Selected quad for the lemma: faith_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
faith_n	justification_n	justify_v	sanctification_n	6,333	5	10.3320	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A30977	The genuine remains of that learned prelate Dr. Thomas Barlow, late Lord Bishop of Lincoln containing divers discourses theological, philosophical, historical, &c., in letters to several persons of honour and quality : to which is added the resolution of many abstruse points published from Dr. Barlow's original papers.	Barlow, Thomas, 1607-1691.	1693 (1693)	Wing B832; ESTC R3532	293,515	707

justification of Abraham the Father of the faithful and all his Sons are justified in his likeness The Works of the Ceremonia and Judicial Law were in his Justification excluded for there was then neither of those Laws But the Apostle in Rom. 3. doth exclude the works of the Moral Law in the Business of Justification Yet in ver 31. of that Chapter 't is said Do we then make void the Law through Faith God forbid Yea we establish the Law But now the Ceremonial Law is not established by Faith for it is abrogated Moreover others of those Writers tell us That our first Justification is by Faith but our second Justification is by Works But what they call by that Second is Sanctification and not Justification And some of them say we are justified by the Works of the Moral Law but not by those Works ' which go before Faith but those which follow it and spring out of it But we say That Believers sin afterward and so cannot be justified by any Works afterward Their Good Works after Faith are imperfect And if we should suppose they were not yet those Good Works which follow Faith cannot satisfie God for any sins committed before it And for one Sin committed before Faith God may justly condemn a Man though he be holy afterward For every man doth owe God full Obedience to the utmost of his power in every moment of his time See Pauli Testardi Synopsin naturae gratiae who acutely and well handles the Doctrine of Justification by Faith Thesi 194. Imperium pot st●tis Supremae non sol●m civilia sed sacra Complectitur POtestas here is not taken for power in the Abstract but in the Concrete for the Person who hath this power vested in him Thus the word is used in Lucan Discubuere Reges Majorque Potestas Caesar adest So St. Austin useth it De verbis Domini in Matth. Serm. 6. Si aliud Imperator aliud Deus jubeat Major potestas est Deus So S. Paul takes it in the 13th of the Romans where the Persons are clearly brought in claiming obedience as the higher powers Now as to these Persons having power in things Sacred we are to consider things as Sacred in a double manner 1. Ex Naturâ suâ So God and every Person in the Trinity is Holy Not by the force of any Law or Institution but of themselves and their own Nature And of such Sacred things we do not speak 2. Some things are Sacred ex Instituto Divino So under the Law the Priests Tabernacle and first Fruits were Holy and things Consecrated to God 3. Some things are Sacred ex instituto humano and these are things which are not so in their own Nature but are so by the intervening of Authority And such things according to the Civil and Canon Law are 1. Tempora Sacra as dies fasti and solemn Seasons for some weighty Causes Consecrated to God 2. Holy places as Temples 3. Personae Sacrae as Ministers of the Gospel 4. Res Sacrae As Holy Vessels Vestments the Revenues of the Church and things Dedicated to God Things are said to be Sacred if they are separated from a Profane to a Sacred use So R. David Kimchi on Isa 56.2 Diem Sanctificare est à profanis usibus separare And the Holiness of any thing is effectively as from its productive Principle by the Action of him who did separate it from a profane use to the use of the Church and by giving it transferr'd his Propriety to God But formally it consists in the Habitude and Relation which it hath to God its Possessor and to Holy Uses namely of the Church and to Holy ends the Glory of God and good of Men. So that these things have no absolute or inherent Holiness in them but only a relative one Now we say that the Supreme Power doth intra ambitum suum take in these things This is proved by Grotius in a Book by him Writ for that purpose which may be consulted as likewise Hooker in the 8th Book of his Ecclesiastical Policy and Paraeus on the 13th of the Romans And here we affirm first that Sacra Tempora are subject to the higher Powers But Times are Holy in respect either of Divine or Humane Institution 1. Of Divine as the Sabbath and such Days were appointed by God under the Old Testament And the Magistrate had no power to alter such Times nor suffer any so to do This is clear out of Eusebius on the Life of Constantine the Great the Theodosian Code and the Novels And so as to other Festivals The Maccabees made some solemn Festivals to be observed At the Observation of which Christ was present St. John 10.22 And as to things given to God they cannot be alienated The expression of giving things to God is used 1 Chron. 29. And in the Charters where the Religious use of things is specify'd the Style is Concessimus Deo Now the propriety by such Donations is in a special manner transmitted to God So Sacerdos is call'd in Scripture a Man of God And the Temple set apart for him the House of God And Christ calls it so My House is called the House of Prayer And the Sabbath is called the Lord's Sabbath the first Day of the Week the Lord's Day The Propriety is according to all Laws transfer'd to the Donatarius See for this the 167th Rule of Law in the Digests de Regulis Juris non videntur data quae eo tempore quo dantur accipientis non ●iunt And here we say that the Chief Magistrate hath no power to alter things wherein God is the Proprietary Quod meum est sine facto meo ad alium transferri non potest saith the Rule of Law But yet we say that Imperium potestatis supremae sacras personas actiones sacras Complectitur For First Sacred Persons may be considered as Members of the Commonwealth and so they are all subject to the higher Powers And Secondly As Members of a Church and so they are subject too to those Powers even in Ecclesiastical things However the Papists deny this to prop up the Supreme power of their Popes But here we must consider that in Ecclesiastical Persons there is a twofold Power 1. The Power of Order which by their Function they have to Preach God's Word Administer the Sacraments and confer Orders And this Power is wholly Spiritual and derived to Holy Persons from Christ independently on any Secular Power This Power Christ gave to his Apostles and they to others whether Secular Powers would or no So that the Secular Magistrate cannot be said to Confer this Power nor to exercise the proper Acts of it Nor can he Ordain a Presbyter or give the Sacrament But yet even as to this Power Sacred Persons may be said thus Magistratui subjacere First As he may compel them to do their Duties and to execute their Spiritual Functions if they are remiss Secondly As

is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nec vola nec vestigium But say they if the Church be not infallible we need not obey it I answer that doth not follow Parents are not infallibe in their Commands yet Children are to obey them And under the Law the High Priest was to be obey'd tho' but fallible An fides sola justificat FAith is vocabulum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 First 'T is taken objectively pro fide quae creditur namely for the Doctrine of the Gospel reveal'd to us to which we assent Acts 6.7 Some are said there 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doctrinae evangelicae obedire Thus we say symbolum fidei by which we understand the Doctrinal Articles of Faith Secondly Faith is taken subjectively pro fide quâ creditur namely for that Quality or Action inherent in us And it is threefold a Faith Historical a Faith of Miracles and Saving Faith A Faith Temporary is falsely put in and impertinently added in Catechisms For it is not distinguish'd from the other kinds of Faith And an Historical and Faith of Miracles if they end are temporary Wicked men may believe the History of the Scripture to be true and may be able to do Wonders as many shall say at that day Lord in thy name we have cast out Devils Thirdly as to Saving Faith most of our Divines since Luther's Days have made it to be certa fiducia quâ certò apud se statuit quis Christum pro se esse mortuum peccata sibi esse remissa Deumque placatum Thus the Palatine Catechism part 2. Question 21. Where true Faith is defined to be non solùm certa notitia quà verbo divino assentior sed Certa siducia quâ statuo non solum aliis sed mihi remissionem peccatorum aeternam justitiam vitam donatam esse Thus Vrsin in notis Catecheticis ibidem Thus Hier. Zanch. tom 1. Cap. 1. l. 13. Thus Calvin Beza and others generally and the Church of England in the Homily of Faith Part 1. pag. 22. And thus John Lord Bishop of Worcester in his late Controversiarum fasciculus De Redemptione Question 6. p. 269. But if this Certitude of a present Righteousness be essential to faith then faith cannot be without it And again this fiducia and Plerophory of assurance is an effect and Consequent of Faith And moreover this Opinion is against manifest Reason for a man must be first justified and his sins done away before he can certainly know it For every finite Act presupposes an Object to which it must tend So 't is necessary there should be a visible colour before Eye can see and that there should be objectum cognoscibile before the understanding can know any thing and that sins should be remitted before any man can know they are so And Justifying Faith must be precedent to this certa fiducia Nor is this fiducia intrinsical to Justifying Faith nor a necessary adjunct of it For there is an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and it is by many reslex Acts of Faith that this siducia or assurance is at last acquired We say then that illud in desinitione fidei malè ponitur quod non omni co●●e●i● But this certa siducia doth not omni fidei Competere Matt. 14.31 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cur●●dubitaveras Now Justifying Faith doth therefore not consist in believing that Christ hath pardoned my Sins For that which supposeth a man just already cannot make him just For every intellectual assent doth necessarily presuppose that the Proposition is true that is assented to and so it is necessary that the Sins of Sempronius should be forgiven before Sempronius can believe any such thing But now to speak more distinctly there are three things in fide Salvificâ First The Knowledge of the Gospel that Christ was promised by the Father and sent to be vas sponsor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nostrum Secondly The Assent to the Promises of this kind Thirdly That fiducia quâ anima multis peccati debitis Deo obnoxia Christum tanquam Vadem suum sponsorem patri loco nostro obligatum apprehendit in eoque pro solutione debiti a se contracto requiescit recumbit innititur The two former things namely notitia and assensus are as it were the materiale respectu fidei justificantis But the 3d. viz. that fiducia is quasi formale fidei and most proper to it For tho Saving Faith hath diverse Actings about divers Objects yet as it justifies it looks at Christ alone and him crucified As the Eye of a Jew under the Old Testament who was stung by Fiery Serpents did look at many things beside the Braz●n Serpent yet he grew well only by looking on that Serpent So the Eye of Saving Faith looks at many things besides Christ namely all Gospel Truths but doth heal us only as it applies Christ as a Medicine to the sick Soul In the next place we say though this faith be subjectivè only in the Vnderstanding yet it is effectivè in the Will and Affections and doth in a moral yet efficacious way determine them to love God and to obey him whence 't is called Faith that works by love And therefore this Faiih is no speculative Vertue in the head only but it is also practical in the heart Non tamen ratione inhaerentiae sed influentiae Now this Faith is said alone to justifie not in respect of its being without the company of good works but only in regard of its efficiency For though good works be in the same subject with this Faith yet they do not effectively concur with Faith in the business of Justification for Faith doth that alone that only applying Christ Moreover that doth justifie us not formaliter for so the Righteousness of Christ doth justifie us For he is made unto us of God righteousness 1 Cor. 1.30 but effectivè Non tamen quod justitiam illam efficiat vel effectivè nobis imputet For it is God who thus justifies Rom. 8.33 but only because justitiam a Christo oblatam animae peccatrici applicat And this is that which the Divines of the Reform'd Religion do so often inculcate in their Writings that this Faith doth justifie not as it is absolutely consider'd in it self and ratione actus sed objectivè relativè in ordine ad objectum suum Christum Scilicet whom it accepts of So the hand of a man which receives a Plaister from the hand of a Chyrurgion is said to heal Not that it doth that formaliter and effectively but because it applies it to the Wound which it heals So a Window enlightens the House yet neither effectively if we speak properly nor formally but because it transmits light which doth properly enlighten Some Popish Writers tell us that the Apostle when he speaks against Justification by Works means Ceremonial Works But that is impertinently urged by them For Works are in the same manner excluded in our justification as they were in the

to the whole Gospel as far as 't is sufficiently Revealed whereby Men believe Christ's Power his Precepts and his Promises too and acknowledge them to be good both in themselves and in respect to our selves the best and only means to conduct us to Heaven so that their Understanding inlightned by Faith discerns such an Excellency in Christ and in his Promises and Precepts and believes it so intirely and without reserve that it contemns all other things as the Apostle says Phil. 3.9 from whence follows the Obedience of Faith which is always accompanied with sincerity tho' not with perfect integrity which is desired and endeavoured for in this Life but attained only in Heaven See Mr. Baxter's Aphorisms of Justification Aphorism 69. pag. 261 and 262 c. But to the Faith of Miracles he asserts it with Calvin upon 1 Cor. 13.2 That it does not comprehend whole Christ but only his power in working Miracles so that it includes says our Author an assent to these three Propositions viz. 1. That God is of power to work Miracles 2. That he will be ready to assist those who believe and relie upon him with such a Miraculous Faith 3. That he will particularly assist me if supposed to have such a Miraculous Faith in working such or such a Miracle The first of these all Christians nay and all Men even by the Light of Nature know that know and believe God to be Almighty And as for the second Christians know it by the general promises to that purpose in the Gospel Matt. 17.20 Luke 17.6 John 14.13 c. But as for the third viz. That he will particularly assist John or Thomas or you or me says our Author in working such and such Miracles this depends on particular Revelation or Inspiration See Jac. ad Port. Bernatem in def Fid Orthod cont Christ Ostorrod cap. 30. pag. 377. Now therefore as all Faith must depend upon Authority and Divine Faith such as Miraculous Faith is upon Divine Authority and because this Miraculous Faith was not a Gift common to all Believers but a particular Gift and a particular sort of Faith as Gennadius apud Oecumen in 1 Cor. 13.2 pag. 465. Edit Graec. Veron 1532. Fred. Baldwin in 1 Cor. 13. pag. 687. Philip Melanchton Toleman Heshus Calvin and other Protestant Divines tell us as do likewise St. Chrysostome and the Greek Scholia and a Faith particularly relying on the Revelation of God's power and willingness to work such and such Miracles by such and such Persons and at such and such times only therefore this Faith must needs have a far different object from a true Justifying Faith And therefore being different from it in so many several respects as is proved and almost all the ways 't is possible for two habits to differ in it cannot but be plain that they differ more than in degree But to proceed to other proofs if saving faith and that of other miracles differ only in degree or as a Disposition and Habit our Author would demand which his Antagonist would have to be the habit or higher degree If it be answer'd That the faith of Miracles is the lower and saving faith the Habit or higher degree then it must follow that all that have saving faith have the faith of Miracles too because all Philosophers and Divines agree That when two Qualities differ only in degree the higher degree always includes the lower and consequently all the whole Vertue and natural or moral Activity of it and therefore that every Habit necessarily includes the Disposition leading to it from which it would follow that all that believe with saving faith must needs have the faith of miracles which being de facto false the premisses must needs be so too 2. That saving faith includes not the faith of miracles he further proves by our Saviour's giving his Apostles the power of working miracles a good while after their calling to the Apostolical Function and consequently after they had already received saving Grace as appears Matt. 10.1 Luke 9.1 3. But if it be said that faith of miracles is the higher degree and includes saving faith then says he it would follow that all that hare the faith of miracles must needs have saving faith too But that is contradicted by our Saviour as he has above proved as likewise by Aquinas and all other Sober Men both Papists and Protestants excepting only Becamus and a few other Servile Writers sworn Slaves to the Pope See Becan in Summ. Theol. Schol. and in Compend Man lib. 1. cap. 17. Pag. 336. Reas 4. Is drawn from the comparison of the Gift of Tongues and Prophesies which are acknowledged by the Schools and other Divines to be common Graces given for the common advantage of the whole Church and which yet differ so widely from saving faith that they have scarce any common Attribute in which they agree Reas 5. Here our Author being sensible that the main difficulty in this Question seems to consist in clearing of this doubt viz. Whether Temporary or Common Faith in Hypocrites differ Specifically or Gradually only from Saving Faith in the Elect Before he comes to the proof of his assertion which is That they differ specifically desires us to consider 1. That by common Faith in Hypocrites he does not understand only a faith that is wholly false or dissembled but a real faith that includes both a true knowledge of and true assent to several Divine and Gospel Truths such as many Hypocrites have tho' it be not such as it should be 2. That this common faith though by some Divines commenting on those parables in Matt. 13.5 6 20 21. Luke 8 6. Mar. 4.5 16 17. it is called Temporary and by others Historical Faith as Zach. Vrsin in Explic. par 2. Quest 21. par 2. Cat. palat c. and Grot. in Matt. 13.21 yet it is but one and the same sort of faith and means only a faith that wants a just and durable foundation to preserve it against the assaults of strong Temptations and Persecutions 3. That he conceives this faith is not called Temporary as supposing it never endures till Death because he believes it often accompanies such Believers to the Grave that live and die in times of the Churches Prosperity but only because it is of a temper which would not have been of proof against Persecution had it hapned nor ever is when it does come From these Considerations he passes first to his Position which is That this Common Temporary or Historical faith be they different or but one and the same do differ more than gradually from saving faith called in Scripture the faith of the Elect unfeigned and an Effect of Christ's Regenerating Spirit in his true members See Bishop Vsher's Summ. Christian Relig. pag 179. Zach. Ursin par 2. Cat. in Explicat parag 2. Quaest 21. pag. 107. c Tit. 1.1 Primas Uticens in Tit. 1.1 Dion Carthus in loc 2 Tim. 1.5 Calvin Instit lib.