Selected quad for the lemma: duty_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
duty_n	act_n	believe_v	faith_n	1,015	5	5.7119	4	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

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