Selected quad for the lemma: christian_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
christian_n	jew_n	lord_n	sabbath_n	1,983	5	9.0788	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A56405	A revindication set forth by William Parker, in the behalfe of Dr. Drayton deceased, and himself of the possibility of a total mortification of sin in this life: and, of the saints perfect obedience to the law of God: to be the orthodox Protestant doctrine, and no innovations (as they are falsly charged to be) of Dr. Drayton and W. Parker; in an illogicall vindication, wherein the necessity of sins remaining in the best saints as long as they live, and the impossibility of perfect obedience to the law of God, is ignorantly and perversly avouched to to [sic] be the orthodox Protestant doctrine; by one who subscribeth his name John Tendring. ...	Parker, William, fl. 1651-1658.	1658 (1658)	Wing P486A; ESTC R200724	221,023	288

such-like that he would intercede to his Father saying Father forgive them for they know not what they say 4. Querie Whether it be not interest and self-love in any to maligne others for what they hold out to the world for doctrines according to godlinesse before the said maligning persons do confute by plain Scriptures the said doctrines held out to be contrary to godlinesse and likewise give the said maligned persons freedom and time to make reply and answer for themselves for you may see what Festus said Act. 25.27 5. Querie Whether they do well and do as they would be dealt with who charge men for preaching poysonfull doctrine before they themselves have heard such kind of doctrine from them whom they charge with it or have received some information from others either viva voce or under their hands that the persons charged have preached such kind of doctrine 6. Querie Whether the holy Scriptures commonly called the word of God be not the rule and the only extornal rule to confute all error and confirm all truth by because it is said Isai 8.20 to the Law and to the testimony 7. Querie Whether an errour in Divinity be not a Scripture-axiome commonly mistaken and not understood As an Anabaptist for so some are called by others of divided judgments mistook that Scripture-axiome Matth. 20.25 26. where it is said The Princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them and they who are great exercise authority over them but it shall not be so among you From which exceptive particle but in the last clause the said person denied magistracy to be exercised over Christians for which cause he was some years since as it s said imprisoned in Lincoln-Castle and indicted upon the next opportunity before the Judge of Assise for that County Upon which Indictment he produced his Bible and desired the Judge that the place might be read where it is said but it shall not be so among you But who was most in fault for his said opinion the poor misunderstanding man who out of conscience did adhere to the translated Scripture or they who did translate the said two verses amisse and so led him from the mind of Christ to the said misunderstanding for the words are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Now the preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifieth ofttimes contrarium adversus being added to the verbs 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must make the said verbes to signifie to abuse and pervert their rule and authority which was no doubt our Saviours meaning when he said to his disciples but it shall not be so among you namely not to abuse any authority committed unto them which is a good caveat to all Christian magistrates to use their authority rightly and Christian-like according to which if the foresaid words had been translated as they ought to have been the foresaid conscientious man had no question submitted to Christian magistrates and so have been kept out of prison for who will not submit to magistrates out of obediential love while they exercise their ruling power and authority according to rules of justice prescribed by God without respect of persons because then there would be no complaining in our streets But saith Christ wo be to them by whom offences come Matth. 18.7 7. Querie Whether it be not the most compendious way of right judging every pretended divine controversie to put the said controversie into a Scripture-axiom or axioms and consider whether both parts which are commonly called the subject and predicate of the said axiom be expresly or equivalently contained in the Scripture as for instance It is said by the Romanists that Papa Romanus est caput Ecclesiae that the Pope of Rome is head of the Church and that Maria est mediatrix gratiae that Mary Christs Mother is the intercessor to her Son for grace and help for us in time of need Now it s confessed that caput Ecclesiae which is the prodicate or last part of the foresaid axiom is in the Scripture but we cannot find the subject or first part of the aforesaid axiom Papa Romanus in the Scripture which surely must be therein contained if ever we think to prove by Scripture that the Pope of Rome is head of the Church So must we find mediatrix gratiae in Scripture the predicate or latter part of the second axiom before we do with confidence affirm that Maria est mediatrix gratiae that Mary is the intercessor to her Son for grace to be given to us in our time of need therefore why should we believe the said assertions for divine truths when we cannot find those axioms to be expresly or equivalently laid down in Scripture 8. Querie Whether the sense we put upon an axiom expresly laid down in Scripture ought not to be proved to be expresly or equivalently in some one Scripture or other of Gods word that so we may justifie our said sense of the axiom to be the very mind of Christ according to the Scriptures As for instance Saint John saith of himself Rev. 1.10 I was in the Spirit on the Lords day In which words are these two divine axioms First That there is a Lords day Secondly that Saint John saith I was in the Spirit on the Lords day Now he that will presume to fix his proper sense upon the first axiom affirming what is meant by the Lords day or upon the second axiom what is meant to be in the Spirit on the Lords day must not he first prove that his said sense is plainly declared in some Scripture or other to be a Scripture-sense and so the mind of God otherwise he may justly be questioned why he putteth such a sense upon the said axiom which the holy Scriptures do not expresly hold out in some place or other of the said Scriptures And in case some other place of Scripture do fully declare his sense of the axiom to be divine according to his assertion yet he must prove by the context if not by the text of Scripture that his sense imposed is the sense and meaning of the axiom he hath laid down in the said place otherwise it had been much better for his advantage to have chosen the axiom in Scripture which expresly holdeth out his said sense then to put a sense upon an axiom which he cannot prove by the text or context to be the genuine sense of the said axiom The sense which too many Divines put upon Saint John's words is that Saint John meaneth by the Lords day the first day of the week which they call our Christian Sabbath in contradistinction to the Jews Sabbath to be set apart as the Lords day which we must solemnize and keep sacred as a day to the Lord commanded by him to be solemnized by all good Christians in holy duties as preaching the word hearing the same administring the Sacraments publickly with prayer and thanksgiving and also spend the remainder

slip or fall as all men confess otherwise David Peter and all the Saints of God during their time of actual fals had lost all their righteousness which they had wrought before by every such by-step or slip Unto which he adds two sayings of the Apostle James which he understands as little as the former The first is chap. 2.10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law and yet shall offend in one point is guilty of all That is of violating the equity of the law and contemning the Authority of the law-giver which binds to the obedience of all the commands as well as to any one yet is not this guilt to be understood of every breach of the law through ignorance or weakness but of witting and presumptuous sins The other place chap. 3.2 in many things we offend all of which we have spoken before and therefore saith he are we taught every day to beg the forgiveness of our trespasses Unto which we have said likewise that although we sin not daily we may daily pray so for our selves and others to have our sins pardoned which have been many great His fourth argument against justification by works which in the Apostles sense we renounce is that Rom. 3.28 We conclude that a man is justified by faith without the works of the law unto which he adds Gal. 5.3 4. That if ye seek to be saved or justified by the works of the law then are ye debters to fulfill the whole law and so Christ should profit us nothing who is given for that end But he goes about to prove that here Paul excludes not onely ceremonial works and works before grace but all works whatsoever how doth he that for saith he Paul writes not these things to unbelieving Jews but to the Galatians who were believing Christians But by his leave those of the Jewish faith who looked to be saved by their own works without the grace of Christ were crept in among them and had almost withdrawn them from the faith in Christ as appears chap. 1.6 I marvel that ye are so soon turned from him that called you to the grace of God unto another Gospel See chap. 3.12 and 4.19 20. and 5.1 2 3 4 5. so this argument is false Fifthly he saith that no work of man can be good before his person be justified before God for without faith it is impossible to please God But a man may have faith to please God before a justifying faith the first is in God the Father the second is in God the Son see Heb. 11.6 But without faith it is impossible to please God for he that comes to God must believe that God is and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him Abel saith he was first accepted and then his offering But that divinity of his agreeth not with Gods sermon to Cain if thou dost well shalt thou not be accepted and if thou dost evill sin lies at the door Gen. 4.7 Nor with that which Solomon speaks Prov. 18.16 A mans gift maketh room for him which is true of gifts brought unto God as well as unto men especially if it proceed out of a good willing spirit But page 57. he comes to answer some objections which we present not because we oppose not his doctrine in this parergical discourse The first is that to what purpose are good works if we can neither be justified nor merit by them he answers That as gold is good yet not to asswage hunger yet his confiding friends gold and silver made him good cheer and the same hath admirable effects yet not to make the blind man see so good works have many uses both necessary and profitable yet not to justifie us before God or to merit by them for when we have done all we can yea all that is commanded we are unprofitable servants Luk. 17.10 to which Scripture we have spoken before But here he bringeth in some objections against his own doctrine of the impossibility of keeping the law as first If God gives us commandements which we cannot perform it is in vain to exhort thereunto viz. to obey the same Secondly his promises of happiness and means for keeping them were but mockeries as if I should promise a child a thousand pounds to carry away a Milstone which he is not able to wag Thirdly his punishments for the neglect and transgression of them should be unjust for if laws be not made and proportioned to our power of performance the law-giver may as well be termed a tyrant as the laws themselves unjust But none of this can stand with the wisedome and justice of God viz. to command beyond our power or possibility Unto which objections he makes answer after his wonted manner with words of ignorance errour falshood first saith he God doth require of us to keep and fulfil his law to teach us what we could have done in Adam and what we owe to God But in the first Adam or Protoplast we could do just nothing for we had no being then nor are we debters to God upon that score though perhaps upon another score we are Secondly saith he there and page 58. to shew us that it is our own fault that we cannot now keep the Law Which perhaps may be truly spoken but not in his sense and way because man abusing his power and free liberty to do what he would did lose both and now he must do what he would not because Adam received that strength both for himselfe and us He often saith it but he never yet proved it Thirdly God teacheth us saith he what we should ask and of whom for God doth therefore command us to do what we cannot perform that seeing our own infirmities and being wearied under the Law of equity we might sue unto the throne of grace for pardoning mercy and the gracious assistance of the holy Spirit to enable us in some measure saith he yea to the uttermost say we to perform what he so justly requireth To which third reason of his we subscribe as also to that which he cites out of Augustine saying in the commandements we must know what we ought to have and in our punishments we must learn that we our selves are the c●uses of our own wants yea add hereunto and of our own failings likewise and in prayer we must learn from whence we must fetch the supply of our defects or rather before we goe to prayer or saith he again to answer methodically for all this while he hath been no very orderly man God was upon Mount Sinai to deliver a Law what de novo that was never given before but such as was formerly ingraven on mans heart Thus far he speaks truly but what follows is not so true that the Law was now defaced obliterated through sin for we have proved already that though the righteousnesse of the Law was obliterated yet the knowledge of it was written in every mans heart with indelible characters