Selected quad for the lemma: friend_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
friend_n	abraham_n	faith_n	work_n	983	5	7.3635	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A97227	Vnbeleevers no subjects of iustification, nor of mystical vnion to Christ, being the sum of a sermon preached at New Sarum, with a vindication of it from the objections, and calumniations cast upon it by Mr. William Eyre, in his Vindiciæ justificationis. Together with animadversions upon the said book, and a refutation of that anti-sidian, and anti-evangelical errour asserted therein: viz. the justification of infidels, or the justification of a sinner before, and without faith. Wherein also the conditional necessity, and instrumentality of faith unto justification, together with the consistency of it, with the freness of Gods grace, is explained, confirmed, and vindicated from the exceptions of the said Mr. Eyre, his arguments answertd [sic], his authorities examined, and brought in against himself. By T. Warren minister of the Gospel at Houghton in Hampshire.	Warren, Thomas, 1616 or 17-1694.	1654 (1654)	Wing W980; Thomason E733_10; ESTC R206901	226,180	282

Mediatour is not sufficient to denominate him to be a Head and the Elect his Members so as to make a mystical uninion between them it may constitute him a publick person and surety but to make him a Head mystically united to any it requireth the existence and faith of the person united Now whereas you say that Mr. Woodbridge did uncivilly interpose and others or else you had urged more it is to make the world believe I could not answer you whereas you could drive on your Argument no further by a new Medium and then you appealed to the people which occasioned that interposition you complain of And here I shall answer to such Arguments as you use p. 124 125. to prove it was terminated to Christ mysticall Your first is drawn from the authorities of Musculus Calvin Beza Pareus None of all which acknowledge no more then that it testifies that great love of God in whom God is well pleased with such as believe shewing the only way of appeasing God and reconciling God to man but none of them do affirme Gods actual well-pleasednesse with any persons before faith but that Christ is he by whom Gods wrath is turned away as the only Mediatour to reconcile God and man but none did afore you dream that this Son in whom God was well pleased was the mystical Christ or that this voice was terminated upon Christ mystical Secondly You say it is against the scope of the words to limit them to the person of Christ they being a solemne declaration of Christs investiture into his office of Mediatorship We grant it is a solemne inauguration or instalme of Christ in this office but deny your consequence that because Christ is here considered as Mediatour therefore what is so spoken to him is terminated to Christ mystical though it might be spoken for th●ir benefit and comfort that shall believe Thirdly You say there is no reason why those words should be terminated to the person of Christ seeing that God was never displeased with him nor had our Saviour any doubt or suspition of it and therefore it was needlesse that God should declare his well-pleasednesse to him in his own person I answer this was spoken for to satisfie us that Christ was a Mediatour well fitted for this work that God was well pleased in him as one endued with sufficient ability to reconcile and God was well pleased with him because he never displeased him and therefore was the more fitting person for this worke and therefore though it be granted Christ needed not this testimony and that it was spoken as an encouragement to us to believe in him Yet it followeth not that therefore God was well pleased with us for his sake before we believe because he is well pleased with Christ and his Mediatory work Fourthly You say the well-pleasednesse of God is to be extended unto them for whom Christ offered up his sacrifice But Christ did not offer up his sacrifice for himself I deny your Major and do say that in this voice God did declare for the benefit and comfort of them that do believe that God was well pleased and satisfied with Christ and his Mediatory work that they may know they believe on him who is a person in whom the Lord taketh infinite delight and therefore he being so dear to God they shall finde favour for his sake that believe but that therefore he is actually well pleased with them whether they believe or not yea when they live under the power of sinne I take it to be no lesse then presumptuous boldnesse to determine and it carries a spirit of contradiction to the whole Gospel And to this end the Apostle saith Without faith it is impossible to please God Heb. 11.6 To which you say the Apostle speaketh there of mens works and not of their persons I answer it is manifestly false for he speaketh of their persons as well as of their works For 1. He saith by faith the Elders received a good report that is all of them in general but with whom were they thus reported of surely by God himself hence he declared his thoughts of them thus Abraham is called the friend of God and Noah Thee only have I found righteous and David is called a man after Gods own heart 2. In particular Abel he by faith offered a more excellent sacrifice then Cain by which he obtained testimony that he was righteous God did not testifie only that his action was righteous but that he was a righteous person and so Enoch by faith was translated c. and he received this testimony that he pleased God that is that his person pleased God for would God translate him to heaven for a righteous action if his person had not pleased God And the very scope is to prove that he was a Believer and by consequence that his person did please for without faith it is impossible to please God and so Mr. Perkins and all Interpreters that I know speak of it Besides is it possible that mens act●ons can please where their persons please not Surely no God had first respect to the person of Abel then to his offering and he had no respect to Cain and then he regarded not his offering therefore their persons as well as their works did please and both by faith for let their actions be never so conformable to the rule unlesse their persons be accepted their services cannot be accepted and their best actions being mixt with sinne need Christ and must be accepted through Christ as well as their persons And whereas a little after you make an Elect person to be pleasing to God but none of his actions it is altogether against reason to imagine that a tree should be good that never did nor can bring forth good fruit and if all the sins of the Elect be pardoned because they are justified what is there in their actions wherewith God can be displeased when their want of faith and conformity to the rule is pardoned Secondly those Scriptures which are usually alledged by him and others of that opinion for eternal Justification are principally these two Ephes 1.4 2 Tim. 1.9 10. In the first it is said God chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world and in the 6th vers He hath made us accepted in his Beloved I answer It is one thing to say God did chuse us in Christ before the foundation of the world and another to say God justified us and reconciled us Gods Election denotes Gods will of purpose to justifie and reconcile and is terminus diminuens amor ordinativus not collativus it is a terme of diminution and doth not actually collate the things purposed it is true that Justification and Reconciliation is a fruit of Gods Election but it is not coeternal with it and when it is said he chose us in Christ this as I have shewed by the testimony of Dr. Twisse doth not denote any existence that we then