Vindiciae fidei, or A treatise of iustification by faith wherein that point is fully cleared, and vindicated from the cauils of it's aduersaries. Deliuered in certaine lectures at Magdalen Hall in Oxford, by William Pemble, Master of Arts of the same house: and now published since his death for the publique benefit.

CHAP. I▪

Of the righteousnesse whereby a man is iustified be∣fore God: that it is not his own inherent in him∣selfe: that in this life no 〈◊〉〈◊〉 hath per∣fection of holinesse inherent in him.

I Proceede vnto the second Generall,* 1.1 of the Mat∣ter of our Iustification where we are to enquire what Righteousnesse it is, for which a Sinner is Iustified in Gods sight. Iustificat••on and Iustice a••e still coupled together; and some Righteousnesse there must be, for which God pronounceth a Man Righteous: and for the sake whereof he for Gi••eth vnto him all his Sinnes. No•• is a Sinner iust before God because Iustified: bu•• hee is therfore Iustified because he is some way or other Iust.—The Righteousnesse for which a Man can be Iustified before God is of necessity one of these two.* 1.2

1 Eyther inherent in his owne Person and done by [ 1] himselfe.

2 Or inherent in the Person of Christ: but imputed [ 2] vnto him.

A Man is Iustified either by something in him and per∣formed by him: or by some thing in another performed for him. The wisedome of Angels and Men hath not bin able to shew vnto vs any third Meanes. For whereas it is affir∣med by some that God might haue reconciled Mankind vn∣to himselfe by a free and absolute parden of their Sins with∣out the interuention of any such Righteousnesse, eithe•• in

themselues or in Christ whereby to procure it: to that we say That God hath seene it good in this matter rather to follow his owne most wise Counsailes; then these Mens foolish Directions. Tis to no purpose now to dispute what God might haue done, whether God by his absolute omni∣potency could not haue freed Men froma 1.3 Hell, by some other Meanes without taking satisfaction for Sinne from Christ: whether God ought not to haue the same priuiledge which we giue vnto any mortale King, freely to pardon a Rebell, and receaue him to fauour, without consideration of any goodnesse in him or satisfaction made by him, or ano•• for him? Or, whether Sinne doe make such a deepe wound in Gods Iustice and Honour, that he cannot with the safe∣gard of either passe by it without amendes. Such question▪ as these are vaine and curious prosecuted by idle and vn∣thinkfull▪ Men, who not acknowledging the Riches of Gods 〈…〉〈…〉 and grace in that course of their Redempti∣on which god hath followed; would accuse God of Indis∣cretion, for making much adoe about nothing, & teach him to haue go••e a more compendious way to worke, then by sending his owne sonne to 〈◊〉〈◊〉 for vs. 〈…〉〈…〉 stand what God hath not tell him what he might or should haue done.* 1.4 According to which course of his now reuealed will we know that God hath declared his euerlasting hatred against Sinne▪ as that thing which most directly and imme∣diately opposeth the Holynesse of his Nature, and the Iustice of his Commandments. We know that for this hatred which God beareth to Sin, no sinfull creature can be able to stand in 〈…〉〈…〉 And therefore before reconciliation it was needefull, Satisfaction should be made where offence had bin giuen. Which seeing man could not effect by himselfe▪ God thought it good to prouide a Mediator, who should in make

peace betweene both. So that what euer may be imagined of possibility of other meanes to bring man to Life: yet now wee know that sicioportuit, Thus Christ ought to suf∣fer, Luc. 24. 26. and that it (Behoued him to be like vs that being a Faithfull high Priest, he might make Reconciliation for our Sines.) Heb. 2. 17. Leauing then this new way to Hea∣uen neuer frequented, but by Imagination; let vs follow the old wayes of Iustification that the Scriptures haue discouered vnto vs: which are two and no more. Either by our owne Righteousnesse and workes: or by the Righteousnesse & workes of another (viz) Christ. The former is that way whereby Man might haue obtayned Iustification and life, had hee not bin a Sinner. But now, Man, that is a Sinner, cannot be Iustified and saued: but onely in the later way (viz.) by the Righteousnesse of Christ the Mediator.

This Duine trueth is of most infallible certainty and so∣ueraigne consolation vnto the conscience of a Sinner: as shall appeare in the processe of our Discourse wherin we shall first remoue [our owne Righteousnesse: that so in the second place we may [establish the Righteousnesse of Christ] as the onely Matter of our Iustification in Gods sight.

By our owne Righteousnesse we vnderstand as the A∣postle doth Rom. 10▪ [The Righteousnesse of the Law or of workes] which is twofold.

1. The fulfilling of the Law whether by the [Habituall [ 1] Holynesse of the Heart: or by the [Actuall Iustice] of good workes proceeding thence For the Law requires both, That the P••rson be Holy▪ endued with all inward qualities of [Purity and Iustice] and that the workes be Holy being performed for Matter and all the Circumstances, according to the Commandment.

2 The satisfying for the Breach of the Law. For he [ 2] that makes full satisfaction to the Law, which is broken, is afterward no debter to the Law: but to be accounted Iust and no Violater thereof: We must now enquire touching these two: whether a Man can be Iustified▪ by his owne O∣Obedience

to the Morall Law▪ Secondly, Whether he can be iustified by▪ his owne Satisfaction for Transgression of the Morrall Law. Concerning which two Quaeres: we lay downe these two Conclusions which are to be made good.

• [ 1] 1 No Man that is a Sinner is Iustified by▪ his owne Obedience to the Morrall Law.
• [ 2] 2 No Man is Iustified by his owne satisfaction for his Transgression.

For the former. It is the Conclusion of the Apostle Rom. 3. 20.* 1.5 Therefore by the workes of the Law shall no flesh be Iustified in his sight] which we proue by these Ar∣guments.

The first shall be that of the Apostle in the forenamed place which stands thus.* 1.6

Whosoeuer is a Transgressor of the Morall Law: he cannot be Iustifi••d by his Obedience thereto. But euery Man is a Transgressor of the Morall Law. ergo, No Man can be Iustified by his obe∣dience thereto.

The Maior is an vndeniable Principall in Reason. It being a thing Impossible that a party accused as an offender should be absolued and pronounced innocent by pleading O∣bedience to that Law which he hath plainely disobeyed. Wherefore the Apostle takes this Proposition for granted in these words of his [For by the law commeth the Knowledge of Sinne] v. 20. That which conuinceth vs to be sinners: by that tis impossible we should be declared to be righteous. that plea wilneuer quit vs; which proues vs guilty. Yea twere not onely folly, but madnesse to alledge that for ones iust ex∣cuse which it selfe is his very fault whereof hee is accused. The Maior then is certaine.

The minor is no lesse. (viz.) That euery man is a trans∣gressor of the Morall Law) If any Sonne of Adam will de∣ny this, his owne conscience will giue his tongue the Lie: and the Scriptures will double it vpon him. Which hauing con∣cluded

[a 1.7 all vnder Sinne] averre. Thatb 1.8 [If we (an A∣postle not excepted) say We haue no sinne we deceaue our sel••es and the truth is not in vs.] Yea (Ifc 1.9 we say we haue not sinned, we make God a her, and his word is not in vs] The conclusion then is vnfallable (That by the Obedience of the Morall Law, no Man shall be iustified (that is) quitted & pronounced innocent before Gods iudgment seate.] This Aposticall argu∣ment vtterly ouerthrowes the pride of Man in seeking for Iustification by the Law: and it is of so cleare euidence, that the Aduersaries of this Doctrine cannot tell how to avoide it. But, for asmuch as many exceptions are taken, and shifts sought out, for the further manifestation of the force hereof against gainsayers of the truth: it will be requisite to exa∣mine there euasions. Which we shall doe in the next argu∣ment. Which is this.

2 Whosoeuer hauing once broken the Law & can neuer after perfectly fullfill it:* 1.10 he cannot be Iustified by his obedience thereto.

But Man hauing once broken Gods Law can 〈◊〉〈◊〉 after that perfectly fullfill it. Ergo, Man cannot be Iustified by Obedience of the Law.

The Maior of this Argument is framed vpon another ground then the former & opposed vnto that erronious te∣nent of our Aduersaries. [That howsoeuer a man be a sinner against the Law, yet neurthelesse afterward be may be iustifi∣ed by his obedience of the Law. Because God for the time following▪ giues him grace perfectly to fulfill it.] Which opini∣on is directly contrary to the reason of the Apostle which is: [That once a sinner, and alwayes 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 punish∣ment 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 ••ere∣after

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 G••ds Law, can neuer after wards per∣fectly 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 Re∣generate Man, that afterwards he should Liue without all 〈◊〉〈◊〉, and be translated to Heauen without death) yet, ac∣cording 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 vn∣to 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] 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 in∣cline the Motions of both onely vnto that which is confor∣mable to the Righteousnesse of the Law. That such Righte∣ousnesse is required by the Law, is a plaine Case and confes∣sed; 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 com∣mands vs to doe good, bids vs also to be holy;* 1.11 nor can wee doe the one, vnlesse we doe the other. And therefore the A∣postle ioynes both together. [The end of the Commande∣ment is loue, (but where?) out of a pure heart.] 1 Tim. 1. 5.

[ 2] 2 Actuall, In the exercise of all good workes enioy∣ned by the Law, and forbearing the contrary euill workes. Whether these good or euill workes be inward in that spiri∣tuall 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 altoge∣ther employed vpon Piety and Charity, not so much as tou∣ching 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 Iu∣stice 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 [ 1] righteousnesse is onely perfect, which fulfils all and euery particular precept of the Law.
• 2 As it respects any one Commandement, or any one [ 2] dutie therein contained. And so we may call that righteous∣nesse 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 holi∣nesse [ 1] inherent.
• 2* 1.12 No man in this life can fully obserue all those good

• workes both inward and outward which the Law re∣quires.
• 3* 1.13No 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.

[ 1] For the first we proue it by this Argument▪

Where sinfull corruption remaines in part,* 1.14 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, tis 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 des∣cribes the Combat that is betweene the flesh and the spirit, (that is) betweene corruption and grace, in a man regene∣rate. [The flesh lusteth against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh: and these two are contrary one to the other, so that ye cann••t doe the same things that yee would.] Who can say that holinesse is perfect in that mā, in whō corruption of Nature, not onely troubleth, but hindreth grace in its holy operati∣on? 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 re∣bellion or distemper in his affections or desires, no disorder in any motion of his soule: but that all within him is sweet∣ly 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 no••e? He fights and wrestles, [against the Law in his mem∣bers,

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 bit∣terly 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 Ia 1.15 my selfe in my minde serue the law of God: but in my flesh the law of sinne.] Euen Paul serues God in the better halfe of him: doe what he can, sinne will haue a place in his heart, & a part of his ser∣uice, though he be vnwilling to yeeld it. If any will com∣pare and preferre himselfe to this holy man: he may prooue himselfe prouder, but better then him he cannot. Tis arro∣gance for a simple Fryer to claime perfection, when so great an Apostle disauowes it. He that will not acknowledge that corruption in himselfe, which Paul (in the name of all) confesseth in his owne person; tis not because such a one is more holy then the Apostle: but because he is ignorant, and sees it not; or high-minded and scornes to be knowne of it. Furthermore, Reason confirmes what Scriptures and expe∣rience doe witnesse; (viz.) that sinfull corruption will hang fast vpon vs vnto our dying day: for if we suppose an vtter abolishment of sinne and corruption in our Nature; it must needes follow, there will neuer be any sinfulnesse at all in our workes and liues. Where the Habit is perfect, the Action is so too: and a sweet Fountaine cannot send forth bitter waters. Wherefore seeing not the best of men can liue without manifold actuall sinnes: It it apparent, that this ill fruit comes from a bad humour, in the tree, and this de∣fect of actuall obedience, comes from the imperfection of ha∣bituall holinesse. This is sufficient for Iustification of the truth of our first Preposition [That inherent holinesse in this life, is not perfect;] Because tis alwayes coupled with some sin∣full corruption.

But here our Adversaries cry out with open mouth, that we maintaine moastrous propositions. Namelyb 1.16 That there is n•• inherent holinesse in a man thats iustified, that after Iu∣stification, a man still remaines a sianer and vniust. That in Iustification, sinne is not abolished, but onely couered with Christs mantle. Thence they fall to their Rhetoricke, That all Calvinists are but painted Sepulchers, faire without full of rottennesse within. Like foolish Virgins that haue no oyle of their owne: But thinke to be supplyed by that of other folkes. Like Wolues in a Lambes skinne, which hides, but takes not a∣way their rauening and fierce nature. Like a leprous person in fine cloathes; that lookes to be fauoured and imbraced by his King, because his is well apparelled. For this is (say they) to teach, That a Man iustified is yet a sinner in himselfe. That corruption, filthinesse, and vncleannesse remain in him, when yet in Gods sight he is accounted pure and cleane, because hee hath hid himselfe v••der the cloake of Christs righteousnesse. Whence also they tell vs it well follow, Wee make Christs body monstrous, a holy, beautifull head ioyned to filthy leprous members. Christs marriage polluted; A most holy and faire Bridegroome coupled to a foule deformed Spouse.

To this we say. Truth is modest; yet shee will not bee out-faced with bigge words. Their eloquence hath slande∣red; partly vs, partly the truth. Vs, in that they affirme we deny all inherent righteousnesse in a person iustified, which is an impudent calumny. The truth, in condemning that for an error which is sacred verity taught vs by God in the Scrip∣tures, (viz.) That a person iustified, is yet after that in him∣selfe in part sinfull. This we still teach and maintaine for a truth, firme as the foundation of the earth, that cannot bee shaken, namely, That although a Iustified person is by the grace of the Holy Ghost dwelling in him made inherently holy: yet this sanctity is not that perfect purity of the heart, which the Law requires, because some degrees of impurity and corrupti∣on doe dwell in him till death. And therefore the most iusti∣fied person liuing, is yet in himselfe partly sinfull and vniust;

but the sinfulnesse is pardoned vnto him in CHRIST.

Against this the R••manists contend, labouring to proue, that in him that is iustified. Sinne doth not remaine at all: but is vt••erly abol••shed. They proue it by such Arguments as these.

1 The Scriptures testifie, That Christ is thec 1.17 Lambe of [ 1] God, that taketh away the sinnes of the world. That Hee was d 1.18offered to take away the sinnes of many. That in Repentance, our sinnes aree 1.19 blotted out. That God will subdue our ini∣quities andf 1.20 cast our sinnes into the bottome of the Sea; in al∣lusion to the drowning of the Aegyptians in the red Sea. Wherefore if sinne be taken away, blotted out, drowned in the Sea, like the Aegyptians: then sure it is abolished, and remaines no longer.

• 2 They prooue it from the Properties which are ascri∣bed [ 2] to Sinne; as namely these.
• 1 Sinne is compared to spotts, staines and filthy∣nesse: but from thence we are washed by the pow∣ring on of (cleanea 1.21 water) vpon vs; and by the (Blood of Christ.)* 1.22
• 2 Sinne is compared to Bonds, Fetters, & the Prison, whereby we are holden captiue vnder the power of Satan: Now Christ hath broken these Chaines and opened these prison doores, hauing (deliue∣red usc 1.23 from the power of darknesse) and (redeemedd 1.24 us from all iniquity) & (made us freee 1.25 from Sinne to be come the seruants of Righteousnesse.)
• 3 Sinne is compared to sicknesses, diseases, & wounds. Now God is the best Phisition, the most skilfull Chirurgian: and where he vndertakes the Cure, he doth his worke throughly: he cures all diseases and each on perfectly. He doth not spread on a sick Man a faire Couerlid, or couer a festred wound with a faire cloth, as Caluin imagines: but by a purgatiue potion he expelles the disease, by a hea∣ling plaister he cures the wound. So that there is

• not left, nor corrupt matter, nor dangerous sore, that can proue deadly according to that Rom. 8. 1. (There is no condemnation to those that are in Christ Iesus.) that is. There is no matter at all for which they deserue Condemnation, as those expound.
• 4 Sinne is likned to death, nay it is the spirituall Death of the Soule. Now he that is iustified is restored to Spirituall Life, and where Life is there death is quite taken away, seing a Man cannot be aliue and dead both together. Wherefore the Apostle saith Rom. 6. 6. [Our old Man isf 1.26 crucified with him, that the Body of Sinne might beg 1.27 destroyed, that hence forth We might not serue Sinne) and v. 11. (We are dead vnto Sinne.)

Hence they conclude.

If the filthinesse of sinne be washed away, the Chaines of sinne broken, the Diseases and hurts of Sinne healed, the Death of Sinne abolished: then it followes, that Sinne is quite exstinguished, and remaines no more in those that are iustified.

[ 3] 3 They argue thus. If Sinne remaine in those that are iustified and be onely couered: then God either knowes of the sinne or knowes it not. To say he were ignorant of it were blasphemy (allh 1.28 things being naked and bare before his eyes.) If he know it, then either he hates it or he hats it not. If he doth not hate it how doth the Scriptures say true that he is a (God that hateth Iniquity.) If he do hate it thē certain∣ly he must punish it: God cannot see a fault and hate a fault but he must also punish it to. If he punish it, then he which is iustified shall yet be condemned which is absurd.

Vnto these Arguments we answere. Vnto the two former thus. When we say Sin remaines in a Man regenerate and Iu∣stified we must distinguish the ambiguity of the word Sin. In Sin, to vse that distinction which is authenticall with ou•• Aduersaries; There are three things.

• 1 The offence of God, which is the fault.
• ...

• 2 The obligation vnto eternall punishment, which is the guilt.
• 3 The staine or pollution of the soule, (viz) the in∣herent vitious inclination of it vnto euill. From whence the fault committed first issued, and which by committing of the fault is augmented. For euill once committed leaues a further pronnesse in the heart to doe it againe. This we call the corruption of Sinne.

Thus then we answer. Sin doth not remaine in those that are iustified, & regenerate in the two first respects, viz. of the fault and the guilt, both which are takē away by the death of Christ. But Sin doth remain in the regenerate according to the 3 respect, (viz.) the vitious quality and corruption there∣of, inherent in the soule: We shall explaine these answeres, and apply them to the Arguments. We say then; That the fault & guilt of sinne in the regenerate, is vtterly abolished by the death of Christ. Which we doe not take in such a sense as this. That in a man regenerate there is not at all any one fault or guilt to be found, for to say that a man regenerate, when he sinnes, were neither faulty nor guilty, were a grosse vntruth, •• seeing tis impossible that man should sinne, yet God not be offended; that man should sinne, and yet not be guilty, and deseruing eternall death. Wherefore we con∣fesse that in the holiest of men, if they sinne, there's a true fault, and God is displeased with it; there is also true guilt, and for it they deserue to goe to Hell. But yet this truth al∣so must be acknowledged withall, that all faultinesse and guiltinesse are quite abolished and taken away from them by Christ, because that both are pardoned vnto them. God is offended; but yet they feele not the wofull effects of his indignation: because in Christ hee is graciously contented to be reconciled with them. Againe they haue deserued euerlasting death: but they come not to the paines thereof, because freed from the punishment by Christs satisfaction. Thus then we vnderstand the first part of the answere. That

the fault and guilt of sinne is vtterly abolished, that is, total∣ly pardoned vnto the Regenerate, by meanes of Christ, so that no finall eternall punishment shall befall them there∣fore. The other part. That Sinne (in the uitious quality and corruption if it remaine in Men iustified) we vnderstand with this necessarya 1.29 Limitation, That it remaines in them not in its power and strength: but in its Being and Life. It hath vitam: but not Regnum. It reignes where there is no Grace at all: but it liues euen where Grace is. which though it mightily a bate to power of it: it cannot vtterly d••stroy its being. Hence now its easy to vnty the Argu∣ments. Sinne is taken away, b••otted out, drowned in the bottome of the Sea, in regare of those mischieuous effects which sinne would haue brough on vs: God is reconciled, the obligation, to punishment cancelled; and all the power, force, & strength of Sin defeated; So that like the dead Egyp∣tians they can no longer pursue the Israelites to annoy them, not shall stand vp as an aduersary in iudgment to condemne vs. The Guilt of Sinne is washed away totall by the blood of Christ: the filthynesse of corrupted Nature is in part by Degrees clensed by the Spirite of Christ powred on vs in his sanctifieing Grace. The Fetters and bonds of Sinne, where∣by we were held in bondage vnder condemnation, these are quite broken asunder: but those chaines, whereby with Paul, Rom. 7 (we are led captiue) to disobedience are some broken, all weakened. We are freed from the power of Satan and feare of Hell: but not wholly freed from Sinne, where∣by we are often captiues against our will. Sinne is a sick∣nesse, and God is the Phisitian; a wound, and God is the Chirurgian, true: but the cures neither perectly, yet correct that word. He cures our sicknesse and sores perfectly: but not suddainely, where he begines the worke he will finish it: but he will not doe all in a day. The cure begins and goes onward to perfection during this life: but tis neuer fi∣nished till after death. He forgiuesb 1.30 all our iniquity and thats done ••utirely and totally [and healeth all our infirmities]:

but this is by degrees, not all at once. In which course God hath no cause to feare the censure of a Iesuite for vn∣skilfulnesse nor stands he in need of Mans counsaile, for prescription, nor Mans helpe to hold his hand in working, if the Cure goe on more slowly then our foolish hastinesse thinkes fit. Thats fit and best what God thinkes so: and if we count him faithfull and wise in his art; tis our duty to take his aduice: but saucy persumption to giue him any. Lastly, where Sinne is said to be the (Spirituall Death of the Soule) and so Life being restored in Iustification Death must needes be quite abolished: the weaknesse of this Argu∣ment appeares streight, if the metaphoricall terme be chan∣ged in to proper. The death of Sinne is either the Separation of all grace from the Soule, or the Separation of Gods Fa∣uour from the Soule. We are dead in trespasses and Sinnes both waies: In regard that in the state of vnregeneration the Soule is vtterly destitute of all Grace and goodnesse: and also be cause in that condition it is liable to eternall Death. Now the Death of Sinne that is eternall death in the perpetuall Losse of Gods fauour this is cleane taken a way from him that's regenerate. Christ by his death hath purchased to him Life and immortality. But touching that other; (death (that is) the want of all inherent Grace in the Soule) They say. That in Regeneration Grace and Ho∣lynesse is restored to the Soule, yet not so perfectly as to abolish euery degree of Sinnefull Corruption. Before Re∣generation the Soule had no grace atall and so was vtterly dead but it followes not, That therefore in Regeneration, it hath all grace giuen it in all perfection, and so made per∣fectly aliue: what euer harshnesse there is in the Meta∣phore, the plaine termes in this case are smooth enough. A Man may be at once a liue and dead, that is, at once a Man may bee partly holy, and partly sinnefull. [Our old Man is crucified with Christ vpon whose Crosse it receaued a deadly wound; (because Christ by his sacrifice hath pro∣cured the sending of the Holy ghost into the hearts of the

Elect; who by sanctifying them, abolished their naturall corruptions by degrees. [That so the body of sinne might be destroyed.] that is, not presently annihilated: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 made of no force and strength, made vnable to worke strongly in vs. [That henceforth we might not serue sinne.] Though al∣wayes we should haue sinne in vs. So are we [dead to sinne] not as if sinne were vtterly dead in vs; or had no more wor∣king in vs, then it hath in a dead carcase: but because the guilt of sinne is fully taken away, and the power of sinne hat•• receiued a deadly wound, doth bleed out some of its life now, and shall infall••bly bleed out the last drop of its life hereafter.

Vnto the third Argument, we answere thus, That the Hornes of those Dilemma's be made of wood, and may be easily battered. We say then that God sees and knowes the sinfull corruption which is in the regenerate; for wee cannot assent vnto that wilde and franticke imagination of some; who haue troubled the quiet of some places in this Land, by preaching that God doth not, nay cannot see any iniquity or matter of blame, in those that be in Christ Iesus. We beleeue that nothing is hid from his eyes: nor be our sins lesse visible to him then our graces. God knowes what sinnes his chil∣dren commit, he iudgeth them to be faults, and such as de∣serue his infinite wrath. Yea, to goe further, as hee sees the sinne of the regenerate: so he hates it with a perfect hatred; it being impossible, that his pure eyes should behold impu∣rity and loue it. But now what followes hence? If he see it and hate it, then he cannot but punish it. True, that conse∣quence is certaine. But whats next? If God punish that sinne which is in the Regenerate how then is their sinne co∣uered and their iniquities forgiuen? How doth hee account them Iust, whom he knoweth and punisheth for vniust? Here's a Sophisme. He sees sinne, and hates sinne, and punish∣eth sinne of the Regenerate: Therefore he punisheth it in, and vpon their owne persons. Thats a non sequitur. Hee punisheth it, but tis in the person of Christ [who hath troden

the Winepresse,] of the fierce wrath of God conceiued against all sinfulnesse whatsoeuer in his Elect: by which meanes his hatred towards the sinne of the Regenerate, is fully satisfied, and also his loue towards their persons procured. He graciously passeth by their iniquity, pardoning vnto them what he hates, and hath punished in Christ: in which respect he may be truly said not to see that sinne in them which he will neuer punish in them, and to couer that sinne which shall neuer bee layed open in iudgement against them.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Sect. 3. c. 1.
• * 1.2

  2 Generall. heads.
• a 1.3

  〈…〉〈…〉
• * 1.4

  〈…〉〈…〉
• * 1.5

  Conclusion.
• * 1.6

  Arg.
• a 1.7

  Rom. 3. Gal. 2.
• b 1.8

  Iohn 1. 8.
• c 1.9

  Verse 10.
• * 1.10

  2 Argument.
• * 1.11

  Pure in heart vndefiled 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the way,
• * 1.12

  2 Cap. ••.
• * 1.13

  3 Cap. 3.
• * 1.14

  Proposition.
• a 1.15

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. euen I my selfe.
• b 1.16

  〈…〉〈…〉
• c 1.17

  Iohn 1. 29.
• d 1.18

  Heb 9. 28.
• e 1.19

  Acts 3. 19. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c.
• f 1.20

  Micah. 7. 19.
• a 1.21

  Ezek. 16. 2••.
• * 1.22

  Apoc 1. 6. 1 Iohn 1. ••7.
• c 1.23

  Col. 1. 13.
• d 1.24

  Tit. 2. 14.
• e 1.25

  Rom. 6. 18. 2••
• f 1.26

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• g 1.27

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• h 1.28

  Heb. 4. 14
• a 1.29

  Rom. 6. 12. 14.
• b 1.30

  Psal. 103. 3.