Selected quad for the lemma: faith_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
faith_n	abraham_n	believe_v	impute_v	7,639	5	9.9008	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A08130	A learned and fruitfull sermon preached in Christs Church in Norwich. By Mr. Nevvhouse, late preacher of Gods word there.	Newhouse, Thomas, d. 1611.; Hill, Robert, d. 1623.	1612 (1612)	STC 18494; ESTC S100052	25,182	96

reason thus The righteousnesse whereby a sinner is iust before God is eyther his owne or the righteousnesse of another but it is not his owne for the Apostle would haue said wee are made the righteousnesse of God in our selues and not in him and thus some of the auncient Fathers expounding this place say that it is not in our selues but in him not ours but his and Chrisostome saith that therfore it is called the righteousnes of God because it is without all staine and defect and therefore cannot possibly be inherent in vs wherefore we may safely conclude that this righteousnesse is not resident in vs but receiued from another and after a sort made ours to wit by imputation Obiect But it is excepted that it is absurd in reason that a man shold be iust by the righteousnesse of another euen as if a man should be wise by the wisedome of another or learned by the learning of another or liue by the life of another Ans This reason had some colour if the righteousnesse of Christ were personall and so limited and tied vnto him that it could not from him be deriued vnto others but it is so in him that it may be ours and conueyed vnto vs by imputation the reason is because Christ is a publike person representing all the Elect yea the roote and stocke of the Elect euen as Adam was the roote and stocke of all mankinde Looke as therefore the first transgression of Adam was not his alone but euery particular mans descending from him by generation euen so the righteousnesse of Christ is not his alone but pertaines to all the Elect being by faith vnited vnto him and made bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh And as the iuyce and sap which is in the roote of the tree is made the sap of the branches by participation euen so the righteousnesse of Christ being inherent in him as in the head is made the righteousnesse of the members by imputation And as the Lands and goods of one man are made ouer vnto another by deed of gift sale exchange or some like conueyance of Law both for title and vse euen so the righteousnesse of Christ by vertue of the free gift of God according to the tenure of the Couenant of Grace is truely and really conueyed vnto vs and made ours These two reasons are sufficient grounds whatsoeuer may be excepted to the contrary whereupon this conclusion may be raised that the sole imputation of the righteousnesse of Christ is the forme of the iustification of a sinner before GOD. Now followeth the third point viz. the answering of those obiections which are alledged to the contrary Ob. First of all it is replyed that Imputation is a conceit inuented and deuised by man not aboue fifty or sixty yeeres old not to be found in Scriptures or in the ancient and Orthodoxe Writers of the Church Ans To this many things may be answered first what greater impudencie and bold-hardinesse can there be then to contradict the manifest and expresse testimonie of Scripture for this very Imputation is beat vpon and repeated no seldomer then eleuen times in the fourth Chapter to the Romanes and it is as ancient as Abraham of whom it is said Gen. 15.6 He beleeued God and it was imputed vnto him for righteousnesse not as the Papists falsely interprete it that Abrahams faith was so excellent that it deserued the infusion of habituall grace but Abraham by faith casting himselfe and relying vpon the promise of grace concerning righteousnesse remission of sins and life by Christ was iustified or his Faith was imputed vnto him for righteousnesse Metonimia adiuncti that is what his faith apprehended became his righteousnesse by imputation Againe it is to be found in the best and soundest auncient Writers Hierome Anselme and Chrisostome vpon this place who though they doe not expresse the word Imputation yet vse it in effect saying that this righteousnesse is not in vs but in him as our sinne is not his but ours not in him but in vs and Chrisostome saith it must be without all staine want So Aug. in tract 3. in Iohn de Sp. litera ca. 9. 26. Bernard ser 62. in Cant. ser ad milites templi ca. 11. mors in Christo morte fugatur Christi iustitia nohis imputatur Many more testimonies might be alledged to this purpose but qui plura videre cupit legat Fulconem in responsione ad annotationes Rhemensium super hunc locum Let then the Rhemists mock so long as they will and call this a new no-iustice it is sufficient for vs that it is grounded on Scriptures and wanteth not the testimonie of the Church To proceede further Imputation is not a meere deuice but a very thing for it is a relation that is an ordination or application of that which the Logitians call the fundament vnto his terme or of the relatiue vnto his correlatiue for example In Imputation the fundament is the righteousnesse of Christ the terme is the person of the beleeuer and the relation is the mercy of God or the action of God mercifully accepting the perfect righteousnesse of Christ in the behalfe of the beleeuer Now this is not a fiction and if a relation be nothing how shall wee distinguish the persons in Trinitie who though they subsist all in one infinite vndiuided essence yet are three really distinguished by an incōmunicable propertie which is nothing else but a relation Again if a relation be nothing what shall be the internall forme of a Sacrament is it any other but a relation or proportion betweene the signe and the thing signified And if a relation be nothing many a man is vniustly adiudged and condemned to dye both in the Courts of men and in the court of Conscience before God for why doe men daily dye the death of the body and the death of the soule is it not because they are guiltie And if sin had not guiltinesse annexed vnto it as an inseparable propertie thereof men might at their pleasures breake and transgresse both the Lawes of God and of men and neuer be obnoxious to punishment for it is not sin but guilt that bindes ouer vnto punishment now what else is this guilt but a relation and if the imputation of Adams sin vnto vs be something why should not the imputation of Christs righteousnesse be also something and not a meere figment as they would make it Nay Relations as the Schoole-men speak though they be minimae entitatis yet are they maximae efficaciae To conclude this point behold what iniurie this Antichristian Synagogue doth offer vnto our Sauiour Christ the Pope forsooth by vertue of the keyes hath power to dispense and apply the merits of one man to another insomuch as all his Indulgences are imputatiue but Christ hath not this power What is this else but to deny vnto the Head that which they allow vnto the members and to giue to

consciences of all sinners Contrariwise Christ Iesus is perfectly righteous and in him are three inestimable benefits answerable to the three former euils first the sufferings of Christ vpon the Crosse sufficient for all mens sins secondly the obedience of Christ in fulfilling the Law thirdly the perfect holinesse of the humane nature of Christ and these are three soueraigne medicines to heale all wounded consciences and as three running streames of liuing waters to bathe and to supple the bruised and contrite heart Now commeth Faith and first layeth hold on the sufferings or passiue obedience of Christ which being imputed and appived to the sinner hee is deliuered from guilt and condemnation and so the first deadly wound is cured Againe Faith layeth hold vpon his actiue obedience in fulfilling the Law which being imputed and applyed the person of the sinner is accepted as perfectly iust before God and so the second deadly wound is cured Thirdly Faith applyeth the holinesse of his humane nature called his habituall or originall righteousnesse whereby hee is accepted of God as perfectly holy and so the third deadly wound is cured And thus we see how this righteousnesse is become ours and wee it And thus much shall suffice to haue spoken touching the meaning of the wordes Now followeth the vse of doctrine And to omit many other doctrines which might be gathered out of this place I will content my selfe with this one which the wordes doe naturally afford being almost expressed in the Text to wit hence we are taught what is the formall cause of the iustification of a sinner before God viz. a reciprocall translation of our sinne vnto Christ and his righteousnesse vnto vs the which comprehendeth the whole forme of Iustification wherein there are two things first a not imputing of sin secondly an imputing of righteousnesse for that our sinnes may not be imputed vnto vs necessarily they must be imputed vnto Christ and that we of sinners may become iust his righteousnesse must be imputed vnto vs. In a word then the forme of Iustification is the imputation of the perfect obedience of Christ vnto the beleeuer for the remission of sinnes and for righteousnesse This point because it is a fundamentall principle and a maine ground and piller of our religion and not a little controuerted betweene the church of Rome and vs I will stand the longer in the handling of it both that we may be confirmed in the truth of so necessary doctrine as also armed with the armour of proofe against all the assaults of the aduersaries wherewith they shall impugne it And that wee may proceede in some order wee will consider these three things first what imputation is secondly that it is the formall cause of the Iustification of a sinner before God thirdly we will touch some of the principall obiections which are alledged to the contrary by that apostaticall and hereticall Church of Rome And to beginne with the name Imputation is a Metaphor borrowed not from numbers Arithmetique as some haue thought but from a kinde of contract called acceptilation wherein the creditor is content to accept the payment of the suretie in the behalfe of the debter euen as if hee had discharged it in his owne person Touching the vse and acception of the word it is two-fold in Scriptures the first is when an inherent qualitie or action proceeding thence is imputed vnto reward or punishment for reward mention is made of it Rom. 4.4 to him that worketh the wages are imputed an example of it wee haue in Phinchas Psal 106.31 whose worke the Lord imputed vnto him for righteousnesse that is hee approued it accepted it and rewarded it for the faith of the worker For punishment wee haue an instance 2 Sam. 19.19 where the varlet Shimei doth beseech Dauid on this manner Let not my Lord impute wickednesse vnto me that is let him not inflict the punishment of my sinne vpon mee 2. Tim. 4.26 At my first answering no man assisted mee but all forsooke me I pray God that it may not be laid to their charge The second is when something out of a mans selfe is by imputation made his as though it were inherent in him or wrought by him thus it is vsed Rom. 2.26 Thy vncircumcision is made Circumcision if thou beest an obseruer of the Law So to Philemon verse 18. If Onesimus hath done thee any hurt impute it to me or set it on my score I will repay and in this latter sense we are to speake of it in this place Imputation therefore may be thus described It is an action of God accepting the all-sufficient and perfect Obedience of Christ in the behalfe of the beleeuing sinner vnto satisfaction and iustification Now then to come to the first point that Imputation thus described is the forme of the iustification of a sinner before God though many arguments might be vsed yet I will content my selfe with these two both which are contained in this Text the former whereof may be framed thus After what manner Christ became a sinner after the same manner wee are made iust but hee became a sinner not by infusion of any corrupt qualities into his holy nature which were blasphemie once to conceiue but by imputation of our sin onely therefore we are iust before God not by infusion of any habituall grace into our corrupt natures but by imputation of his righteousnesse onely This argument is firme and inuincible and cannot be deluded being so surely grounded vpon this Text If it be replyed as indeede it is that if this reason of reciprocall imputation be so firme and of such force why doe not the like consequents follow of both to wit why doth not the imputation of our sinne vnto Christ as well bring with it inherent corruption in him as the imputation of his righteousnesse vnto vs inherent grace in vs. Ans The reason is farre vnlike for first though sin be of a very poysonfull nature yet there is not the like force and power in sinne to defile and to pollute as in grace to purge and to sanctifie Rom. 5.15 The gift is not so as is the offence noting that there is more vertue and efficacie in grace to sanctifie and to saue then in sinne to defile and to destroy And indeed Grace is like vnto fire which though it be for quantitie small yet for efficacie great Againe the humane nature of Christ is so replenished with holinesse that it is not at all capable of sinne but mans nature is not so stained and corrupted with sinne but that it is capable of grace being at the first created after the Image of God and afterward againe to be re●…ed by Christ and therefore considering that Christ is not so capable of sinne as man is of holines the reason is of no moment The latter reason may be gathered out of the wordes of the Apostle where hee saith That wee might be made the righteousnes of God in him Whence I