Selected quad for the lemma: virtue_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
virtue_n	brazen_a	look_v	serpent_n	839	5	9.9901	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A41016	Sacra nemesis, the Levites scourge, or, Mercurius Britan. disciplin'd, [Mercurius] civicvs [disciplin'd] also deverse remarkable disputes and resolvs in the Assembly of Divines related, episcopacy asserted, truth righted, innocency vindicated against detraction.	Featley, Daniel, 1582-1645.	1644 (1644)	Wing F593; ESTC R2806	73,187	105

Thirdly aeque pronunciamur justi ut Christus we are equally pronounced just as Christ that is we are as truely acquitted and absolved as he sed non pronunciamur aeque justi but not pronounced equally just for his justice was inherent ours imputed his from himself ours from him his of infinite worth sufficient to justifie all beleevers ours of finite and sufficient only for our selves The Arminians object if {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} credere or the very act of believing justifie us then not Christs imputed righteousnesse But the very act of believing justifieth as the Apostle saith Abraham beleeved and it was counted to him for righteousnesse To this I answer that saith may be considered either ratione actus or ratione objecti in regard of the act or of the object Faith justifieth not ratione actus for then some work should justifie but ratione objecti not in regard of the act but in regard of the object as the spoon feeds the child in regard of the milk in it and the chirurgions hand heals in regard of the playster he applies those that were healed by looking upon the brazen serpent were not cured by the sharpnesse of their sight for the purblind were as well healed as the sharp-sighted but by a supernaturall vertue at that time given to the object the brazen serpent a type of Christ 4. The Socinians object God doth not justifie man by an act of injustice but it is injustice to punish one man for another or attribute one mans righteousnesse to another for justitiae est suum cuique tribuere it is the office or property of justice to give to every man his owne therefore we are not justified by the imputation of Christs active or passive obedience But this objection may be assoyled with a double answer First it is not against justice but agreeable to justice to lay the debt or penalty of one man upon another in case that one man voluntarily undertake for the other and becomes his surety as it was just to lay Cimon in the gaol for his father Miltiades debt after he ingaged himself for it and made it his own neither was it unjust to put out one of Zaleuchus his eyes for his sons adulterie after hee undertook to satisfie for his son and to save him one eye who otherwise should have lost both Secondly when God imputes Christs righteousnesse unto us he gives us our own namely that which Christ hath purchased for us by his death and secondly in regard of our union with Christ whatsoever is Christs in this kind is ours and Ro 5. he that hath given Christ to us hath given his righteousnesse also M. Prolocutor THe Roman orator in his oration pro Sex●o Roscio Amerino writeth of Caius Fimbria that he indicted Q. Scaevola upon a strange point that he would not suffer himself to be slain out-right by him diem Scaevolae dixit quod non totum ●elum corpore recepisse● accused Scaevola for not receiving his whole weapon into his body methinks some of our brethren put in a like bill against us that we suffer them not to have a full and fair blow at us quod non tota t●la argumentorum rec●piamus that we receive not the weapons of their arguments whole entire I will therefore propound their arguments as neer as I can remember in their own words to the best advantage and then return a punctuall answer unto them If any of their arro●s be headed if any of their s●ords be keen edged and sharp pointed if any of their arguments have acumen robur sharpnesse and strength they are these five following Every humane creature is bound to fulfill the Law of God for himself jure creationis by the right of creation But Christ is a humane creature ergo he was bound to fulfill the Law of God for himselfe and consequently he fulfilled it not in our stead To the consequence inferred upon the conclusion of this Syllogism I have spoken heretofore I now answer to the Syllogism it self by distinguishing of humana creatura a humane creature which may be taken either ratione naturae onely or ratione personae also which may be so tearmed either in regard of the nature or the person every humane creature ratione naturae personae that is such a creature as hath not only humane nature but a humane person also is bound to fulfill the morall Law for himself but Christ was not so he had a humane nature but no humane person Now we know Lex datur personae the Law is given to the person Thou shalt doe this or thou shalt not doe that In the accompt of the law and all judiciarie proceedings it is all one to be insons justus to be guiltlesse and righteous but by the imputation of Christs satisfaction we are accompted guiltlesse before God ergo righteous and fully justified I answer There are two sorts of causes in courts of justice criminall and civill in criminall it is true idem est esse insontem justum it is all one to be accompted innocent and just but not in civill where justice hath a respect to reward and in that regard a guiltlesse man is not necessarily a just man that is a deserving man It was not sufficient for Demosthenes to plead for Ctesiphon that he was a harmelesse man and therefore ought in justice to have the crown but he proves that he was a deserving man and by the law ought to have it as his due Thirdly Justification is a judiciary act opposite to condemnation but imputation of active obedidience is no judiciary act opposite to condemnation ergo c. God is said to be a righteous judge not only in respect of inflicting punishment rightly but also in conferring rewards and crowns of glory justification hath respect to both for there are two questions put to us at Gods tribunall first what hast thou to say for thy self why thou shouldst not be condemned to hels torments the answer is I confesse I have deserved them by my sins but Christ hath satisfied for me the second question is what canst thou plead why thou shouldst in justice receive a crown of glory sith thou hast not fulfilled the law the answer is Christ hath fulfilled the law for me both these are expressed by Anselm in his book de modo visitandi infirmos si dixerit meruisti damnationem dic Domine mortem Domini nostri Iesu Christi obtendo inter me mala merita mea ipsiusque meritum ●ffero pro merit● quod ego debuissem habere nec habeo if he saith thou hast deserved damnation answer thou I set Christs death between me and my ill deserts or wicked works and I offer his merit for that merit which I should have but of my self I have not Fourthly all they who are freed from the guilt of all sins of omission as well as commission are