the Gospell bee all vpon condition of obedience but none vpon condition of perobedience T is an iniury done vnto vs whē they say we teach that Euangelicall promises be absolute and without condition as if God did promise and giue all vnto vs and wee doe nothing for it on our parts We defend no such dotage The promises of the Gospell be conditionall viz. Namely vpon condition of repentance and amendment of life That we study to our power to obey God in all things but this is such a condition as requires of sincerity and faithfulnesse of endeauour not perfection of obedience in the full performance of euery jot and Tittle of the Law Vnto the last Argument from the tenour of the New Couenant viz. That we must beleeue if we will be saued ergo the promise of the Gospell is with condition of fulfilling the Law This is an Argument might make the Cardinals cheeke as red as his Cap were there any shame in him Faith indeed is a worke and this worke is required as a condition of the promise but to doe this worke To beleeue though it be to obey Gods Commandement yet it is not perfectly to fulfill the whole Law but perfectly to trust in him who brings mercy and pardon for transgressions of the Law CHAP. II. Of Bellarmines erroneous distinction of the word Gospell SO much of the first member of the Iesuits distinction wherin his sophisticall fraud appeares taking the Gospel for the whole doctrine of the New Testament published by Christ and his Apostles and ergo confounding the Law Gospell as one because he findes the Law as well as the Gospell deliuered vnto vs by our Sauiour and his Ministers I proceed to the second branch of it The Gospell saith he is taken for the grace of the holy Ghost giuen vs in the New Testament whereby men are made able to keepe the Law T is so taken But where is it so taken The Iesuit cannot tell you that Vt verum fatear saith he nomen Evangelij non videtur in Scripturis uspiam accipi nisi pro doctrind No good reason for it in as much as t is euident to all me that there is great difference betweene the doctrine of Mans saluation by the Mercy of God through the Merits of Christ which is properly the Gospell and the graces of the Holy Ghost bestowed on man in his Regeneration whereby he is made able in some measure to doe that which is good But the fault is not so much in the name in calling the grace of God in vs by the name of Gospell as in the mis-interpretation of the matter it selfe Wherein two errours are committed by the Iesuite 1 In that he maketh the grace of the New Testament to be such strength giuen to man that thereby he may fulfill the Law 2 In that he saith The Law was giuen without grace to keepe it In both which assertions their is ambiguity and Error For the first We grant that grace to doe any thing that is good is giuen by the Gospell not by the Law The Law commands but it giues no strength to Obey because it persupposeth that he to whome the command is giuen hath or ought to haue already in himselfe strength to Obey it And Ergo we confesse it freely that we Receaue th◠Spirit not by the workes of the Law but by the hearing of Faith preached as it is Gal. 3. 2. The Donation of the Spirit in any measure whatsoeuer of his sanctifying graces is from Christ as a Sauiour not as a Lawgiuer Thus when we agree That all Graces to doe well is giuen vnto vs by the Gospell but next we differ They teach that the Gospell gies such grace vnto man that he may fulfill what the Law commands and so be Iustified by it we deny it and say that Grace is giuen by the Gospell to obey the Law sincerely without hyppocricy but not to fulfill it perfectly without infirmities In which point the Iesuite failes in his proofes which he brings 1 Out of those places where contrary Attributes are ascribed to the Law and Gospell Vnto the Law That it is the ministry of death and Condemnation Killing Letter that it workes wrath that it is a Yoake of Bondage a Testament bringing forth Childeren vnto Bondage But vnto the Gospell that it is The ministry of Life and of Reconciliation the Spirit that quickeneth the Testament that bringeth forth Childeren to Liberty which opposition Bellarmine will haue to bee because The Law giues precepts without affording strength to keepe them but the Gospell giues grace to doe what is Commanded But the Iesuite is here mistaken These opposite attributes giuen to the Law are ascribed to it in a twofold respect 1 Inregard of of the punishment which the Law threatens to offenders viz. Death In which regard principally the Law is said to be the ministry of Death to worke wrath to be not a dead but a Killing Letter in asmuch as being broken it leaues no hope to the Transgresser but a fearefull expectation of eternall Death and condemnation of the Law vnder the Terrors whereof it holds them in bondage But on the Contrary the Gospell is the ministery of Life of reconciliation of the quickening spirit and of Liberty because it reueales vnto vs Christ in whom we are restored to Life from the deserued Death and condemnation of the Law vnto Gods fauour being deliuered from the wrath to come vnto liberty being freed from slauish feare of Punishment This is the cheefe Reason of this opposition of Attributes Secondly the next is in regard of Obedience In which respect the ministry of the Law is said to be the Ministery of the Letter written in tabels of stone but that of the Gospell is called the ministery of the Spirit which writes the Law in the fleshly tables of the heart Because the Law bearely commands but Ministers not power to obey so is but as a dead Letter without the Vertue of the Spirit But in the Gospell grace is giuen from Christ who by the Holy Ghost sanctifieth the heart of his Elect that they may liue to Righteousnesse in a sincere thought not euery way exact conformity to the Law of God The like answere we giue vnto another proofe of his 2 Out of that place Iohn 1. 17. The Law came by Moses but Grace and truth by Iesus Christ. that is saith Bellarmine The Law came by Moses without grace to fulfill it but grace to keepe it by Christ. We answere The true interpretation of these words is this Moses deliuered a twofold Law morall and ceremoniall Opposite to these Christ hath brought a twofold priuiledge Grace for the morall Law whereby we vnderstand not only power giuen to the regenerate in part to obserue this Law which strength could not come by the Law it selfe but also much more Remission of sinnes committed against the Law and so our Iustification and freedome
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
ergo if God had giuen such a Law to the Iewes as could haue brought Saluation to them through the perfect fulfilling of it 't is apparant that God had made voide his former Couenant vnto Abraham because Righteousnes should haue bin by the Law and not by Christ. But now God gaue no such Law as could be kept by the Iewes as the Apostle proues because all were sinners against it and therefore it followes that notwithstanding the giuing of the Law the Promise standes good for euer and Righteousnes is to be odtained onely by the Faith of Iesus Christ. From hence we conclude firmely That the difference betweene the Law and the Gospell assigned by our Diuines is most certaine and agreable to the Scriptures viz. That The Law giues Life vnto the Iust vpon Conâ—ition of perfect Obedience in all things The Gospell giues Life vnto Sinners vpon Condition they repent and beleiue in Christ Iesus Whence it is plaine That in the point of Iustification these two are incompatible and that therefore our minor Proposition standes verified That Iustification by the workes of the Law makes voide the Couenant of Grace Which Proposition is the same with the Apostles assertion else-where Gal. 2. 21. If Righteousne be by the Law Christ died in vaine and Gal. 5. 4. Ye are abolished from Christ whosoeuer are iustified by the Law yee are fallen from Grace By somuch more iuiurious are these of the Romish Church vnto the Gospell of Christ when by denying this difference they would confound the Law and Gospell and bring vs backe from Christ to Moses to seeke for our Iustification in the fulfilling of the Morall Law They would persuade vs that the Gospell is nothing but a more perfect Law or the Law perfected by addition of the Spirit enabling men to fulfill it That the promises of the Gospell be vpon this Condition of fulfilling the Law with such like stuffe Their Doctrine touching this point is declared vnto vs by Bellarmine Lib 4. de Iustificat cap. 3. 4. Where he comes many distinctions betweene the Law and Gospell but will by no meanes admit of that which our Reformed Diuines make to be the chiefe The cheife distinction which he conceaues to be betweene them he frameth thus The Gospell saieth he is taken in a double sense 1. For the Doctrine of Christ and his Apostles by them preached and written 2. For the Grace of the Holy Ghost giuen iu the New Testament which he makes to be the Law written in our Hearts the quickening Spirit the Law of Faith Charity shed abroad in our Hearts in opposition to the Law written in stone to the dead and killing Letter the Law of Workes the Spirit of bondage and feare Vpon this he proceeds to the difference betweene the Law and the Gospell Thus. The Law teacheth vs what is to be done the Gospell if it be taken for the Grace of the holy Ghost so it differs from the Law because it gaines strength to doe it but if it be taken for the Doctrine deliuered by Christ and his Apostles so it agrees with the Law teaching vs as the Law doth what things are to be done This Argument the Iesuite illustrates and proues in three particulars 1. The Gospell containes Doctrinam operum or Leges For Morall praecepts they be the same in the Gospell that be in the Law euen those praecepts that seeme most Euangelicall viz of louing our Enemies witnes of this all the writings of the New Testament wherein euery where we find praecepts exhortations to the same virtues Prohibitions and dehortations from the same vices which the Law forbids or commands So that for Morals the Doctrine of the Gospell is but the Doctrine of the Law newly that is most cleerely and fully expounded Nor is the Gospell in a more perfect substance but in Circumstance a more perspicuous Doctrine Which though a Trueth yet is very ridiculouslie proued by the Cardinall out of Mat. 5. Nisi abundauerit c. Vnlesse your Righteousnes exceed What He saieth not the righteousnes of the Law and Prophets but of the Scribes and Pharisees yee shall not enter c. A profound Glosse Christ would not add to the Burden of the Law but take away from the false glosse of the Scribes and Pharisees Surely good cause had our Sauiour to taxe both the Doctrine of the Pharisees in interpreting and their manners in their hypocriticall practice of the Law in outward matters without inward Obedience But litle Reason was there that Christ should require of man more perfection then Gods Law required and 't is a fancie to dreame of any such meaning in our Sauiours speach 2 The Gospell containes Comminations and threatnings as the Law doth Witnes the many woes from Christ's owne mouth against the Scribes and Pharisees together with those frequent denunciations of Iudgement and Damnation to such as are vngodly that doe not repent and obey the Gospell 3 Thirdly the Gospell containes promises of Life and happines but these Euangelicall promises be not absolute but vpon the same Condition that the Legall are viz Cum conditione implendae Legis Cum conditione Iustitiae actualis operosae quae in perfecta Mandatorum obseruatione consistit Cap. 2. This the Iesuite would proue vnto vs. 1. From that Math. 5. Vnlesse your Righteousnes aboud c. that is in Bellarmines Construction so far as vnto the perfect keeping of the Law you shall not enter into the Kingdome of Heauen 2. From Mat. 19. 17. Mat. 10. 19. Where Christ speakes to the yong man Asking him what he should doe to be saued If thou wilt enter into Life keepe the Commandements And to the Lawyer 10. 28. who asked the like Question he answeres This doe and thou shalt liue That is Fulfill the Law and thou shalt be saued In which wordes they say That Christ did preach the Gospell and shewed vnto these men the very Evangelical way to Saluation 3. From the many places of Scripture Wherein Mortificatiâ—n of Sinne and the studious practice of Holines and Obedience is required of vs. As. Rom. 8. If yee mortifie the deed 's of the flesh by the Spirit yee shall liue So. Ezekiel 18. 21. If the wicked will returne from all his Sinnes that he hath committed and keepe all my statutes and doe that which is lawfull and Right he shall surely liue and not die With a Number such like places 4. From the very Tenor of the Gospell He that belieueth shall be saued but he that belieueth not shall be damned Where we see the Promise of Life is not absolute but conditionall If we doe such and such workes From hence the Romanist concludes That seeing the precepts threatnings and promises of the Gospell be for matter the same that those of the Law are the true difference betweene the Law and Gospell shall be this That the Law nakedly proposeth what is to be done without giuing grace to performe it but the
a sure obligation vnto punishment binding ouer the transgressor vnto the paines of God's aeternall wrath by a stroÌ„ger chaine then of Steele or Adamant Christ by his meritorious satisfaction hath broken these bonds and ransomed vs from this fearefull Bondage vnto Hell and destruction He being made a Curse for vs hath redeemed vs from the Curse of the Law Gal. 3. 13. That is By taking on himselfe the punishment of our Sinnes in his owne person suffering and satisfying the wrath and Iustice of God he hath once for euer set vs free from the dreadfull vengeance of God which we deserue should fall vpon vs for our Iniquities 2 In our deliuerance from the Power of Sinne which though it abide in vs in the Reliques of our corrupted Nature yet by the power of the Holy Ghost dwelling in the Hearts of the Regenerate it is subdued and kept vnder that it doth not reigne nor exercise it's commanding authority without Controle So that whereas the Vnregenerate be the Seruants of Sinne wholly at the command of Satan and wicked affections the Regenerate are freed from this slauery being ruled and guided by the Spirit of the Lord which wheresoeuer it is there is liberty as the Apostle speakes 2 Cor. 3. 17. Liberty from that blindnes wherein we are holden by Nature not knowing what the will of God is Liberty from that rebellion and infirmity of our Nature whereby we are nor willing nor able to doe the will of God From which we are freed in part by the Spirit of Christ inlightning our Mindes and changing our Hearts This Liberty from Sinnes dominion and damnation S. Paul joynes together Rom. 8. 2. The Law of the Spirit of Life which is in Christ Iesus hath freed me from the Law of Sinne and of Death And againe Rom. 6. 14. Sinne shall not haue Dominion ouer you for ye are not vnder the Law but vnder Grace 2 Our freedome from the Law is eithr from the Ceremoniall or Moral law The Ceremoniall Law contained in it diuerse Carnall Ordinances 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to endure vntill the time of reformation From all which Christ hath freed the Church of the New Testament as namely 1. From the whole burthen of Legall ceremonies whatsoeuer vsed in the worship of God Those resemblances are of no vse now when the substance it selfe is come in place nor may such beggarly and impotent rudiments be sought after when greater perfection is to be had Gal. 4. 9. 2. From that restraint in things indifferent whereunto the Iewes were tied but we are not bound Such are the obseruations of dayes of Meates and Drinkes of Garments with the like Wherein the Iewes were restâ—ayned but our consciences are left free being taught that euery Creature of God is good being sanctified by Prayer and thankesgiuing 1. Tim. 4. 4. 5. And that to the pure all things are pure Onely this being obserued that we abuse not this our Liberty but that as we are informed by Faith that all things are lawfull for vs so we should be taught by charity to see what are expedient in regard of others That a due regard be had of others infirmity that nothing be done whereby the truly weake may be scandalized as the Apostle commands Rom 14. 21. By which â—eanes Knowledge on the one side still preserues vs that our consciences be not iâ—snared with superstition and charity on the other side shall keepe our Liberty from degenerating into Licentiousnesse and vnchristian contempt of our weake Brethren 2 Our freedome from the Morall law stands in this that whereas the Law requires of euery Man vpon strictest termes of Necessity full and compleate Obedience to all things whatsoeuer contained in it if he will auoide the punishment of Hell fire Christ hath freed all that belieue in him from this heavy and rigorous exaction of the Law taking away from our Consciences this obligation vnto a necessary fulfilling thereof vpon paine that we shall forfeit Heauen if we doe it not As we shall see more anon 3 In the last place our Freedome is from Men namely from all power and authority they may claime ouer our consciences they may hold our persons in subjection but they cannot command ouer our consciences We acknowledge no Iurisdiction of Man or Angel ouer our Consciences but only that of God that created vs and of Christ that hath redeemed vs. Whosoeuer ergo shall impose vpon Man any humane Traditions Opinions or Ordinations whatsoeuer to tye his conscience vnto obedience by vertue of his own authority such a one trenches vpon Gods high Praerogatiue vsurpes tyrannically ouer the soules of Men according as at this day that Man of Sinne doth But here we must obserue that Humane Constitutions be either Ecclesiasticall or Politicall Ecclesiasticall concerne either the matter and substance of God's worship when any thing is invented by Man commanded wherein and whereby to worship God 2 The Manner and externall order of God's worship in the determination of indifferent circumstances tending to decencie and comelinesse For the former we renounce and reiect all humane authority whatsoeuer that shall without warrant from the Scriptures prescribe vnto the Church any doctrine to be receiued as a diuine Trueth or Custome Ceremony or Practise whatsoeuer to be obserued as a proper part of God's most holy worship According as our reformed Churches haue happily recouered their Liberty by breaking asunder those cordes casting away that Yoake of false doctrine of Superstitions â—â—râ—moniall will-worships wherewith not Christ but Anti-Christ had insnared and oppressed the Church And they haue God's owne warrant for so doing Isay. 29. 13. ratified and explained by Christ Mat. 15 9. In vaine they worship me teaching for doctrine Mens precepts which was a thing contrary to God's expresse commandement Ezech. 20. 18. â—â— Walke yee not in the ordinances of your Fathers neither obserue their manners nor defile your selues with their Idoles I am the Lord your God walke in my Statutes and keepe my Iudgements and doe them For the later namely humane Constitutions concerning indifferent Circumstances in God's worship tending to orderly decency agreeable to the simplicity and purity of the Gospell herein wee must acknowledge the authority of the Church though not ouer our Consciences to binde them yet ouer our practises to order limit them Accordingly as also we doe in the other branch of humane Obediences viz. Politicall or ciuill comprising all Law touching lawfull things made for the gouernance of Kingdomes or inferior states by the supreame Magistrate that hath authority so to doe Wherevnto we must be subject not because of wrath onely but also for conscience sake For Conscience sake not because the highest Monarch on Earth hath power ouer the Conscience of his meanest subject to binde it by vertue of his owne authority but because God hath established the Magistrates authority and commanded subjects Obedience in lawfull things and therefore we cannot disobey
are not able to bridle these vnrulie motions wherefore when Bell. saieth That the Law is giuen to the reasonable will not to the sensiue appetite it is vtterly false Because in Man it is probable of gouernment and so subject to the Law Our Reason hath euen in this our corrupted estate a ciuill command ouer our appetite and affections so that it can moderate them by faire persuasions now and then That which it can doe sometimes it ought to doe alwaies and if any affections can obey Reason at sometimes were they not infected with Sinne they would doe it at all times And if they doe well when they obey certainly they doe euill when they disobey And ergo such motions of them as are repugnant to right reason are nothing but rebellion against God's Law As to the place in the 7. Rom. we answere That that Interpretation of it which Bell. brings is most peruerse and against all Sense The Apostle complaines that he did the Euill which he would not no doubt in so doeing he did sinne But what is it now which committed this guilt or sinne It is not I that doe it saieth the Apostle but that sinne that dwelleth in me That is according to Bell not I in my mind or superior faculties of Reason and Will but my inferior Appetite and affections which doe this euill against my consent So the meaning shal be Concupiscence in that duell in the Apostle committed Sinne but the Apostle himselfe committed it not Which is very absurd As if a cholericke-Man hauing done a mischiefe in his anger should saâ—e It were not he did it but his raging passion or an adulterer that 't was not he committed the Sinne but his sinfull Affection that carried him further then reason would So that if God will punish such a sinne he must not punish him but onely his sensitiue appetite which was in fault This is ridiculous for besides that it crosseth the Romanists Doctrine manifestly in teaching that such disorderly motions of the sensitiue appetite be no sinnes which heere the Apostle contradicts saying plainly that the Sinne which dwelt in him did doe the euill he would not viz Sinne it draweth after it this grosse Error That some faecultie in man may sin and yet the man not sinne himselfe Wherefore the Apostle in that speach 'T is not I doe it but sinne in me doth not oppose one facultie against the other the reasonable will against the sensitiue appetite seeking for a shift to excuse his sinne by putting it off from himselfe to that which was not capable of Sinne but he opposeth grace in euery facultie to Corruption in the same facultie as two contrarie Principles and causes of his actions one mouing to good the other enclining to bad Thence the Apostle saieth that when he doth euill 't is not I that doe it i. e I regenerate according to the Grace that dwelleth in me for that inclines me to doe good but 't is the Sinne dwelling in me which when I would doe well inclines me to doe euill He heere shewes the Roote whence this Euill comes but yet he doth not put off the fault from himselfe As 't is himselfe doth well so 't is himselfâ— doth ill too according as he concludes vers 25. Then I my selfe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doe both well and ill well according to Grace in my mind that is regenerate part both of inferior and superior facultie I serue the Law of God but ill according to corruption remaining in me but in my flesh vnregenerate part the Law of Sinne. Much more might be added but 't is not my purpose heere to enter vpon the common place at large I proceed to the second quaestion of our Aduersaries who teach that albeit our Loue of God be imperfect yet this imperfection is not sinne in vs. They grant That no man hath any grace of the spirit but he may encrease in it daily that the Loue of God and our Neighbours may still grow on to farther degrees of affection That no grace nor good worke hath that full perfection which it might haue in this Life or which we shall attaine vnto in Heauen But they deny this defect to be any fault or sinne 2. Defectus Charitatis quod viz non faciamus opera nostra tanto feruore dilectionis quanto faciemus in patriâ defectus quidemest sed culpa peccatum non est saieth Bell. and againe Charitas nostra quamuis comparata ad Charitatem beatorum sit imperfecta tamen absolute perfecta dici potest This is an Error against which we defend this Conclusion in generall touching both Charity and all man Righteousnes The defects or want of Perfection in Mans Righteousnes is Sinne. For the proofe of this point we are to obserue that the Imperfection or Perfection of any thing is to be considered of two waies 1 Comparatiuely When any thing set by another is more or lesse perfect then that other 2 Absolutely When considered in it selfe it hath or wantes that Perfection which it should haue by its proper Nature Betweene these there is great difference For Comparatiue imperfection is not euill absolute imperfection is Euill We may see it in an example The Senses that are in Man being compared with their like in other creatures 't is manifest they are much excelled by them as by an Eagle for sight a spider for touch c. Heere we say that the eie of a man is not perfect as the eie of an Eagle but yet we doe not account this imperfection any Naturall euill of the eie of a man God might haue giuen a stronger and a clearer sight to men but we blame not his workes nor count our sight imperfect because it hath not that singular Temper which is in other Creatures but because it wants at any time that temper which is agreeable to our nature Such a defect only is properly an Euill in Nature when something is wanting to the perfection of any part which by the Course of nature should be there Thus 't is also in Grace Compare we the Righteousnes of man or Angels with the Righteousnes of God we saie that God's is infinitely more perfect then the Creatures But now is this imperfection in Humane or Angelicall righteousnes any Euill and Sinne in them We saie No. Neither are the Angels sinfull because lesse righteous then God nor Adam sinfull because lesse righteous then either God made them both lesse good then himselfe yet very good and without all Sinne. There be degrees of Righteousnes and though the Creature be infinitely below the heighest pitch of goodnes which is God yet he may bee still aboue that lowest descent vnto Sinne and vnrighteousnes In Phylosophie we dispute whether the slackening of any degree in one Quality be the mingling of another that is contrary As heat in eight degrees if it decrease vnto seuen whether there is any degree of cold mingled with it 'T is heard to