Selected quad for the lemma: knowledge_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
knowledge_n	law_n	sin_n	transgression_n	3,416	5	11.8881	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A34977	Exceptions against a vvriting of Mr. R. Baxters in answer to some animadversions upon his aphorisms / by Mr. Chr. Cartwright ...	Cartwright, Christopher, 1602-1658.	1675 (1675)	Wing C691; ESTC R5677	149,052	185

peccata missa facere which the Scripture he saith following the Metaphor further calls peccata in mare pro●icere Mich. 7. 19. It is true Sin is said to be remitted in reference unto Punishment Remittere or missa facere peccata as Grotius saith is as much as punire nolle Yet this hinders not but that sin or the guilt of sin is properly said to be remitted or pardoned yea I think it doth confirm it For if it be proper to say That God will not punish sin and this is as much as to remit or pardon sin then it is proper to say That God doth remit or pardon sin In a word therefore my words about which you make so much adoe are such as that I see not why any should stumble at them They do not import that our Actions even the best of them if strictly examined are not sinful or that God doth not see any sin in them but only that God doth pardon and pass by the sinfulness of them and accept them in Christ who is the High-Pri●st that doth bear and so take away the Iniquity of our holy things Exod. 28. 38. as if they had no sin in them Neither do I see why you should detest this justifying of our Actions and yet grant the justifying of our Persons Your Reasons seem to make as much against the one as against the other For are not our Persons sinful as well as our Actions Surely if the Action be sinful the Person whose Action it is must needs be so too And though you pass over the next because you reverse your former Assertion yet in that which I there said you might have seen enough to vindicate me from all that you have here said against me 1. You grant what I say 2. I have said before That though in mine Opinion sin may properly be said to be remitted yet this is in reference unto punishment 3. You had no reason to imagine that I should think that my Actions or the Actions of the best upon Earth can be justified against all Accusations as if they were absolutely good and perfect when in that very place I spake of the imperfection and iniquity that is in our best Actions and how it is through Christ covered and not imputed unto us Yea and immediately I cited divers places of Scripture viz. Eccles 7. 20. James 3. 2. 1 John 1. 8 9. Job 9. 4. Exod. 28. 38. to prove that neither our Persons nor our Actions are so righteous but that we may be accused of and condemned for sin in them and so without the mercy of God in Christ must be It is strange how you should pass by all this it being directly before your eyes and should raise a suspicion as if I should mean quite contrary 1. It will not follow that our Persons being once justified by Christ afterward they may be justified by our Works when once our Works themselves are all justified in that sense as I explained it viz. That first it is meant only of good Works and then that God doth not justifie those good Works for their own sake as if they were fully and perfectly Righteous but for Christ's sake pardoning and passing by the imperfection that is in them Illud semper retimeatur inquit Davenantius hanc acceptationem operum pendere ex praeviâ acceptatione persone in Christo Cum enim ipsi renaticarnem peccatricem adhuc gestent opera illorum omnia carnis vitium redoleant Deus neque ipsos neque eorum opera grata haberet nisi hos illa in Christo magis quàm in seipsis amplexaretur What you say of Chamîer and others as being against the meritoriousness of Works merited by Christ might well have been spared as being nothing at all against me who am far from making our Works meritorious when I make even the best of them imperfect and to need pardon 2. It is evident by this very Section to which you now reply that I spake only of good Actions For how absurd and sensless were it to say that our Sins are not fully and perfectly righteous as I there say that our Works are not The two former Sections also clearly shew of what Works I spake so that here you do but nodum in scirpo quaerere 1. Asserting may well enough be called Confessing though it be that and somewhat more 2. I cannot tell what Judgment some others may be of I speak for my self 3. I take all sin to be against the Law as it is distinguished from the Gospel though some sins may be aggravated by the Gospel Of that Law I suppose St. John spake saying Sin is a transgression of the Law 1 Joh. 3. 4. And St. Paul By the Law is the knowledg of sin Rom. 3. 20. And again I had not known sin but by the Law for I had not know lust or as the Margent hath it concupiscence viz. to be sin except the Law had said Thou shalt not covet Rom. 7. 7. I think it is the common judgment of Divines that every sin is against some of the Ten Commandments 4. It is no hard matter to conceive how unbelief and neglect of the Sacraments c. are sins against the Precepts of the Decalogue The first precept requires us to have the Lord and him only for our God and so to believe whatsoever he doth reval unto us and to perform whatsoever he doth require of us The second Precept requires us to Worship God as he himself doth prescribe and consequently not to neglect any of God's Ordinances See Mr. Cawdrey and Mr. Palmer of the Sabbath Part. 2. Chap. 4. § 21 22 23. What you add after makes all for me in this particular only some things seem meet to be observed 1. This I confess to me is strange Philosophy That the Earth of which Man's Body was made ceased not to be Earth still when it was made Man As well may you say That Adam's rib of which Eve was formed ceased not to be a Rib still and so that all the Elemenrs retain their several Natures in all mixt Bodies 2. The Precept and Threatning you say are parts of the New Law though they be common with the Old Here you seem to grant That nothing is commanded or threatned in the New Law which is not commanded or threatned in the Old Me-thinks then you should not make a Two-fold Righteousness and a Two-fold Justification one in respect of the Old Law another in respect of the New The Precept believe belongs to the Old Law but as it is not only a Precept but also a Condition upon performance of which Salvation is promised Believe and thou shalt be saved so it belongs to the New Law So this Threatning If thou dost not believe thou shalt perish belongs to the Old Law as threatning death for every sin and consequently for unbelief which is a sin and it belongs to the New Law as leaving an Unbeliever under

Righteousness is for one that would say any thing so that he may but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 As well might it be said That the New Man is created in Holiness but not in Righteousness 4. The Form of Righteousness is Conformity to the Law to which we must labour to conform still more and more not only extensivè but also intensivè 5. The very conjunction of the words here as in other places shews that they are used as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Besides how we should give unto God the things that are God's and to Men the things that are Mens and not conform to the Law which doth prescribe our Duty towards God and towards Men I cannot see and surely Conformity to the Law is the Righteousness now in question 1. If we be justified from the Accusation of Reatus poenae primae Legis propter peccatum What need is there of any other justification Vpon the Laws Convictions saith Mr. Blake there may follow Gospel-Aggravations but Conviction is the Work of the Law If Conviction then surely Condemnation If the Law do not condemn what can And what can the Law condemn for but for sin It is the Law which is the Ministration of Condemnation 2. Cor. 3. 9. By the Law is the knowledg of sin Rom. 3. 20. 2. For the accusation of Reatus poenae Novae Legis ob non praestiam Conditionem it is no new Accusation but a making good of a former Accusation and so Reatus paenae Novae Legis is but to be left in reatu poenae Veteris Legis save that aggravatâ ex Evangelio culpâ ipsa etiam poena aggravatur 3. I confess I was not before acquainted with these two Justifications which you speak of I did not find them in your Aphorisms but only two sorts of Righteousness as requisite to one and the same Justification so I understood it But truly now that you lay open your conception more than before I can see no solidity in it We are justified by the Righteousness of Christ participated by Faith but not by Faith as being it self our Righteousness Faith is indeed required unto Justification yet not as our Righteousness but as a Condition Instrument or Means for I would not strive about words whereby we partake of Christ's Righteousness I see not that the Scripture doth speak of such a Two-fold Justification one by Christ and his Righteous●ess another by Faith as our Righteousness but only of one Justification of Christ through Faith By him all that believe are justified Acts 13. 39. Non-reatus poenae is not Inherent Righteousness of which I expresly spake I take it to be really the same with Holiness What you cite therefore out of Gataker and Placaeus is nothing against me I speaking of Righteousness in one sense and they in another Besides you seem to mistake the meaning of Mr. Gataker's words for Sons is as much as reus culpae and insons as much as non-reus culpae whereas you seem to take Sons for Reus poenae and Insons for Non-reus poenae how-ever his words are not to our purpose 1. I see not how either here or elsewhere you infringe that which I said about the Materiality and Formality as well of Holiness as of Righteousness 2. As Holiness you grant is a Conformity to the Law as it doth constituere debitum officii so I conceive is Righteousness Inherent I still mean and not a Conformity to the Rule as it constituteth Conditionem praemit obtinendi poenae vitandae si nimirùm seclusà omni consideratione officii Conditio tantùm ut Conditio consideretur 1. Acceptance as taken for Accepting as Righteous or Accounting just is I think as much as Justifying 2. I did not nor I suppose those other Divines by you mentioned speak so generally but to presuppose Faith whereby our Persons are accepted in Christ and then our Actions By Faith Abel offered a more excellent Sacrifice c. Heb. 11. 4. At length after many words which touch not me in your 6th you grant as much as I did or do desire viz. That our Persons must be justified and reconciled before our external Obedience can be accepted Whereas you there add That it was not as they were an imperfect Conformity to the Law of Works that Abel 's Works were accepted I answer It was not indeed by the Law of Works yet as they were a sincere though imperfect Conformity to that Law as a Rule so they were accepted by the New Covenant The Law of Works directs the Covenant of Grace accepts though we come short of what the Law requires The Law as Mr. Blake saith still commands us though the Covenant in Christ through the abundant Grace of it upon the terms that it requires and accepts frees us from the Sentence of it And again A perfection of Sufficiency to attain the end I willingly grant God condescending through rich Grace to crown weak Obedience In this sence our Imperfection hath its perfectness otherwise I must say That our Inherent Righteousness is an Imperfect Righteousness in an imperfect Conformity to the Rule of Righteousness c. He means the Law of Works which as before noted he saith is a Rule a perfect Rule the only Rule 1. I shall not deny but that our Faith and Obedience may be said to be justified from the accusation of unsoundness Yet I think That this is but a making good of our Justification against the Accusation of being Sinners For besides that the unsoundness of Faith and so of Obedience is sin besides this I say if our Faith be not sound it is in vain we are yet in our sins we lie under the Curse and Condemnation of the Law there being no freedom for us without Faith 2. I know none that say Our Actions are justified through Christ's Merit by the Law of Works For my part I should say We and our Actions are justified from the Law of Works i. e. from the condemnation of it God for Christ's sake accepting us and our Actions notwithstanding our imperfection for which the Law if we should be sentenced by it would condemn us But here by the way let me observe this That your retractation of what you said in your Aphorisms doth seem to manifest thus much That when you composed those Aphorisms you either knew not or liked not that Twofold Justification which now you so often speak of and somewhere say That my ignorance in this Point is it that doth mainly darken all my Discourse That common saying is not always true 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For my words 1. I see not why those Acquitting us from all sin should offend you For you might see by what I there said That I meant the not-imputing of any sin unto us And so the Phrases used in Scripture of God not remembring our sins his covering them casting them behind his back into the bottom of the Sea c. they