Selected quad for the lemma: sin_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
sin_n	adam_n	law_n	transgression_n	5,599	5	10.5016	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A62378	An exposition vvith notes on the whole fourth chapter to the the Romanes wherein the grand question of justification by faith alone, without works, is controverted, stated, cleared, and fully resolved ... / by William Sclater, Doctor in Divinity, sometimes minister of Gods word at Pitminster, in Summerset ; now published by his son, William Sclater, Batchelar in Divinity, minister at Collompton in Devon.	Sclater, William, 1575-1626.; Sclater, William, 1609-1661.	1650 (1650)	Wing S918; ESTC R37207	141,740	211

niti pro viribus oporteret Object 3. By this means we shall be denominated just of a Justice without us as if a man should be wise by wisdome of another Answ Though that in Physicks and morall Philosophy be absurd yet in Divinitie it is no absurditie Object 4. Then shall we be as just as Christ Ans That follows not for Christ besides the Justice he had by obedience to the Law had also Divine justice as second Person of the Trinity 2. Yea even in Legal Justice a preheminence there is left unto Christ because he had it by his own performance we have it onely by imputation And what great absurdity is it to say save onely that the comparison is somewhat odious that we have not lesse Legal justice then Christ had whiles it is acknowledged we have it not as Christ had it by our own performance but by imputation and as I may say aestimativè because it is given us to be ours Obiect 5. Justification stands in restoring what in Adam we lost Now in Adam we lost not imputed righteousness Ergò Answ To let pass that description of Justification Ad minorem We lost righteousness though not the impatation thereof quà Justice though not quà imputata and he doth ill confound the thing with the manner of applying and hear a like reason Justification stands in restoring what we lost in Adam now in Adam we lost not remission of sins Ergò Hear Bernard Si unus pro omnibus mortuus est ergò Bernard Epist ad Innocent 190. omnes mortui funt ut videlicet satisfactio unius omnibus imputetur sicut omnium peccata Vnus ille portavit mox Justum me dixerim sed illius justisiâ quaenam ipsa Finis Legis Christus adjustitiam omni credenti Denique qui factus est nobis inquit iustitia à Deo Patre quae ergò mihi iustitia facta est mea non est Si mea traducta culpa cur non mea indulta iustitia sanè mihi tutior donata quàm innata c. Bellarmine himself thus Dicitur Christus iustitia nostra quoniam satis fecit Patri pro nobis eam satisfactionem ità nobis donat communicat cùm nos iustificat ut nostra satisfactio iustitia dici possit Nam etiamsi per iustitiam nobis inhaerentem verè insti nominemur simus tamen non per eam satisfacimus Deo proculpis nostris poenâ aeternâ c. Et hoc modo non esset absurdum si quis diceret nobis imputari Christi iustitiam merita cùm nobis donentur applicentur ac si nos ipsi Deo satisfecissemus c. VERS 7 8. There followeth in these verses proof of the Minor in the former syllogisme David appropriates blessedness to the man that hath righteousness imputed without works for he appropriates it to him whose sinns are remitted Cajetane Paraeus Piscator How follows the argument Some thus conceive it The Apostle say they thus collects the argument from David because in this speech of David there is no mention made of any of our works but onely of Gods actions in remitting covering not imputing sinne some gather it from equipollence of the phrases for it is all one not to impute sin and to impute righteousness because that he that by not imputation of sin is made non peccator is thereby made iustus there being no medium betwixt a non-sinner and a righteous man betwixt absence of all sin and having of righteousness Against that opinion I mean not to dispute yet I would have the Reader remember that betwixt imputation of Christs righteousness and remitting of sins a difference there must needs be such I mean as is betwixt the cause and the effect the thing destinied to the end and the end it self for remission of sins presupposeth imputation of righteousness and he that hath his sins remitted hath first Christs righteousness imputed that he may have sins forgiven May I have leave to interpose my sentence What if the consecution stand thus The iustified man by Davids opinion hath quá talis remission of sins therefore he hath imputation of righteousness without works forasmuch as where sins are remitted there can be no iustice but imputative every transgression of the Law depriving of that iustice which stands in works forasmuch as the Law to righteousness requires observance of every particular duty therein prescribed abstinence from every particular sin therein forbidden sith therefore Whosoever is iustified hath sinnes remitted it follows that his blessedness ariseth from imputation of righteousness without works Judicent Docti The coherence we see Let us now view the sense of the words What difference may some say betwixt remitting covering and not imputing sinn Answ Cajetane thus conceives a difference In sinne we are to consider three things 1. The offence and displeasure of God 2. The turpitude it leaves either in the action or person 3. The punishment Now sin is in respect of the offence remitted in respect of the turpitude covered in respect of the punishment not imputed such like niceties many I could recite out of interpreters But it may be it is true that Ambrose hath Remittere tegere non imputare Ambrose ad loc una ratio unus est sensus and again Vnius significationis surt verba quia cùm tegit remittit cùm remittit non imputat And the heap of words serves onely to amplifie the grace of God in this blessing yet Cajetane errs not much in his explanation The things here to be treated are First Rimission of sins wherein it consisteth What this remission of sins is which David so much magnifies as that he pronounceth him blessed that is partaker of it To this Papists make this answer True remission of sins is not only the removall of Gods displeasure and the absolving of us from the guilt and punishment of them but an utter abolishment of them in respect of being Consil Trident seff 5. Bellarm. de sacrament baptism lib. 1. cap. 3. de justific lib. 2. cap. 7. and 9. Bellarm. in Psal 32. In Baptismate tollitur totum id quod veram propriam rationem peccati habet As Bellarmine speaking of the communicating of this blessing in Baptisme likewise defines Baptismo reipsâ tolli omnia peccata it a ut non solum non imputetur sed nec sit quod imputari posset ad culpam And generally thus hold they of remission of sins that it is the abolishment of them in respect of being And what is it to have sins covered Dicuntur peccata tegi hoc loco non quod sint non videantur sed quòd abolita sint eorum loco justitia successerit What the not imputing peccatum non imputari non significat peccatum manere sed non puniri sed significat nihil esse in homine justificato quod in peccatum reputari possit That we

proportion to us that is the fulfilling of the whole Law Gal. 5.3 our Saviour to such a boaster asking What he must do to inherit salvation suits answer to his proud humour Thou knowest the Commandments if doing be the means thou seekest to inherit by Keep the Commandments this do if thou wilt needs be doing and thou shalt live fail in the least apex the Curse is upon thee Gal 3.10 Now dares any arrogate power of fulfilling the Law it is strange yet what will not Popish pride assume Anathema to them saith the Trent Council whosoever shall say Dei praecepta homini etiam justificato sub gratia constituto esse ad observandum impossibilia of that question hereafter 2. Add unto this that other reason of the Apostle Christ becomes of no effect to such as by the Law seek to be justified or saved Gal. 5.4 3. They are fallen from Grace not which they had but which they might have had had they not renounced it by cleaving to their works Shal I need now to exhort in the Apostles terms Gal. 1.6 to hold Anathema all such as teach us by works to seek salvation they deprive us of the promised salvation exclude from fellowship in Christs merits the sole pillar of hope deprive us of Gods grace which alone is made the fountain of salvation I say not but other errors in the foundation obstinately holden deprive of salvation I say not but all heresies in their kind are so many blasphemies against God Neither blame I the rigour of Magistrates that with extraordinary severity labour to bring Hereticks and their heresies into ashes But surely an errour more pernicious to the souls of Gods people more derogatory to the glory of Gods grace and the validity of Christs merits I know none then this of Justitiaries and can but wonder How the severity of Laws against Popish Seminaries hath gotten relaxation that it should now no longer be holden Capitall so dangerously to seduce Gods people to evacuate the virtue of Christs death and to plunge so many souls bought with the precious bloud of Christ into eternal perdition Amongst Jews no recompense might be taken for bloud but the bloud of the slayer the bloud of souls how cries it lowder then the bloud of Abel And yet the Murtherer hath benefit of sanctuary More I add not save this onely He loves not his own salvation that hates not the enemies of the grace of God VERS 15. Proceed we in the Text Because the law worketh wratht for where no Law is there is no transgression The Scope THis verse tends to confirmation of the Apostles Consequence If they which are of the Law be Heirs then is the promise of none effect that is salvation promised can never be obtained How follows the argument The Apostle shews us by sending us to consider the effect or work of the Law such as it hath in all men since the fall The Law causeth wrath Ergò it frustrates the promise to all that cleave thereto for justification And this Antecedent hath proof from another effect of the Law betwixt which and wrath the connexion is inseparable to wit transgression it causeth transgression Ergò wrath This the context Sense For the sense view we a little the particulars they are principally two 1. The effect of the Law 2. The manner how it produceth his effect The effect of the Law is wrath whether Gods or mans Man 's saith Sasbout alledging to that purpose the judgement of Augustin neither dissent some of our own Divines Illyricus And if any ask How They answer by urging things upon the conscience as duties from which our vitious nature is most abhorrent as also by shewing how odious all a mans best actions yea his whole nature is and adjudging him to hel for his sins against those acts of the Law how doth mans vitious and proud nature storm that not without cause have learned interpreters thus expounded But fitlier to the Apostles purpose it is expounded of the wrath of God that is of the punishments which for transgression God is in his wrath ready to execute Now if any demand How the Law should have this effect Not of it self as if it were originally destined to subject man to punishment but by accident and occasionally onely in respect of our disobedience which sith it is by means of corrupt nature inevitable as inevitably doth the Law adjudge us to punishment as our vitious nature forceth us to rebellion This is the sense of the first clause It also hath its proof The Law causeth wrath for it causeth trangression betwixt which and Gods wrath the connexion is inseparable How we shall hear by and by if we shall first view the manner of the Apostles reasoning It is thus as most conceive A contrario sensu Where is no Law there is no transgression therefore where the Law is there is transgression But what if we conceive the Apostle to reason à signis Where is no Law there is no transgression an apparent signe that is that by means of the Law transgression followeth take away the Law there is no transgression therefore apparent that by putting the Law we put transgression See we how how comes it that the Law draws with it so unavoidably transgression sith it forbids and threatens disobedience enjoyns and crowns obedience Answ Not of it self but by accident through the corruption of nature ut suprâ In man corrupted the Law hath a double advantage to further transgression 1. Because by it corruption is provoked to be the more sinfull as in men unregenerate Rom. 7.5 13. 2. Through impotencie and weakness that remains in nature even reformed to perform that obedience which the Law requires in that manner it requires it Rom. 8.3 Some other explanations might be annexed as this Every sin is therefore sin because it violates some Law take away all Law thou takest away all sin for sin essentially presupposeth some prescription of Law violated Had not God by his Commandment forbidden Adam the eating of the fruit it had been no sin in him to eat it This is a truth but not all t●● Apostle here intends whose purpose is to shew not s● much the necessity of a Law to the being of sin as the necessary sequel and exsistence of sin in man since the fall by occasion of the Law Observ The point then observable is this That the law is so far from restoring us to Gods favour that it occasioneth his wrath so far from justifying that it condemns so far from being means of righteousness that it occasioneth transgression Hence called the Ministry of condemnation and death 2 Cor. 3.7 and the very strength and vigour of sin 1 Cor. 15 56. That not without cause said Luther though therefore traduced by Papists the law alwayes accuseth terrifieth condemneth The severall branches will be evident if we shall clear the last only and shew how inevitably it draws after it transgression in

finde faith to have any such act or office as to apprehend and receive Christ and his righteousness Answ Amongst other places that is pregnant Rom. 5.17 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 id est oblatam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fidei videlicet manu Beza Where believers are deseribed to be such as receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness that receive to wit by faith as by a hand the gift of righteousness that is the righteousnes of Christ given unto us After this sentence we see how faith alone justifieth namely because faith only hath fitness to receive the gift of righteousness This laid also for a ground boasting is excluded in every respect which after all other explanations is left in some respect unto men Thus also is the comfort of conscience left provided for when Gods children shall be taught out of the word of God that the righteousness whereby they are justified before God is so absolute and every way perfect as is that of Christ and that it sufficeth them to justification that they receive it whether by strong or weak Faith the virtue of Righteousness being stil the same when it is received in what measure soever it be received As the alms given is of the same benefit whether the hand that receives it be steady or shaking so it be received The summe of all is this sith Faith is accepted to Justification neither in respect of the Worth of it to procure it nor yet as being the Form of righteousness nor as a Preparation nor as a Condition It remains that it justifieth Instrumentally onely or because it apprehends that for which we are justified namely the merit and Righteousness of Christ For Use of this point let it be this It affords Comfort to every weary soul groaning under the burthen of sinne and pressed with the Terrours of the Almighty and affrighted with the Curse of the Law due to Transgressions If thou believe in the Lord Jesus and hast received this grace by faith to receive his righteousness offered in the Gospel thy sins are forgiven and shall never be imputed to Condemnation Thou standest as just in Gods sight as if thou hadst in thine own person performed exactly the whole obedience that the Law requires And let no man say it is true if they could firmly believe as Abraham but their faith is so weak and wavering that even for it Condemnation is due them Answ For this Consider that it is not the strength of Faith that justifies not Faith as an Act wherein our Righteousness stands but it is that which Faith apprehends that justifies even the obedience and righteousness of Christ That apprehended truly in what measure soever covers all defects not onely of Legall obedience but even of Faith it self A second thing here observable is this That whereas to Abraham that had now long time been Regenerate and in state of grace had done many works of Piety and obedience Yet Faith is still counted to Righteousness it follows well that whole justification is absolved in Faith and that Faith is not onely the beginning of Righteousness but the very complement thereof And Bellarm. qua supra it is to be observed against that errour of Romanists that to evade the direct testimonies of Scripture against Justification by works and for that by Faith alone have devised a distinction of Justification It is say they Concil Trident Sess 6. of two sorts The First whereby a man of unjust is made just and that stands in two things 1. Remission of sins 2. Infusion of gracious habits whereby the heart of man is disposed and inclined to actuall justice The Second is that whereby a man of Righteous becomes more righteous encreasing the habits infused by exercise of them in doing good works The First of these is ascribed to Faith The Second to good works Now To omit that in this Doctrine they confound things to be distinguished namely Justification and Sanctification There is no ground for this distinction of justification in Scriptures nay grounds many against it For 1. If good works have this force to make us more justified in the sight of God how comes it to pass that Abrahams Iustification is still ascribed to faith For that the place Gen. 15.6 is to be understood de secunda justificatione Sasbout confesseth Sasbout ad locum Besides this the Apostle Phil. 3.9 apertly declares his whole justification both in his first Conversion Kemnit in Exam. in that time wherein he wrote yea at the day of Resurrection to be wholly and meerly absolved in Faith And surely if there were such virtue in the exercise of Good works as to make us more justified in the sight of God Saint Paul did fondly count so basely of them as to call them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dung and loss Add hereunto that the Apostle 1 Cor. 4.4 speaking of the righteousness wherein he lived after his Conversion yet plainly disclaims opinion of justification thereby he was privy to himself of no insincerity in his calling having since his calling lived in all good conscience yet saith he I am not hereby justified What shall we say he speaks of his first justification as if it could possibly be thought that the works not yet extant could be the means of that justification which he had before he had works More I adde not We will now proceed to that which followeth VERS 4. Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace but of debt The applying of these verses to the Apostles purpose see in the Analysis Sense To him that worketh That is say some that presumes of his works others that deservs by his works Thus rather To him that hath or brings works to God The wages or reward What is the wages here mentioned Paraeus Some take the Apostle to reason out of a principle in Civil life by similtude applyed to this purpose but the Antithesis bears it not Wages here understand Synecdechicè put for estimation of righteousness 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is say some is not imputed but the Catachresis is too hard and abhorrent from all custome of speech Cajetan Is notreckoned that is not paid saith Cajetan What if we say the speech is borrowed from the custome of Common life on this manner That the Lord should be imagined after the manner of men to keep his book of accounts wherein the records both the behaviours of men and the wages due unto them according to the same It s not much unlike that we fiud Mal. 3.16 Let us for the purpose imagine the Lord the great distributor of reward according to the double covenant of works and grace to have referred all men to two ranks viz. Workers and Believers to resolve with himself to crown both with a sentence of righteousness according as they bring to him either works such as the Law prescribes or

carriage He that takes not up his Crosse and follows me is not worthy of me saith our Saviour Matth. 10.38 Crux Christi facilis est nudum post Christum ire ludus est jocus est Christs crosse is easie to follow Christ stript of all helps of this life it is a matter of sport Hieron advers Pelag. lib. 2. a very play-game Thus S. Hierome Ironically His answer is this It is certain they are called light not simply but in comparison to the yoke of the Jews something he aimed at Thus we answer The Commandments of God must be two wayes considered 1. As propounded in the rigorous terms of the Law so the yoke is importable 2. As tempered to our weakness in the Gospel so comparatively light In respect 1. of the assister Gods Spirit 2. of the accepter that is content to approve endeavours Aug. Retract lib. 1. cap. 19. and to pardon omissions Augustine Omnia mandata facta deputantur quando quicquid non fit ignoscitur Object Instances we have many of such as have kept the Law as of Zachary David Job c. to whom the Scripture gives the title of Just men Answ Just they are called because absque vitio free from notorious crimes non quia 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 void of all sin even infirmities Hierome 2. Not simply just but in comparison to others of their times August de pecc mer. remiss l. 2. c. 12 Ex hominum qui sunt in terra comparatione laudatur Augustine 3. Just in respect of their endeavour for Zacharies foul incredulity is recorded and chastened so is Davids adultery and murther and Jobs defects in that grace wherein he was the greatest mirrour Object May do more then is commanded as sell his possessions and give them to the poore Answ Duties enjoyned are of two sorts 1. Some generally and perpetually binding 2. Some duties in casu as leaving goods life c. for Christs sake which though till God call to performance they are not necessary to be done yet stand they in force upon the conscience by Gods precept Quod ad praeparationem animi and in case the Lord call to actuall forsaking of goods or life it is so a duty that the omission thereof makes culpable of damnation Matth. 10.37 Object Impossibilia non ligant No man is bound to an impossibility yea it were not onely vain to propound impossible precepts but tyrannicall in God the Lawgiver to exact obedience Answ Man is to be considered 1. In pure nature 2. In impure nature 3. In nature purified 4. In nature glorified In nature pure before the fall they were possible In nature glorified they shall be possible In nature merely impure merely impossible In nature purified partly possible In perfection impossible Inst Then they bind not Answ It follows not God made man righteous at the first Eccles. 7.29 and hath not lost his right of exacting because we are wilfully disabled to performance In a word they are impossible not per se but ex accidenti Inst However yet vainly enjoyned Answ Nor that saith Augustine August de pec mer. remiss lib. 2. c. 16. In contemptorum damnatione facit Deus quod justum est in proficientium mundatione quod bonum est and the Apostle sets down uses sufficient as 1. To acquaint us with sin Rom. 3.20 2. To drive us to Christ Gal. 3.24 in whom God hath provided a remedie for our imperfections Legatur Bernardus Ser. 2. in vigil Nat. Dom. fol. 11. A Propterea mandata sua Object He that is born of God sins not 1. Iohn 3.9 Answ And yet saith the same Apostle If we say we have no sin there is no truth in us 1. Ioh. 1.8.10 Bern. serm 1. in Septuag Bernard thus interprets He sins not that is non permanet in peccato he lies not impenitently in his sin 2. Or thus tantundem est ac si non peccet pro eo scilicet quòd non imputatur peccatum 3. Augustine thus We are all after regeneration August de pecc mer. remiss lib. 2. c. 7 8. in part the children of the world though in part also we be the sonnes of God and though per quod filii Dei sumus per hoc non possumus peccare yet per hoc quod adhuc filii seculi sumus per hoc peccare adhuc possumus Other Expositions there are many the fittest these He sins not nor can sinne 1. Namely unto death 1. Joh. 5.18 2. Not with full or whole consent Rom. 7.15 Gal. 5.17 3. Not customarily practising known sins or in the Apostles phrase not walking after the flesh Rom. 8.1 The summe of all is this That in respect of frailtie of flesh and small measure of grace in this life given the righteousness of the Law is impossible the transgression of the law inevitable Vse Let us now see a little how we may use this conclusion to our profit and first I cannot here but take notice of that pride and arrogancy of our vulgar people then whom though none be more licentious in life yet none that arrogate to themselves greater purity or perfection of righteousness And howsoever they scoff at the very endeavour of purity in others though with never so feeling acknowledgement of imperfections yet who hath not heard that proud profession from their mouthes They can love God above all their neighbour as themselves To whom if our Saviour should propound like triall as to him in the Gospel that made like proud profession I doubt not but they should discover as much hypocrisie Our Saviour lighting on such a braggard that had from his youth up kept the Commandments to make him see his pride and hypocrisie propounds him not as Papists say A counsell of Perfection but a precept of triall Thou professest to love God above all and thy neighbour as thy self If that be so sell all that thou hast and give to the poore thou shalt have reward in heaven That precept to such a measure of love as was professed was not harsh But He goes away sorrowing saith the Text and thereby bewrayes his proud dissembling Let the triall be far more reasonable unto our people Leave but profane pastimes unlawfull profits for his sake you love so well this speech is as harsh to our proud dissembling self-loving people To us all Let me say as Paul Gal. 4.21 You that will needs be under the law for justification do ye not hear the law you look for righteousness by the law it causeth transgression for salvation it causeth wrath And is it not strange men acquainted with Scriptures should cleave so close to the justification of the Law I had once to deal with a Papist in this question and that of merit Mentior if he professed not that except he thought he could merit righteousness and salvation by his works he would never do any good work Miserable man are there not motives strong enough to

by ourselves The righteousness of God is the righteousness which God in Christ performed fulfilling the Law for us called the Righteousness of Faith because we are by faith made partakers of it See Illyric Zanch. ad Phil. 3. If any shall demand what the difference between these two is I answer They differ not at all in the matter or substance of righteousness for the righteousness which by Christ we are made partakers of is that very righteousness which the Law prescribes namely perfect obedience to the Law but they differ efficiente our righteousness that we in our persons perform to the law And that it is no other righteousness then what the law prescribes for substance whereof in justification we are made partakers that one place Rom. 9.32 is clear where the Apostle giving a reason why the Jews that followed the law of righteousness attained not the law of righteousness that is as most interpret the righteousness which the law prescribes The reason was because they sought it not by faith but by the works of the law as if he had said Had they sought it by believing as they did by working they had attained the righteousness which the law prescribes to justification The righteousness of the law then we obtain by faith to justification It is therefore the righteousness which in justification we are made partakers of How then is it said to be righteousness without works I answer In respect of us without works In respect of Christ the performer not so Come we now to the means how it is imputed unto us and that is by Imputation Imputation Imputation of righteousness What it is in this case we may thus describe To be an act of God ascribing to us the righteousness of Christ and counting it ours no less then if we had in our own persons performed it Touching it it is enquired whether there be any such act of God in our justification Papists generally deny it and make the righteousness of Christ to avail to justification onely as a cause procuring to us remission of sins and the gifts of the holy Ghost That which our Divines hitherto have consented in is this That the righteousness of Christ is not onely the cause for which the Lord remits sins c. but the very thing whereby we are made righteous in the sight of God Their reasons are these 1. Because we are said to be made righteous by the obedience of Christ Rom. 5.19 shall we say as by a procuring cause nay rather formally For so are we made sinners by the transgression of Adam And the purpose of the Apostle in that comparison betwixt Adam and Christ seems to be this To shew that it is no absurd thing that we should be made righteous by the righteousness of Christ seeing we were made sinners by Adams disobedience Inst But Adams disobedience was not ours by imputation but we rather were actours therein by an implicite act sinning in Adam To say nothing that the whole stream of Interpreters judge otherwise Let it be granted that we were actours in Adams sinne being in his loins Why not also actours in Christs obedience being one mystically with him by bond of the spirit 2. It is no more absurd that we should be righteous by imputation of Christs Righteousness then that Christ should be a sinner by imputation of our sins but Christ was a sinner by imputation of our sins Inst Not a sinner but a sacrifice for sinne Answ The exposition is ancient but 1. The Antithesis bears it not and 2. How could God punish him in that extremity had he not taken upon him our sins 3. For to Papists methinks of all men Imputation should be no such ridiculous matter sith they are of opinion the overplus of some Saints righteousness may be applyed to others by indulgence to make up the defects of their obedience How I wonder except by imputation 4. Quid quod Their Bellarmine plainly confesseth Bellarm. de Amiss grat stat peccat lib. 4. c. 10. Bernard ser 1. de Dom. 1. post octavas Epiphaniae that Adams sin is imputed to all his posteritie so as if they had all committed the same and alledgeth to this purpose the testimonies of Augustine and Bernard Nostra est inquit Bernardus Adami culpa quia etsi in alio nos tamen peccavimus nobis justo Dei judicio imputabatur licèt occulto And why so absurd sith Adams sin is in this manner ours Christs righteousness should also in like sort become Ours that as the same Bernard speaks aliena lavet aqua quos culpa inquinaverat aliena And so wash as the other had defiled Against it these reasons are brought First that it hath no testimonie either in Scriptures or Fathers to avow it Answ What none neither expressed nor implyed we have above shewed that the Scripture testifieth as well what it implyeth as what it expresseth how say we now to this Scripture in hand God imputeth righteousness without works whose our own that stands in works Phil. 3.9 Anothers therefore and whose else I wonder except Christs who alone is mentioned to be the procurer of our righteousness Hear S. Bernard Domine Bern. ser in Cant. 61. memorabor justitiae tuae solius Ipsa est enim mea nempe factus es mihi Tujustitia à Deo nunquid mihi verendum ne non una ambobus sufficiat non est pallium breve quod secundum Prophetam non possit operire duos Justitia tua justitia in aeternum quid longius aeternitate te pariter me operiet largiter larga aeterna justitia Object 2. No necessitie of such imputation of Christs righteousness Answ Yes That we may be found at that great day having such perfection of righteousness as for which we may be accepted and pronounced righteous See Phil. 3.9 Inst But our inherent righteousness is perfect for faith hope charity c. are perfect Answ Hear Bernard Are we better then our Fathers They said with as much truth as humility All our righteousnesses are like the clothes of a menstruous woman Isa 64.6 and again Quomodo pura justitia ubi non potest culpa deesse Augustine August epist 29. ad Hieron Charitas in aliis major in aliis minor in aliis nulla plenissima verò quae jam non potest augeri quamdiu hic homo vivit in nemine est quamdiu autem augeri potest profecto illud quod minus est quàm debet Bern. in Cant. ser 174. ex vitio est And again Charitatis effectualis initium quidem profectúmque vitam quoque praesentem experiri divinâ posse gratiâ non negamus sed plane consummationem defendimus futurae felicitati And if any shall ask why it is commanded when it cannot be fulfilled Bernard answers Judicavit utilius ex hoc ipso suae illos insufficiontiae admoneri ut scirent sane ad quem justitiae finem

all the posterity of Adam That mass let us conceive to admit this distinction part of it is meerly naturall such only as it is derived from Adam part sanctified and purged in a measure by the Holy Ghost For that meerly naturall it is confessed by adversaries it is so meerly rebellious against the law that the more it is restrained the more it rebells things prohibited therefore the more affected because prohibited confer Rom. 7. 8. The main question is touching those of Adams posterity that are by grace renewed whether in these also the law puts a necessity of transgressing Now howsoever we acknowledg that grace so far prevails against nature that there is something in every man regenerate so far from fretting against the law that it findes a kinde of complacentia and delight in the laws prescripts Rom. 7.22 Yet 1. Neither are we so wholly purged by grace but that there still remains in us part of that carnall wisdome that is not nor can be subject to the law Rom. 8.7 There still is a law in the members rebelling against the law of the minde Rom. 7.23 And 2. Though it were granted we are wholly freed from enmity to the law yet are we not wholly delivered from frailty in obedience in which last respect at least sinning even in men regenerate is occasioned by the law inevitably in respect of the event Let us yield then ex abuntdnti that transgression is not in Gods Children caused ex fremitu yet I hope it is occasioned ex infirmitate by frailty And though Gods Children sin not out of fury yet sin they out of impotency Besides the texts now alledged compare we the perfection of the righteousness which the law requires with the perfection of that holiness grace worketh and we shall not chuse but acknowledg that howsoever out of another principall yet sin is by the law occasioned infallably in the Children of God so long as they live here in the spirituall warfare see Rom. 7. For clearing of this point sith thereon turns the whole controversie It shall not be amiss to handle that controversie Whether the righteousness performed in the law to justification fall within compass of our power to perform so long as we live in this world Or whether all transgression of the law may be by any strength of grace here attained avoided In this question the opinions are three First That of Pelagians condemned long since to the pit of hell The law they say is possible to nature If a man would strive with his naturall abilities to the utmost he might perfectly fulfill the law without any assistance of grace supernaturall And the only reason why men fail in legall obedience is because they want will Touching this though I refer the Reader to what was long ago written pithylie and truly by S. Augustine Hierome and others only remember we what Paul that had more then nature professeth of himself To will is present but I finde not power to perform Rom. 7.18 He failed in obedience not for that he wanted will but because he lacked strength And least any should think it was his personall weakness he shewes the same impotency to be in all Gods Children even after regeneration Gal. 5.17 S. Augustine S. August de peccat merit Remiss lib. 2. cap. 17. ex abundanti yields to Pelagius that we may keep the law si volumus but the Hypothesis saith he is impossible We cannot will to make good the obedience of the law His reasons are because impediments unavoidable the will hath alwayes clogging it in this life 1. Ignorance 2. Infirmity And sometimes our wills are not moved to do what the law prescribes quia latet quod justum est sometimes quia minus delectat From both these who can say he is or can be free during state of this life Second opinion is that of Papists The Law is possible yea easie though not to Nature yet to Grace and anathama to him that shall say the Commandments of God are impossible to a man in state of Grace The judgement of our Churches stands thus obedience to the Law is thus distinguished there is an inchoate obedience standing 1. In love of the Law 2. Desire 3. Purpose 4. Endeavour to obey 5. Some measure of actuall performance 6. Grief for imperfections this is possible to every regenerate child of God There is also perfect and complete obedience which answers exactly to the rigour of the Law for matter manner measure of performance of this is the question and hereof teach we that by no measure of grace here given it can possibly be attained See we therefore the terms 1. What that obedience is which the Law requires 2. What measure of grace it is that God in this life gives to his children The justice of the law in Bernards terms must thus be qualified 1. It must be Recta according to rule so that all that is prescribed and onely what is prescribed must be done 2. It must be Pura free from blemish in manner and measure of performance 3. Firma steady for continuance without any the least intermission and interruption And this explanation hath ground Gal. 3.10 Where the law curseth to hell every man that continues not in all things written in the book of the law to do them In Hieroms term somewhat unusuall but significant the law requires to righteousness Impeccantiam that is Freedome from all sinne not onely that which he calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Enormity but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Infirmity and that explanation hath ground Rom. 6.23 because the wages of every sinne more or less is death According to the Apostles explication The righteousness of the law must be 1. Universall Gal. 3.10 so that no duty nor branch of duty in any Commandment may be omitted No sinne nor degree of sin against any precept may be incurred 2. As the law is spirituall Rom. 7.14 so prescribes it spirituall obedience not onely binding the outward man to good behaviour but reaching to the very thoughts and affections and ordering them so that though it were possible for a man to omit no outward act of duty enjoyned to incurre no outward act of sin forbidden yet evil purposes desires yea thoughts of evil approved yea if they arise from that inward principle Concupiscence unapproved disable us from being justified by the Law For the tenour thereof runs thus Love the Lord with all thy soul with all thy thought c. This measure of obedience we teach S. August de peccat merit Remiss l. 2. c. 6. c. not onely as Augustine that it never yet fell into any man in this life nor in likelihood shall be attained but that it is impossible to be reached unto That that term offend not know we that though all things are possible unto God nothing hard unto Him yet that infinite and boundless power of God admits a double limit 1. His nature hence said the