Selected quad for the lemma: act_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
act_n	faith_n	habit_n	justify_v	3,628	5	9.3789	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A71284	A defence of the true sence and meaning of the words of the Holy Apostle, Rom. chap. 4, ver. 3, 5, 9 in an answer to sundry arguments gathered from the forenamed Scriptures by Mr. Iohn Goodwin, which answer was first dispersed without the authors name, but since acknowledged by Mr George Walker : together with a reply to the former answer, or, animadversions upon some of the looser and fouler passages thereof / by Iohn Goodwin.	Walker, George, 1581?-1651.; Goodwin, John, 1594?-1665.	1641 (1641)	Wing W356; ESTC R20590	41,397	65

it is not sayd to be imputed for righteousnes God neither quickned Christ nor raised him till he had fulfilled all righteousnes neither doth he quicken any dead but through his righteousnes and by his Spirit communicating it to them and therefore under the name of such a faith Christs righteousnes is by a Metonymie said to be imputed Abrahams faith was that wherein he was not weake neither doubted of Gods promise ver. 19. 20. but Christs righteousnesse is not that faith Therefore it is not here sayd to be imputed The more strong that Abraham was in faith and far from doubting and staggering by unbeliefe the more firmly was he united to Christ and had more full communion of his righteousnes and the more stedfastly did he stand in the state of a righteous man and more justly might God count him for a righteous man And therefore this Argument makes against him Abrahams beleeving that God who had promised was able to performe was the faith imputed But this was not Christs righteousnesse Therefore Christs righteousnes was not imputed The more that Abraham rested on Gods power and ability to performe the more communion he had of Christs righteousnes and the more justly did God count him for a righteous man and impute Christs righteousnes to him The faith which God imputes to us for righteousnes is our beleeving him which raised Christ from the dead But this is not Christs righteousnes Therefore it is not imputed Our beleeving in God who raised Christ from the dead is our assurance that Christ had made full satisfaction for us and therefore the righteous God who raised him up is satisfied for us and hath accepted his righteousnes to be our righteousnes and doth count us so beleeving and applying it to be in the state of righteousnes Therefore this is for us and not against us The 8th. Argument is a bare affirmation that to take faith in a proper sense is more plaine and cleare and better beleeving the Apostle in this discourse where he largely handles the point of justification Therefore he here meanes faith in a proper sense for that is more comfortable then to teach imputation of Christs righteousnes The Apostle plainely expresseth that faith imputed is righteousnes imputed verse 6. 11. and it is more comfortable for us to rest on Christs righteousnes besides which there is no true and perfect righteousnes to be found performed in our nature then to build on faith which in the best is mingled and stayned with many doubtings often times Therefore the Apostle undoubtedly intends Christs righteousnes and so he doth expresse in plaine wordes Chap. 5. 19. Chap. 8. 4. and Chap. 10. 4. After these Arguments he takes upon him to answere those places wherein the word faith and hope are used to signifie their objects that is the things beleeved and hoped for and here he doth use notable tergiversation and trifling First he grants that the Apostle useth such tropes of speech for indeed it is undenyable Secondly he opposeth and saith that the habit of faith may be used to signifie the object but not the act whereas in the examples named Gal. 1. 22. ●and 3. 23. and Colo. 1. ●5 the habit and act espescially the act of beleefe and hope are to be understood and indeed the Apostle doth name the habit as often as the act in this present discourse where he saith faith is imputed for righteousnes Thirdly he grants that the act sometimes may be put for the object but then he flees to his old shift that Christs righteousnes is not the obiect of beleeving which I have before proved it to be Lastly contrary to all reason he denies Christs righteousnes to be the obiect of faith as it is iustifying whereas it is indeed the onely proper obiect of it Thus he shamefully trifles to shew his impudency and perversenes The fourth way of Confirmation IN the fourth and last place he undertakes to confirme his opinion by testimony of learned Divines both ancient Fathers and moderne writers even from the primitive times to the yeare 1500 after Christ And here he confesseth that he dares not upon his owne reading be consident that they generally were of his opinion but onely resteth upon another mans testimony whom he nameth not Belike it was some notorious and infamous Socinian Heretick whom he is a shamed to name for his Author and that his confession is not out of humility and modesty but out of Satanicall subtilty to vent his poysonfull lyes under the person of another as the Devill did vent his by the Serpent Gen. 3. I easily gather by his impudent boldnesse in that upon a lying report he dares charge his adversaries with calumny and false report raised upon his opinion unworthy the tongue or pen of sober and learned men to make either Arminius or Socinus the Authors of it and that he is not ashamed nor blusheth to affirme that from the time of Luther and Calvin the fairest streame of interpreters runs as to water and refresh his interpretation To the first I answere That though the anciently condemned Heretick Peter Anilard who was gelded for his incontinency by a man whose Daughter he had abused layd the first ground of this opinion that Christs satisfaction is not imputed for justification as Saint Bernard shewes Epist. 190. yet the first Authors who expressely affirmed that faith in a proper sense without a trope is by the Apostle sayd to be imputed for righteousnes were Socinus Part 4. Chap. 4. de Christo servatore and Chap. 11. And Arminius in Epist. ad Hippolitum de collibus Thes. 5. And to his false pretence of the maine streame of writers since Calvin and Luther running to refresh his interpretation I oppose this challenge that he cannot name one Orthodox Writer since that time which ever held that faith in a proper sense is imputed for righteousnesse and denyed the imputation of Christs righteousnesse Socinus Arminius and that hereticall sect are the onely maintainers of that opinion An Answere to all his Testimonies TO his Testimonies and his impudent boasting of the generall consent of interpreters I answere first jovntly and in generall That of all the Testimonies which he hath cited there is not one which either affirmes that faith taken in a proper sense is imputed for righteousnesse or denyes the righteousnesse of Christ to be imputed to us and accepted of God for our justification yea that all Divines who are the most zealous opposers of his interpretation may say the same wordes which his Authors say and yet hold iustification by Christs righteousnes imputed yea and in proving that truth may with good reason presse the same wordes and speeches rightly understood So that a more odious example of impudency and folly cannot be imagined then he here makes himselfe by making his folly and absurdity to strive for Mastership with his impudency Secondly for the particular testimonies which he

is used is to be judged the best exposition this none can with any reason deny for the Spirit of God speaking in Scripture is the best expounder of his owne meaning Now this exposition that imputing or counting a thing for righteousnes is no more but declaring a man thereby to be righteous and giving him the Testimony of righteousnes is warranted by other Scriptures wheresoever it is used Therefore this is to be judged the best exposition For confirmation of the assumption or minor we have that place of holy Scripture Psal. 106. in which onely and no where else a thing is said to be imputed or counted to a man for righteousnes viz. Phineas his godly zealous act of executing judgement on Zimri and C●sbi then Phineas stood up saith the Psalmist and executed judgement and that was counted to him for righteousnes now no man can understand that this act was accepted of God for righteousnes to justification for then a man may be iustified before God by one godly and zealous act of his owne which is that which the Apostle utterly condemneth for a grosse errour and bends his whole discourse against it The true sense and meaning of this phrase is no more but this that Phineas performing such a godly zealous act as is proper to a faithfull righteous man onely who hath the Spirit of regeneration and of sanctification dwelling in him uniting him to Christ and making him by faith a true partaker of 〈◊〉 righteousnes God upon this act gave him the Testimony of righteousnes and declared him to be a righteous man truely iustified Therefore the phrase of imputing or counting faith for righteousnes signifieth no more but this that the true beleever is counted a righteous man and God giveth him the Testimony of righteousnes because he is indeed partaker of Christs righteousnes which he hath apprehended and applied by faith If I should insist upon humane testimonies and the opinions of Orthodox expositours of these wordes both ancient and moderne for the further proofe of this exposition a large volume would be little enough for the particular rehearsing of them all let these five arguments suffice The Confutation of the false exposition made by Socinus and other Hereticks his Disciples as Wotton Goodwin and their Companions FIrst whereas they hould that faith in a proper literall sense that is considered in it selfe without relation to any other thing is counted to every true beleever for righteousnes to iustification and God requireth in and of us no other thing for righteousnes neither our workes performed in our owne persons according to the Law nor Christs perfect righteousnes and fulfilling of the Law made ours by spirituall union and communion and accepted of God for us This I prove to be false hereticall and blasphemous by these Arguments following First Faith taken in a proper sense is a part of our conformity and obedience to the Law of God which above all things requires that we give honour to God by beleeving him and his word and trusting in him as our onely Rock and the God of our strength and salvation They therefore teaching That faith in a proper sense is counted for righteousnes do teach that we are iustified by a worke of obedience to the Law performed in our owne persons and that this is the onely righteousnes which God requires any way of us for iustification Therefore their opinion is hereticall more impious then the Pelagian and Popish Heresies concerning iustification Secondly that which was imputed to Abraham and is imputed to true beleevers is righteousnes so the Apostle affirmes ver. 6. and 11. But faith is not righteousnes taken in a proper sense for righteousnes is a perfect conformity to the Law as sinne is transgression of the Law Therefore faith in a proper sense is not righteousnes Thirdly that which chargeth God with error and falsehood in his iudgement is blasphemy This opinion that God counts faith for righteousnes that is thinketh iudgeth and esteemeth it to be righteousnesse taken in a proper sense chargeth God with error and falsehood in his Iudgement Therefore it is blasphemy If they pleade that God by his soveraigne power may graciously count that which is not righteousnes for righteousnes to the beleever I answere that God by his soveraigne power cannotly nor erre nor Iudge unrighteously it is contrary to his infinite and eternal Iustice which wil not be satisfied without fulfilling of his iust Law and perfect righteousnes communicated and imputed to us Therefore this is a base shift and wicked pretence devised to cover their blasphemy by that which is indeed a greater blasphemy Fourthly that opinion which denyeth and taketh away the meanes by which God is revealed to be infinitely Iust mercifull and wise and makes the satisfaction of Christ and his perfect fulfilling of the Law a vaine and needlesse thing is most Hereticall impious and blasphemous This opinion that God by his soveraigne power can and doth count and accept faith in a proper sense for righteousnes to Iustification without imputation of Christs satisfaction and righteousnes takes away these meanes and makes Christs fulfilling of the Law a vaine and needlesse thing Therefore it is an impious hereticall and blasphemous opinion The meanes by which God is revealed to be infinitly Iust mercifull and wise are these Namely First that he cannot be reconciled to man without a full satisfaction made to his iust Law by mens surety in their stead and by him communicated to them and made theirs as truely as if they had fulfilled the Law in their owne persons and though the satisfaction be of infinite valve yet it cannot profit them till they have communion of it and be partakers thereof this is that which reveales God to be infinitely Iust and that his infinit iustice being so strict he would mercifully give his owne Son to become man and in mans nature to make such a full satisfaction for men and by his Spirit shed on them through Christ would unite them unto him in one body and communicate him with all his benefits and satisfaction to them to be truely theirs and to satisfy for them This reveales his infinite mercy bounty and wisedome And by these meanes this opinion takes away Gods iustice while it sets God forth to be such a one as can dispence with is iustice and accept faith in a proper sense for righteousnes which is no righteousnes but onely a weake imperfect worke and duty which we owe to the Law If Gods justice may thus be dispensed with and a weake thing in fraile man counted for righteousnes without any communion or imputation What need was there of Christs Death suffering and obedience God might as well have accepted the sacrifice of a Lamb or the suffering and obedience of a meere man and so the full satisfaction of Christ is vaine and needlesse and it was want of wisedome in God to spend so much of Christs blood and obedience in vaine when by his

is more scandalous and offensive that he professing the holy Ghost to be the best iudge for determining controversies doth immediately contradict himselfe by saying that he leaves his meaning and intent to be debated by men and makes such men as himselfe stamped with a rationall Authority the judges of his meaning What is this but the heresie of the Arminians who hold that their right reason as they call it and not the word of the spirit speaking plainely in the Scriptures is the best Iudge of the spirits meaning and intent in obscure places and how scandalous and offensive it is for him to profes such excellent things of himselfe before hand and in the whole progresse of his disputation to run so far from the Spirits meaning and from all right reason as I shall prove by my si●●ing and answering of his Arguments I leave to the Godly wise and learned to Judge His first Argument FIrst he undertakes to prove That faith in a proper sen●e is affirmed by the Apostle to be imputed for righteousnes and not the righteousnesse of Christ apprehended by faith Because the phrase of imputing faith for righteousnes is once yea twice yea a third and fourth time used by the Apostle in this Chapter and therefore hath all the Authority and countenance from the Scriptures that wordes can give whereas the imputation of Christs righteousnesse hath not the least reliefe either from any sound of wordes or sight of letter in the Scriptures Answere IN this Argument he shewes himselfe as bould in affirming manifest untruthes as ignorant both of Rhetorick and Logick In Rhetorick it is counted an excellent ornament of speech to continue a trope and it is called an Allegory he is ignorant who knoweth not this In Logick he is counted a boldlying Sophister who holds that a Syllogisme a true and perfect Argument hath a proposition which is manifestly false And what more grosse ignorance in Logick then to hold two propositions to be negative and affirmative in respect of one another which consist of divers subjects and that an affirmative and the negative may both be true All these absurdities appeare in this Argument First in that he affirmes the Apostles speech to be proper and the sense to be properly literall because he useth the same phrase foure times hereby he shewes his Ignorance of the continuance of a trope which Rhetoricians esteeme an elegant Allegory and which is most frequent in the Scripture For Jer. 26. the Lord is said to repent 3 severall times viz. ver. 3. 13. 19. and yet the speech is not proper but improper for God cannot properly be said to repent as appeares Num. 23. 19. 1 Sam. 15. 29. Here then he sheweth as much Ignorance of Rhetoricke and of the frequent use of rhetorical Allegories in the Scripture as he seemes to shew of Logick when he makes his affirmative viz. Faith is imputed for righteousnes and affirmes it to be true and withall saith that the negative int●parably accompanying it is a truth also when Logick teacheth that if the affirmative be true the negative must needs be false If by the negative he meanes this viz. Christs righteousnesse is not imputed He erres two waies from Logick first by calling the negative inseparably accompanying his affirmative Secondly by speaking ambiguously a speech which may beare divers senses which Logick abhorres in a disputation Secondly he shewes himselfe a bould lving Sophister when he affirmes most falsely and impudently 〈◊〉 That no truth in Religion nor article of our faith can boast of the Letter that is of the proper literall sense of the Scripture more full expresse and pregnant then that speech or proposition which is foure times used in one Chapter For the contrary is most manifestly true as divers places shew where one and the same thing is often affirmed and yet the speech is not proper but tropicall I will instance in one place which is most convincing viz. Gal. 3. where the word Faith is ten times used in an improper sense for the word of faith the Gospel as it is opposed to the Law carnallie understood viz. verse 3 5 7 8 9 12 14 22 23 25. Now the maine proposition-of his Syllogisme being so manifestly false his conclusion inferred from thence is certainely most false viz. that this speech of Saint Paul Faith is counted for righteousnes is properly literall and not improper and tropicall The second Argument co●ched under the other runs thus if it be reduced into a●Syllogisme That which hath not the least releife either from any sound of wordes or sight of letter in the Scripture is an untruth and a meere fiction the imputation of Christs righteousnes hath not the least releife either from sound of wordes or sight of letter in Scripture Therefore it is a meere fiction The Assumption or Minor of this Syllogisme is most false and therefore the conclusion hath no truth in it I prove it most false by the Apostles owne wordes for in the fourth v. he saith that to the blessed man God imputeth righteousnes without workes and verse 11. where he saith that as to Abraham faith was imputed before hee was circumcised so God shewed that righteousnes should be imputed to the beleeving Gentiles though uncircumcised In which two places he shewes that by beleeving and faith imputed to Abraham and all true beleevers the Spirit of God meanes righteousnes couched under the name of faith and beleeving Now this righteousnes cannot be faith it selfe in a proper sense for every act of faith is a worke but this is a righteousnes imputed to us without workes done by us in our owne persons besides faith and all the beleeving of the most faithfull cannot make up one duty or worke of true and perfect righteousnes such as God can impute to justification for faith in the best beleevers even in Abraham himselfe was stayned with many doubtings fears But here must needes b●e meant that righteousnes in which the most just God can see no imperfection and therefore counts it for righteousnes to justifie all that are partakers of it And this can bee no other but the righteousnes which Christ God and man performed in mans nature therefore the contrary of the Assumption is most true The third which hee calls his second mayne Argument or proofe is drawne from the scope of the place and the intent of the Apostle in his discourse of justification here in these Chapters of this Epistle it runs thus being reduced into a Syllogisme The scope of the place and intent of the Apostle is to hedge up as it were with thornes the false way of justification which lay through workes and to put men by from attempting any going that way and also to discover the true way of justification to them that is to make knowne unto them what they must doe and what God requires of them for justification and what hee will accept at their hands instead of the workes

of the Law and that is it which he heare saith is imputed for righteousnes Now faith and beleeving in the proper and formall signification is that which they must doe and performe to their justification which also God requires of them inst ad of the workes of the Law and will accept at their hands instead of them Therefore it is faith in a proper sense which is here by the Apostle to be counted for righteousnes In the first proposition we have an heape of lyes mixt with contradiction first in that he saith the scope of the Apostle is to put men from the false way of justification which lies through workes and to discover the true way by making them know what they must doe and performe for justification here like a mad or drunken man he contradicts himselfe for who doth not see that the way of doing and performing is the way which lyes through workes and that if a thing done and performed by us be counted for righteousnes to iustification then the way of iustification lies through workes done by us which if they be iust and lawfull are workes of the Law Secondly if he by the way which lay through workes understands mens owne workes done in obedience to the Law of God it is true which he saith that this is the false way and that which hee calls the true way viz. by mens doing and performing is either the same with it or else worse and so hee speakes a most grosse untruth in calling it the true way being the same with the false way but if by the way which lies through workes he meanes seeking after Christs righteousnes which consists in workes of obedience to the Law then his wordes are most false wicked and blasphemous in that he calls this the false way to iustification Thirdly in that he saith God requires something to be don and performed by men for their iustification and that is it which the Apostle saith is imputed for righteousnes this is most false neither doth the Apostle intend any such thing in this place for this is to set up iustification by doing and workes of our owne which he altogether opposeth and his whole scope is bent against it and to shew that all which we are to looke to is to receive that which is freely given of God and imputed to us for righteousnes that is the righteousnes of him who is God as he often calls it in this Epistle as Rom. 3. 2. and 10. 3. here then behold how hee makes the new covenant a conditionall Covenant and not of free grace promising iustification and salvation upon condition of mens doing In briefe besides the contradictions and other absurdities and untruthes in this Argument before noted I finde these grosse errours in the carriage of it One is in that he saith God doth not require of us the righteousnes of Christ for iustification this hee required of Christ himselfe To which I answer that God requires nothing of us for our iustification for wee are iustified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Iesus Christ Rom. 3. 24 that is by the free gift and communion of the satisfaction which Christ made for our redemption but yet the thing which God requires in our behalfe is that satisfaction and righteousnes of Christ and the qualification of us for the receiving applying and enjoying of that righteousnes for iustification is faith which is not of our selves but is the gift of God Ephes. 2. 8. for God worketh in us the will and power to beleeve and actuall beleeving also Phil. 2. 13. and all this by his spirit dwelling in us uniting us to Christ and so bringing us to communion of all his benefits even of his righteousnes to iustification and this is the true intent and scope of the Apostle to draw us from seeking iustification by any worke which we can doe or which God requires of us for that end and to make us looke up to the redemption which is in Christ and in his satisfaction apprehended by faith to rest for iustification as for this phrase of Gods requiring Christs righteousnes of us it is harsh and unsavoury yea absurd as if one should say God requires that the particular and individuall act done by another bee not done by him but by us which implies a contradiction but this that God requires the righteousnes of Christ not for our justification but of Christ himselfe this implies that Christ had need of iustification and was bound to fulfill the righteousnes of the Law for himselfe and savours of Socinian and Samosatenian Heresie which denies Christs God-head for if Christs humane nature being from the first conception most pure upright and holy was personally united to his God-head and so the Sonne of God and Heire of all things who can doubt but that in himselfe he was worthy of all Glory at Gods right hand from his birth as his taking of our nature upon him was altogether for us so his infirmities sufferings death and continuance on Earth for the performance of all righteousnesse and obedience to the whole Law was for us and for all the Elect who of old beleeved in him to come for them and who now doe in beleeve him exalted to Glory according to his humanity to thinke or say that he had need to justifie himselfe and to merit by his righteousnes the state of Glory is in effect to deny that he was God infinitely worthy of all Glory as he was the onely begotten Sonne of God and Heire of all things Another grosse error is that he calls faith and beleeving a thing don and performed by us when as the Apostle affirmes and all Christians confesse that our beleeving and faith is not of our selves but the gift of God and the worke and motion of his Spirit in us A third untruth and grosse absurdity or rather blasphemy is in the last wordes where he affirmes that if the Apostle had said unto them that they must bee justified by Christ or by Christs righteousnes this had beene rather to cast a snare upon them then to have opened a dore of life and saluation unto them Farre bee it from mee and all true Christians not to detest and curse with the curse of Anathema Maranatha that mouth which proclaimes and obstinately maintaines that teaching iustification by Christ and by his righteousnes is casting of a snare on men and not opening adore of life and salvation to them In the third place he layes down his arguments against the true Orthodox interpretation of Saint Pauls speeches concerning imputation of faith for righteousnes which interpretation he goeth about to overthrow by severall circumstances or passages in the context The first Argument reduced into forme runs thus that the Apostle who desired to speake to mens understanding should in the weighty point of iustification time after time and often without ever explaining himselfe or changing his speech use so strange harsh and