Therefore, I answer the Argument proposed, which hath more 1errors than one. Moreover it is made up of mere particulars: Also in the minor contrary to the manner of Disputants, the case is changed, whereas ⟨p. 230⟩the same case should be kept that goes before in the major, and the minor should follow thus: But our good Works are by the grace of God only; or at least, in the major the same case of the minor should have been kept, after this manner: Our Justification arises twice from the grace of God. Therefore all our Justification flows from good Works. So that the true nature of this Pseudosyllogism, belongs not to the first, but the second figure simply concluding both affirmatively and also most 2absurdly, just as if a Man should argue thus: Our corporeal Nature was made of the slime of the Earth: Earthen-Pots are made of the slime of the Earth, therefore our corporeal Nature was made of Earthen-Pots. What need is there of words? Whatsoever way these Men form their Argument, or reform it, they shall never be able to prove, that the works of the Law, whether such as we our selves have wrought, or such as the Divine Grace works in us, do contain in themselves any cause of Salvation. For what manner of consequence is this? Because habitual influences of Works, which make us acceptable to God, proceed no otherways but from cooperating Grace: Therefore Faith without inherent Righteousness doth not justify, neither doth Salvation consist of any other thing 3but good Works. But because there is a twofold sort of Works, ⟨p. 231⟩one of those which go before Faith, another of those which follow Faith, I would know of which of those rwo parts they understand it. If of the precedent they will not deny those to be Sins: For that which is not of Faith is of Sin: But if they understand it of Works subsequent to Faith, they will say that those are either perfect or imperfect. If perfect, and of such a sort, that they answer the things commanded in the Law, not only according to the substance, but also according to the manner of doing. To what purpose then is that daily saying of the Church made mention of: Forgive us our debts? Or what will they answer to Augustine, who evidently confutes 4what they maintain?
Therefore, I answer the Argument proposed, which hath more 1errours than one. Moreover it is made up of mere particulars: Also in the minor contrary to the manner of Disputants, the case is changed, whereas ⟨p. 230⟩the same case should be kept that goes before in the major, and the minor should follow thus: But our good Works are by the grace of God only; or at least, in the major the same case of the minor should have been kept, after this manner: Our Iustification arises twice from the grace of God. Therefore all our Iustification flows from good Works. So that the true nature of this Pseudosyllogism, belongs not to the first, but the second figure simply concluding both affirmatively and also most 2absurdly, just as if a Man should argue thus: Our corporeal Nature was made of the slime of the Earth: Earthen-Pots are made of the slime of the Earth, therefore our corporeal Nature was made of Earthen-Pots. What need is there of words? Whatsoever way these Men form their Argument, or reform it, they shall never be able to prove, that the works of the Law, whether such as we our selves have wrought, or such as the Divine Grace works in us, do contain in themselves any cause of Salvation. For what manner of consequence is this? Because habitual influences of Works, which make us acceptable to God, proceed no otherways but from cooperating Grace: Therefore Faith without inherent Righteousness doth not justifie, neither doth Salvation consist of any other thing 3but good Works. But because there is a twofold sort of Works, ⟨p. 231⟩one of those which go before Faith, another of those which follow Faith, I would know of which of those rwo parts they understand it. If of the preoedent they will not deny those to be Sins: For that which is not of Faith is of Sin: But if they understand it of Works subsequent to Faith, they will say that those are either perfect or imperfect. If perfect, and of such a sort, that they answer the things commanded in the Law, not only according to the substance, but also according to the manner of doing. To what purpose then is that daily saying of the Church made mention of: Forgive us our debts? Or what will they answer to Augustine, who evidently confutes 4what they maintain?
- 1The Syllogism is redundant with four Termini.
- 2Aparalogism in the second figure concluding affirmatively.
- 3A twofold sort of Works Rom. 14.
- 4Aug. of Nature and Grace. The reparation of the Grace of Christ, though it is begun in respect of the mind, it is not yet perfected in respect of the Flesh: Which shall be in the Country where Man shall not only be able to persevere, but shall not be able to Sin.Aug. of Nature and Grace. The reparation of the Grace of Christ, though it is begun in respect of the mind, it is not yet perfected in respect of the Flesh: Which shall be in the Countrey where Man shall not only be able to persevere, but shall not be able to Sin.
