Selected quad for the lemma: justice_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
justice_n	faith_n	justify_v	law_n	2,569	5	5.9375	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A76812	The covenant sealed. Or, A treatise of the sacraments of both covenants, polemicall and practicall. Especially of the sacraments of the covenant of grace. In which, the nature of them is laid open, the adæquate subject is largely inquired into, respective to right and proper interest. to fitnesse for admission to actual participation. Their necessity is made known. Their whole use and efficacy is set forth. Their number in Old and New Testament-times is determined. With several necessary and useful corollaries. Together with a brief answer to Reverend Mr. Baxter's apology, in defence of the treatise of the covenant. / By Thomas Blake, M.A. pastor of Tamworth, in the counties of Stafford and Warwick.	Blake, Thomas, 1597?-1657.; Cartwright, Christopher, 1602-1658.	1655 (1655)	Wing B3144; Thomason E846_1; ESTC R4425	638,828	706

sufficient Rule for us now for believing in Jesus Christ no nor the same Law of nature as still in force under Christ For a generall command say you of believing all that God revealeth is not the only Rule of our faith but the particular revelation and precept are part c. To this I say 1. As before I think I may answer out of your own mouth where you say Neglect of Sacraments is a breach of the second Commandement and unbelief is a breach of the first If we break the Commandement in unbelief then the Commandement binds us to believe 2. Much of that which I have spoke by way of answer to your former may be applyed to this likewise 3. I have already spoke to this that faith is a duty of the Moral Law Treat of the Covenant Chap. 3. pag. 18 19. To which I refer the Reader 4. If Adam had no command for faith then he was not in any capacity to believe and by his fall lost not power of believing And consequently it will not stand with the Justice of God to exact it at our hands having never had power for the performance of it 5. I say there was power in Adam for that faith that justified but not to act for justification Adam had that habit and the Law calls for it from all that are under the Command of it But the Gospel discovers the object by which a sinner through faith is Justified 3. The same answer may serve to your third objection 3. Exception which indeed is the same with the former only a great deal of flourishing is bestowed in discourse of the understanding and will paralleling them with the Prefaces grounds and occasions of Laws And at last bringing all to the Articles of the Creed to which enough allready is spoken 4. You say But what if all this had been left out 4. Exception and you had proved the Morall Law the only Rule of duty doth it follow the●efore that it is the only Rule Answ I take righteousnesse to be matter of duty and then the only R●le of duty is the only Rule of righteousnesse You say further Sure it is not the only Rule of rewarding And I say Rewarding is none of our work but Gods and I look for a Rule of that work which is ours and that we are to make our business I confess an imperfection in it to give life but assert a perfection as th● Rule of our lives It justifies no man but it orders and regulates every justified man 5. You say The same I may say of the Rule of Punishment 5 Exception To which I give the same answer It is not our work bu Gods either to reward or punish And here you speak of a part of the penalty of the new Law And I know no penalty properly distinct from the penalty of the old You were wont to compare it to an Act of Oblivion and Acts of Oblivion are not wont to have their penalties You instance in that of the Parable None of them that were bidden shall tast of the supper when th● sin for which they there suffer is a breach of a Morall Command 6. You say The principall thing that I intend is 6. Exception that the Morall Law is not the only Rule what shall be the condition of Life or Death and therefore not the only Rule according to which we mu●t now be denominated and hereafter sentenced Just or Vnjust To this I have already given a sufficient answer and if I had not you answer fully for me Aphor. p. 144 Thes 28. Where you say The precepts of the Covenant as meer precepts must be distinguished from the same precepts considered as conditions upon performance of which we must live or die for non-performance And I speak of them as meer precepts and so they are our Rule of righteousness and not as they are conditions either of the Covenant of works or grace And a man may be denominated righteous by the Laws Rule when he cannot stand before the sentence of it as a Covenant of which we have heard sufficient After a long discourse against all possibilitie of Justification by the Law of works as though I were therein your adversarie or that the Antinomian fancy were above all answer that a man cannot make the Law his Rule but he makes it withall his Justification you go about to prevent an objection and say If you should say this is the Covenant and not the Law you then tell me that you will reply 1. Then the Law is not the only Rule To which I say When my work is to make it good that the Law is our only Rule I marvaile that you will so much as imagine that I will say that which makes it not the only Rule But perhaps you think I do not see how it cannot follow as indeed I do not neither can I see any colour for it 2. You reply It is the same thing in severall respects that we call a Law and a Covenant except you mean it of our Covenant-act to God of which we speak not who knowes not that praemiare and punire are Acts of a Law And that an Act of Obliviom or generall pardon on certain terms is a Law and that the promise is the principall part of the Law of Grace To which I say that praemiare and punire are not essentiall in a Law Some have power of command so that their words in just things is to be a Law where most deny any power of punishment as an Husband over the Wife Some Parents have Authority to command Children Children remaining under the obligation of the fifth Commandment as long as the relation of a Child continueth when they have neither power to reward or punish Jacob took himself to be in power to command Joseph among the rest of his Sons as appears in the charge that he gives concerning his buriall Gen. 47.29 30. and Chap. 49.29 So compared and yet he was not in power either to reward or punish him And though they be acts of a law where he that gives the Law is in power Yet they are no parts of a Rule nor any directiory of life to him to whom they are proposed I know that an Act of Oblivion or generall pardon may be called a Law as many other things are catachresticè and abusivè but that it should be a Law properly so called I know not The Romanes defined a Law whilst that a Democratie was in force among them to be Generale jussum populi aut plebis rogante magistratu Afterwards when the State was changed and the Legislative power was in other hands they defined it to be Jussum Regis aut Imperatoris And Tullye's definition of a Law is that it is Ratio summa insita in natura quae recta suadet prohibetque contraria Here jussio suasio and prohibitio are express'd which are not found in Acts of Oblivion That every man who

Then works do not consummate for Paul casts off all works from this office and he speaks according to you of Justification in toto and if James speaks of it only as consummate and finished why does he instance in Rahab this being the first that was heard of her being in faith or grace The Authors that you follow are wont to say that Paul speaks of the first and James of the second Justification and it had been more for your advantage fully to have followed them then to have said that Paul speaks principally of the first yet speaks of the second likewise Yet you may see how hardly those of that opinion have been put to it Bellarmine that knows as well how to stickle for an opinion as another says that Paul speaking of the first Justication fetches a proof from Abraham which is understood of the second Justification and James speaking of the second Justification fetches a proof from Rahab which is the first Justification which as long since I have observed in the vindication of this text agrees like harp and harrow So that if the Authors that I follow have missed the meaning of these Apostles those that follow you are much lesse like to find it Yet after all this labour for a Reconciliation of this seeming difference between these great Apostles the Reader stands much engaged for that which you have brought to light from Reverend Mr. Gatakers hand in his Letter written to you where we see in what judgement he both liv'd and died taking it up as he saies when he was a novice and persisting in it to his last wholly differing from you and agreeing with me In Paul the question is saith he of sin in generall concerning which when any man shall be therewith charged there is no means whereby he may be justified that is justly assoyled from the otherwise just charge of being a sinner but by his faith in Christs blood Christs blood having made satisfaction to Gods Justice for sin and his faith in it giving him a right to it and interest in it This he understands of all sin through the whole course of a believers life first and last faith is his way of Justification Whereas in James saith he the question is concerning some speciall sin and the questioned persons guilt of it or freedome from it What speciall sin he means he explaines himself to wit Whether a man be a true or counterfeit believer a sound and sincere or a false and feigned professor In which case any person that is so wrongfully charged may plead not guilty and offer himself to be tryed by his works as in some cases Gods Saints have done even with appeal to God himself And what differs this from what I say onely the faith that is not counterfeit but evidenced by works justifies The truth of his faith is questioned whensoever the sincerity of his profession is thus charged This is no more then that which is ordinarily affirmed that faith justifies the person and works justifie faith 4. You say The ordinary exposition of the word faith Jam. 2.24 vindicated If with the named Expositors you understand by works a working fâith either you grant as much as I affirme in sense or else you must utterly nul all the Apostles arguing from v. 13. to the end Answ It were too tedious to follow you through this large discourse and you very well save me the paines when you adde I suppose you will say Faith which Justifies must be working but it Justifies not qu● operans And so indeed I do say and you answer true nor quà fides i. e. q●à apprehendit objectum if the quà speaks the formall reason of its interest in Justification To this I say If it neither Justifies quà operans nor quà apprehendens objectum I would fain know how or under what notion it justifies Do's it justifie nihil agendo I may well say Cedo tertium If you say as I think you will it justifies quà conditio Is it conditio nec operans nec apprehendens A faith neither working nor receiving is certainly as bad as the faith that James speaks of that profits nothing You demand further Why cannot faith Justifie except it be working I answer Because if it be faith to apprehend or receive then it is in life for if not alive it cannot receive If it be alive then it doth work You say The Apostle doth not plead for a meer necessity of signification or discovery but for a necessity ut medii ad Justificationem Even that Justification which he calls imputing of righteousness and that by God I answer He enquires what that faith is that is medium ad Justificationem and determines that it is not a dead but a working faith that is this Justifying medium and this strengthens and not nuls the Apostles argumentation When you have made it your business to overthrow my interpretation you set upon my reason and say As for your single argument here I answer And I may reply 1. That one argument to the purpos● is to be preferred before 31 which are all besides the q●estion 2. That you might have found a double argument but that you industriously leave out one to make it single You say it is a weak ground to maintain that James twelve times in thirteen verses by works means not works and by faith alone which he still opposeth doth not mean faith alone and all this because you cannot see the connexion of one verse to the former or the force of one cited Scripture And I hope I may without offence tell you tht this kind of reasoning or answering adds advantage neither to your cause nor reputation You take it for granted and would perswade your Reader that if I suppose the word is once figurative where the proper acceptation is both destructive to the sense and repugnant to the whole tenor of the Gospel which was my second reason by you omitted that I must therefore so interpret it all along But you have had Scripture instances to the contrary and are directed where you may be further furnished I conclude that when James affirms that faith without works is dead and therefore cannot justifie ad sayes Abraham was justified by works when he offered Isaac which Scripture says was a work of faith of if that do not please was done by faith Heb. 11.17 and further sayes that in his justification by works the Scripture was fulfill'd which sayes he was justified by faith Is it not a fair interpretation to understand a working faith which is alone of possible power to justifie when the Scripture also ascribing this instanced justifying work of Abrham to the faith of Abraham as we see Heb. 11.17 In the close of your ten arguments you speak your sense of the danger which is like to follow upon this tenent which I have thought most meet to reserve to this place What sad effects say you it may produce to

a person capable of salvation on our part required It is a penitent and petitioning Faith whereby we receive the Promises of mercy but we are not justified partly by prayer partly by Repentance and partly by Faith but that faith which stirreth up godly sorrow for sin and enforceth us to pray for pardon and salvation Faith is a necessary and lively instrument of Justification which is amongst the number of true causes not being a cause without which the thing is not done but a cause whereby it is done The cause without which a thing is not done is onely present in the action and doth nothing therein but as the eye is an active instrument for seeing and the eare for hearing so is faith also for justifying If it be demanded whose instrument it is It is the instrument of the soul wrought therein by the Holy Ghost and is the free gift of God In the Covenant of works works were required as the cause of life and happinesse but in the Covenant of grace though repentance be necessary and must accompany faith yet not repentance but faith onely is the cause of life The cause not efficient as works should have been if man had stood in the former Covenant but instrumentall onely for it is impossible that Christ the death and blood of Christ and our faith should be together the efficient or procuring causes of Justification or salvation Rom. 3.21 22 28 30. Gal. 2.16 17. Rom. 4.2 3. When the Apostle writeth that man is not justified by works or through works by the Law or through the Law opposing Faith and Works in the matter of Justification but not in respect of their presence Faith I say and works not faith and merits which could never be without doubt he excludes the efficiency and force of the Law and works in justifying But the particles By and Of do not in the same sense take Justification from the Law and Works in which they give it to faith For faith onely doth behold and receive the promises of life and mercy but the Law and Works respect the Commandments not the Promises of meer grace When therefore Justification and life is said to be by Faith it is manifestly signified that faith receiving the promise Deut. 7.12 10.12 Jer. 7.23 Lev. 19.17 18. Luk. 10.27 Mark 12.30 doth receive righteousnesse and life freely promised Obedience to all Gods Commandments is covenanted not as the cause of life but as the qualification and effect of faith and as the way to life Faith that imbraceth life is obediential and fruitful in all good works but in one sort faith is the cause of obedience and good works and in another of Justification and life eternal These it seeketh in the promises of the Covenant those it worketh and produceth as the cause doth the effect Faith was the efficient cause of that precious oblation in Abel Heb. 11.4 7 c. of reverence and preparing the Ark in Noah of obedience in Abraham but it was the instrument onely of their Justification For it doth not justifie as it produceth good works but as it receiveth Christ though it cannot receive Christ unlesse it bring forth good works A disposition to good works is necessary to Justification being the qualification of an active and lively faith Good works of all sorts are necessary to our continuance in the state of Justification and so to our final absolution if God give opportunity but they are not the cause of but onely a precedent qualification or condition to final forgivenesse and eternal blisse If then when we speak of the conditions of the Covenant of grace by condition we understand whatsoever is required on our part as precedent concomitant or subsequent to Justification repentance faith and obedience are all conditions but if by condition we understand what is required on our part as the cause of the good promised though onely instrumental faith or belief in the promises of free mercy is the onely condition Faith and works are opposed in the matter of Justification and salvation in the Covenant not that they cannot stand together in the same subject for they be inseparably united but because they cannot concur or meet together in one and the same Court to the Justification or absolution of man For in the Court of Justice according to the first Covenant either being just he is acquitted or unjust he is condemned But in the Court of mercy if thou receive the promise of pardon which is done by a lively faith thou art acquitted and set free and accepted as just and righteous but if thou believe not thou art sent over to the Court of Justice Thus far Mr. Ball. In which words of his the blood of Christ faith in his blood repentance and works have all of them their due place assigned them The blood of Christ as the alone efficient procuring cause Faith as the instrument giving interest and making application Repentance as a necessary qualification of the justified person in order to glory In this which is the good old Protestant doctrine God loseth nothing of his grace but all is free in the work Christ loseth nothing of his merit it stands alone as the procuring cause Faith receives all from Christ but takes nothing off from the free grace of God or Christs merits God loseth nothing of his Soveraignty and man is not at all dispensed with in his duty God is advanced in his goodnesse and Soveraignty man is kept humble thankful and in subjection no place being left for his pride or gap open for licentiousnesse A Digression concerning the Instrumentality of Faith in Justification HEre I cannot passe by that which Mr. Baxter hath animadverted on some passages of mine in the Treatise of the Covenant concerning the Instrumentality of Faith After I had spoke to our Justification by Faith in opposition to Justification by works in several Propositions of which he is not pleased to take any notice I infer pag. 80. These things considered I am truly sorry that Faith should be denyed to have the office or place of an instrument in our Justification nay scarce allowed to be called an instrument of our receiving Christ that justifies us Mr. Baxter not acquainting his Reader at all with the premises immediately falls upon this inference making himself somewhat merry with my professing my self to be truly sorry for this thing telling me I was as sorry that men called and so called faith the instrument of justification as you are that I deny it acquainting his Reader with his Reasons which he would have to be compared with mine which he passes over in silence 1. No Scripture doth sayes he either in the letter or sense call faith an instrument of Justification This the Reader must take on his word and it should further be considered whether he do not in the same page contradict himself where he saith It is onely the unfitnesse or impropriety of the phrase that he

though the act of Justification do not work it 6. You say Faith can have no physicall causation or efficiency in Justification seeing that the work to be done by us is not nosmetipsos Justificare either in whole or in part c. 7. You say The legall formall interest or conducibility of faith towards Justification cannot therefore be any other then that of a condition in the proper Law sense c. I have spoken to both of these in the place last mentioned 8. You say Scripture doth not say that you can find that faith justifies but that we are justified by faith and therefore you say you use the latter phrase rather then the former Ans This sure comes to fill up or make a number To say that we are justified by faith and not that faith justifies is a distinction without a difference We have warmth by Clothes but Clothes do not warm u● Faith hath no lesse efficiency in Justification then in miraculous cures and yet in them faith made whole 9. You say Though ex parte Christi our severall changes proceed from his severall benefits and parts of his office exercised for us Yet ex parte nostri i.e. fidei it is one intire apprehension or receiving of Christ as he is offered in the Gospel which is the condition of our interest in Christ and his severall ben fits and the effect is not parcelled or diversified or distinguished from the severall distinct respects that faith hath to its object c. Answ It is well that this is confessed on the part of Christ And I think you cannot shew why Christ should undergo this variety of functions in his Mediatorship and make them known to us likewise That we should be taught in our Catechism which is so honoured with your approbation That Christ executeth the office of a Prophet in revealing to us by his word and Spirit the will of God for our Salvation That he executeth the office of a Priest in his once offering up of himself a Sacrifice to satisfie divine Justice and reconcile us to God and in making continuall intercession for us That he executeth the office of a King in subduing us to himself in ruling and defending us if our faith is not to observe which way these various priviledges accrue unto us Why does the Scripture so distinctly speak of them if we may not distinctly consider them Must our intellect go without our faith in this thing I think it may be proved that the Saints faith hath thus distinctly acted In danger of enemies they go to God in Christ in consideration of his soveraignty As Jehoshaphat 2 Chron. 20.6 O Lord God of our Fathers art not thou God in heaven and rulest not thou over all the Kingdomes of the heathen and in thy hands is there not power and might So that none is able to withstand thee c. Under a cloud of ignorance to go to him as a teacher We see the censure that the Psalmist passes upon himself So foolish was I and ignorant I was as a beast before thee and presently addresses himself to God Thou shalt Guide me with thy counsell and bring me unto glory Psal 73.22 24. Under the burthen of sin to look to be clensed and purged To what else did the sacrifices tend and why else did David make his addresse Wash me thoroughly from my sin Deliver me from blood-guiltinesse Here I must lay down certain propositions in a more full way to explicate my self Propositions tending to explain the Authors meaning 1. That these severall functions of Christ must be distinguished but may not be divided He that is one is all Christ a Priest doth rule Christ a King doth merit and teach Christ a Prophet doth both merit and rule But as a Priest he doth not rule as a King he doth not merit he is still one in all of these functions but acts under a distinct notion 2. There is a necessity of the actuall improvement of his Kingly and Prophetick office to bring men into a Justified state and to bring Justified ones to the end of their Justification There must be light to lead men to Christ power to subdue men unto him as well as a price paid to reconcile them When the price of our redemtion is paid by Christ and not published it is like the hid treasure by which no man hath advantage Yea were it made known and by faith applied and brought home our enemies yet are so potent and numerous that they would still prevaile against us Being redeemed by a price out of the hands of the Fathers Justice we must be rescued by a power out of the hands of Sathan When his right determines as it is with many unjust possessors he will yet keep his hold 3. Our faith hath respect to whole Christ to every part and piece of his Mediatorship It yeelds to his soveraignty is guided by his counsell and rests in his attonement So that the faith which Justifies looks at his Kingly office at his Prophetick office as well as at his Priestly office but not as it justifies Quà teaching it looks upon him as a Prophet and learns Quà ruling it looks upon him as a King and submits to him Quà sacrificing and making atonement it looks upon him as a Priest and rests there for acquitall and discharge Where the Gospel distinguishes our faith is distinctly to act and look As to the charge laid against me I shall say little I had rather speak for truth then for my self You tell me that my expressions confound Christ and his actions with mans faith in our Justification or these two questions by what we are Justified ex parte Christi and by what we are Justified ex parte nostri For answer I only leave it to the Readers eyes whether I do not mention our faith as distinct from the blood of Christ in the words by you recited And it is faith by which we are Justified ex parte nostri The implyed sense which you accuse I shall further consider in some expresse reasons Now for your arguments we have ten in number and not above two of them conclude the proposition in question Your first concludes That Christ is not received as Christ Mr. Brs. Arguments examined if not as Lord-Redeemer which is a new phrase which I remember not that I have read before I read this Apology For Answer I say Christ is to be received as the Lord our Redeemer and as our Master or Teacher but faith in Justification eys Redemption not Dominion Your second concludes from the authority of the Assembly That Justifying faith is the receiving of Christ as he is offered in the Gopel But he is offered in the Gospel as Saviour and Lord. All which is that which never was denyed Your third concludes That to save from the power of sin is as true a part of a Saviours office as to save from the guilt which is not at all

to the question Saving from the power of Sin Sanctifies and not Justifies Your fourth Of faiths receiving Christ as he Justifies us affirming that he Justifies us as King Judge and Benefactor is the same for ought I can discern with your tenth and there is to be considered Your fifth is If receiving Christ as Satisfier and Meritor be the only faith that gives right to Justification then on the same grounds we must say It is the only faith that gives right to further Sanctification and to Glorification If you put this argument into form the word meritor will be found aequivocall and the Syllogism to consist of four termes We look at Christ for Justification as satisfying Justice and meriting pardon and remission not as meriting Sanctification Sixthly you say Rejecting Christ as a King is the condemning sin therefore receiving him as King is the Justifying faith This is like the old argument Evill works merit condemnation Ergo good works merit salvation An ill meaning damnes Prov. 21.27 Our good meaning therefore saves I further answer Rejecting Christ as a King is a sin against the Morall Law which damnes Yet somewhat more then subjection to the Morall Law is required that a sinner may be saved You give in your reason of your consequent Because unbelief say you condemneth at least partly as it is the privation of the Justifying Faith explaining your self that you speak of that condemnation or peremptory sentence which is proper to the New Law To this I answer Unbelief if we speak properly doth not at all condemne further then as it is a breach of a Morall Commandment The privation of which you speak only holds the sentence of the Law in force and power against us which me thinks should be your judgment as well as mine seeing you are wont to compare the New Law as you call it to an Act of Oblivion And an Act of Oblivion saves many but condemnes none If a Traytor or Murtherer be exempted in any such Act of Oblivion it is their crime that condemnes them only the Act provides no remedy for them It harmes them not only it does not help them If one of those which were stung by the fiery serpent Numb 21. had refused to have look'd on the braz●n serpent The sting had been his death and such obstinate refusall had kept him from the meanes of cure Your seventh is Kissing the Son and submitting to him as King is made the condition of escaping his wrath Answ If you had said A condition you had spoken fairlier The condition implies the sole condition The yeelding up of our selves to him in all his functions as the Lords Christ vers 2. is there understood which is of necessity in all that will escape his wrath Eighthly you say Matth. 11.28 29 30. The condition of case and of rest from guilt as well as power of sin is our comming to Christ as a teacher and example of meeknesse and lowlinesse and our learning of him a taking on us his yoke and burthen Answ This text shewes the duty of men to be not alone to seek rest and ease from Christ but to learn of Christ and follow him But neither their learning nor their imitation but faith in his blood is their freedome or Justification Ninthly you say That faith which is the condition of salvation is the condition of Justification or remission But it is the receiving of Christ as King as well as a satisfier that is the condition of our salvation Therfore c. Answ Here the Conclusion is safely granted You know that we yeeld that the faith that accepts Christ as a King Justifies But that is not the Justifying act The hand hath more officers then one It works as well as receives and so hath faith And that there is more req●ired as a condition to Salvation then to Justification speaking of it in Scripture phrase you yeeld sufficiently where you distinguish of Justification begun the condition whereof is faith only and Justification consummate there you bring in Repentance and Obedience That which you call Justification begun is Justification properly so called Faith only is serviceable to reconcile us unto God but there is more required for reparation of our qualifications to hold us up in communion with God Of this I have spoke Chap. 1.2 13 14. of my treatise of the Covenant Your tenth and last reason is If accepting Christ a Lord Redeemer be the fides quae Justificat i. e. quae est conditio Justificationis then it is meerly strictly and properly the Justifying act of faith as the accepting of Christs righteousnesse is But the Antecedent you say is granted by all Divines that you have to do with Therefore c. Answ If they grant your Antecedent simply as in this phrase you deliver it I much marvell This seemes to imply that Christ acted quà Lord in paying the price of our Redemption and that this work of his is to be referred to his exaltation and not to his state of humiliation And I am sure the Scripture speaks otherwise That which I yeeld is That the faith which accepts Christ who is our Lord and Redeemer is the faith which Justifies and the condition of our Justification But as it lookes upon Redemption a sacrificing act of Priest-hood The distinctias fides quae and fides quà asserted done by him who is indeed a Lord and King sit only Justifies But this distinction of Fides quae Justificat and Fides quà Justificat is as you are pleas'd to say the generall cheat so that your Antecedent it seemes is granted you by all those Divines with whom you deal under this limit And as it seems you have met with a pack of impostors that of the most learned in the Land that out of their great condescension have written for your satisfaction This word you think sounds harshly from Mr. Crandon as indeed it doth and is no small blemish to his great paines you may then judge how it will take from your self in the ears of others And I much marvell that this distinction that every where else would passe and be confessed to be of necessity to avoid confusion in those distinct capacities in which men usually act should here not alone be questioned but thus branded Does not every man that undergoes various relatitions variously act according to them And do not men that make addresse addresse themselves in like variety He that is at once a Husband a Parent a Master a School-master a Physician acts variously according to all of these capacities Some come to him as a father some as a Master some as a Teacher all of them come unto him as a Physician But only they that come to him as a Physician are cur'd by him Believers through faith go to Christ that bears all the relations mentioned But as they seek satisfaction in his blood-shedding which is an act of his Priest-hood they are justified Learned Amesius may

you thus challenge never had any such thing in their thoughts Making the Scripture their study and Protestants writers their Comment they find Justification by the blood of Christ Rom. 5.9 and interest in this blood alone by faith Rom. 3.25 28. and works they find again and again excluded I wish you to consult the Homilies of the Church of England especially the Homilies of the Salvation of Man-kind by Christ our Saviour pag. 14. Having touched upon divers passages of Saint Paul This is added In the aforesaid places the Apostle toucheth especially three things which must go together in our Justifycation upon Gods part his great mercy and grace upon Christs part Justice that is the satisfaction of Gods Justice or the price of our Redemtion by the offering of his body shedding of his blood with the fulfilling of the Law perfectly and throughly and upon our part true and lively faith in the merits of Jesus Christ And therefore Saint Paul declareth here nothing upon the behalf of man concerning his Justification but only a true and lively faith And yet that faith doth not shut out repentance hope love dread and the fear of God to be joyned with saith in every man that is Justified but it shutteth them out from the office of Justifying With much more to the same purpose Your Readers that are not so much seen in the Language of Bellarmine and Suarez as they are in the Scriptures or at least that do not so much heed them deny all that you take for granted In which also you have phrases more uncouth to your Readers then any that I have uttered can be to you to be righteous signifieth say you quoad legem novam non obligatus ad poenam cui debetur praemium This signification according to this new law I think was never found in any of our old and new Dictionaries Those that are righteous shall be thus acquit and rewarded we believe but not upon account of any righteousnesse inherent in them but the righteousnesse of Christ made theirs by faith and so their faith is accounted to them for righteousnesse You then adde So that you see that your first righteousnesse non reatus poenae vel jus ad impunitatem ad praemium as it requires Christs perfect satisfaction as a medium to it by which all the charge of the Law works must be answered So it requires our performance of the condition of the Law of grace as an other medium by which Christ and his benefits are made ours I had thought that our righteousnesse had not been non reatus poenae that is not the thing at best were it as perfect as Adams was but reather non reatus culpae If a man be charged with Murther his righteousnesse as to this charge is his not-killing and not his non-obligation to the Gibbet That follows upon it non reatus is not of the essence of righteousnesse nor is reatus of the essence of sin otherwise then consecutive And that Christs righteousnesse should be thus called a medium I do not see I think it is the thing it self and not a medium to it And that our righteousnesse is any medium to Justification as it is inherent I deny and that our inherent righteousnesse required by the Law of Grace stands in any such subordination to the righteousnesse of Christ as a necessary means to make it ours I see your word for it but I think and the reformed Churches are of the same mind that I have the whole current of Scripture against it You close up this discourse thus And thus I have done what at present I thought my duty that it might be not my fault that you are in ignorance all over But I have said the lesse because I have lately more exactly opened the nature of our righteousnesse in answer to the Animadversions of an other learned brother But it is worth inquiry whether this learned Brother have received satisfaction from that more exact paines of yours Perhaps his learning may serve to give as exact an answer And if his greater learning be not satisfyed with that which is more exact and elaborate my less learning may well remain as much unsatisfied with lesse exactnesse And your Reader will think you were not so well advised to publish your self and conceal your most exact opening of this poynt of so great concernement Though you might think that any thing might serve me yet all your exactnesse will I believe be litte enough in this poynt to give satisfaction to many Readers Whereas you had said in your Aphorismes pag. 122. Imperfect righteousnesse is not righteousnesse but unrighteousnesse Imperfect righteousnesse is no contradiction It is a contradiction in adjecto yet there admitting an imperfection in holinesse I answer'd I never took imperfect righteousnesse to imply any such contradiction more then imperfect holinesse To this you reply 1. By a way of concession that holinesse is taken first for the relation of a person or thing dedicated to God So it admits not of magìs and minùs more then righteousnesse 2. That the common use of the word Holinesse is for the qualities or actions of a spiritually-renewed man this is confessed to have its transcendent perfection as wel as righteousness Hitherto we are agreed but here say you is the difference Holinesse thus taken is a quality which though it have the truth of being yet it is intendend and remitted or doth recipere magìs minùs righteousnes is a relation which in suo formali is not intended or remitted And is not Righteousnesse a quality in like manner which is intended and remitted when Zachary saies Righteousness as well as holiness is intended and remitted We are delivered out of the hands of all our enemies to serve in righteousnesse and true holinesse Is not the one a qualification by a new work of the Spirit as well as the other When the Angel said Rev. 22. He that is unjust let him be unjust still and he that is filthy let him be filthy still and he that is righteous let him be righteous still and he that is holy let him be holy still As unjust and filthy hold out vicious qualities from the flesh so Holy and righteous both signifie renewed qualities by the Spirit It follows Nay if you will exactly open it it will appear that the righteousnesse in question is a relation founded in a relation Yea more that the very subjectum proximum hujus relationis nec intenditur nec remittitur this is that I mean by perfection besides the aforesaid transcendentall perfection And how shall we know what the righteousnes in question is either it must be gathered out of your own words or out of their words that you censure as guilty of such ignorance as before Let us look upon your own words Thess 2.2 which you there comment upon In this fore-explained sense it is that men in Scripture say you are said to be