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
A78421	The account audited and discounted: or, a vindication of the three-fold diatribee, of [brace] 1. Supersition, 2. Will-worship, 3. Christmas festivall. Against Doctor Hammonds manifold paradiatribees. / By D.C. preacher of the Word at Billing-Magn. in Northamptonshire.	Cawdrey, Daniel, 1588-1664.	1658 (1658)	Wing C1621; Thomason E1850_1; ESTC R209720	293,077	450

but repentance sincere not perfect obedience But here are many misadventures 1. The Catechist told us The Judaical law did represent to us the first covenant by requiring perfect obedience and pronouncing a curse upon him that continued not in all things c. Pract. Cat. p. 8. this is now contradicted 2. This Law Mosaical the moral Law is still in force to unbelieving and impenitent Christians they are still under the Law and under the curse though it should not be in force with faithful and penitent ones 3. But even faithful Christians and penitent are under the Law as it is a Rule of righteousness though not as the first covenant or else the Doctor must turn Antinomian 4. Nor is it Orthodox to say the covenant of grace or the Law in the hand of a Mediator required not innocence but repentance I● requires both though it is contented with repentance and the Law as the first Covenant required sincere as well as perfect obedience and the Gospel requires no less The very Gospel requires perfect obedience the Doctor says perfecter as well as the Law 2 Cor. 7.1 but then the rigor of forfeiture in failing is by anothers perfect righteousness abated there 's mercy concerning this which the Law knew not of No repentance would serve there But he says secondly It cannot be said that the Law is the Rule of Evangelical righteousness i. e. of that righteousness whereby believers are now said to be justified Here are more mistakes for Evangelical righteousness is two-fold or hath two parts 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rev. 19.8 1. The righteousness of Justification and so the Law is not the Rule of Evangelical righteousness but Faith or the Law of Faith as it 's called Rom. 3.27 2. The righteousness of Sanctification and so the Law ever was and will be the Rule of Evangelical righteousness And I cannot but wonder that the Doctor should deny the Law to be the Rule of Evangelical righteousness that is by which believers are justified * Not separating faithful actions or acts of faith from faith or the Condition of justification c. at least in part who makes the condition of the new Covenant to be not onely Faith but Obedience and all other graces required by the Law even to Justification Pract. Cat. p. 28. But that by the way The second thing I objected was That the Orthodox maintain the Law to be perfect or the eternal Rule of righteousness against the Church of Rome This he shakes off n. 45. by saying It is but a contention of words that the Diatribist it seems and some others have espoused against I know not what adversaries Sure the Doctor is not so little seen in our Controversies as not to know that this is one point of difference between the Romanists and us concerning the Law that they put imperfection upon it and ours maintain it to be the most perfect Rule of moral righteousness The first difference that Bellarm. puts between the Law and Gospel is this Lex operum est doctrina inchoata Evangelium perfecta But we need not go so far to finde an adversary that hath espoused this quarrel It is the learned D. H. Who was charged by me for compliance with them of Rome in charging the Law with imperfection This he made my third misadventure and he undertakes to maintain it against the Orthodox n. 46. p. 216. saying 'T is evident in that place of the Catech. p. 94. that first The words of Christ that he came 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to fill up the vacuities of the Mosaical Law 2. The many express examples of his doing so in Matth. 5. his additions to the Law It was said of old but I say unto you 3. The uniform suffrage of all antiquity was the ground whereon he built his affirmation c. Here I must confess I had a strong temptation to use the Doctors language to undertake the examination of that part of his Catech. p. 92. to p. 95. but that I am loath to swell my discourse into a volume to the burthen of the Reader and trouble of the Printer for it deserves as many other passages in that book do some consideration The Doctor herein palpably concurring not only with Papists in this exposition excepting but that they make some of those additions Counsels not all precepts as he does and professing he should never disclaim the doctrine upon that account c. but with Socinians also in making Christ a Law-giver and not an expositor of the Law and prescribing a new way of salvation from that of the Law not in regard of Justification by faith in Christ for so it may be called a new way in opposition to that of the Law but this they deny but in regard of the observation of those new precepts or Laws which Christ they say makes the way to salvation And the Doctor does little less making obedience to the Gospel precepts to be in part the condition of Justification as they do as was touched above I shall at present onely speak something to the third particular grounds of his Affirmation That the Law was imperfect and had before some vacuities which now are * Christ meant to heighten that which was imperfect Qu. of Bapt. Inf. s 4. Requiring what the Law had not required and so the adding more to it p. 217. n. 48. filled up by Christ The first was the words of Christ that he came 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to fill up the vacuities of the Mosaical Law But this looks like a fallacy called petitio principii which he asserts but proves not abusing his Reader with ambiguity of words For he confesses Catech. p. 93. the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies two things Either to fulfil and perform or to fill up and perfect and is rendered sometimes by one sometime by another Why then does he so poorly beg the latter sense when it may as rationally be read to performe or fulfil As 1. Take the Law for the Moral Law onely Christ came not to destroy that neither by Doctrine nor Practice but to fulfil it otherwise he had not been a sinless perfect Saviour 2. If the Ceremoniall Law was also intended that also was fulfilled by Christ both in his observation of it strictly as occasion was and also in bringing in the substance of those Ceremonies 3. The * That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Prophets frequently Prophets are also mentioned Now whether it be meant of their Doctrinal Interpretations of the Law or their prophesies of Christ both wayes Christ came to fulfill the words of the Prophets but in no good sense to perfect or fill up their vacuities But again take the word to signifie to perfect or fill up that may have a double sense 1. To * Non veni solvere sed ad implere his viz. additamentis quae vel ad expositionem pertinent antiquarum sententiarum vel