Proteus 7.8 Full __EXCLUSIVE__ Crack

Proteus 7.8 Full __EXCLUSIVE__ Crack

LINK - https://fancli.com/2t7Px0

And now I will shew you somewhat of the face of the Doctrine, which the Dissenters commonly do propugne, but not so largely, because I cannot open other mens Doctrine so freely and fully as I can do my own.

Proposition 2. Though this controversie be not of such Mo­ment as is denied, yet is it of great weight, and the Consequents of the Errors of one party hereabout, are such, as if they were held practically and after the proper sense of their expressions, would be a great hinderance to salvation, if not plainly hazard it. And therefore the question is not to be cast by, as needless or unprofitable. It is so neer the great matters of our Redemp­tion, Justification, and the nature of faith, that it is it self the greater. And if Amesius say true, that truths are so concatenat­ed, that every Error must by consequence overthrow the foun­dation, then it must be so in this. The consequents shall be men­tioned anon in the Arguments, where it will be more seasonable. And in great matters, it is not a contemptible Error which con­sisteth but in mis-naming and mis-placing them: It is a very great help to the clear and full understanding of Truths, to have right Notions and Methods. And the contrary may prove dan­gerous to many others, when the particular Patrons of those mistakes may be in no danger by them. For perhaps their first Notions may be righter than their second; and they may not see the consequents of their mistakes; and yet when such mi­stakes in terms and methods shall be commended to the world, other men that hear and read their words, and know not their hearts and better apprehensions, are like enough to take them in the most obvious or proper sense, and by one disorder to be led to more, and to swallow the Consequents as well as the mis­leading Premises. And therefore I must needs say, that this point appeareth of such moment in my eyes, that I dare not desert that which I confidently take to be the Truth, nor sacrifice it to the honor or pleasure of man

The opinion is subtile, and I perceived by his Readiness in it, that it was one of his old studied points, and that he had been long of that mind; my answer to him was this: [You much confirm me in what I have received: for you grant the principal thing that I desire; but you add something more which I cannot fully close with, but shall plainly tell you what are my apprehen­sions of it. First, You grant that the act of faith by which we are united to Christ, and which goes first, is the Believing in, or Receiving whole Christ as Priest, Prophet, and King. This will do all that I desire. Secondly, You add, that another act, even the Receiving of his Righteousness is after necessary, that we may be justified Your reason seems to be drawn from the dif­ference of the effects: Union goes before Justification, therefore the uniting act goes before the justifying act. This is it that I deny; My Reasons are these. First, Scripture distinguisheth be­tween our Union with Christ and our Justification: but no where between the uniting and justifying acts of faith. Secondly, The nature of the thing requireth it not, because faith justifies not [Page 9] by a Physical causality, as fire warmeth me; but by the moral interest of a condition: and the same act may be the Condition of divers benefits. Thirdly, Scripture hath express, made the Receiving of the person in his Relations to be the Condition of the participation of his benefits: [As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God; John 1.12. whoever believeth in him shall not perish, but, &c. believe in the Lord Jesus, and thou shalt be saved, &c.] Fourthly, Your own Similitude cleareth what I say: Though the wife have not posses­sion of all that is her husbands as soon as she is married; yet she hath Right to all that is her part, and possession of the bene­fits meerly Relative, which consist but in a Right. The accepting his person in marriage is the condition to be by her performed to instate her in his Honours so far as she must partake of them. When she is made a wife by that Consent, there needs not any other act before she can be noble, honourable, a Lady, a Queen, &c: For the former was the full condition of the first possession of this benefit; and the benefit immediately resulteth from the Union. Fifthly, I conceive that these two acts which you men­tion are but one moral work (though divers Physical acts) and to be done without any interposition of time, before we can have Christ for Union or Justification. For the end is Essential to Re­lations: and he that receives Christ, must take him to some end and use: and that must be to Justifie, Reconcile and save him; to bring him to God that he may be blessed in him. He that doth not receive Christ to these ends, receiveth not Christ as Christ, and therefore cannot be united to him: and he that doth thus receive him, doth both those acts in one which you require. Sixthly, And the case is much different between Physical and Relative benefits: For its true, that when we are united to Christ, we may have after need of renewed acts of faith to actu­ate the Graces of the Spirit Inherent in us; For here Right is one thing, and Possession is another: But the Relation of Son­ship, Justification, &c. are benefits that arise from the promise or free Gift by a meer resultancy to all that are united to Christ; and whoever hath present Right to them, even thereby hath possession of them, so that this answereth your Reason. For there is no such distance of time between our Union with Christ [Page 10] and Justification, as that any acts of our own must interpose; but they are in eodem instanti, and differ only in order of nature. In sum, we prove a promise of pardon to all that receive Christ himself, and believe in him: If any will affirm the necessity of any other act before we can be justified, it is incumbent on them to prove it.

To this Argument (briefly in my Apology) Mr. Blake (having first excepted at the newness of the phrase [Lord-Re­deemer] doth answer thus [I say, Christ is to be received as the Lord our Redeemer, and as our Master or Teacher; but faith in Justification eyes Redemption, not Dominion.] Repl. First, The Phrase [Faith in Justification] is as unacceptable to me, as [Lord-Redeemer] is to you: not only for the Novelty, but the ambiguity, if not the false Doctrine which it doth import. First, If the meaning be [Faith as it is the Condition of our Justification,] then its contrary to your own Concession after, that this should eye Christs Priest-hood only; and its an un­truth, which you utterly fail in the proof, or do nothing to it. Secondly, If you mean [Faith in its effecting of our Justifi­cation,] then it importeth another mistake, which you have not proved, viz. that faith doth effect our Justification. If you mean [Faith in Receiving Justification] either you mean [Page 19] the proper Passive Receiving, and this is but Justificari, and the man Receiveth it as the Subject, and his faith is but a Conditi­on, or means of it: Or you mean the Moral active Metapho­rical Receiving; which is nothing but Consenting that it shall be ours; or accepting: And this is neither part of Justificati­on, nor proper Cause; but a Condition, and but part of the Condition: And therefore here your meaning must be one of these two, Either That Act of Faith which is the accepting of Justification, is not the [...]ying of Dominion: To which I reply, First, taking it largely as a moral Act, its not true; for its comprehensive of both, of which more anon: but taking it strictly as one Physical Act, its true: Secondly, But then its nothing to the purpose: For we are not more truly justifyed by that Act which is the accepting of Justification, or Consent­ing to be justified, then we are by the Accepting of Christ for our Lord and Master; the reason of which, you have had before, and shall have more fully anon; or else you mean as before expressed, That Act of Faith which is our Consenting to Justification, is the whole Condition of our Justification, and not the eying of Dominion; But of that before. If I may Judge by your Doctrine elsewhere expressed, you mean only That the act of Faith which accepteth of Justification, is the only Instru­ment of Justification; of which in its due place: It may here suffice to say again, that I affirm not that in question to the be Instru­ment of it. Be not offended that I enquire into the sense of your ambiguous phrase, which I truly profess, is to me not intelligi­ble, till you have explained in what sense it is that you intend it; and therefore my enquiry is not needless.

Argument 5. If it be a necessary Condition of our being baptized for the Remission of sin, that we profess a belief in more then Christs Humiliation and merits then is it a necessary Condi­tion [Page 28] of our actual Remission of sin, that we really believe in more than Christs Humiliation and Merits: But the Antecedent is certain. For the Prescript, Mat. 28.19, 20, and the constantly used form of Baptism, and the Texts even now mentioned, 1 Pet. 3.21. Act. 8.37. do all shew it: And I have more fully proved it in my Dispute of Right to Sacraments. And the Consequence is undeniable: And I think all will be granted.

Argument 9. If there be in the very nature of a Covenant Condition in general, and of Gods imposed Condition in speci­cial, enough to perswade us that the benefit dependeth usually as much or more on some other act, as on that which accepteth the benefit it self: then we have reason to judge that our Justi­fication dependeth as much on some other act, as on the accep­tance of Justification; but the Antecedent is true, as I prove: First, As to Covenant Condition in general, it is most usual to make the promise consist of somwhat which the party is wil­ling of, and the condition to consist of somewhat which the Promiser will have; but the Receiver hath more need to be drawn to. And therefore it is that the Accepting of the bene­fit promised is seldome, if ever, expresly made the Condition (though implicitly it be part;) because it is supposed that the party is willing of it. But that is made the express condition, where the party is most unwilling: So when a Rebel hath a par­don granted on condition he come in, and lay down arms, it is supposed that he must humbly and thankfully accept the par­don; and his returning to his allegiance, is as truly the condi­tion of his pardon, as the putting forth his hand and taking it is. If a Prince do offer himself in maraiage to the poorest Beg­gar, [Page 36] and consequently offer Riches and Honors with himself, the accepting of his person is the expressed condition, more then the accepting of the riches and honors; and the latter de­pendeth on the former. If a Father give his son a purse of gold on condition he will but kneel down to him, or ask him for­giveness of some fault: here his kneeling down and asking him for­giveness, doth more to the procurement of the gold, then putting forth his hand and taking it. 2b1af7f3a8