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	righteousness_n	3,792	5	8.3471	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A15420	A retection, or discouerie of a false detection containing a true defence of two bookes, intituled, Synopsis papismi, and Tetrastylon papisticum, together with the author of them, against diuers pretended vntruths, contradictions, falsification of authors, corruptions of Scripture, obiected against the said bookes in a certaine libell lately published. Wherein the vniust accusations of the libeller, his sophisticall cauils, and vncharitable slaunders are displayed.	Willet, Andrew, 1562-1621.	1603 (1603)	STC 25694; ESTC S114436	136,184	296

expressed in other letters but in the common character as it standeth in the first edition pag. 566. lin 2. 2. The text onely then is not here vrged but an argument therefrom concluded and therein included that because a man is iustified without the workes of the law it followeth that he is iustified by faith alone So Origen inferreth vpon this place Dicit sufficere solius fidei iustificationem ita vt credens quis tantummodo iustificetur etiamsi nihil ab eo operis fuerit expletum He saith that the iustification of faith onely sufficeth that one beleeuing onely may bee iustified though hee haue fulfilled no worke lib. 3. ad Roman Say now that Origen also corrupteth S. Paul So likewise Ambrose in 3. ad Rom. Iustificati sunt gratis quia nihil operantes neque fidem reddentes sola fide iustificati sunt dono Dei They are iustified freely because working nothing nor rendring nothing they are iustified by faith onely by the gift of God Againe in 4. ad Roman Cum videant Abramum non ex operibus legis sed sola fide iustificatum When they see Abraham iustified not of the workes of the law but by faith only Ambrose thus concludeth only faith out of S. Paul without any corruption at all out of which Father I haue twentie like pregnant testimonies at the lest at hand for iustification sola fide by faith onely 3. Where you say there is no Scripture for onely faith though this place of the Apostle be equiualent to that speech yet somewhat to satisfie your contentious spirit I will name you such a Scripture as Luk. 8. 50. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 beleeue onely c. and she shall be saued 4. Your euasion of workes that goe before grace that the Apostle onely speaketh of such will not serue your turne for euen such workes are excluded which God hath prepared for vs to walke in Ephes. 2. 8. 10. This was the old shift of the Pelagians as it should seeme which Hierome remoueth thus writing vpon these words By the works of the law shall no flesh be iustified Quod ne de lege Mosi tantum dictum putes non de omnibus mandatis quae vno legis nomine continentur idem Apostolus scribit dicens consentio legi Dei secundum interiorem hominem Which least you should thinke spoken only of the law of Moses and not of all the commaundements which are contained vnder this one name of the law the same Apostle writeth saying I consent to the law of God in the inward man c. ad Ctesiphont 5. Whereas S. Iames saith that a man is iustified of workes and not of faith onely 2. 24. hee speaketh not of that iustification wherby we are made iust before God but of the outward probation and testification thereof as it may appeare out of the 22. verse Was not Abraham our father iustified through workes when he offered Isaac his sonne vpon the altar But Abraham was iustified before God by faith at the least thirtie yeeres before Genes 15. 6. Abraham beleeued God and it was counted to him for righteousnes therefore by this worke his faith was proued and made knowne as the Angell saith Now I know that thou fearest God Gen. 22. 12. he was not thereby iustified before God This distinction of iustification Thomas Aquinas alloweth Iacobus hîc loquitur de operibus sequentibus fidem quae dicuntur iustificare non secundum quod iustificare dicitur iustitiae infusio sed secundum quod dicitur iustitiae exercitatio vel ostensio vel consummatio res enim fieri dicitur quando perficitur vel innotescit Iames speaketh here of workes following faith which are said to iustifie not as the infusion of iustice is said to iustifie but as it is said to be the exercise shewing or perfecting of righteousnes for a thing is said to be done when it is perfected and made knowne in epist. Iacob 5. 5. And no otherwise Origen saith that Abraham was iustified by workes Quia certum est eum qui verè credit opus fide● iustitiae operari Because it is certaine that hee which truly beleeueth doth worke the worke of faith and righteousnes lib. 4. ad Rom. Thus S. Paul and S. Iames are reconciled the one speaketh of our iustification that is the infusion of iustice before God which is by faith the other of the testification thereof by workes The 12. Corruption SYnops. pag. 532. I am the bread Ioh. 6. 35. the text is corrupted by leauing out two words of life which if he had put to his argument against transubstantiation had bin destitute of all force The Correction 1. IF it bee corruption of Scripture sometime for breuitie sake to leaue out a word you had best charge our Sauiour with that corruption who saith out of Esay The spirit of the Lord is vpon me Luk. 4. 18. whereas the Prophet saith of the Lord Iehouah 2. He might haue considered that the argument taken out of this scripture is set downe from Bellarmines report together with his answere lib. 3. de Euchar. cap. 24. argum 1. So that herein is no deceite nor corruption in rehearsing that which is by others propounded although it were graunted that some ouersight might passe in the first propounders which is not yet proued otherwise when this text is alleaged by himselfe all the words are expressed I am the bread of life pag. 509. lin 1. 3. It was not necessarie nor pertinent to adde the rest of the words neither haue they any aduauntage in putting of them to for where Christ saith I am the liuing bread or bread of life so he likewise saith this is my bodie pointing to the bread which is giuen for you but he gaue his liuing not his dead bodie for them As then Christ is not chaunged into bread when hee saith I am the bread of life but it is a figuratiue speech so the bread is not chaunged into his liuing bodie where he saith this is my bodie giuen for you But here of necessitie also a figure must be admitted as Augustine saith Corporis sanguinis sui figuram discipulis commendauit tradidit Hee gaue and commended a figure of his bodie and bloud to his Disciples Enarrat in Psal. 3. So Tertullian before interpreted this is my body that is a figure of my body lib. 4. cont Marcion So then as Christ is not materiall bread but spiritually so the bread is not his materiall body but likewise spiritually This comparison then standeth still betweene these two speeches though the word of life be supplied that in both a figuratiue kind of locution must be admitted The 13. Corruption THe Scripture saith that Christ was giuen onely for those that are giuen to him to whom he giueth eternall life Iohn 17. 2. the word onely is maliciously added Libell p. 278. The Correction 1. HEre not so much the sentence as the sense of the Scripture is applied doth the

tum deleri videntur cum peccant iuxta praescientiam verò nunquam in libro vitae fuerunt In the iustice of the Iudge they then are said to be blotted out when they sinne but according to Gods prescience they were neuer in the booke of life in 9. ad Roman 2. Concerning Saul I haue shewed before that ●ee was neuer elected before God or truly iust answer to the 11. vntruth and you haue brought a goodly text to proue it Saul was a choise young man and afaire c. higher by the shoulders thē the children of Israel Ergo he was chosen before God Ambrose saith Qui credere videntur non permanent in fide à Deo electi negantur quia quos Deus eligit apud se permanent est etiam qui ad tempus eligitur sicut Saul Iudas non de praescientia sed de praesenti iustitia They which seeme to beleeue and continue not in faith are denied to be elected of God for whom God electeth doe continue with him there is also that is chosen for a time as Saul and Iudas not in Gods prescience but in their present iustice in 8. ad Roman 3. Thirdly the same answere we make to the supposed contradiction that Adam was made subiect to euerlasting condemnation by his transgression not before God but in respect of himselfe and his present state because by his sinne he had deserued it he was subiect to damnation ex merito suo non ex decreto Dei by his desert not by the decree of God neither had he vtterly lost the grace of God to which hee was restored but in part only in respect of his present feeling As Dauid saith Psalm 51. 12. Restore me to the ioy of saluation hee had not lost his saluation but the feeling the ioy and comfort of it As Ambrose saith In terris quateris in caelis possides Thou art tossed and shaken in the earth and yet doest possesse in heauen de obit Theodos The 10. Contradiction SYnops. pag. 1067. to affirme that Henoch and Elias went vp to heauen in their bodies before the ascension of Christ out of Scripture it cannot be proued it is euident that they were taken vp aliue into heauen but not that they continued aliue out of these words the Libeller first noteth a contradiction secondly a notable vntruth The Reconciliation 1. FIrst to remoue the contradiction in that it is said they were taken vp aliue or in their bodies into heauen it is not meant that they went into heauen with their bodies but that they were aliue in their bodies when they were taken vp from the earth so that the words must be read with a distinction their being aliue or in their bodies must be referred to the first clause they were taken vp not to the second into heauen Thus the Sophister vseth a fallacie conioyning those things which are to bee disioyned As where it is said Act. 1. 11. This Iesus which is taken vp into heauen shall so come as ye haue seene him go into heauen the words must not be taken in a ioynt sense as though they did see Christ going or entring into heauen for a clowd took him frō their sight v. 9. neither was that heauen whither Christ went euer seene with mortall eye but the words must be distinguished they did onely see him goe that is taken from the earth and going from them As there is no contradiction in these words that a clowd tooke him from their sight and yet they saw him going into heauen no more is there in the other 2. Secondly whereas the Libeller affirmeth that Henoch and Elias are yet aliue in their bodies but not in heauen belike in the terrestriall paradise as some haue thought Rhem. in 11. Apocal. sect 4. And that Henoch and Elias shall come in person in the time of Antichrist I wil briefly shew how vncertaine both these opinions are First that they are aliue in their bodies in paradise the Scripture sheweth not that place Ecclesiastic 44. 16. which is scripture with them that Henoch was translated into paradise is corruptly translated for the word paradise is not in the Greeke as Pererius hath wel obserued lib. 3. in Genes qu. 5. Where that place is vrged Matth. 11. vers 11. Elias indeed shall come or is to come it is rather to be read venturus erat was for to come so readeth Hentenius a Papist in Euthym. so the vulgar Latine translateth vers 3. where Iohn sendeth this message to Christ Art thou he that art to come without any sense for Christ was come alreadie it should be rather read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which should come or was to come 2. The booke of Macchabees which is Scripture with them saith 1. chap. 2. 58. Elias was taken vp 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vsque euen into heauen which word euen importeth not his taking vp onely into the ayre but into heauen indeede Hierome saith that Henoch Elias mortis necessitate superata ita vt erant in corporibus de terrena conuersatione ad caelestia regna translati sunt The necessitie of death being ouercome as they were in their bodies were translated from their terrene conuersation to the celestiall kingdome And of this opinion hee saith was Theodorus Heracleotes tom 4. Miner Alexand. that they were translated to heauen we beleeue with Hierome but not in their very bodies therein I preferre rather Origens opinion Sicut ex mortuis primogenitus Christus ita primus carnem euexit in coelum As Christ was the first borne of the dead so he first caried his flesh into heauen ex Pamphil. 3. Whereas he vrgeth that place Heb. 11. vers 5. By faith was Enoch translated that hee should not see death to proue that he is yet aliue the Apostle onely sheweth that he died not after the vsuall manner and common condition as they which shall be aliue at Christs comming shall not die but they shal be changed 1. Cor. 15. 51. which is a kinde of death For otherwise how should that sentence of Scripture be verified Heb. 9. 27. It is appointed vnto men that they shall once die that is to all men wherefore Henoch and Elias though they died not a common death yet were they chaunged which was in steede of death vnto them 4. Origen thinketh that Elias descendens ad inferna c. did descend to hell c. Hom. 4. in Luc. Ambrose taketh paradise to bee heauen Tum saluus fuero in paradiso cum coepero viuere inter electos angelos Then I shall bee safe when I shall liue in paradise among the elect Angels serm 15. in Psal. 119. If Henoch and Elias be in paradise they are then in heauen Chrysostome Hom. 21. in Genes If any man doe curiously aske into what place Henoch was translated and whether hee doe liue to this present discat non conuenire humanis mentibus curiosius ea quae à Deo fiunt explorare let

him learne that it is not fit for men curiously to search out those things which God doth Hom. 21. in Genes Augustine Quid de Helia factum sit nescimus hoc de illo tamen credimus quod verax scriptura testatur What is become of Elias we know not that we beleeue of him which the Scripture testifieth cont Faust. lib. 26. cap. 4. Theodoret qu. 45. in Genes dare not determine into what place Henoch was translated Rupertus that Henoch was not translated into the terrestriall paradise lib. 3. de trinitat cap. 33. Thomas affirmeth not that Henoch and Elias are in paradise but with this addition vt dicitur vel creditur as it is said or beleeued 1. par qu. 103. ar 2. Iansenius a popish Bishop is of opinion that Henoch and Elias are not in the terrestriall paradise in Comment super cap. 143. concord Euangelic Of the same iudgement is Pererius a lesuite lib. 3. in Genes qu. 5. Now for the second point it is as vncertaine out of the Fathers that Henoch and Elias shall come in person in the time of Antichrist 1. Cyprian saith Nobis in spiritu virtute Eliae non alium quam Ioannem solum c. The Angell and our Lord Christ doe insinuate none other to come in the power and spirit of Elias but Iohn onely de singular Clericor Likewise Origen Vide fortassis si Ioannem baptistam possumus ponere in loco Eliae See if happily wee may not place Iohn Baptist in the place of Elias in 11. ad Roman 2. Concerning the two Prophets mentioned in the Apocalypse chap. 11. Augustine vnderstandeth the two Testaments and confuteth them quiputant hos duos testes duos viros esse which take these two witnesses for two men c. Beda also vnderstandeth the doctrine of the old and new Testament Ambrosius Ausbertus the holie Church in generall in her preachers 3. Victorinus vpon that place sheweth that some vnderstand Helias and Moses but he would haue it to be Ieremie Hilarius contendeth they must be Moses and Helias Iustinus thinketh not onely Henoch and Elias to be aliue but also those whose bodies arose at the resurrection of Christ qu. 85. ad Orthodox Hippolytus will haue not onely Henoch and Elias but Iohn the Diuine also to come with them before the comming of Christ. Now I referre it to the iudgement of the discreete Reader whether this conceit of Henoch and Elias be not more like to be a fable then to haue any likelihood of truth wherein there is such diuersitie of opinion and vncertaintie amongst the ancient writers The Libeller bringeth foorth nothing but painted papers and emptie Poticaries boxes he hath painted his lines with the names of Fathers but produceth not their testimonies he setteth foorth no new stuffe but the scrapings of other mens platters And as Flaminius host at Chalcis when he wondred at the multitude of the dishes said vnto him omnes carnes suillas they were all but swines flesh diuersly dressed so this homely host entertaineth his reader but with their wonted grosse meates though he would shew in the new kind of dressing it a piece of slouenly cookerie of his own I say then vnto him with Hierome Aut profer meliores epulas me conuiua vtere aut qualicunque hac caenula nostra contentus esto Either bring foorth better meate and let me be one of your ghests or els pull downe your stomacke and taste of my prouision And I would that he that first bid vs to eate of his swines dish too grosse meate for a sound stomack had grace to receiue the holesome meate that is presented to him for his health The 11. Contradiction SYnops. pag. 908. A true liuely faith c. can neuer finally fall away c. a iustifying faith is alwaies actuall working by loue pag. 881. no loue no faith Hereof it followeth that either Dauid and Peter had no faith when hee committed adulterie and the other denied his master or els that Peter loued his master when he denied him and Dauid loued God and his neighbour when he committed adulterie with the wife and slew the husband c. pag. 197. The Reconciliation FIrst there is a difference betweene a true faith and a perfect faith a true faith alwaies remaineth in the elect though it be not alwaies a perfect and glorious faith likewise a true faith is not alwaies a like effectuall or working but yet alwaies accompanied with loue though not in the same degree 2. As then Dauid and Peters faith failed in these their sinnes so also their charitie but it therefore followeth not that because in one act their faith and charitie failed and in part was empaired therefore it was wholie extinguished 3. And that neither of them was giuen ouer to a reprobate sense it may appeare because Dauid vpon Nathans admonition repented and Peter presently vpon his deniall went foorth and wept bitterly 4. Wherefore your Logicke sir Sophister here faileth you and you conclude weakely from a part to the whole that because their loue failed in part it was wholy lost was there no sparke of loue in Dauid neither toward God nor man nor no goodnes left in Peter during their seuerall tentations When the Moone is in decreasing hath she lost all her light the seede that lieth all the winter buried in the earth hath it no life in it So the seede of faith and charitie alwaies remaineth in the faithfull though not alike greene and flourishing Because you sir Cauiller haue shewed your selfe at this time in slaundring and railing an vnhonest man shall I therefore inferre that there is no goodnes or honestie left in you 4. For Salomon the same answer wil serue that though in that hainous sinne of Idolatrie both his faith and loue failed yet it was not generally or totally extinguished as the Lord saith 2. Sam. 7. 15. My mercie shall not depart away from him but where no faith nor loue is there is no mercie As mercie on Gods behalfe therfore did not vtterly depart from him so neither in Salomon was faith quite rooted out the seede of faith and loue lay buried in him in that his heauie sleepe and was afterward by Gods grace awaked and reuiued But how is it inferred that vnlesse the fire of charitie were cleane put out in Salomon idolatrie must be a good worke and the louing of God for this wicked act sheweth a partiall and temporall failing of faith and charitie not a totall or finall was there thinke you no goodnes vertue iustice wisedome the fruits of faith and charitie in Gods children remaining in Salomon in the time of his fall The contrarie is extant in Scripture Eccles. 2. 9. My wisedome remained with me euen in the middest of his pleasure the light of wisedome and knowledge was not extinguished in him 5. Concerning Paul we affirme that hee was alwaies a member of the Catholike Church as it comprehendeth the number of