Vindiciæ legis

3. The natural impression of it in us. We have it by nature; it's ¹not a superadded work of God to put this into us. This assertion is much opposed by Flaccus Illyricus, who, out of his vehement desire to aggravate original sin in us, and to show how destitute we are of the image of God, doth labour to show, that those common notions and dictates of conscience are infused de novo into us, and that we have none of these by nature in us. And a godly man, in his Book of Temptations, holdeth the same opinion. Illyricus indeed hath many probable arguments for his opinion, but he goeth upon a false supposition, that the Apostle his scope is, to compare a Gentile supposed only to do the Law, and not asserted to do it, before a Jew who was an hearer of the Law, but not a doer of it: therefore, to debase the Jew, he saith, the Apostle speaketh conditionally, to this purpose, If an Heathen should keep the Law, though he be not circumcised, yet he would be preferred before you; not (saith he) that the Apostle meaneth assertively and positively that any such do: and therefore presseth the word [Greek or Hebrew], which is a particle of the Subjunctive Mood, and is equivalent to [Greek or Hebrew], If the Gentiles, &c. But his supposition is false; for the Apostles scope is, to show that the Gentile hath no excuse if God condemn him, because he hath a law in himself: as appeareth, verse 12. As for the other consideration of [Greek or Hebrew], though Erasmus render it [cum fecerint;] yet that particle is applied to the Indicative Mood, as well as the Subjunctive. It cannot therefore be true, which he saith, that the Apostle speaketh such great things of men by nature, ⟨p. 62⟩that if they were true, it would necessarily justify all Pelagianism. I shall not speak of his many arguments against natural principles and knowledge of a God; for he doth in effect at last yield to it.

3. The naturall impression of it in us. We have it by nature; it's ¹not a superadded work of God to put this into us. This assertion is much opposed by Flaccus Illyricus, who, out of his vehement desire to aggravate originall sin in us, and to shew how destitute we are of the image of God, doth labour to shew, that those common notions and dictates of conscience are infused de novo into us, and that we have none of these by nature in us. And a godly man, in his Book of Temptations, holdeth the same opinion. Illyricus indeed hath many probable arguments for his opinion, but he goeth upon a false supposition, that the Apostle his scope is, to compare a Gentile supposed onely to doe the Law, and not asserted to doe it, before a Jew who was an hearer of the Law, but not a doer of it: therefore, to debase the Jew, he saith, the Apostle speaketh conditionally, to this purpose, If an Heathen should keep the Law, though he be not circumcised, yet he would be preferred before you; not (saith he) that the Apostle meaneth assertively and positively that any such doe: and therefore presseth the word , which is a particle of the Subjunctive Mood, and is equivalent to , If the Gentiles, &c. But his supposition is false; for the Apostles scope is, to shew that the Gentile hath no excuse if God condemne him, because hee hath a law in himselfe: as appeareth, verse 12. As for the other consideration of , though Erasmus render it [cum fecerint;] yet that particle is applied to the Indicative Mood, as well as the Subjunctive. It cannot therefore be true, which hee saith, that the Apostle speaketh such great things of men by nature,