Selected quad for the lemma: work_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
work_n	faith_n	james_n	justify_v	30,002	5	9.4646	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A87010	A brief vindication of three passages in the Practical catechisme, from the censures affixt on them by the ministers of London, in a book entitled, A testimony to the truth of Jesus Christ, &c. / By H. Hammond D.D.	Hammond, Henry, 1605-1660.	1648 (1648)	Wing H518; Thomason E424_9; ESTC R202516	8,057	16

shal perish is described to be one for whom Christ died The other testimony which I shall adde is that of S. Paul 2 Cor. 5.14 which I desire the intelligent Reader to observe Where speaking of the constreining obliging love of Christ he saith we thus judge that if one died for all then were all dead that is surely All in the full latitude not only the elect but All others and this conclusion the Apostle inferrs by this medium because one i.e. Christ died for all which being a proof of the other must certainly be as true and as acknowledged if not more as that which 't is brought to prove and particularly the all for whom he died be as unlimited as the all that were prov'd from thence to be dead or else the Apostle could not judge as he saith he doth or conclude the death of all in Adam by that medium From this arguing of the Apostle I shall make no question to infer that in S. Pauls divinity Christ died for all who are dead in Adam and on that occasion I shall adde by the way that the contrary doctrine of Christs not dying for all was by the Antients affixt on Pelagius upon that ground of his affirming that all i. e. that Infants were not faln in Adam and so needed not to be redeem'd by Christ Thus it appears by S. August cont. 2. Epist. Pelag l. 2. c. 2. Pelagiani dicunt Deum non esse omnium aetatum in hominibus mundatorem salvatorem liberatorem c. and when the Massilians to vindicate themselves from that charge of S. Augustines confesse that Christ died for all mankind as it appears by Prospers Epistle Prosper expresses no manner of dislike of that confession but forms other charges against them And the truth is there is scarce any antient writer before Pelagius but hath directly asserted Christs dying for all The testimonies of Irenaeus Clemens Origen Macarius Cyril of Jerusalem Eusebius Athanasius and many others might readily be produced if that were needful And then let it be guest also which of the two positions the affirmative or the negative best deserves the charge of being the spawn of those old accursed heresies which have been already condemned c. The same I could adde from many the learnedst Protestants which never were thought to be tainted with any antient or modern heresie though others I know have exprest themselves otherwise but I need not such auxiliaries To conclude this point I suppose in affirming or vindicating this position I have born testimony to the truth of Christ from whom and whose Apostles I professe to have learn'd this truth and to conceive it for the sense of it as fully testified by plain Scriptures as many Articles of the Creed and for the expression used in the Pract Catechisme of all mankind I must acknowledge to have learn'd it from the Church of England of which I do yet with joy professe my self an obedient son and member in those words of her Catechisme establisht by Act of Parliament and inserted in the Book of Liturgy where I was taught to believe in God the Father who created me and all the world In God the Son who redeemed me and all mankind and in God the Holy Ghost who sanctified me and all the elect people of God where mankind as it is of a narrower extent on one side then all the world of creatures so is it to be understood of a larger then all the elect people of God and so much for the first charge The second is set down p. 15. and it is this That neither Paul nor James exclude or separate faithful actions or acts of faith from faith or the condition of justification but absolutely require them as the only things by which the man is justified What is thus set down I acknowledge to be in terminis in the practical Catechisme but cannot easily guesse wherein the error or perniciousnesse is conceived to lie unlesse it should possibly be thorow a mistake of the phrase the only things by which the man is justified as if by that speech should be understood either that the faithful actions or acts of faith without faith it self were the only things by which we are justified or else that all the things there spoken of Faith and faithful actions or acts of faith are the only CAUSE and so some CAUSE of our justification or by which as by a CAUSE we are justified either of these I confesse might passe for an error but both these doctrines I have sufficiently disclaim'd and indeed in this very proposition 't is affirm'd that the faithful actions or acts of Faith are not excluded or separated from Faith which they must be if they justifie without Faith or the condition of justification i. e. from that faith which is considered as and affirm'd to be the condition of our justification but by those two Apostles absolutely required to what why to faith or the condition of our justication as the only things together with it by which as by a condition and only so as 't is clearly set down all over that part of the Catechisme which handles faith or justification the man is justified This I suppose may give these men some light of their mistake if it were such but if they understand the speech as then and now I do and yet think it error and pernicious I must then only prove that what was said from S. James and S. Paul was not by me falsly imposed upon them and then they must either maintain my speech or fall with me in the same condemnation That S. James doth not exclude or separate faithful actions or acts of Faith from Faith or the condition of justification but require them i.e. Faith and faithful actions or acts of faith as the only things by which as by a condition the man is justified will be clear by the definition of a condition in Logick and the plain words of S. James A Condition is a qualification of the s●bject required to make him capable or a causa sine quâ non and so a condition of justification is no more then that without which a man cannot be justified and that as the direct affirmation of S. James c. 2.24 Ye see that by works i. e. faithful actions or acts of faith a man is just●fied and not by faith only and again Faith if it have not works v. 17. and Faith without works v. 20. is dead and so sure not such as by which we are justified From whence I form this syllogisme That without which in S. James's opinion we are not justified and by which joyn'd with faith we are justified not by faith only is not by S. James excluded or separated from Faith or the condition of our justification but required together with Faith as the only things by which as by a condition the man is justified But without acts of faith or faithful actions in S. James's ●●●mon we are not

justified and by them we are justified and 〈◊〉 by faith only Therefore faithful actions or acts of ●●●th are not by St. James excluded or separated from Faith or the condition of our justification but required together with faith as the only things by which as by a condition the man is justified The first proposition is clear from the nature of a condition the second from the words cited out of S. James and then I hope the conclusion will neither be error nor pernitious Then for S. Paul 't is made evident in the Pract Catech●sme that the faith by which according to his doctrine Abraham was justified and not by works Rom. 4. was not only a depending on God for the performance of his promise which yet was a faithful action or act of Faith but also a resigning himself up wholly to him to obey his precepts or more clearly was a Faith which howsoever it was tried by promises or commands did answer God in Acts of faith or faithful actions and so was accepted by God without absolute unsinning obedience much more without obedience to the Mosaical law i. e. without works all which is clear in the story of Abraham and I suppose need not farther be evidenced And then concerning S. Pauls part in the businesse my syllogisme shall be this He that affirms Abraham to be justified by that Faith which howsoever 't was tried did answer God in acts of faith or faithful actions doth not exclude or separate Faithful actions or acts of faith from faith or the condition of our justification but absolutely requires them c. But S. Paul affirms Abraham to be justified by that Faith which howsoever 't was tried did answer God in faithful actions or acts of faith Therefore S. Paul doth not exclude or separate faithful actions c. The first proposition I conceive wants little proving after that which hath been already premis'd in this matter And for the second I shall desire that Abrahams faith as it hath justification attributed to it by Saint Paul may be viewed both in the 4 to the Rom. and the 11 to the Heb. In the former his faith was tried by the promise of a numerous seed c. and he answered that with one act of faith or faithful action believed in hope beyond hope v. 18. was strong in Faith and gave glory to God v. 20. was fully perswaded that what God had promised he was able to perform v. 21. all which what are they but acts of faith or faithful actions all which when the object of the faith is Gods absolute promise the matter is capable of and for this it was counted to him for righteousnesse or he was justified ver. 22. and thence sure I may conclude that these were so required as the condition by which he was and without which he should not be justified In the 11 to the Heb. many other acts of his faith or faithful actions are mentioned v. 8. by faith he obeyed to go out of his own Country not knowing whither he went and v. 9. by faith he sojourn'd in a strange land v. 10. by faith he expected a city that hath foundations v. 17. by faith he offer'd his Son and v. 19. counted that God was able to raise him up from the dead v. 20. by faith he blessed Isaac concerning things to come What are all these but acts of faith or faithful actions in all kinds of tryals And therefore I suppose all this being out of Saint Paul as the former out of Saint James 't will be no error or pernitious from their very words to have affirm'd this doctrine and affixt it on them I suppose also this may serve for the second proposition The third is set down p. 18. from Pract. Catech. p. 120. and t is this That thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain is undoubtedly no more then thou shalt not forswear thy self To this Charge I answer first that it is a little strange that a bare explication of a phrase of Scripture a part of the third Commandement in Exod. though it were acknowledged false or forc'd should yet be so far improvable by any as to come under the title of an infamous pernicious error a spawn of the old accursed heresies c. and be capable of all those other aggravations at first mention'd which being affixt to all the errors in the Catalogue must also be affixt to this which is set down for one of them But then secondly for the truth most undoubted certain truth of this explication or interpretation thus censured I have formerly at large made it appear that the words to take the name of God signifie to swear and no more and the Hebrew which we render in vain signifies falsly and is so rendred in the ninth Commandement and agreeable to that Psal. 15. to lift up the soul to vanity is to swear by the soul or life falsly as it there follows nor sworn to deceive his neighbour and beside my own judgement in this matter back'd with the consent of as learned as this age hath or the Antient Church had any I conceiv'd that I had a most authentick warrant from Christ himself who renders it {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} thou shalt not forswear thy self For so we read Mat. 5. ye have heard that it was said to them of old thou shalt not kill and again in the same manner thou shalt not commit adultery that is That of the 10 Commandements delivered in Sinai and brought down by Scripture to them his present auditors one Commandement was thou shalt not kill another thou shalt not commit adultery and so again in the very same form of words another Thou shalt not forswear thy self From which I did assure my self and so stil do that {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} is as directly the interpretation in Christs judgment of the first part of the third Commandement as {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} or {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} of the seventh and sixth and so that it is undoubtedly no more the one then the other And indeed this was the only occasion of delivering those words in the Pract Catech. to shew that Christ did not misreport the words of the Commandements nor yet refer to any other place but that Commandment in those words of his And though I have many other things that I could say to that matter able to free that speech from all imaginable inconveniences especially when in that place Christs prohibition is explain'd to be against all kind of swearing by any other as wel as by God in ordinary conversation or in any case but wherein it is necessary to confirm by oath yet I am very willing to leave the matter here upon this account at this time given of it i. e. in my opinion on Christs score and not fear what any ingenuous Reader wil charge on me for this interpretation I beseech God to forgive them which have brought this unnecessary trouble upon the Reader and for my self I have to them these two only requests 1. That they wil examine themselves sincerely and as in Gods sight what the motive or design was which perswaded them to single out me alone who professe my self and am by all that know me acknowledg'd to hold nothing contrary to the Church of England and wil justifie it to any man that knows what the Church of England is and joyn me with the broachers of all the blasphemies and heresies of this age And 2ly that they wil lay to heart the consequences which may naturally flow from hence if God do not uphold weak Christians who seeing so many doctrines of very distant natures blended together with the same brand of heresie and blasphemy infamous and pernicious fasten'd on them and no kind of proofs annext that any are such beside the judgment of the Censors may possibly find some of them to be the infallible truths of God and be tempted if they have not stronger antidotes then this bare Testimony wil afford them to have the same thoughts of the other also Or if not whether they wil not be inclined to have the same severity and condemnation for me or any other asserter of such propositions as these as they are taught to have for the authors of those other blasphemous propositions and so be tempted to uncharitablenesse Having said thus much I shall hope it may find some good successe among some who have subscribed that Testimony But if I am mistaken in all of them I shall then desire that this improsperous Paper may gain me but thus much that either the first subscriber Mr John Downam who did License the Printing of this very Book from whence all these pretended Errors are cited or else Dr Gouge or Mr Gataker who are foremost of the second rank or some other person of learning and Christian temper wil afford me their patience personally and by fair Discourse or any other Christian way to debate the truth of our pretensions and for this I shal wait their leisure H. HAMMOND From my Study Christ-Ch in Oxon. Jan. 24. Munday The End