A BRIEF CONSIDERATION Of Man's Iniquity, and God's justice: Wherein the distinction of 

1. Sins into 

Venial,  
Mortal,    
2. Sins and Punishments into 

Equal,  
Unequal     Is Scholasticallie Examined.  
Miserere mei Domine indigna facientis, & digna patientis.  S. Aug. 
Imprinted at London, for Roger jackson, and are to be sold at his shop in Fleetstreet, near the Conduit. 1608.   

¶ The Author to the Pretended Catholics.  
THE CHURCH (in the principal signification of the word) is a Body united together, in all the parts joined with the Head by a mystical union. And the Old Enemy hath diversly assaulted both Head and Body, with unplacable malice, but limited power.  
Yet still he attempteth something, and as he is a spiritual Enemy, so are his weapons spiritual.  
Sometimes he provoketh us to sin in Moral things, as in sins of action, Contra bonum.  
Sometimes in things Intellectual, as in sins of Opinion Contra verum.  
The latter is of two sorts: either heretical against the Head: Or schismatical against the Body.  
The Heresies against the Head, are either against his Natures or Persons, or Offices.  
The two former were old heresies, and long since condemned.  
The latter, are divers heresies sprung up as tars amongst good wheat in succeeding ages.  
Such are divers of your opinions, & namely against the Priesthood of Christ consisting in Satisfaction and Intercession.  
The former you have sundry ways violated, and not a little by your misapplied distinction of Venial and Mortal sins: which I have a little rectified in this brief Declaration, and also removed that imputation of the Equality of sin and punishment, which you say, must necessarily ensue, if your conceit should vanish.  
If you make no answer hereunto, you either want Charity to free me from error, or ability to discharge yourselves from suspicion thereof. And if you make any answer, let your lines be more full of substance to satisfy the point, then of malice to disgrace the Author: who entirely wishing your salvation in Christ's justice, commendeth you to God's mercy in him.  
Far ye well, 14. Octo. 1607.   

A Brief Consideration, etc.  
VENIAL sins are rather praeter legem, 
The Papists opinion briefly recited.  then Contra legem.  
Venial & mortal are so to be esteemed from their own nature: For venial condignly deserve only temporal punishments, and mortal deserve a ternall punishments, and both these in divine justice. And hence is the inaequality of sin most properly, and principally conceived. In which respect there are certain temporary punishments also in Purgatory, remaining for those, whose sins in this life are not sufficiently purged, and for which they have not worthily satisfied.  

The Protestants opinion recited and declared.  ALL sins ex natura sua & merito are mortal, deserving condignly in divine justice, eternal death.  
These sins are also venial, not propriè, but impropriè & ex eventu only. They are venial by grace according to the quality and manner of our Repentance, by which we are capable of pardon. Quod verum est in adultis, etc.  
But to say Peccatum and yet Veniale simply, and not Mortal properly, it is a virtual Contradiction. For they are in that sense, termini incompossibiles, and can consist together, no more than fire and cold, water and dry, or the like; the accident being such as is repugnant to the proper, or perpetual quality of the subject. For there is no composition of merely opposites, nor construction of mutually destructives.  
And if any man ask, 1. how peccatum can be a subject, itself being in nature nothing, or 2. being but an accident, how can it be the subject of an accident?  
We answer,  
To the first: that though nothing hath Being, which is not from God, and so sin is nothing because it is not from God, yet the form of it, being an obliquity in the substance, or quality, or action of a reasonable creature, taking integrity from the same, so far as it proceedeth: Sin hath esse privatinum, in that which hath esse positinum from God. And therefore Subiectum mali est bonum, quia malum subsistit in ente, quod in sebonum est.  
To the second, that though mortale in peccato have not so proper an inherency, as ordinary Accidents have in their subjects, yet it is so naturally in it, that it is in nature inseparable from it: but ultimum et independens subiectum, est homo peccans, vel Angelus peccans.  
Wherefore the distinction of sins into Venial and Mortal, ariseth not ex ipsis Rebus, but Personis: and hence it followeth, ●●●t all sins are damnable in all me●, not to all men; all deserving, 〈◊〉 not all receiving damnation. 〈◊〉 to the Reprobate, no sin is finally venial, and to the Elect, no sin is finally mortal.  
Notwithstanding it must be observed, that one sin simpliciter & universaliter est mortale, because it is not only punishable, but evermore punished with eternal death, in all that commit the same & this is Peccatum contra Spiritum Sanctum.  
For though it be not fully cleared (at least in the judgement of many men) what this Sin is, and wherein the formality of the same consisteth, yet we observe this difference betwixt this, and other mortal sins (I call sins Mortal two ways: first by way of Explication, and so to say a mortal sin, 
Mortal, est generaliter nota explicativa, specialiter est nota distinctiva.  it is to show the nature of all sins: secondly by way of distinction: and so to say a mortal sin, it is to design this sin, whereof I now speak.)  
That Impenitency maketh other remissible sins not to be remitted, but doth not perpetually and necessarily attend those sins: Whereas this sin is simply irremissible, the party so sinning being evermore obdurate by his own unjust action, and the just subtraction of God's grace, so that Impenitency followeth it necessitate inevitabili: and therefore it is called mortal in an eminent degree, and is never venial: not because God in his absolute power, cannot forgive it, but because in his just will he hath decreed never to forgive it.  
This is it which our Lord speaketh of, Matthew 12.31. and which his beloved Disciple understandeth, saying: There is a sin unto death: and there is a sin not unto death: distinguishing not betwixt some sins mortal in nature, and others venial in nature; but betwixt one sin simply mortal in nature, and in necessary effect unto all: and all other sins simply mortal in nature, but not in necessary effect unto all: and therefore possibly venial.  
And if any Papist say, that Venial Sins must be repent of: I answer, that this Repentance being omitted, maketh not a Venial Sin to be a mortal sin in their judgement: For than they should agree with us, who say that a mortal sin is venial by repentance, and that a venial sin (as all sins except one, are, propter possi●ilitatem Poenitentiae) for want of Repentance is finally mortal. But the Papists say, that sins venial not repent of, are not mortal, nor meritoriously punishable by eternal death. If they say not thus, there is no controversy betwixt us: and if they say thus, there is no reconciliation, as far as I can conceive.  
The Ancients speaking of mortal sins, understand great sins, Peccata vastantia conscientiam, such as usually exclude grace, by which our sins become venial unto us.  
To return a little back again, that we may proceed forward more orderly, we note that Impaenitency is not the Sin against the Holy Ghost, because it is in Pagans also, who never knew his Divine Person, nor felt his lively motion. It is not formale huius peccati, but consequens. In all other sins it is rather contingent, then consequent. For as no sin can be forgiven without repentance, so this sin excludeth possibility of repentance, and therefore cannot be forgiven. Heb. 6.4.  
NOW as Death is the wages of all sins, so Christ only is the propitiation of all sins, and both by merit.  
He taketh away Original sin: yet Baptism is required ordinarily as the instrument.  
He taketh away Actual sin: yet Repentance is required evermore in those that are of Capacity.  
Neither doth he take away some sort of Sins only, and not all sorts. For he taketh away all Kind's of sins, Actual aswell as Original: all degrees of Actual, the lesser, as well as the greater, leaving nothing unsatisfied, either in the guilt or punishment.  
For if he took away some kinds of sin, Original and not Actual: or some degree of actual, great and not little: Or if he took away the guilt, and not the punishment: or part of the punishment (as being satisfactory) and not all, he were not an whole, but an half Redeemer, which is an impious doctrine: and we not wholly, but half saved, which is an uncomfortable doctrine.  

He alone trod the winepress, etc.  But he hath done all these things alone, helping us, not by meriting grace for us to help ourselves withal: and saving us, not by giving us power to save ourselves withal: but performing every part, and parcel of satisfaction, by active obedience, in fulfilling the law, and passive obedience in suffering for our transgressing of the law; that every part and parcel of merit being entirely in his own person, he might have all the glory in such an excellent benefit of his redeemed brethren. Thou art worthy O Lord, etc. Apo. 5.9.  
Therefore as it is true, which S. Augustine saith: He that made thee without thyself, doth not save thee without the self; because in Creation God required nothing of us, but in Salvation he requireth somewhat of us; a sanctified heart, 
But these also are his gifts, Da quod jubes, & iubo quod vis.  a reformed will, which must be obedient to his divine will: so it is true, He that made us without ourselves, saveth us without ourselves also: because as man did not concur operatively with God in Creation, so he doth not concur meritoriously with him in Salvation. Wherefore though Man must do something toward his salvation in the Court of new obedience, after his acquittal in the Court of justification, yet he can do nothing by way of merit in either; because he hath not power in the state of sin, or grace, actively or passively to satisfy God's justice.  
For though God afflicteth his Children, and though his children must live conformably to his Law; yet the first being a fatherly and gentle correction, it looseth the property of Punishment, and the second being a filial (but unperfect) obedience, 
Poena.  it cannot have the estimation of Righteousness: 
justitia.  so that neither is satisfactory in the Court of the supreme judge.  
For sin is the transgression of the law (without the law there being no sin) and no ignorance herein can totally excuse the offender, though invincible ignorance may mitigate the degree of his offence. Therefore every sin is committed (mediately at least) against an infinite Object, God the Author of the law, who consequently requireth an infinite punishment.  
Wherefore as it was necessary, that our Redeemer should have our true human nature, that sin in it might be punished justly: So this human nature was to subsist in an infinite Person, that sin by it might be conquered fully. And hence was the incarnation of our blessed Lord, 
By powerful assumption, not by natural generation.  who took our nature (sanctified by the holy Ghost) into the unity of his person.  
Such a Redeemer we were to have, considering the quality of our sin, and God's justice: that he might make proportionable satisfaction.  
But when God is to punish a sinner according to the proper merit of his unpardoned sin, having not means to satisfy his justice upon any infiniteness of man's person, which he is to punish, he chooseth the infiniteness of time, wherein he will punish him, thereby to make some manner of proportion betwixt the sin of man, and his own justice.  
But because the person sinning and punished, is in no manner matchable with the person (or rather nature) offended and punishing, therefore this punishment may be truly called Passion, but is not Satisfaction: whereas the infiniteness of our Redeemers person, made his passion to be a true satisfaction, sufficient for the sin of ten thousand worlds.  
Hence it followeth, that all our sufferings in this life, whatsoever, are but expurgations of the matter of sin, not satisfaction for the guilt thereof, nor may stand in place of condign punishment: which are both taken away sufficiently by Christ: the first being imputed to him, & the second inflicted on him in his death, that we might have the real benefit thereof effectually by the working power of the Spirit.  
And therefore no sin is so venial in its nature, as that any man may worthily satisfy for the same in this life, or in the life to come.  

Secunda Quaestio.  
YET notwithstanding we say, that there is inequality in Culpa, and consequently in poena also.  
For if the punishment were equal, we must suppose that all sins are equal, which is false: or that God is not just, which is impious; or that he doth not punish a greater sin, more than a lesser, because he is merciful, which is a senseless opinion, obscuring the clear distinction of his justice. Only, to make his justice and mercy consist together in punishing the very Devils, & other damned miscreants, we say, that he punisheth them not so much as their sins have deserved. Which if it seem an hard saying, it is to those that know not how to value the sin of man, and the justice of God.  
1. First concerning the Inaequality of sin, we say that it may be considered principally in three things.  

Diversitas Obiecti in quod peccamus.  1. In respect of the Object against which we sin: so a sin against God, is greater than a sin against man: a sin against the first Table than the second. But this must be truly conceived.  
For if we compare a sin in the least part of a commandment of the first Table, with a sin in the greatest part of a commandment of the second Table, the latter sin is more heinous than the former. For though Charitas primò ordinatur in Deum, and every breach of the law be a breach of charity, 
Peccamus in Deum immediatè in quibusdam peccatu & mediatè in alijs.  yet some comparison is to be observed, as well in the degree of the act, as in the order of the act.  
Though in the order of the act, charity be more broken in the least sin against God, then in the greatest against man, yet in the degree and quality of the act, it is more broken in the greatest sin against man immediately, them in the least sin against God immediately. Which is manifest, because the Sabbath was made dispensable propter opera necessitatis & charitatis, as it appeareth by Christ, the interpreter of the law, who was the giver thereof.  
Yet if the same lawgiver did not forbid the greatest sin against man, who forbiddeth the least sin against himself, this rule could not hold.  
But if we compare a sin against the first Table, with a sin against the second in aquall & parallel acts, the first is simply the greater sin.  
Likewise, as generally a sin against God, is greater than a sin against man for the essential diversity of the Object; so a sin against one man, may be greater than a sin against an other, for the accidental diversity of the object: As in the eminency of place against a King: in the propinquity of blood against a Parent, etc.  
For though all men naturally considered are the same, yet civilly, and morally, they are not. And therefore the degree of sin is much varied for these respects.  
2. In respect of the matter wherein we sin: 
Diversitas materiae circa quam peccamus, vel quantitatis eiusdem materiae.  so murder is a greater sin than theft, because life is more precious than goods.  
Likewise if we compare sins in the same kind or matter, one may be greater than another, according to the extent, or quantitative measure. As to kill three men it is a greater sin then to kill two: to steal 100 pound, than 10: if nothing else be intervenient. For great diversity of sin, ariseth out of the variety of circumstances.  
3. In respect of the manner how we offend: so a sin of malice, 
Diversitas modi quo peccamus.  is greater than a sin of infirmity, a sin of ignorance, than a sin of negligence.  
Th. Aquin. in quae. de ordine precept: Decalogi, observeth, that the last commandments are well distinguished, Propter peccatum operis, in the commandment Non furtum facies. Propter peccatum Oris, in the commandment Non loquêris falsum etc. Propter peccatum Cordis, in the commandment Non concupisces. But he distinguisheth the last into two, without good congruity. For to covet an other man's wise, and to covet another man's Ox, is the same manner of coveting, but the matter is not the same which maketh not this to be two commandments: For the manner of coveting, which is concupiscentia sine consensu, being but one, and the matter coveted be divers, the commandment is one, and not divers: But the same things being forbidden in the seventh & eighth commandments to be coveted cum consensu, there the commandments are divers, because they are broken principally in Opere, not in Cord only. Whereas this last is broken not in Opere, but only in Cord without full consent to the tentation.  
And whereas some sins consist only in immanent action being finished in the mind, either properly or fully, as pride, or unproperly and casually as murder (for pride is absolutely complete in the mind, but murder is not) & some in transient action, being accomplished by the body; the last is greater than the first, because there is a farther addition in it than in the first. The lusting after a woman is mental adultery, though it proceed no farther, which is for want of means only. For Adulter animo, non nisi invito castus est corpore.  
A sin in mind is more easily committed then a sin in the body, because it findeth less impediment: and a sin in the order of it, is committed first in the mind, and secondly by the body, as it appeareth in the first sin of our first Parents. Every farther addition, maketh the sin more intense in degree.  
Now since there is such inaquality in Culpa, there is also inequality in Poena, because the goodness of God's justice, whence it proceedeth, hath a relative respect to our sin, which, in what kind soever it be, is meritoriously punishable by eternal death.  
The punishment is double, Privative and Positive.  
1. The Privative pain (called Poena Damni) is the want of desirable good. Such is the exclusion out of heaven, and the consequent privation of unspeakable joys; the most excellent whereof is, the fruition of the sacred Trinity in blissful vision. This pain is equal to all, Tempore et Gradu. In time, because it is an eternal deprivation: In degree, because it is a total deprivation, joined with infallible despair.  
2. The positive pain (called Poena Sensus) is partly inward from an inward cause, and partly outward from an outward cause.  

Poena autem vehement, etc. Inuenal.  The inward pain is the sting of conscience, the gnawing of that worm, which hath her life perpetuated in our death.  
This pain is equal to all, in duration but not in degree, because it is varied according to the guilt whence it doth proceed.  
The outward pain is affliction in the whole man, Body, & Soul, by such exquisite instrumental means as God decreeth in his wisdom, & executeth by his power, to demonstrate his justice.  
And if any man doubt, how that can be called an outward punishment, which is inflicted on the Soul, being an inward substance in her conjunction with the Body: I answer, 
The Fathers generally are of opinion, that there is Fire (properly taken in hell: S. Aug. l. 21: de Civit. Dei: ca: 10 S. Hieron. ad Auitum S. Aug. vide. Zanch. de Ope. part 1. lib. 4. cap 19 without all doubt there is outward means of sensible punishment.  That the sensible punishment of Fire, is called outward, because it is originally extra animam, as the other sensible punishment of the worm is called inward because it springeth within the soul itself.  
Likewise the sensible punishment by Fire is outward, as it worketh on the body, being an outward substance: and inward as it worketh on the soul, which is an inward substance by her union with the body.  
And as the soul hath one state in herself independent, upon her separation from the body, and an other in the body upon her reunion with it: so in the first, she suffereth outward pain immediately, and in the second, she suffereth outward pain immediately, participating eternal torment, with the old companion of her momentany pleasure.  
And as the outward pain of Fire primarily inflicted on the body, doth work effectually to afflict the soul: so the inward pain of the worm arising, and dwelling within the soul, worketh effectually to vex the body: That as they had mutual offices in the transitory delight of their sins, so they may have mutual offices in the horror of their excessive pangs.  
In this outward pain two things are to be noted as before: Tempus & Gradui.  
In time this pain is equal to all men. And this is common in all the pains of hell, all being equalled in eternity, because in respect of duration, there is neither more nor less in that with in Infinite.  
Hence is that woeful sentence, Go ye cursed into everlasting fire. Everlasting, not temporary, as Origen falsely conceived, prejudicing God's justice in extolling his mercy: both which are one in him, but differ in their effects towards us.  
In degree, this pain is unequal according to the inequality of sin: God in his distributive justice, allotting several portions of pain, according to the several proportions of sin.  
For though there be a proper designed place of Hell, and in it some common instrument of pain, yet God most providently ordereth the execution of his justice.  
And though we are not directly led by express Scripture to affirm it confidently, yet we may suppose it very probably, that God either cohibiteth the active power of the instrument, or strengtheneth the ability of the Patient, or both, to make a difference of pain.  
Howsoever, this is unquestionable, that for this purpose he useth such wise means as seem best to his will; which being perpetually accompanied with singular equity, can purpose nothing unjustly: and being assisted with illimited might, can enterprise nothing uneffectually.  
Concerning all the pains, of what kind, number, or quality soever they are, we must know (God grant we never feel) that there is neither case in them, nor release from them. The pitiful unpitied wretches suffer unsufferably, in measure of time unmeasurable.  
THUS than we acknowledge, that sins are venial by grace, but mortal in their proper desert: and that sins are unaequall many ways, and that the punishment of all sins is equal in time, but unaequall in degree.  
Now to obtain absolution à Culpa & Poena, we must have recourse to God's mercy, because his justice doth punish us considering us, as we are of ourselves.  
And to find this mercy, we must have recourse to God, in jesus Christ our Lord, because we are not worthy of it, for any thing in ourselves. This is both piety and safety.  
Neither must we do thus in profession only, 
Concil. Trid. Sess. 6. cap: 9:  as sometimes the Papists do, but in action also, as sometimes they do not, as it appeareth by their opinion before delivered, and farther shall appear in their doctrine ensuing.  
But first we observe, that as Christ only is via meriti, for which we are meritoriously pardoned, so there is required also via medij, by which we may actually receive this pardon, because the salve of his merits must be applied to the sores of our souls. For nothing can produce an effect in that which it doth not Contingere vel substantia, vel virtute saltem. As the Sun being in his substance placed so far above, cannot produce any effect by working upon inferior bodies, but by a virtual contact.  
Our Lord hath a double operation: Extraordinary & Immediate: or Ordinary and Mediate.  
The first we are to behold and admire, but we cannot safely rely on it. For we must herein remember an old rule (appliable to other purposes) Notandum si semel, utendum ut saepè.  
The second therefore is that, whereunto we now bend our eyes.  
To this end there are certain evangelical means, with which Christ doth concur.  
They are such, as are assigned by him.  
They are assigned by him, which expressly, or consequently are contained in his word. For we must estimate the things of God, according to a rule delivered by him, either speaking with his mouth, or dictating by his spirit.  
Hereupon we deservedly reject that position of the Church of Rome, 
Rhem. Test. annot. in job. 13.10.  Venial sins may be remitted by holy water, and other sacred Ceremonies: which sentence hath in it a double impiety and falsehood.  
The first in diminishing the nature of our sins, which are in their proper merit condignly punishable by eternal death.  
The second in extolling the value of their ceremonies, which cannot have in them so gracious a power.  
Neither is it enough to say, that these ceremonies, as holy water & the like, work not this effect vi sua, but virtute Christi.  
For as the power of remission of sins is only in God (a ministerial office being in the Church by commission from him) so the means which we must use to receive the remission by, must be such, as he appointeth by his revealed will.  
For as to divide the first to any person from him, so to communicate the second to any means not decreed by him, it is to evacuate the high price of our Redemption, and to trample under feet, the blessed covenant of happy peace. Neither is it enough to say, that the Church deviseth not these things simply of herself, but that it is Christ's promise to concur with the Church by his infallible Spirit:  
For they must remember, that it is the duty of the Church to concur with him, according to infallible directions delivered in his word.  
As for immediate revelations, none but Enthusiasts rely thereon. But we know that the Spirit doth rather aspirare, then inspirare in these days.  
Wherefore leaving unwarrantable aspersions to such Aquarij, as a novel conceit, proved only by an ingenious delusion: We acknowledge that Natural blood and water, issuing out of our Lords sides, do per viam meriti purchase the remission of all our sins: and that the sacramental blood & water in the holy mysteries figured therein, do per viam medij, apply, seal, and confirm the same unto us instrumentally, by the effectual operation of the Holy Ghost.  
He that diminisheth the merit of Christ's death, destroyeth the hope of his own life.  
I live in him, who died for me.   
AMEN.   

The Author to the Reader.  
COurteous Reader:  
If any faults have escaped me, in penning this little discourse (which I may be occasioned hereafter to call Principium doloris mei) I cannot expect, that thou shouldest esteem them venial, because I have left that plea, and gained a loss unto myself.  
If I should crave pardon for divulging it, thou mightest just he answer, While it remained, appertained it not unto thee? And after it was printed, was it not in thine own power?  
Though I could fully remove such likely imputations, yet the reason being private, which caused me to make this public, (and Secreta mea mihi) I must depend upon thy gentle interpretation. Only thus much I give thee to understand, that I rather sought profit hereby to learn from others, then credit to teach any.  
But if my success prove answerable to my honest desire, thou shalt find in time, that my Tongue and Pen, are consecrated to thy good. Farewell.  
Thine in our Lord JESUS, Theophilus Pyggons.   

Pag. 3. lin. 18.  
Whereas it is said, that the form of sin is an obliquity in the substance, 
— dum brevis esse laboro Obscurus fio.  or quality, or action of a reasonable Creature, it is to be understood, that Malum subiectatur (as the Schoolmen speak) the evil of sin, and the deformity (which is the form of it) hath its subsistence finally in a Substance, as being the last, and independent subject thereof. But it is immediately in the action, and corrupt quality of the Agent.   

Pag. 20. this should have been added as a Marginal note over against the fift line.  
If the last commandment (as we esteem it) should be divided into two, propter diversitatem Obiectorum: by the same reason it should be no commandment at all, because the same things are forbidden in the seventh & eighth commandments before. The difference therefore of the manner of forbidding these things, distinguisheth the tenth commandment from the seventh and eighth: But the difference of the matter in it, doth not make it distinguished into two several precepts, as Papists affirm. But as our Lord epitomizeth and reduceth ten commandments unto two, so here all the particulars make but one. And as to make the first and second commandments one, it is to join things separate, so to make this one commandment two, it is to separate things conjoined. To do the first, it is to match together in several Tribes, and to do the latter, it is to make a divorce of parties lawfully married. The Author that made this confusion, and division, is greater than his reason: for though S. Augustine began it, yet his reason to make three commandments in the first Table propter Trinitatem, is a witty Analogy only: and his reason to make seven in the second Table by dividing the last, is of no solidity. Zanchius his severe, but true censure, touching this particular, is worthy to be considered: Zanch. de Red. in Tractat. de Decalogo, Thesi tertia.   

Some principal errors in the impression, correct thus:  
Pag. 2. Lin. 12 For Persons (as it is printed in some Copies, and is plain Nestorianisme) read Person, in the Epistle to the Papists.  
Pag. 20. line 5. For these words, and the matter coveted be divers, read (though the matter coveted be divers)  
Pag. 24. In the margin, these words, S. August. are superfluous.  
Pag. 24. lin. 15. For immediately in the second place, read, mediately.  
Pag. 25. lin. 14. For within, read, which is.  
FINIS.