is wanting to the perfection of any part which by the Course of nature should be there Thus 't is also in Grace Compare we the Righteousnes of man or Angels with the Righteousnes of God we saie that God's is infinitely more perfect then the Creatures But now is this imperfection in Humane or Angelicall righteousnes any Euill and Sinne in them We saie No. Neither are the Angels sinfull because lesse righteous then God nor Adam sinfull because lesse righteous then either God made them both lesse good then himselfe yet very good and without all Sinne. There be degrees of Righteousnes and though the Creature be infinitely below the heighest pitch of goodnes which is God yet he may bee still aboue that lowest descent vnto Sinne and vnrighteousnes In Phylosophie we dispute whether the slackening of any degree in one Quality be the mingling of another that is contrary As heat in eight degrees if it decrease vnto seuen whether there is any degree of cold mingled with it 'T is heard to
better but then here also they deny that this imperfection of our charity and good works is any sinne Lastly they grant that no man can auoide veniall sinnes scarse in the best workes he doth but then they deny that veniall sinnes be contrary to the Law so that albeit a man commit them yet he may perfectly fulfill the Law of God I cannot stand largely in the refutation of these foule errors The confutation whereof belongs properly to the Article of remission of sinnes where the nature and kindes of sinnes are to be handled For this present I shall but touch on them briefly and proceed to the matter 1 For the first we defend this conclusion The vitious inclination and pronnesse of Nature vnto euill as also the inordinate motiâ—ns of concupiscence which goe before consent they are sinnes euen in a man regenerate That the inclination and pronnesse of Nature to sinne is a sinne we proue thus It is expresly so called by the Apostle Rom. 7. not once nor twice but almost in euery verse of the Chapter I am carnall sold vnder sinne The sinne that dwelleth in me ver 17. 20. The Law of sinne verse 23. 25. In it selfe it is sinne and deserues the wages of sinne eternall death For which cause the Apostle there cals it The body of this death verse 24. Because this inward Corruption which is like a Body that hath many members consisting of diuerse euill affections spreading themselues throughout his whole Nature made him lyable to eternall death from which onely Gods mercy in Christ could deliuer him 2 To rebell against the Law is Sinne. Ergo To haue a rebellious inclination is sinne likewise For if the act bee euill the habite must needes be naught if the Law forbid one it must needs forbid the other If it be euill to breake any Commandement in act is it not euill to haue a pronenesse and readinesse of minde to breake it The habit denominated a man sinfull and not the act Nor doth God lesse abhorre the pronnesse of man to offend him then wee doe abhorre the rauenous disposition of a Wolfe though it be a Cubb not yet vsed to the prey or one tyed vp in a chaine and kept from rauening That the euill motions of the heart without consent be sins 1 They are forbidden in the Morrall Law In the tenth Commandement Thou shalt not couet For motions with consent are forbidden in the other Commandments As appeares manifestly in Christs exposition of the Commandements Mat. 5. 22. were not only the outward act of Adultery but the inward desire is also forbidden if wee beleeue Christ the best interpreter of the Law When Ergo the tenth Commandement forbids coueting of our Neighbours Wife it either meanes the same kind of lusting with a needelesse Tautology or a different viz. that which is not consented vnto Nor can our Aduersaries shift this off though Becanus most impudently denies it with out any reason of his so doing 2 We proue it thus Whatsoeuer is inordinate and repugnant to right Reason that is Sinne. But these Motions without confent be inordinate Ergo They be Sinne The Minor is confessed That these Motions be inordinati recta Rationi repugnantes The Maior is apparant For what is Ordo recta Ratio in Moralibus but that course of doing any thing which is conformable to Gods Law and his will God is the God of order His Law is the rule of order in all humane actions Recta Ratio what is it but the conformity of mans vnderstanding and will vnto Gods will which only is the rule of righteousnesse We neuer purpose and will matters aright but when wee will them agreeably to Gods will Wherefore it is a grosse absurdity to deny the Sinnefulnesse of these disorderly motions seeing no man can breake those orders which God hath made and yet be faultlesse Nor is it possible a Man should doe that which is contrary to Gods will And yet be without Sinne in doing of it These motions then without consent be confusions in Nature opposites to the righteousnesse of the will of God and vnto that euen and streight order expressed in his Law We conclude then that Concupiscence and inordinate motions of the Soule not consented vnto are Sinnes contrary to our Aduersaries assertion They bring some Reasons to proue they are not 1 Originall sinne is taken away in Baptisme But concupiscence is not taken away in Baptisme as appeares by experience in the regenerate in whom it remaines Ergo concupiscence and pronnesse to Sinne is no sinne This Argument is friuolous In Originall sinne there are two things First the guilt Secondly the inherent corruptions We say in Baptisme the guilt is altogether washed away from the Baptized Elect by the blood of Christ. And for the corruption thereof it is part done away by the sanctifying Spirit of Christ powred out vpon the Regenerate which by degrees purgeth out the inherent sinfulnesse of Nature by replanting the graces of Sanctification in all parts Concupiscence then notwithstanding Baptisme remaines in the Regenerate and is a sinne in them the guiltinesse whereof God mercifully pardons in Christ. 2 What is not in our power to auoide that God doth not forbid vs by his Law But t is not in our power to auoide the Motions of the heart that preuent Reason and consent Ergo they be no sinnes forbidden vs. To this we answere The Maior is true in things meerely Naturall that fall out by the Necessity of Nature well disposed So we say Gods Law were vncouth should he command a man neuer to be an hungry or thirst which things he cannot auoide but they come vpon him will he nill he by the meere necessity of Nature But concerning inordinate motions there 's no such matter God hath layed no such necessity on Nature in her creation but we by our sinne haue brought it upon our selues Now such a necessity excuses vs not In this case it helpes a man no more to say I cannot auoid euill thoughts and desires then it doth a desperate sinner that by countenance hath hardened himselfe in euill courses or then it helpes the Diuels and the damned if they should say Wee cannot chuse but doe euill 3 They argue thus That which would haue beene naturall and without fault in man if he had beene created in puris Naturalibus that is no sinne nor fault in vs. But motions preuenting consent would be naturall and without fault in men so made Ergo In vs they be no faults of themselues Heere our Aduersaries haue made a Man of white Paper or the like to Materia prima that hath not any quality in him morally good or bad That is A Man that hath neither the Image of God in knowledge righteousnes and holines engrauen on his vnderstanding will affections and whole person nor yet though it haue it not hath in him any contrary euill quality that comes vpon him by
coinquinatum intrare potest Now sure this is admirable that such acts as these should defile a man deserue hell offend God in a word be sinnes and yet for all this neither commanded nor forbidden in any Law of God Was there euer such a toy heard of as this as Sinnes beside the Law T is a most ridiculous contradiction Peccatum praeter Legem He that doth any thing beside the Law not mentioned nor include â— therein by way of prohibition or command t is most apparent he sinnes not nor offends not at all For whom doth he offend or who can challenge him of Sinne Doth God the Law-giuer No for t was not his intention to command or forbid such an act and ergo be it done or not done it crosseth not his will nor hath he any reason to finde fault or be displeased at it Satan or Man cannot accuse him For let them then shew the Law that prooues him an offender If they cannot alleadge a Law against which he hath transgressed they wrongfully accuse him of a fault Were it not absurd accusation against a prisoner at the Barre to say that he hath indeed done nothing against the Lawes of the Land but many things besides the Law not forbidden nor commanded in the Law those hee hath done and deserues to be punished for it as an offender But now if those veniall sinnes bee mentioned in Gods Law then are such actions either commanded or forbidden If commanded then the not doing of such a thing is plainely contrary to the Law As for example To steale a penny or some other small matter to please an idle word to tell an officious lie these be veniall sinnes say our Aduersaries But how hnow they they be sinnes who told them so The Scriptures they will say Where In the 8 and 9 Commandement Aske them now Did God intend in those Commandements to forbid those actions of stealing and lying Yea or No If he intended it not then t is no sinne at all to doe them seeing it croâ—seth not Gods will nor offends him If he did intend to forbid vs those things then to doe them is a sinne manifestly contrary to the holy will of God the Lawgiuer Wherfore let vs here remeÌ„ber that excellent rule of Bernard Non iussa quïdem licitè vtrumlibet vel admittuntur vel omittuntur iussa vero sine culpa non negleguntur sine crimine non â—ontemnuntur For things not commanded we may either lawfully doe them or leaue them but for things commanded to neglect them is a sinne to contemne them is a haynous crime Wherefore this distinction of sins against and sinnes beside the Law falleth to dust and our Minor Proposition stands firme That he who committeth veniall Sinne transgresseth the Law of God and therefore is vnrighteous for his so doing Becanus here forsakes the Cardinall in this distinction and helpes him by an other deuisâ— He grants that Veniall Sinnes be against the Law and proues it because euery Veniall Sinne is moraliter malum and Ergo contra rectam rationemet Legem aeternam But here 's now the distinction It is one thing to be contra Legem another contra finem Legis All Veniall sinnes be against the Law but no veniall sinne is properly against the end of the Law that is against Charity the Loue of God or our Neighbour Is not this a superfine Inuention As if a Subiect that hath in many things broken the Law should say True my faults be against the Law of the Land but yet they are not against the end of those Lawes viz. obedience to my Prince and Loue to the good of him and my Country Though I break the Lawes yet I would not haue you thinke but I loue and honour my Prince and Country well enough Iust so the Iesuits A man may commit many sinnes against Gods Law and yet obserue the end of the Law in louing God with all his heart and his Neighbour as himselfe Then which nothing can be more senselesse that a man should offend God in breaking of his Law and yet not withstanding loue God with his whole heart That a man should wrong his Neighbour doing that to him which he would not haue done to himselfe and yet for all that loue his Neighbour as himselfe If ye loue mee keepe my Commandemâ—nts saith Christ. Iohn 14. 15. Nay say the Romanists we loue him and yet breake his Commandements Loue doth none euâ—l to his Neighbour saith the Apostle Romans 13. 10 Nay say the Iesuits Loue may doe euill to his Neâ—ghbour and yet keepe the name of loue A man may be angry with another without cause reuile him and call him Racha hee may defraude him in small matters for these they make veniall sinnes and yet in the meane time all this without breath of Charity Himselfe would not willingly be so vsed but hee will vse another in this sort and yet looke to bee thanked for his loue too Such grosse absurdities doe our Aduersaries runne in to by coyning such senselesse distinctions of Sinnes not against but besides the Law of sinnes not against the end of the Law though against the Law it selfe Our Consciences cannot be satisfied with such silly shiftes and therefore we leaue them vnto those that can content themselues and choake vp their Consciences with a little sophistry Men who make a pastime of sinne and take liberty to qualifie and dispence with Gods Law as they thinke agreeable to their Conscience hoping by tricks of wit and dodging Distinctions to a void the accusations of Conscience and to elude the seuerity of Gods Iudgement SECT 4. CHAP I Iustification by workes makes void the couenant of grace of the difference between the law the Gospel of the vse of the Law of the erroneous conceit of our Aduersaries in this point THus much of these three Exceptions of our â—econd Argâ—ment prouing the impossibiliâ—y of our Iustification by the workes of the Law because we cannot perfectly fulfill the â—aw We goe now forward vnto two Arguments more taken the one from the difference of the two Couenants God hath made with man First of works the other of grace and the other from the Nature of true Christian Libâ—rty obtained for vs by Christs death Argument That which makes voide the Couenant of Grace is a false and haereticall doctrine But Iustification of workes of the Law makes void the Couenant of Grace Ergo T is false and haeriticall so to teach For confirmation of the minor in this Argument wee must briefly shew 1 What the Couenant of Grace what the Couenant of workes is 2 What opposition their is betweene these two By the Couenant of Grace we vnderstand in one word the Gospell i. e. the gratious appointment of God to bring man to Saluation by Iesus Christ. In the administration of this gratious purpose of God we must obserue foure periods of time where in God hath diuersly ordered this meanes
Gospell not only proposeth what is to be done but withall giueth Grace and strength to doe it and therefore the Law giuen by Moses the Law-giuer cannot iustifie because it was giuen without the grace of fulfilling it but the Gospell giuen by Christ the Redeemer doth justifie because it is accompanied with the grace of the holy Ghost making vs able to keepe the Law For which cause also the Law of Moses is a yoake vnsupportable the Law of feare and bondage because it giues not grace to keepe it but onely conuinceth our Sinne and threatens vs punishment but the Law of Christ the Gospell is a light yoake a Law of loue and liberty because it giues grace to keepe it and of loue to God and man and so by fulfilling frees a man from feared punishment This is the summe of the Romish Doctrine touching the difference betwixt the morall Law and the Gospell in the point of Iustification as it is deliuered vs by Bellarmine the rotten pillar of the antichristian Synagogue Wherein we haue scarce a syllable of distinct Trueth but all peruerted by aequiuocations and grosse Ambiguities as shall appeare by a short surucy of the former discourse Whereas then he distinguisheth the Gospell into the doctrine of Christ and his Apostles and into the Grace of the Holy Ghost let vs follow him in these two parts First for Doctrine We grant that the Gospell is often so taken but in this matter about Iustification this acception on is too large and not distinct enough For although by a Synecdâ—che of the chiefest most excellent part the whole Doctrine and Ministry of Christ and his Apostles with their successors be called the doctrine of the Gospell and the Ministery of the Gospell yet all things which they preached or wrote is not the Gospell properly so called But as Moses chiefly deliuered the Law vnto the Iewes though yet with all he wrote of Christ and so in part reuealed vnto them the Gospell so Christ and his Ministers though chiefely they preach the Gospell yet in its place they vrge the law withall as that which hath its singular vse in furthering our Christian faith and practise Wherefore when we speak of the Gospell as opposite to the Law t is a Iesuiticall equiuocation to take it in this large sense For the whole doctrine of Christ and his Apostles preached by them and written for vs in the Booke of the New Testament we follow the Apostle in his dispute of Iustification Gal. 3. 4. 5. And according as he doth take the Gospell strictly for the promise of Iustification and life made vnto man in Christ Iesus This is in proper tearmes the Gospell viz. that speciall Doctrine touching mans Redemption and reconciliation with God by the meanes of Iesus Christ the Reuelation whereof was indeed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the gladdest tidings that were euer brought to the eare of mortall man Which Gospell in strict teaÌ„rmes the Angels preached Lue. 2. 10. 11. Behold I bring you glad tidings of great ioy which shall be to all people That vnto you is borne this day in the Citie of Dauid a Sauiour which is Christ the Lord. And afterward Christ and his Apostles fully explained the mysteries thereof vnto the world According to this necessary distinction we answer That if we take the Gospell in that large Acception t is true which Bellarmine hath That the Gospell containes in it the Doctrine of workes viz. the Morall Law euen the very same precepts prohibitions threatnings promises which are deliuered in the Law All which as Christ and his Hpostles preached so may all Ministers without blame yea they must if they will auoid blame presse the same vpon their hearers seasonably and discreetly that the Law may make way for the better receiuing and entertainment of Grace in the Gospell But hence it followes not that the Gospell properly so taken is to be confounded as one and the same thing with the Law because the Law is conjoyned with it in the preachings and writings of the Ministers of the New Testament They still are deuided in their Nature and Offices nor hath the Gospell any affinity with the Law in praecepts threatnings or promises Wherefore when Bellarmine teacheth vs. That Euangelicall promises be made with condition of perfect fulfilling the Law T is a desperate errour and that in the very foundation You heard his proofes before recited see now a little how passing weake they be 1 Mat. 5. Except your righteousnesse c. To this wee answere The plaine meaning of the place is this Our righteousnesse must abound more then that of the Pharises that is It must not be outside onely as theirs was but inward Righteousnesse of the heart in inward sanctity of the thoughts and affections as well as of the outward Action or else such our hypocrisie will keepe vs from entring into Heauen But doth it hence follow that because we must be more perfect then these Pharisees we must be as perfect in all things as the Law requires we must exceed them ergo equall the holinesse of the Law in all points Because wee must be syncere without hypocrisie ergo we must be perfect in all things without blame Such consequents as these the Iesuit hath coÌ„cluded out of his own head not out of the text Touching that speech of Christ to the yong man Mat. 19. and the Lawyer Matt. 10. That if they did fulfill the Law they should liue We answere that Christ in so speaking vnto them did not preach the Gospell but shewed vnto them the Legall way to Saluation For these erring that grand error of the Iew in seeking for righteousnesse not by faith but by the works of the Law seuering the Law from Christ the end thereof as the Apostle shewes Rom. 9. 31. 32. 10. 3. and so supposing to be saued by doing some good thing Christ answeres them in their humour as euery one should be answered that swels with high conceits of his own righteousnesse workes That there was a Law to be kept and if they could fully obserue the righteousnes of it they should be saued sending them of purpose to the Law that they might be humbled thereby and see their great folly in seekeing for life by that which they were so vnable to keepe Against which answere the Iesuit hath nothing to rely but stands much in confuting of another answere made by some of our Diuines That Christ spake these things Ironically This Bellar. seeks to confute nor do I labor to confirm it though it might be justified for any thing he brings to the contrary 3 Vnto those those places of Scripture that euery where almost promise life blessednesse the fauour of God vpon condition of holinesse in life and conversation that we mortifie the lusts of the flesh walke in the Spirit ouercome the world c. We answere that Obedience is one thing perfect obedience is another We say that the promises of