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
A30248	The true doctrine of justification asserted and vindicated, from the errours of Papists, Arminians, Socinians, and more especially Antinomians in XXX lectures preached at Lawrence-Iury, London / by Anthony Burgess ...	Burgess, Anthony, d. 1664.	1651 (1651)	Wing B5663; ESTC R21442	243,318	299

foundation is extrinsecal as when a mans debt is discharged by his Surety he hath his real benefit is discharged and released out of Prison as if it had been his own personal payment Now when God doth this he goeth not against that text To Justifie the ungodly for its an abomination to do so because it 's against Law but when God doth not impute sin because of the satisfaction of Christ intervening that is most consentaneous and agreeable to Justice There is one word more equivalent and that is reconciliation some indeed make this an effect of Justification some make reconciliation the general and remission of sin a particular part but we need not be curious where Justification is there is reconciliation and this doth suppose that those who were at discord before are now made friends and where can friendship be more prized then with God Having laid down these introductory Propositions which describe most of the matter or nature of Justification I shall now come to shew wherein it doth particularly consist wherein the true nature is onely let me prem●se two or three Cautions 1. We must not confound those things which may be consequent or concomitant to justification with justification it self for many things may necessarily be together and yet one not be the other so Justification is necessarily joyned with Renovation yet a man is not justified in having a new nature put into him The water hath both moistness and coldness in it yet it doth not wash away spots as it is cold but as it is moist We will not enter into dispute as some of the Schoolmen have and concluded affirmatively Whether God may not accept of a sinner to eternall life without any inward change of that mans heart It is enough that by Scripture we know he doth not 2. To place our justification in any thing that is ours or we do is altogether derogatory to the righteousnesse and worth of Christ. Some there are who place it partly in our righteousness and partly in the obedience of Christ supplying that which is defective in us some of late have placed it in our Faith as if that were our righteousnesse and not for any worth or dignity of Faith but God out of his meer good pleasure say they hath appointed Faith to be that to man fallen which universal righteousnesse would have been to Adam and hence it is that they will not allow any trope or metonymie in that phrase Abraham beleeved and it was imputed to him for righteousness But here appeareth no lesse pride and arrogancy in this then the opinion of the Papists and in some respects it doth charge God worse as is to be shewed in handling of that point Therefore let us take heed how by our distinctions we put any thing with Christs righteousness in this great work 3. In searching out the nature of Justification we must not only look to the future but that which is past For suppose a man should be renewed to a full perfection in this life yet that absolute compleat holiness could not justifie him from his sins past Those committed before would still presse him down though he were now for the present without any spot at all Therefore though now there were no defects no frailties in thee yet who shall satisfie the Justice of God for that which is past though there were but the least guilt of the least sin there is no Sampson strong enough to bear the weight of it but Christ himself 4. The Orthodox sometimes make the nature of Justification in remission of sin sometimes in imputation of Christs righteousness which made Bellarmine charge them though falsly with different opinions for some make these the same motion it 's called remission of sin as it respecteth the term from which but imputation of righteousnesse as it respecteth the term to which even say they as the same motion is the expulsion of darknes and the introduction of light But I rather conceive them different and look upon one as the ground of the other remission of sin grounded upon the imputation of Christs righteousnesse so that his righteousnesse imputed to us is supposed to be in the order before sin forgiven and although among men where righteousnesse is imputed or a man pronounced just there is or can be no remission of sin yet it is otherwise here because righteousness is not so imputed unto us as that it is inherent in us so among men the more a man is forgiven the lesse he is Justified because forgivenesse supposeth him faulty yet it is not so in our Justification before God Lastly We must not confound Iustification with the manifestation and declaration of it in our hearts and consciences This is the rock at which the Antinomian doth so often split he supposeth Justification to be from all eternity and that therefore a man is Justified before he doth beleeve Faith only justifying by evidence and declaration to our consciences but this is to confound the decree of God and its execution as shall be proved Hence it is a dangerous thing though some excellent men have done it to make Faith a full perswasion of our Justification for this supposeth Justification before Faith It is one thing to be Justified and another thing to be assured of it It is true we cannot have any peace and comfort nor can we so rejoyce in and praise God though we are justified unlesse we know it also LECTURE III. ROM 3.24 25. Being Iustified freely by his grace c. JUstification consisteth in these two particulars Remission of sin and Imputation of righteousnesse Indeed here is diversity of expressions among the learned as you have already heard some thinking the whole nature of Justification to be only in Remission of sin and therefore make it the same with Imputation of righteousnesse others make one the ground of the other some make Imputation of righteousnes the efficient or meritorious cause of our Justification and Remission of sin the only form of our Justification others make Remission of sin the effect only of Justification But howsoever we call these two things yet this will be made plain that God in Justification vouchsafeth these two priviledges to the person justified First He forgiveth his sins Secondly He imputeth righteousnesse or rather this latter is the ground of the former as I shew'd before That Justification is remission of sins is generally received the great Question is about imputation of Christs righteousnes but of that afterwards only here may be a Doubt how we can properly say That Justification is pardon of sin for a man is not justified in that he is pardoned but rather it supposeth him guilty It is true Remission of sin doth suppose a man faulty in himself but because Christ did take our sins upon him and we are accepted of through him as our Surety therefore may remission of sin be well called Justification Indeed

Gods grace are to be effected Thus Rivet vind Apol. p. 127. If therefore any of our Orthodox Authors have acknowledged a remission of sins before faith it hath been in a particular sense to oppose the Arminians who maintain a reconciliability and not a reconciliation by Christs death and not in an Antinomian sense as is more largely to be shewed in answering of their Objection brought from Christs death for enemies and sinners Indeed some learned and worthy men speak of a Justification before faith in Christ our head as we are accounted sinners in the first Adam or common person Thus Alstedius in his supplement to Chamier pag. 204. when Bellarmine arguing against the holiness of the Protestants Doctrine and bringing this for a paradox above all paradoxes That I must be justified by faith and yet justifying faith be a believing that I am just and righteous which is saith Bellarmine besides and against all reason He answereth among other things That Christ and the elect are as one person and therefore an elect man is justified before faith in Christ as the principle of righteousnesse before God and then he is justified by faith as an instrument perceiving his justification in that righteousnesse of Christ So that faith as it goeth to the act of justification is considered in respect of that passive application whereby a man applieth the righteousnesse of Christ to himself not of that active application whereby God applieth to man the righteousnesse of Christ For this application is only in the minde of God To this purpose the learned Zanchy in his Explication of the second Chapter of the Epistle to the Ephesians upon those words vers 5. And you being dead in sin he hath quickned together with Christ doth in the first place distinguish of a two-fold quickning One whereby we are freed from the guilt of sinne and invested with a title or right to eternal life The other from the power of sinne whereby we are made spiritually alive to God The former is Justification the later Sanctification Now saith he this two-fold blessing is to be considered in Christ and in our own persons In the first respect God did quicken us in Christ when by his death sinne being expiated he freed from guilt all the elect that have been and shall be considering them as members in Christ their head In the later respect God doth it when having given us faith he gives us also remission of sins and imputeth Christs righteousnesse to us And afterwards the fore-quoted Author making this Objection to himself How Christ could be said to be freed from the guilt of sinne who had no sin He answereth The person of Christ is considered two wayes First in it self as God-man and so Christ was not bound by any guilt Secondly as appointed head and so representing our persons In this respect as God laid our iniquities upon him Isa 55. So when they were expiated by his bloud then was he released from the guilt of those sins We might instance in other Authors but these may suffice to certifie that some orthodox and learned Divines do hold a Justification of the elect in Christ their head before they do believe yet so as they acknowledge also a necessity of a personal Justification by faith applying this righteousnesse to the person justified Therefore although this Doctrine passe for true yet it will not strengthen the Antinomists Although even the truth of this opinion may modestly be questioned unlesse by being justified in Christ our head we mean no more then that Christ purchased by way of satisfaction our Justification for us and so virtually we were justified in Christs death and resurrection But the learned men of that opinion speak as if God then passed a formal Justification upon all though afterwards to be applied that are elected even as in Adam sinning all his posterity were formally to be accounted sinners Now this may justly admit a debate and there seem to be many Arguments against it First If there were such a formal Justification then all the elect were made blessed and happy their sins were not imputed to them for so in Adam when accounted sinners they are wretched and miserable because sin is laid to their charge And if the elect before they believe or repent were thus happy how then at the same time could they be children of wrath and so God imputing their sins to them Can God impute their sins to them and not impute them to them at the same time It is true if we say That Christ by his sufferings obtained at Gods hand that in time the elect should beleeve and be justified this is easily to be conceived but it is very difficult to understand how that all our sins should be at the same time done away in Christ who is considered as one person with us and yet imputed to us Secondly I do not see how this Doctrine doth make our justification by faith to be any more then declarative or a justification in our conscience only and not before God and so by believing our sins should be blotted out in our sense only when they were blotted out before God by Christs death already And so our Justification by faith shall be but a copy fetcht out of the Court roll where the sentence of Justification was passed already whereas the Scripture speaks to this purpose That even before God and in his account till we do believe and repent our sins are charged upon us and they are not cancelled or blotted out till God work those graces in us Therefore this opinion may symbolize too much with the Adversary and indeed none of the meanest Antinomians speaks of an original reconciliation which was wrought by Christ on the cross without any previous conditions in us and urgeth that parallel of the first Adam in whom we all sinned before we had any actual being as also that Text Col. 3.1 where we are said to be risen with Christ Thirdly It is difficult to conceive how Christ should represent any to his Father thereby to partake of the heavenly blessings which come by him till they do actually beleeve and are incorporated in him for they are not his Members till they do believe and till they are his Members he cannot as an head represent them It is true God knoweth whom he hath elected and to whom in time he will give faith whereby they may be united to Christ and so it 's in Gods purpose and intention to give Justification and Sanctification to all his elect but these being mercies vouchsafed in time and limited to such qualifications in the subject I see not how they can be said to be justified in Christ before they do believe otherwise then virtually and meritoriously It is true we are all condemned in Adam because that was a Covenant made with him and his posterity so that the issues thereof fell upon them by a natural and necessary way but

overtaken it is with an unwilling willingness Thus he Neither is it any marvel if he judge so When Bucer thought an Elect man ever before ever he be converted doth not sin with that full consent as reprobate wicked men do but have many motions to the contrary Now although Peter in his denial of Christ might be thought with unwillingness and reluctancy to do what he did yet it is hard to say David who so deliberated and plotted to accomplish his wickedness did it not with some full consent at that time And it may seem hard to call all the sins of the godly sins of infirmity Therefore others will grant them the name of raigning sins but with this limitation that this is not a total raigning sin raigneth as a tyrant over them not as a King and although at some times as in Davids case there be no actual resistance made because all the actual exercise of Grace is suspended yet the seed of God doth in time revive again and so doth cast out that usurper So then the conclusion is That the gross sins which some regenerate persons do commit may be said to be sins accomplished with a full consent and delight and for the time no actual resistance made by the regenerate part and so far may be called raigning sins but because God hath promised to blow up those sparks of grace in the godly in his due time therefore they raign but as tyrants and that for a while not as Kings which then properly is when sins are customarily committed with an antecedent and consequent consent But for the general That there is a great difference between Sauls sins and Davids Peters and Judas's will appear evidently 1. From that principle of supernatural life which although much weakned yet is not quite taken away 1 Joh. 3. He that is born of God cannot sin viz. so as Cain or as one that is of the devil his father because the seed of God abideth in him And Paul Rom. 7. doth excellently describe this in the person of a regenerate man where some Expositours do not limit the good he would do or the evil he would not do to motions and desires only of the heart but extend it to the outward actions done in the flesh 2. There is a difference in respect of God He doth not wholly cast off the one offending as he doth the other Compare Sauls sin for which God rejected him and Davids together and you would think Sauls sin far the less for Sauls was because he spared Agag 1 Sam. 15. and the best of the spoil pretending it was for Sacrifice and he dared not do other for fear of the people but for this God rejected him Now Davids was in a more gross sin against the light of nature whereas Sauls was against a positive command of God only and was a sin only because forbidden not from itself yet God sheweth mercy to the one and not to the other Certainly though Gods grace be the great reason of the difference yet Saul sinned with more contempt and slighting of God then David did There was a more bitter root in one then the other 3. A difference also may be seen in the consequent When David was reproved how presently did he melt and condemn himself There could not be such a sudden thaw of Davids heart if like Nabals it had been like a stone within him Thus Peter also as soon as Christ looked upon him He went out and wept bitterly It is true we see Saul and Judas after their wickedness committed cried out They had sinned but yet it was only for temporal motives fearing the loss of their honours or fame and at most out of a slavish fear of Gods wrath not from any love of him or faith in him The Use is If David lie thus in his gore and what Michal said falsly concerning him is now true hath made himself like one of the vile fellows let him then become a Pillar of salt to season the godly Without a gracious solicitude and diligent depending upon God how quickly may a star become like a dunghil You see that the snakes and other poisonous creatures which lie lurking in the holes of ground when the season is cold do yet crawl abroad under the hot Sun-beams And so those sins which thou supposest crucified in thee may revive upon a warm temptation Peter could not be perswaded he should ever be plunged into such foul perfidiousness he thought all the men in the world would sooner do it then he Now to prevent these scandals hearken alwayes unto the motions of Gods Spirit While the Cock croweth do thou go out and weep bitterly while the Angel stirreth the pool do thou presently step in and if thou art at any time overtaken continue not in the sin return presently The Candle newly put out if presently blown upon may be kindled again The longer in the sin the more sensless and stupid thy heart will grow and know that of Bernard to be true Illud est cor durum quod non trepidat ad nomen cordis duri That is an hard heart which doth not tremble at the name of an hard heart LECTURE XXVII PSA 1.51.9 Hide thy face from my sinnes and blot out all mine iniquities VVE come in the next place to declare How far a regenerate man upon the commission of such grosse sins doth make a breach upon his Justification And for the further clearing of this I shall lay down First What it doth not And secondly What it doth And in the first place No grosse sin committed by a justified person doth make void the former pardon of those sins he hath been guilty of God when he pardons he pardons absolutely not with a condition suspended upon our future conversation which if not performed his pardon shall be revoked The Lutheran Divines do generally oppose this Truth Musculus also in his Common-place De remissione peccatorum handling this Question doth encline to the affirmative That new grosse sins committed make void the pardon of all former sins so that all his by-past iniquities do reviviscere live again in their guilt and accusation of such a man Tompson in his Diatriba pa. 48. Though he plead vehemently for the intercision of a believers Justification upon the committing of grievous and loathsome sins yet he denieth That sins once pardoned are ever imputed again because saith he the irrevocability of that Remission doth only depend upon the immutability of Gods counsel whose gifts are without Repentance For although saith he there is a necessity of Faith and Repentance that sins be at first pardoned yet that they should continue or abide pardoned there is no necessity of Faith and therefore none are damned for past sins pardoned upon a defect of new Faith and Repentance when new sins are committed The Schoolmen handle this Question and generally deny That sins pardoned ever are imputed again unless in a certain