the obedience of the Law which yet they cannot in all things perfectly obey CHAP. III. No man in this life can performe any particular good worke so exactly that in euery point it shall answere the rigour of the Law proued by conscience Scriptures reason and Popish obiections answered I Proceed vnto the last Proposition which concerneth Mans actuall Obedience to any one particular precept of the Law Wherein will appeare the third Imperfection of mans Obedience in fulfilling of the Morall Law We haue seene That no man hath perfect inherent sanctity free from Natures corruption Againe That no man can performe perfect actuall obedience to all and euery duty of the Law without failing in any one point And this much our Aduersaries will not much sticke to yeeld vnto vs and confesse That there is no man but sinneth at some time or other and that t is scarce possible to avoide veniall sinnes as they stile them But then they deny vtterly That a man sinnes in euery particular good worke though he cannot doe all perfectly yet in some he may exactly fulfill the Righteousnesse of the Law not missing in any one circumstance And therfore at least by that obedience he may be iustified This opinion of theirs hath neither truth in it selfe nor yet brings any benefit at all to their maine purpose in prouing Iustification by workes For to what end serueth it them to stand quarrelling for the perfectioÌ„ of our obedience in some one or two good works when yet we faile in many things besides One thing well done will not iustifie him that doth many things ill For that of Saint Iames must be a Truth Hee that keepeth the whole Law and yet faileth in one point is guilty of all Iames 2. 10. Much more guilty is he that keepeth it in a few and breakes it in many But yet further we reiect this opinion also as an Errour and we teach on the contrary That No man in this life can performe any one particular good worke so exactly that in euery point it shall answere the rigour of the Law and the seuere tryall of Gods Iudgement About this Assertion our Aduersaries raise much stirre and many soule slaunders against vs proclaiming vs to all the world open enemies to all good workes that wee bee Factors for the Kingdome of darknes promoting as much as in vs lyeth all licentiousnesse in evill courses and taking of the courage and endeauour of Men after pious duties For who will set himselfe say they to doe any good worke if the Protestants doctrine be true that in doing of it he shall commit a mortall Sinne who wil pray fast and giues almes if when he doth these things he cannot but sinne As good then it were to doe euill as to doe good a man can but sin and so he shall let him doe his best These slanderous incongruities fastened on vs spring not out of our Doctrine rightly vnderstood but out of froward and peruerse hearts that will not see the truth Such aspersions will easily bee wiped of when after the confirmation of the Trueth wee shall make answere to such obiections as seeme to infringe it We say then That no man can performe any good worke required in the Law with such exact observation of every circumstance that were it examined by the rigour of the Law and Gods Iustice no fault at all can bee found in it This we proue by Conscience by Scriptures by Reason First we here apeale vnto the Conscience of Man the Iudgment whereof is to be regarded and whereunto we dare stand in this matter Thou that boastest that in such and such good workes that thou hastnot committed any Sinne at all Darest thou indeed stand to it and vpon these Tearmes appeare in Gods Iudgment Darest thou abide the strictnesse of this examination standing ready to Iustifie thy selfe against euery thing that hee can obiect Wilt thou venter thy selfe vpon this Tryall euen in the best works thou dost That God cannot with his most piercing eye of Iustice spy a fault in theÌ„ if he number theÌ„ he shal find nothing short if he weigh them not one graine too light Againe let conscience speake when thou hast prayed fasted giuen almes done any other excellent worke of Piety and Charity in the deuoutest and most vnblameable manner thou thinkest possible Thinkest thou verily that in this case thou doest not at all stand in need of Gods fauour to passe by thine infirmities and that thou needest not euen in this behalfe pray Lord forgiue me my trespasses What man durst say or thinke in any good worke Lord in this particular I doe not desire thou shouldest be mercifull vnto me Without doubt there is no man liuing vpon earth that shall in serious consideration of the seuerity of Gods iudgement and the great infirmity of his owne Nature compare his own obedience with the seuerity of Gods Iustice but his heart will presently shrinke within him and his conscience shunne this tryall as much as euer Adam did Gods presence The thought of such a strict proceeding in Iudgement would make the proudest heart to stoope and tremble the boldest face to gather blacknesse filling the soule with an horrible feare in the expectation of that day should the most innocent life the most holy actions of men be there scanned according to the rigour of Iustice not graciously pittied pardoned and accepted according to that mercifull loue of God which couereth and passeth by multitudes of sinnes T were arrogant pride in any man to vtter that speach in a sober temper Whereunto Iob breakes out in a passion chased by the sense of his miserable tortures and the froward disputes of his friends Oh saith he that a man might pleade with God as a man pleadeth with his neighbour And againe Lay downe now put me in a surety with thee who is he that will strike hands with me And againe Oh that I knew where I might find him that I might come euen to his face I would order my cause before him and fill my mouth with arguments I would know the words which he would answere mee and vnderstand what he would say vnto me Speakes the man reason or is he beside himselfe what challenge God to dispute with him and hope to make his party good in the quarrell This was Iobs infirmity It s our Aduersaries arrogancy who dare set their foot against Gods and bid him pry as narrowly as hee list into their good workes they will maintaine the righteousnesse thereof against all that he can obiect to proue the least sinâ—ulnesse Iob saw his folly God grant that these may theirs In a calmer temper when conscience was not ouerclouded with griefe and anger he reades vs a quite contrary lesson In the 9 Chapter of his booke How should man be iust with God if he contend with him he cannot answer him one of a thousand v. 2. 3. And againe hauing reasoned questioned of Gods
forbid For if there had beene a Law giuen which could haue giuen Life verily righteousnesse should haue beene by the Law But the Scripture hath concluded all vnder sinne that the promise by the faith of Iesus Christ might be giuen by them that beleeue Ephe. 2. 8. 9. For by grace ye are saued through Faith and that not of your selues It is the gift of God Not of workes least any man should boast Phil 3. 8. 9. Yea doubtlesse and I count all things but losse for the excellency of the Knowledge of Christ Iesus my Lord. For whom I haue suffered the losse of all things and doe count them but dung that I may winne Christ. And be found of him not hauing mine owne righteousnesse which is of the Law but that which is through the faith of Christ the Righteousnesse which is of God by Faith Out of which places not to name more expresly touching this point of our Iustification we argue thus A Man is iustified either by the workes of the Law or by faith in Christ. But hee is not Iustified by the workes of the Law Ergo He is iustified onely by faith in Christ. In this disiunctiue Syllogisme they cannot find â—ault with vs for adding the word onely in the Conclusion which was not in the Praemises For Reason will teach them that where two Tearmes are immediately opposite if one bee taken away the other remaines alone So that in euery disjunctiue Syllogisme whose Maior Proposition standeth vpon two Tearmes immediately opposite if one be remoued in the Minor the Conclusion is plainely equivalent to an exclusiue Proposition As if we argue thus Eyther the wicked are saued or the godly But the wicked are not saued Thence it followes in exclusiue Tearmes Therefore the godly onely are saued Our Aduersaries cannot deny but that the Proposition A Man is iustified by workes or by Faith consists of Tearmes immediately opposite For else they accuse the Apostle Paul of want of Logicke who Rom. 3. should conclude falsely A man is iusitified by faith without workes if he be iustified either by both together or else by neither Seeing then he opposeth Faith aÌ„d workes as incompatible and exclude workes from Iustification wee conclude infallibly by the Scriptures That a man is iustified by faith alone This Argument not auoidable by any sound aÌ„swere puts our aduersaries miserably to their shifts Yet rather then yeeld vnto the truth they fall vnto their distinctions whereby if t were possible they would shift off the force of this Argument Whereas therefore the Scriptures oppose Workes and Faith the Law of Workes and the Law of Faith Our owne righteousnesse which is of the Law and the Righteousnesse of God by Faith manifestly telling vs that we are Iustified Not by Workes by the Law of Workes nor by our owne Righteousnesse which is of the Law but that we are iustified by Faith by the Righteousnesse of God by Faith Our Aduersaries haue a distinction to salue this Matter withall They say then Workes are of two sorts 1 Some goe before Grace and Faith and are performed by the onely strength of free-will out of that Knowledge of the Law whereunto Men may attaine by the light of Nature or the bare Reuelation of the Scriptures These workes or this obedience vnto the law which a meere naturall man can performe is say they that Righteousnesse which the Scripture cals our owne By this kinde of Righteousnesse and Workes they grant none is Iustified 2 Some follow Grace and Faith which are done by Mans free-will excited and aided by the speciall helpe of Grace Such Obedience and Righteousnesse is say they called the Righteousnesse of God because it is wrought in vs of his gift and grace And by this Righteousnesse a man is iustified By this Invention they turne of with a wet finger all those Scriptures that we haue alleadged Wee are Iustified not by the workes of the Law that is by the Obedience of the Morall Law which a man may performe without Gods Grace But we are Iustified by Faith of Christ that is by that obedience of the Morall Law which a man may performe by faith and the helpe of Gods grace Boasting is excluded saith the Apostle by what Law By the Law of workes that is by the Law performed by the strength of Nature Nay For he that performes the Law by his owne strength hath cause to boast of it By what Law then By the Law of Faith that is by faith which obtaines Gods grace to fulfill the Morall Law Now he that obeyes the Law by Gods helpe hath no cause to boast Israel which followed the Law of righteousnesse could not attaine vnto the law of righteousnesse Wherefore Because they sought it not by Faith that is they sought not to performe the Law by Gods Grace But as by the workes of the Law that is by their own strength Thus Paul desires to be found in Christ not hauing his owne righteousnesse which is of the Law that is that righteousnesse he performed without Gods grace before his Conversion But the righteousnesse of God which is by faith i.e. That righteousnesse which he performed in obeying the Law by Gods grace after his Conversion For confirmation of this distinction and the Interpretations thereon grounded Bellarmine brings three reasons to shew that when workes and faith are opposed all workes of the Law are not excluded 1 It s manifest Faith is a worke and that there is a Law of Faith as well as workes If therefore Rom. 3. all workes and all Law be excluded from Iustification then to be iustified by Faith were to bee iustified without faith 2 It s plaine the Apostle Rom. 3. intends to proue that neither Iewes by the naked obseruation of the law of Moses nor the Gentiles for their good workes before they were conuerted to the faith of Christ could obtaine righteousnesse from God 3 The Apostle shewes Rom. 4. 4. what workes he excludes from Iustification viz. such whereto wages is due by debt not by grace Now workes performed without Gods helpe deserue reward ex Debito but workes performed by his helpe deserve wages ex gratia I doubt but notwithstanding these seeming Reasons the fore-named distinction and expositions of Scripture according thereto appeare vnto you at the first sight strange vncouth farr besides the intent of the Holy Ghost in all those fore-reckoned passages of Scripture Let vs examine it a little more narrowly and yee shall quickly perceiue that in this Schoole distinction there is nothing but fraud shifting By workes done by the strength of Nature wee are not iustified By workes done with the helpe of grace wee are iustified This is the distinction resolue it now into these tearmes which are more proper it runs thus A man is not sanctified by those workes of the Moraâ—l Law which he doth without grace but a man is sanctified by those workes of the Morall Law he doth by
Grace Both Sentences are squint eyed and looke quite awry from the Apostles ayme in this dispute touching Iustification Is it his intent Rom. 3. to proue that a sinner destitute of grace cannot be made inherently holy by Morality or outward workes of Piety or thus That a Sinner cannot attaine to Sanctification by his owne strength but he must attaine to it by the grace of God Take a suruey of the Chapter and follow the Apostles Argumentation All both Iewes and Gentiles are vnder sinne verse 9. therefore euery mouth must be stopped and none can pleade innocency and all the world must be guilty before God and so liable to condemnation verse 19. What followeth hence now Therefore by the workes of the Law shall no flesh be iustified in his sight verse 20. How strange were this Conclusion taken in our Adversaries Construction Ergo By Obedience vnto the Morall Law done without grace no flesh can attaine Sanctification in his sight For neither doth the Apostle speake of Sanctification but of absolution as is apparant All are sinners against the Law Ergo by pleading innocency in the keeping of the Law no Man can be wholy sanctified nor Iustified nor absolued from Blame in Gods sight Nor yet will the Reason immediately annexed admit that glosse Workes without Grace By the workes of the Law shall no flesh be Iustified in his sight Why For by the Law commeth the Knowledge of Sinne that is By the Law Men are conuinced of Sinne and declared not to be innocent Which reason is not worth a Rush according to our Aduersaries Construction He that without grace shall doe the workes of the Law he is not thereby made holy Why Because the Law is the knowledge of sinne The Law thus obserued tels him he is a sinner In which reason there is no force vnlesse it bee true on the other side He that by the helpe of grace doth the workes of the Law is thereby sanctified because the Law thus kept tels him he is not a sinner which is most vntrue In as much as not onely those which are destitute of grace but those that haue grace also and by the helpe thereof keepe the Law in some measure are by the Law notwithstanding convinced to be sinners The Apostle yet goes forward If we be not iustified by the workes of the Law by what then He answeres verse 21. But now is the righteousnesse of God made manifest without the Law We are iustified by the righteousnesse of God But what is that It is saith the distinction that obedience to the Law which we performe by Gods grace A glosse apparantly false For the righteousnesse of God here is a Righteousnesse without the Law But obedience to the Law though performed with grace is a Righteousnesse with the Law because t is the Righteousnesse of the Law For t is all one he that obeyes the Law by his owne strength if he doe it perfectly he hath the righteousnes of the law he that obeyethit perfectly by Gods grace hath still the same righteousnes of the law and no other For so the Law be kept it alters not the righteousnes thereof that we keepe it by our own strength that wee haue of our selues or another helpe that giues vs strength to doe it For then that strength which he giues vs is our owne Which point duely obserued cuts in sunder the sinewes of this distinction for t is cleare the Apostle distinguisheth the Righteousnesse of the Law and of God as different in thir kindes these make them to be one and the same thing Obedience to the morall Lawe but done by diuers helpes one by meere nature the other by Grace This is most contrary to the Scriptures and specially to that excellent place Rom. 10. 3. 4. c. where the Apostle shewing the differeÌ„ce betweene the Righteousnesse which is our owne or of the Law and that which is the Righteousnesse of God or Faith tels vs. The Righteousnesse of the Law is thus described Th Man that doth these things shall liue thereby but the Righteousnesse of Faith speaketh on this wise whosoeuer beleeueth on him i. e. Christ shall not be ashamed Can any thing be more plaine then that the Apostle opposeth heere Doing of the Law and Beleeuing in Christ Not doeing the Law by our owne strength and doeing of the Law by Gods grace These are Iesuiticall glosses that corrupt Apostolicall Doctrine and strangely peruert the worke of Christ in our Redemption as if he had done no more for vs but this viz. procured that where as we could not liue by doeing of the Law through our owne strength God will now aide vs by his grace that we may fulfil the Law and by that Legall Righteousnesse obtaine Iustification and remission of Sinnes We abhorre such Doctrine and doe reiect as vaine and imaginary that distinction wheÌ„ce such absurdities necessarily follow More might be sayed in confutation thereof were it needefull but we haue dealt long vpon this point and t is time to hasten forward By the way vnto the Iesuits Arguments in the defence of this Distinction We answere 1 We confesse Faith is a worke and in doeing of it we obey the Law because as Saint Iohn speakes Iohn 3. 23. This is Gods Commandment that we beleeue in the name of his Sonne Iesus Christ. And therefore the Gospell is called The Law of Faith because the promise of grace in Christ is propounded with Commandment that Men beleeue it But now we deny that Faith iustifies vs as 't is a worke whiâ—h we performe in Obedience to this Law It iustifieth vs onely as the Condition required of vs and an Instrument embracing Christs Righteousnesse Nor can the contrary be proued 2 The Iesuits are mistaken in the scope of the Apostle Rom. 3. whose intent is not to shew the Iew or Gentile could not attaine Sanctification without Gods grace by such Obedience to the Law as they could performe through the meere strength of Naturall Abilities They affirme it strongly but their Proofes are weake being manyfestly confuted by the whole File of the Apostles disputation who clearely and plainely exclude both Iewes and Gentiles from being Iustified by the workes of the Law without making mention or giueing the least Intimation by what meanes these workes must be performed whether without grace or by the Helpe of grace Yea it had been quite besides his purpose so to haue done For the Apostles argument is cleare as the Light and strong as a threefold cord All are Sinners against the Law therefore by obedience vnto the Law Let Men performe which way they list or can without grace or with grace no Man is in Gods sight pronounced innocent 3 To the Last argument out of Rom. 4. 4. we answere The Apostle there proues that the Faithfull children of Abraham are not iustified by workes Because Abraham the Father of the Faithfull was Iustified by Faith and not by workes Where wee affirme
vncapable of Iustification by the Law for how should the Law declare him innocent that hath though but once transgressed against it Hee that hath stollen in his youth and euer after liued truly and iustly can neuer quit himselfe in Iudgement from the guilt and punishment of thee very by pleading he hath kept the Law in his latter Times Obedience that followes after iustifies not from the guilt that went before As we shall see more â—ereafter in the point of Mans satisfaction But let vs grant that the Law though once broken yet afterwards fullfilled would Iustifie a Man we here defend the Minor That Man hauing broken Gâ—ds Law can neuer after wards perfectly fullfill it and so by that meanes also he is excluded from Iustification by it This Proposition the Romanists will not yeeld to with out strong proofe Let vs explaine it and confirme it The Proposition may beset downe in these termes No Man whosoeuer can perfectly fullfill the Morall Law in this Life Man heare we consider in a two-fold estate of Nature of Grace Touching man in the estate of nature it is a greed on both sides that the keeping of the Law is vtterly and absolutely impossible vnto him But concerning Man regenerate and iustified they of Rome affirme he may keepe the Law wee of the Reformation granting that absolutely it is not impossible for we will not say but God might if he saw good bestowne such perfection of grace vpon a Regenerate Man that afterwards he should Liue without all 〈◊〉 and be translated to Heauen without death yet according to the order which God now holdeth in bringing Man to saluation we deny that there euer was or euer will be any Mortall Man that hath or shall perfectly fulfill the Righteousnesse of the Morall Law This shall appeare vnto you by parting the Righteousnesse of the Law into its branches whereby you may see what it is to fullfill the Law and how impossible it is so to doe The Righteousnesse required by the Morall Law is of two sorts 1 Habituall in the inherent holinesse of Mans whole person when such gratious Qualities are fixed and planted in euery faculty of soule and Body as doe dispose and incline the Motions of both onely vnto that which is conformable to the Righteousnesse of the Law That such Righteousnesse is required by the Law is a plaine Case and confessed That which commands the good or forbids the euill action doth command the vertuous and forbid the vitious Habit too He that lookes for purity in the streame cannot but dislike poyson in the Fountaine and God that commands vs to doe good bids vs also to be holy nor can wee doe the one vnlesse we doe the other And therefore the Apostle ioynes both together The end of the Commandement is loue but where out of a pure heart 1 Tim. 1. 5. 2 Actuall In the exercise of all good workes enioyned by the Law and forbearing the contrary euill workes Whether these good or euill workes be inward in that spirituall obedience which the Law required viz. in the right ordering of all the motions of our soules that euery one of our Thoughts Imaginations Purposes of our minde and all the secret workings and stirrings of our affections be altogether employed vpon Piety and Charity not so much as touching vpon any thing that is contrary to the loue of God or our neighbour Or whether these good and euill works be outward in the bodily obedience vnto the Law in doing all and euery externall dutie of Religion towards God of Iustice and Mercy towards man and in leauing vndone the contrary Further this actuall righteousnesse of the Law is to bee considered two wayes 1 As it respects all the Commandements and so that righteousnesse is onely perfect which fulfils all and euery particular precept of the Law 2 As it respects any one Commandement or any one dutie therein contained And so we may call that righteousnesse perfect which exactly performes any one point of the Law though it faile in others So you see what is to be done of him that will perfectly fulfill the Law let vs now see whether any man can doe so or no. We say no man can doe it and we make it good in the confirmation of these three Propositions 1 No man in this life hath perfection of grace and holinesse inherent 2 No man in this life can fully obserue all those good workes both inward and outward which the Law requires 3 No man in this life can performe any one particular good worke so exactly that in euery point it shall answer the rigor of the Law and Gods seuere iudgement For the first we proue it by this Argument Where sinfull corruption remaines in part there in herent holinesse is not perfect But in euery Man during this life there remaineth sinfull corruption Ergo In no man is there during this life perfect inherent holinesse The maior is without exception For he that is part bad and sinfull t is not possible he should be totally good and holy The minor is most euident by Scriptures and each Mans experience and reason it selfe Gal. 5. 17. The Apostle describes the Combat that is betweene the flesh and the spirit that is betweene corruption and grace in a man regenerate The flesh lusteth against the spirit and the spirit against the flesh and these two are contrary one to the other so that ye cannâ—t doe the same things that yee would Who can say that holinesse is perfect in that maÌ„ in whoÌ„ corruption of Nature not onely troubleth but hindreth grace in its holy operation Shall we say this contention lasts but for a while after a man is newly regenerate but in successe of time the Spirit gets an absolute victory corruption being not only ouer-mastered but also annihilated If we say so experience will accuse vs conscience will iudge vs to be Lyars Where is that man and who is he named that can say he findes no rebellion or distemper in his affections or desires no disorder in any motion of his soule but that all within him is sweetly tuned vnto obedience without iarre and discord arising from corruption Certainely that humble confession of a most holy Apostle may cause blushing in any such proud Iustitiary Had Paul the body of sinne in him and hast thou noâ—e He fights and wrestles against the Law in his members rebelling against the Law of his mind yet he is so checkt and mated by it that He can neither doe the good hee would nor auoid the euill he would not when he would doe well euill is still present with him And so tedious is this toyle vnto him that he complaines of it at the very heart and cries out bitterly for helpe in this conflict Whereupon though he haue helpe from God through Iesus Christ yet hath hee not full deliuerance from this inherent corruption but is faine to conclude in this pittifull manner So then I
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
inoncency or the Saints haue in glory Touching the third sense of the words we grant indeed that to Loue God with all the heart is to loue him super omnia that is aboue all Creatures But the Iesuites take here but one part of true loue of God T is a singular part of Diuine loue when the heart is so fixed on God that neither the loue nor feare of any earthly thing can draw it from obeying of God Which we say is a matter wherein euery one failes in some kinde or other more or lesse though in the end may Martyrs and other holy men haue herein by faith ouercome the world But this is not enough vnto perfect loue to preferre God before all Temporall paines and pleasures profits or discommodities He loues God with all his heart not onely who loues him aboue all but also obeies God in all This is the loue of God that we keepe his Commandements He that for Gods loue will not obey Gods Law he loues his sinnes more then God Offend but in the least thing there 's presently want of loue for hee that will not doe as God bids him then is voyde of that loue which moues him to obey at other times He then that keepeth Gods word in him is the loue of God perfect indeed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Iohn 2. 5. Perfect obedience and perfect loue are inseparable Now seeing the former cannot be found in mortall men we cannot in them seeke for the latter And therefore this Commandement Loue God aboue all things cannot be kept in this life 2 That a man may loue his neighbour as himselfe For which purpose they turne vs vnto Rom. 13. 8. Hee that loueth another hath fulfilled the Law Because the Law is comprehended in this saying Thou shalt loue thy neighbour as thy selfe v. 9. and loue doth not euill to his neighbour therefore is loue the fulfilling of the Law vers 10. And they bid vs looke Gal. 5. 14. Where we reade For all the Law is fulfilled in one Word Thou shalt loue thy neighbour as thyselfe Hereto we answere That there 's in these places nothing that needs answering We grant that the loue of our neighbour as of our selues is the fulfilling of the Law that is of the second Table of the Law touching our duty vnto man and so much these places witnesse commanding vs also so to doe But now how doe our Aduersaries prooue out of these places that men can perfectly obâ—serue this Law We yeeld the Regenerate loue their neighboars as themselues but that perfection of loue which in euery point fulfils the Law doing our neighbour no hurt but all good in all our thoughts words and deeds this we cannot grant them vnlesse vpon better proofes Let vs goe to the tenth Commandement which they say may be kept that is 3 Thou shalt not couet This tenth Commandement of the Decalogue is say they possible to be fulfilled by a Regenerate man For three things must be obserued touching this concupiscence or coueting forbidden in the tenth Commandement 1 The vitious proâ—enesse and inclination of Nature vnto baddesires which is styled concupiscence in actu primo As to haue a theeuish minde 2 The inordinate motions of the heart immediately arising from that corrupt disposition which preuent reason and goe before consent as to desire another mans money but sodenly vanisheth of it selfe or vpon deliberation t is checkt 3 The consent of the will when either it takes 〈◊〉 mediate delight in such desires themselues as speculatiue fâ—rnication c. or when it resolues to put in execution what the heart imagined as to lay a plot to spoyle another of his goods The two former the vitious disposition of Nature and the inordinate desires that goe before consent these be no sinnes say the Romanists and so not forbidden in the tenne Commandements The last viz. Euill desires with consent they be the very sins which are forbidden in that Commandement Whence they conclude that a Regenerate man may auoid the breach of this commandment seeing it is in the power of his will whether he will consent vnto such motions of the heart or no and if he doe not consent then hee sinnes not Herevnto wee answere That whereas they of Rome teach that the Habituall vitiousnesse of Nature and the disorderly motions of the Heart which goe before Consent are no Sinnes they therein erre grossily against Scriptures and sound Reason This the gift of these Men alwayes to iudge flatteringly and fauourably on Natures side they concipt to themselues a God in Heauen like their God in Rome Facilem Deum one that will wincke at small faults and graunt Indulgence by the Dozen Looke what they iudge a small Matter God must be of there mind or else they are not pleased His Loue must fit there Humors what they thinke they can doe that God shall haue leaue to command or forbid but if otherwise they 'le tell him to his face that he is a foole ct a Tyrant to command them that which now they cannot performe For God say they to require of a Man a freedome from all vitious Inclinations and euill desires this were as mad an injunction as for a master to command his seruant neuer to be hungry or thirsty hot or cold and to threaten him that hee should looke through a halter in case it bee otherwise with him This errour wee shall more conueniently speake of in the refutation of common and generall exceptions which they make against all those proofes that doe demonstrate the impossibility of keeping the Law whereof this is one that Concupiscence in the first and second act is not Sinne. But now whereas they affirme that it is in a Regenerate Mans power not to yeeld consent to the motions of Sin and that therefore he may fulfill the Law which sayed thou shalt not lust we graunt them that the Spirit may many times get the victory ouermastring such vuruly motions of the heart but this is not perpetuall For who is there except extreamely ignorant of Grace and Nature but will confesse that many times these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 affections of Sinne as the Apostle cals them do work in them so strongly vpon such circumstances and aduantages that they doe not only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 combate and fight against the powers of grace but also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vanquish them and euen leade a Man regenerate captiue vnto the Law or command of sinne The Apostle confesseth so much of himselfe Rom. 7. 23. Who yet was able to doe as much as he that thinkes himselfe best And therefore what euer power we may seeme to haue not to yeeld consent yet 't is certaine that we shall often faile in in our practise This of the second Argument touching the obseruation of the obseruation of the hardest precepts of the Law The third followes 3 If a Man may doe more then the Law requires he may certainely doe as much
But a Man may doe more then the Law requires Ergo He may doe as much The minor Bellarmine proues by the example of the young Man Mat 〈◊〉 9. who telling Christ that he had obserued all the commandements and that from his youth our Sauiour bids him doe one thing more and then he should be perfect If thou wilt be perfect go sell that thou hast and giue to the poore and follow me ver 20. Now if the young Man had done this he had done more then the Law required In as much as whatsoeuer the Law required he had obserued formerly For do you not beleeue him that he spake true All these things haue I obserued from my youth verse 9. Whereto we answere That we doe not beleeue the Testimony of that vaine young Man touching his owne Righteousnesse Who boosted of keeping the 2. Table in the outward duties thereof when as yet he wanted inward Charitie towards his Neighbuor and Loue towards God He auouâ—hed that he had kept all perfectly fulfilling that commandment Thou shalt loue thy neighbour as thy selfe and there vpon is so bould as to aske Christ. what lacke I yet Christ to conuince him of his pride and wants put him to the Triall If thou hast such perfect Charity towards Man then certainely if God command thee to bestow that a part but all thy goods vpon the poore vpon promise of better things to thy selfe thy duty vnto God and singular Charity to Men will make thee doe so Goe then sell all that thou hast and giue to the poore Vpon this speciall Commandment this couetous mind shews it selfe Nay 't is plaine he loued not his Neighbour so well as his riches He is neither so dutifull to God nor charitable to the poore as for either of their sakes to part with his possessions But might he say what will not ordinary almes or a little more then ordinary serue the turne Must I giue away all Indâ—ede the Law requires that I be mercifull to the poore but where 's any Law that bids me sell my whole estate and distribute to them that want Christ layes an vnnecessary burden vpon me if I cannot be perfect without vndoâ—ing my selfe I will content my selfe as I am and not seke after such perfection Heere a Papist will say he speake reason seeing Christs speech was but acounsaile of more perfection then the Law required Now a Man is not to be blamed if he chuse only to be as perfect as the Law commands him and so this young man was if you 'le beleeue him or them But the Scripture makes it plaine that he did euill in disobeying Christ and that if he had obeyed him in that particular he had done no more then the Law required at his hands For obedience to euery speciall Commandment is included in the generall The Law indefinitely commands vs to giue almes now if God by a speciall commandment limite how much we shall giue whether halfe or all our Estates to obey such a perticular precept is not to do more then the generall Law requires vs. Such a particular Commandment was this of Christ vnto the young Man wherein he sets him a spell according to that conceit of perfection which he had of himselfe putting him to the practise of the highest duty which the Law of Liberality can possible require of a Man viz. to part with all This he ought to haue done vpon Christs particular commandment in not doing of it he brake the Law and proclaimed his heart to be full of couetousnesse deuoide of faith in God and true Charity towards his Neighbour From this place then our aduersaries cannot proue that this young Man might haue doen more then the Law required or that wee are bound at any time to doe as Christ bid him Christs command was for his particular Triall not for our Imitation They that take it otherwise be a generation of men that professe Beggery and possesse Kingdomes who were willing enough to part with that little they had of there owne that so they may liue the more Largely and plentifully vpon other Mens Wee goe forward to the next argument 4 If the Law were impossible to be kept it were no Law for there is no Law of things impossible Yea God were more cruel and foolish then any Tyrant too command vs to doe that which is impossible for vs to doe To this wee answere That the consequences were true if God had giuen a Law which Men neuer had strength to performe But now the Law written in tables on Mount Sina was but a reuiuing and repetion of the same Law which was written in Adams heart the Characters whereof were now defaced in his sinnefull Posterity Adam had strength sufficient to fulfill it which as he receaued for himselfe and vs so he lost it for both Neuerthelesse though Strength to obey be lost yet the obligation to Obedience remaines We are no more discharged of our duties because we haue no strength to doe it then a debter is quitted of his Bands because he wants money to make payment Nor is this cruelty or folly in God that when he published this Law vnto the Isralites he did not qualifie the exactnesse thereof fitting the precepts to there abilities commanding theÌ„ to do iust as much as they could or would do Had God made a Law in that sort in fauour of mans sinfull nature they might with better reason haue layd folly to his charge for bending the rule to the crokednesse of mans heart and not leuelling it according to the streightnesse of the Rule God was to set forth a Law of Liberty that should not flatter but freely rebuke Man of all vnrighteousnesse a perfect Law containing in it a full description of Holynesse and Iustice which Man ought to haue and performe towards God and his Neighbour in this case God had iust reason to haue respect vnto mans duty not his ability which once he had but now had forfited and lost The next Argument is 5 Euery Prayer made in Faith according to Gods will is heard and granted But we pray that we may fulfill the Law perfectly For we pray that we may doe Gods will in Earth as it is in Heauen Ergo God heares vs and giues vs such grace that we can doci Hereto we answere That this prayer shewes vs what we are bound too and what is our duty continually to endeuour That we may doe Gods will euery day more perfectly cheerefully and constantly then other And so farre God heares the faithfull prayers of his louing children enabling them to better performance the longer they liue But that such perfection of Obedience is giuen to vs in this life as the Saints enioy in Heauen will not be graunted by our Aduersaries themselues Wherefore they must also grant that that Prayer is heard and granted vs by degrees In this Life we attaine such perfection as God sees fit for vs afterwards that which is
that kind whereof his Aduersaries accused him His heart was vpright his life was innocent neither his Aduersares could make proofe neither did his conscience accuse him or God condemne him of these faults that he was charged withall Thus farre Dauid durst stand to Gods Iudgement that hee was innocent in those particular euils whereof man had accused him but it followes not therefore hee durst enter into iudgement with God and plead that God himselfe could find no fault at all with him Hee might haue many secret faults and imperfections euen in this most innocent passage of his life which neither himselfe knew nor his enemies could come to the knowledge of and therefore though he dare pleade his righteousnesse before God so farre as man can accuse him of vnrighteousnesse yet he dare not goe further to cleare himselfe against all that God may obiect against him Heare what himselfe saith in this case Psal. 139. 23. 24. Search me O God and know my heart try me and know my thoughts Speakes the Prophet this out of confidence that God vpon search and tryall shall finde no euill in his heart and thoughts No but out of holy desire that whatsoeuer euill is found in him may bee amended Hee knowes well that many things may be found faulty in him and therefore he stands not to iustifie himselfe but only sues for grace to redresse them adding in the next words And see if there be any wicked way in mee and lead mee in the way euerlasting 2 They proue that the workes of Men regenerate are not Sinnefull by the Scriptures which call them good workes and say that they are pleasing vnto God 1. That they are good Let your light so shine before Men that they may see your good worke Matth 5. 16. Charge the rich that they doe good and bee rich in good workes 1 Tim. 6. 18. wee are his workemanshippe created in Christ vnto good workes Eph. 2. 10. why trouble yee the woman for shee hath wrought a good worke vpon mee Mat 26. 10. 2. That they are also pleasing vnto God is apparant by these places Ye are made an holy â—riesthood to offer vp spirituall sacrifices acceptable to God by Iesus Christ 1 Peter 2. 5. In the Epistle to the Philippians the Apostle calleth their almes seat vnto him An odor of a sweet smell a sacrifice acceptable well pleasing vnto God Philip 4. 18. Againe To doe good and to communicate forget not for with such sacrifices God is well pleased Heb. 13. 16. Hence thâ—y argue If the workes of Men regenerate bee good and acceptable vnto God then certainely the Protestants erre in their Doctrine teaching that the best workes of Men are sinnefull for as much as Sinne is neither good in it selfe nor any way pleasing vnto God Who is infinitely offended at all iniquity Hereunto we answere That this Argument is nothing but a forward and wilfull mistake of our doctrine Wee teach that the best workes of the best men are in part sinnefull They thereupon cry out that wee take away all goodnesse from the workes of the godly and that wee account them to be in se. i. e. Ex natura sua damnable and mortall sinnes This is a foolish calumny of Men that cannot distinguish betweene the disease and the diseased Body but straightway conclude that the whole body it selfe is nothing else but a meere rotten vlcer because it hath swellings and sores in some parts of it Wherefore to vnfold their eyes in his point they are to vnderstand that wee make a necessary true distinction between That which is sinne and that which is sinnefull teaching that the good workes of the Regenerate be not sinnes though they be sinfull Wee explaine it thus That is to be called Sinne in its owne Nature which is the transgression of the Law in doing any act forbidden or in leauing vndone any act commanded by the Law The omitting or committing of any such act is properly in se ex Naturâ suâ a sinne Because it is directly and totally in the very substance of it against the Law As to pray to a false God or neglect prayer to the true God are both of them sinnes in their very proper Natures because both are forbidden by the morall law That wee call sinnefull which is for the maine substance of the worke conformable to the Law but it failes and offends against the Law in some circumstances required in the doing of it when the thing is done which the Law commands but noâ— perfectly in euery point as the Law commands it such a worke we say is not a sinne though it be sinnefull there is sinne in it but it is not all sinne This distinction our Aduersaries cannot but admit of as in the workes of the Heathen and Christians vnregerate so in the good workes of the Regenerate themseâ—ues Wee and they confesse that the morall Vertues of the Heathen were good and commendable in the substance thereof nor doe we thinke there is any men so deuoide of reason as to affirme that the Iustice Temperance Chastity Liberality of a Heathen are meere vices sinnes We all grant they were vertues but yet our Aduersaries themselues cannot affirme that they were euery way vertuous free from all spots and staines of Vice seeing they had neither faith sanctity from whence they sprung nor the glory of God at which they aimed Now as the vertues of the naturall man are in part vitious so the good workes of the Regenerate are in part sinnefull To fast to pray to giue almes with the like workes of Piety or Mercy we affirme and teach that they are good workes good in their nature and vse being such actions as the Law commands We know none of our side so farre gone with passion as to maintaine that a godly man sinnes because hee fasts prayes and giues almes as if those very acts were nothing but damnable sinne We detest such franticke opinions and if any of our Writers haue let slip such words as may giue occasion to our Aduersaries so to thinke of vs we doe not nor are we bound to iustifie euery hot and cholericke speech breathed out in eagernesse of disputation Good workes they be truly and verily good but they are not perfectly good When a godly man prayes he doth well but he neuer doth so well but he may doe better Nor dare any man in the world auouch that either the roote whence good actions come is purged by perfect Holinesse or the manner of doing them is so exactly kept in a precise obseruation of euery circumstance or the end in doing them Gods glory and Mans good so syncerely and truely aimed at that the seuerity of Gods Iustice cannot finde any the least failing in any of those things This is all we teach touching the sinfulnesse of good workes and thus we stand too as a most certaine truth And we say That this sinnefulnesse accompanying our good workes is
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
reason of such a defect Now of such a Wiseaker they dispute If God had created a Man thus in puris naturalibus neither good nor bad then What then As the old word is If the Heauens fall we shall haue Larkes good cheepe Suppositions framed by our Imaginations touching what might be done are vaine and needlesse when we see what is done This we see that Man was created in God's Image invested with all reall Qualities of Righteousnes and Holinesse This we see also that Man being falne is borne in Originall corruption depriued of God's Image thereupon depraued in his whole Nature by sinfull infirmity Wherefore a man in his pure Naturals one that hath neither Grace nor Corruption was neuer found in this world yea 't is a contradiction to imagine a man thus naked without his Qualities that he hath Reason but neither enlightened nor darkened a will but meerely indifferent neither enclined to good or euill affections but neither vertuously nor vitiously disposed In a word that he is a Man capable of Vertue or Vice Holinesse or Sinfulnesse and yet hath neither That were to make a Man litle better then an vnreasonable Beast But to follow them a little Suppose a Man were made in his pure Naturals would such disorderly motions be found iâ— him Yea say they and that boldly Si Homo crearetur a Deo in puris naturalibus proculdubiò constaret duabus partibus repugnantibus Spiritu Carne haberet duos appâ—titus contrarios Rationalem Sensitivum ergo naturaliter haberâ—t quosdam motus repugnantes Rationi Without doubt the Iesuite is deceiued in this his Imagination and his Argument is not worth a Button A Man in his pure Naturals should haue two parts a Soule and a Body Spirit and Flesh he should haue two appetites Reasonable and Sensuall ergo these parts in their motions and desires would be contrary one to the other This consequent is false They would be diuerse not opposite and repugnant The Body and the Sensitiues would lead a Man to those things that are agreeable to the Body The Soule and reasonable appetite or will would incline him to those higher and more noble objects agreeable to the Soule But neither of these inclinations would crosse and trouble one another the inferiour faculties like the lower Spheares would moue differently from the superiour but yet most orderly according to their owne nature without impeaching the Motions of the other Each faculty in it's place would worke orderly in sweet harmony and agreement each with other had not Sinne brought in confusion and discord into the world as betweene God and Man so betweene Man and himselfe This we further make good by this argument Whatsoeuer is naturall and so without blame in Man that Christ took one him But these inordinate Motions of the sensitiue appetite repugnant vnto Will and Reason Christ tooke not on him Ergo they are not naturall and without blame The Maior we proue by that Phil. 3. 7. He was made like vnto Man and Heb. 2. 17. In all things it behoued him to be made like vnto his Brethren And againe Chap. 4. 15. Wee haue not a high Priest which cannot be touched with a feeling of our infirmities but was in all things tempted in like sort yet without Sinne. Whence 't is manifest that Christ taking on him our Nature tooke on him all the properties of our Nature and with all such infirmities of our Nature as not sinfull in themselues or the effects or punishments of Sinne in vs. If therefore it be naturall vnto Man that the Motions of the sensitiue appetite should preuent and be repugnant vnto Reason and that this is no Sinne except consent make it so then certainly Christ had in him such motions and inordinate desires But to affirme that there were in Christ such disorderly Motions of his inferiour Faculties repugnant vnto his Reason and Will is a blasphemie against the immaculate Lambe of God Christ was indeed tempted as the text saith and in like sort as we are but will any Man heere vnderstand this of inward Temptations arirising from any thing within Christ as if he were like vnto vs drawne aside with Concupiscence and inticed the motions of his sensitiue faculties inclining him to that which was contrary to his vnderstanding and will We confesse that he was fiercely tempted by Satan and wicked Men from without but that he was tempted by any thing in himselfe by disorderly Motions of his heart tending vnto euill and ergo checked by his will and Reason this we account an abominable Errour touching the spotlesse humanity of our Sauiour Wherein we deny that there euer was any the least disorderly desire thought word or worke whatsoeuer And therefore we conclude that such motions are not naturall vnto Men becomming sinfull only by accident because they are consented vnto but they are accidentall vnto him being the fruit of originall Corruption and are in themselues verily and properly Sinnes For Conclusion of this point let vs heare that Argument which Bell. makes 4. Where there is no Law there is no sinne Rom. 4. 10. But there is no Law prescribed vnto sense and sensuall appetites Ergo The Motions thereof are not sinfull The Maior we grant The Minor he proues Because the Law praesupposeth Reason in all that whereto it is giuen But the sensitiue part of Man is without Reason and ergo not capable of a Law according as it is in bruite beasts to whom ergo no Law is giuen This he further proues by that place Rom. 7. 20. Now if I doe that I would not it is no more I that doe it but Sinne that dwelleth in me Where 't is plaine saith Bell. that the Apostle did not sinne because he lusted against his will 'T was not he did the worke but 't was the Sinne in him Wherefore he saith afterward That in his mind i. e. in his superior faculties he serued the Law of God and kept it although in his flesh i. e. sensitiue appetite and inferiour faculties he serued the Law of sin yet for all that he sinned not in so doing because sinne cannot be but in the minde and the Law is not giuen to those faculâ—ies that be vnreasonable To this we answere That God giues no Law to vnreasonable Creatures but such as haue Reason The sensitiue faculties of bruite-beasts haue no other Rule then Natures instinct which guides and moderates their seuerall motions in due order and measure But in man those inferiour faculties how euer vnreasonable are yet capable of Reasons Gouernment which according to Gods Law prescribes vnto the motions of the sensitiue appetite their measure and bounds beyond which they may not passe If a man were vncorrupt the appetite would obey this rule of Reason and keepe it selfe within those prescribed Bounds But being now corrupt by Sinne it breakes out beyond this compasse and ouerbeares Reason and will which in their sinfull weaknes
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
from the guilt of sinne and course of the Morall Law Secondly Truth for the Ceremoniall Law the substance being brought in and the shadowes vanished wherefore the Iesuite erres greately in this point when he makes the grace of the New Testament to consist in this That strength is thereby giuen us to fulfill the Law The grace of God in the Gospell is chiefely our Iustification and Redemption from the curse of the Law and in the next place strength afforded vs to Obey the Law in some measure not perfectly as our Aduersaries would haue it In the next point he erres as much in saying that the Law of Moses was giueu without grace to obey it A false assertion For although the Law of it selfe giue not grace yet t is certaine that grace was giuen by Christ euen then when Moses published the Law Sufficient for the proofe hereof are 1 These excellent properties ascribed vnto the Law of God as in other places of the old Testament so spetially in the Booke of the Psalmes And amongst them in the 19. and 119. Psalmes Where the Law of God is said to giue light to the eiâ—s to conuert the Soule to reioice the Heart c. which it could not doe of it selfe had not the grace of the Holy Ghost being giuen in these times without which the Law could worke no such sauing Effects 2 Experienee of those times in the Faith Patience and â—bedience and all sorts of graces shining in those ancient Saints who liued before and after the Law was giuen Which graces they receaued from the Holy Ghost shed vpon their hearts by vertue of Christs mediation whereby they receaued strength to liue holily in Obedience vnto the Law of God The difference betweene these times and those vnder the Law is not That we haue grace and they had none but only in the mâ—asure and extent of the same grace bestowed both on vs and them In those times as the Doctrine of the Gospell was more obscurely reuealed so the grace which accoÌ„panies it was more sparingly distributed being confined to to a Church collected of one nation and bestowed vpon that Church in a lesser measure then now though yet suffitiently in that measure But in the times of the New Testament the light shines more brightly and grace is dispenced more liberally being extended indifferently to all Nations and poured vpon the Godly in a larger Abundance according as was promised Ieremiah 31. Though also this comparison must be restrained vnto whole Churches what generally is now done for no doubt in many particulars some men vnder the Law exceede for abundance of Grace many vnder the Gospell Wherefore it is a notable iniury vnto the Bounty of God and the honour of those Saints of old to exclude them from partaking of the Gospell to affirme that they were led only by the Spirit of Feare and not of loue that they receaued not the Spirit of adoption to cry Abba father as well as wee though not plentifully as wee and so that they were not Sonnes though vnder Tutors and gouernors as we confesse they were but very Seruants held in Bondage and excluded from the inheritance of Grace and glory till after Christs Death So that at best their adoptioâ— was but conditionall with regard of Time to come but for the preseÌ„t they were handled as slaues fear'd with temporall punishments allured by temporall rewards like a heard of Swine fed with base achors and huskes These be absurd Errors bred out of Scripture misvnderstood Especially that of Iohn 1. Grace came by Christ. Ergo not before Christs Inâ—arnation A sily Argument Christ is as old as the World and his Grace as ancient as the Name of Man vpon Earth grace alwaies came by Crhist was in its measure giuen by him loÌ„g before he appear'd in the flesh He was euer the head of his Church and that his Body which he alwaies quickned by the blessed influence of his Spirit ministered therevnto Whereby the Godly before as well as since his incarnation were made liuing members of that his misticall Body Wherefore it is apparant that grace is not to be tied to the Times of the Gospell and seuered from the Law Nay as of old the Law was not alwaies without grace so now many times the Gospel it selfe is without grace Christ himselfe being a stumbling stone and rocke of offence the Gospell a Sauiour of Death to those many vpon whome Grace is not bestowed to beleeue and embrace it I conclude then That this difference with our Aduersaries make betweene the Law and Gospell is false and that their Error is pernitious in makind the Gospel to be nothing but a Spirit added to the Law that man may fulfill it to his Iustification That thus a man may be saued by Christ through the perfect fulfilling of the Law Which is a monstrous and vncouth Doctrine laying an vnsupportable burthen vpon the conscience of man and hazarding his soule to â—ternall distruction whiles by this meanes he frustrates the Grace of God in Christ and withall frustrats his owne hopes of life expecting to obtaine it by that Law which he is neuer able to fulfill SECT 5. CHAP. I. Iustification by fulfilling the law ouerthrowes Christian libertie the parts of our Christian libertie SO much of the Third Argument The last followes drawne from the Nature of Christian Liberty Which is this 4. Arg. That which ouerthrowes our Christian Liberty purchased for vs by the death of Christ that 's no Euangelical but an Haereticall Doctrine But Iustification by the workes of the Law ouerthrowes the spirituall Liberty of Man obtained for him by Christ. Ergò 'T is an Haeresie against the Gospell For the proofe of the minor Proposition let vs in briefe consider wherein stands that Liberty wherewith Christ hath made vs free that so we may the better perceiue what part thereof this doctrine of Iustification by works doth nullifie and depriue vs of The Liberty wee haue in Christ is either in regard of the Life to come or of this praesent life The first is the Liberty of Glory consisting in a fuâ—l deliuerance from that state of vanity and misery both sinfull and painfull wherevnto we are now subiect And not we only but the whole Creation which with vs 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 groaneth and trauaileth in paine till with vs it also be deliuered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 From the bondage of Corruption into the Glorious libertie of the Sonnes of God as the Apostle declares Rom. 8. 19. seq This Liberty we haue in hope not in possession The next we actually injoy in this life and that is the Liberty of Grace This we may diuide not vnfitly into 3 branches 1 Freedome from Sinne. 2 Freedome from the Law 3 Freedome from Men. 1 Our Freedome from Sinne stands in 2 things 1 In our deliuerance from the Punishment of Sinne. For whereas euery Sinne of it's owne Nature brings with it guiltines and
it by Terrors and Threatnings and therefore The law rules not ouer the iust as seruants who obey for feare but sonnes who obey for Loue. We expound it otherwise The Law hath not coactiue power ouer the just because the just that is true beleeuers in Christ Iesus are freed from the necessity of perfectly fulfilling it for the obtaining of saluation But the Law hath a coactiue power ouer the vnjust vnbeleeuers because they are obliged vnto the perfect fulfilling thereof or else to be certainly accursed And ergo we say the Law command's ouer the just as ouer Sonnes requiring of them a faithfull and willing endeavour but it commands ouer the vnjust as ouer Seruants of whom it exacts the vttermost farthing and vpon the legall default threatens eternall malediction The difference then betwixt them vs is this They make the coaction of the Law to consist in the manner or quality of mans obedience to it The Law compels when men obey vnwillingly We make the coaction of the Law to consist in the quality of the command condition wherevpon Obedience is required The Law then compels when it exacts full obedience vpon poenalty praecisely threatned to the disobedient Wherein the trueth is manifestly on our side For 't is plaine that compulsion in a Law must be taken in opposition to direction not persuation for Lawes persuade not but command For if we speake properly a Law cannot be sai'd to compell those to whom 't is giuen as if by any real and physicall operation it did enforce them to obedience It proposeth what is to be done it setteth before a man the punishment for disobedience but it workes not on the will of man to force it one way or other Wherefore if we know what direction in a Law is we shall soone know what Compultion is Direction as all agree is the bare praescription of what is to be done or left vndone Compulsion that is the exaction of obedience vpon paenalty to be inflicted What other coactiue force there is in a Law no man can imagine Well then to apply this The just are sub directione Legis but not sub coactione This must of necessity be vnderstood thus the just are not vnder the coactiue power of God's Law â—â—cause it doth not exact of them full obedience vpon paenalty of aeternall death to be otherwise inflicted on them As it doth exact of the vnjust For otherwise there will be no difference betweene the just and the vnjust in regard of this coactiue power of the Law if both the one and the other be obliged to yeeld alike perfect obedience vpon the like paenalty In this case the Law will be as coactine to one as the other exacting aequall obedience vpon aequall termes both of the just and vnjust viz obey fully in all things or you shall be cursed The Sonne and Seruant shall be all one and the Law shall still command over the children with as much terrour as ouer the Bondslaue There is no difference in the world in our adversaries doctrine both sorts are bound to obey perfectly or else certainly they shall not be saued So that the Law of itselfe shall be as rigorous towards one as the other But we know the Scriptures offer vnto vs more mercy and that Christ hath discharged vs from this rigour of the Law vnder which euery one that is out of him in the state of vnbeleefe is holden in bondage As to the difference they make the iust obey willingly the vnjust vnwillingly ergo the Law compels these and not those this is nothing to the purpose For it alters not the nature of the Law that it is obeyed with diuers affections The Law is the same for its command authority howsoeuer it be obeyed willingly or vnwillingly that matters not The Law ceaseth not to be coactiue because ti 's willingly obeyed euen as a slaue ceaseth not to be vnder the coaction compelling power of his Master though he loue his master and out of a willing mind be content to abide in thraldome And as Adam though he obeyed the Law willingly yet was vnder the coactiue power of it because he was tyed to obey it or else he should certainly die the death for his transgression of it Wherefore I conclude that the just are not freed from the Laws direction nor from the Lawes compulsion as it compels or enioynes them absolute obedience in all things and for default thereof threatens the vnauoydeable malediction of Gods aeternall wrath 3 Lastly for proofe of this point we haue those places formerly alleaged Rom. 6. 14. We are not vnder the Law but vnder Grace Gal. 5. 18. If we be led by the spirit we are not vnder the Law 2 Cor. 3. 17. Now the Lord is the Spirit and where the Spirit of the Lord is there is Liberty Gal. 3. 13. Christ hath redeemed vs from the Curse of the Law being made acurse for vs. All which with other the like doe establish this orthodoxe Doctrine That beleeuers haue ohtained freedome by Christ from the rigour of the Morall Law and are not any longer bound in conscience to the perfect fulfilling thereof vpon this assured perill that if they keepe it not they shall not be saued We might stand longer vpon each Testimony but let that which we haue said suffice for the vindicating of our conscience from that Torture and Bondage wherewith these â—â—opish Doctors would ensnare vs. The knowledge of which our Liberty is not to giue vs occasion of security or licentiousnesse as these Men calumniate but to restore peace spirituall rest vnto our soules knowing that we are now deliuered from the necessity of obeying or of perishing which before we were in Christ lay more heauy vpon our soules then a mountaine of Lead That so being freed from this thraldome we might serue him who hath freed vs thankfully and chearefully obeying him in all duty by whom wee haue obtained this glorious priuiledge that whereas perfect obedience was sometimes strictly exacted of vs now our sincere though imperfect indeauours shal be mercifully accepted at our hands SECT 6. CHAP. I. The reconciliation of that seeming opposition betweene S. Paul and S. Iames in this point of Iustification THus much of this Argument and of the first Branch of mans Righteousnes whereby if it were possible he should be justified viz. His Obedience to the Law of God By which meanes we haue shewed no flesh shall be justified in Gods sight We are to proceed vnto the text branch heereof viz. Mans satisfaction for his transgression of the Law Wherein we haue also to proue that a Sinner cannot be acquitted before god's judgment seat by pleading any satisfaction that himselfe can make for his offences But in our passing vnto that point we are to giue you warning of that stumbling stone which St. Iames as it may seeme hath layed in our way lest any should dash his Faith vpon it and
vpon God and play with his Iustice as the flie with the Candle let them take heed lest in the end they be consumed by it To leaue then these vaine Inuentions Let vs giue to God the glory that 's due to his name and so we shall well provide for the peace of our Soules Trusting entirely and onely vnto that Name of Iesus Christ. besides which there is not in Heauen or in Earth in Man or Angell any name Merit Power Satisfaction or whatsoeuer else whereby we may be saued And thus much touching the first maine branch of the matter of our Iustification namely Our owne Righteousnes Whereby it appeares sufficiently that we shall neuer be justified in Gods Sight Μόνῳ Ï„á¿· Θεῷ δόξα FINIS THE CONTENTS OF EVERY Section and Chapter in this Booke SECTION 1. CHAP. I. The explication of these termes First Iustice or righteousnesse Secondly Iustification CHAP. II. In what sense the word Iustification ought to be taken in the present controuersie and of the difference betweene vs and our Adversaries therein CHAP III. The confutation of our Adversaries cauils against our acception of the word Iustification SECT 2. CHAP. I. The orthodoxe opinion concerning the manner of Iustification by Faith and the confutation of Popish errours in this point CHAP. II. The confutation of the Arminian errour shewing that Faith doth not justifie sensu proprio as it is an act of ours CHAP. III. The confutation of Popish doctrines that other graces doe justifie vs and not Faith alone SECT 3. CHAP. I. Of the righteousnes whereby a man is justified before God that is not his owne inhaerent in himselfe that in this life no man hath perfection of holinesse inhaerent in him CHAP. II. No man can perfectly fulfill the Law in performing all such workes both inward and outward as each commandement requires against which truth Popish objections are answered CHAP. III. No man in this life can performe any particular good worke so exactly that in euery point it shall answer the rigour of the Law proued by conscience Scriptures reason and Popish objections answered CHAP. IIII. Three seuerall exceptions against the truths deliuered in this 3 Section SECT 4. CHAP. I. Iustification by workes makes voide the couenant of grace Of the difference betweene the Law and the Gospell Of the vse of the Law Of the erronecus conceit of our Adversaries in this point CHAP. II. Of Bellarmine's erroneous distinction of the word Gospell SECT 5. CHAP. I. Iustification by fulfilling the Law ouerthrowes Christian libertie The parts of our Christian libertie CHAP. II. Iustification by workes subjects vs to the rigour and curse of the Law SECT 6. CHAP. I. The reconciliation of that seeming opposition betweene S. Paul and S. Iames in this point of Iustification CHAP. II. The confirmation of the orthodoxe reconciliation of S. Paul and S. Iames by a Logicall Analysis of S. Iames his disputation in his second Chapter SECT 7. CHAP. I. None can be justified by their owne satisfaction for the transgression of the Law A briefe sâ—mme of Popish doctrine concerning humane satisfactions for sinne CHAP. II. All sinne is remitted vnto vs wholy in the fault and punishment For the onely satisfaction of Iesus Christ. Sect. l. â— 1. Rom. 8. 30. Heb. 9. Lib. 1. de Iust cap. 1 See luke 18. 14 This Man went downe to his house iustified rather then the other His prayer was for pardon God be mercifull c. For he went home Iustified i. e pardoned and absolued rather then the Pharisee Which is referred ad gratiam Regenerationis Tom. 2. tract 4. Cap. 2. Parag. â— Rom 6. 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 significat liberatur sed sersus loci dâ—scrimen indicat 〈…〉 a Ephâ— 4. 24. Col. 3. 9. a Ephâ— 4. 24. Col. 3. 9. b 1 Cor. 3. 16. 6. 19. 2 Cor. 6. 16. Rom. 8. c Rom. 12. 5. 1 Cor. 12. 11. d Ioh. 15. 4. e Ioh. 4. 14. 1 Cal. Iustit lib. 3 cap. 1â— Rom. 8. 30. 〈◊〉 Ibid. Parag. 9. Sect. 2. â— â— â— Gen. Headâ— â— Cap. 7. Generall head a Gal. 2. 16. b Rom. 5. 1. c Rom. 28. d Rom. 4. 2. 3. 20. Gal 2. 16. Iam. 2. a Luke 7. 5â— b Mat. 9. 22. c Maâ— 10. 52. d Mat. 15. 21. e Mat. 7. 29. f Rom. 4. 20. g Heb. 21. 5 6. i Rom. 3. 24. k Heb. 1. 3. n Act. 6. 7. 6. 5. o 1 Tim. 3. 9. 4. 6. Virg. Georg. 1. p Gal. 3. 23. Act. 13. 38. Rom. 11. 6. 〈…〉 Thes. 48. 2. 3. pag 6â— c Aâ—tibell pag. 106. d Collat. cuâ— Sib. Lubber e Thesibu de â—ustific f Râ—monstrâ—nt In Cell Delphensi Art 2. Antith 2. Statuimus Deum Fidem noâ—iram nobis imputare per obedientiam eaâ—que nos in illa acceptos habere We are saued by grace thorough faith Ephes. 2. 8. a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Arg. Bell. b Lib. 1. cap. 13. a Lib. 1. cap. 2â— Nectamen est a Deo intus inhabitante per graâ—â—am Sanctificari sidextrinsâ—cus adâ—â—vante exitonte a Et Cap 13. pag. 311. H. a Feare Feare b Psal â—11 10. Pro. â— 7. Faith is radix a part of the tree Hope c Rom. 5. 5. d Heb. 6. 18. Loue. e Rom. 5. 5. a Rom. 5. 5. Repentance Reformation Not of Ahab or Iudas a Tom. 2. Tract â— cap. 3. Quest. 3. Bell. lib. 1. c. 14. 2 Arg. a 〈◊〉 antid â—onc Trid. Sess. 6 cap. II. b Cap. 15. eiuâ—dem Lib. primi 3 Arguâ— Bell. lib. 1 cap. 16. Allein durch â—en gsaubren Bell. quotes Luâ—beri Resp. ad duos Art ad amiâ—â—m quendam a Tit. 3. 5. 6. 7. b Rom. 3. 〈◊〉 c Rom. 9. 31. 32 How knowes Bellarmâ—ne that Bell. lib. 1. c. 19 â—ello cap. 16. a Bell lib. 1. â— 19. b 〈◊〉 Tom. 2 tract 4. cap. 2 quest 6. §. 15. c Bell. cap. 19 d As Adam a So Bellarminâ— cap. 19. answering that place Gal. 2. If righâ—teousnesse be by the Law then Christ dyed in vaine saith Nay seeing we are iustified by faith and workes following it Christ died to purpose that God might giue vs grace so to be iustified b Workes without grace doe not iustifie h Why because imperfect or because done by natures strength Not the later For then Adam not iustified Not the former forse all good works of the best are imperfect Sect. 3. c. 1. 2 Generall heads a 〈…〉 〈…〉 Conclusion Arg. a Rom. 3. Gal. 2. b Iohn 1. 8. c Verse 10. 2 Argument Pure in heart vndefiled 〈◊〉 the way 2 Cap. â— 3 Cap. 3. Proposition a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 euen I my selfe b 〈…〉 c Iohn 1. 29. d Heb 9. 28. e Acts 3. 19. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. f Micah 7. 19. a Ezek. 16. 2â— Apoc 1. 6. 1 Iohn 1. â—7 c Col. 1. 13. d Tit. 2. 14. e Rom. 6. 18. 2â— f 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 g 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 h Heb. 4. 14 a Rom.