Selected quad for the lemma: honour_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
honour_n	child_n	glory_n	parent_n	1,912	5	9.5403	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A05995	A commentarie vpon the first chapter of the epistle of Saint Paul, written to the Ephesians Wherein, besides the text fruitfully explained: some principall controuersies about predestination are handled, and diuers arguments of Arminius are examined. By Mr. Paul Bayne, sometimes preacher of Gods word at Saint Andrevves in Cambridge.	Baynes, Paul, d. 1617.	1618 (1618)	STC 1635; ESTC S113832	242,987	440

iustification or glorification For the first it conteineth the dignity of being the sonnes of God 2. The inheritance of light or the diuine nature begun here to be perfected hereafter for the first see Iohn 1.22 1 Iohn 3.1 Hee giueth vs this dignity sheweth vs this loue that we should be called his children not that we are children as Adam was who because hee was produced in the similitude of God might be called a Sonne of God but sonnes through a mysticall coniunction with Iesus Christ that naturall Sonne of God Secondly we haue the inheritance of light or a diuine nature which standeth not in such a life of God as Adam had which was a knowledge of God onely as a Creator of all things and a righteousnesse and holinesse which were in order to God knowne onely as a creator not such a life as may fall away but a life which standeth in knowing as an Author in Christ of supernaturall grace such righteousnesse and holines as are in order to God as now made manifest in Christ Iesus such a life as shall neuer haue end according to that those who are borne of God cannot sinne for the seede of God abideth in them Thirdly all that glory wee looke for in Heauen is comprehended in this adoption Rom. 8. Wee expect our adoption euen the redemption of our bodies Now wee come to haue this executed on vs by faith on Christ for so many as beleeued to them it is giuen to be his children sonnes and daughters vpon our mariage with the naturall Sonne wee come in the place of sonnes and daughters also But for the order in which we receiue this dignity it is somewhat doubtfull whether when we are iustified or when we are glorified To which I answer briefly that it belongeth to our glorification and is to be recalled vnto that head for Redemption which is put for Forgiuenesse of sinne and iustification when it doth not note out our finall deliuerance this redemption is made to goe before it Gal. 4.5 That he might redeeme vs who were vnder the Law and that we might receiue Adoption Beside iustification doth nothing but sentence this of me that I am iust before God so as to receiue life from his grace Now to be iust is one thing to be reckoned a son another Againe this adoption is called by the name of a dignity or eminency 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yea glory it selfe is called by the name of Adoption Rom. 8. Wayting for our adoption euen the redemption of our bodies To omit that Rom. 9.4 those two words Adoption Glory may be put for one thing viz. Glorious adoption For the Arke is well comprehended in that head of seruice as a principall type belonging to the Law ceremoniall and looke as not onely actually to possesse the kingdome but to be heyre apparant of it is a great point of g●ory so the dignity of adoption adopting vs as sonnes and heyres apparant of the kingdome of heauen is a great part of glory as well as the inheritance it selfe There are but two things of moment which I know to be obiected Obiect 1 That which we haue immediately on belieuing that belongeth to our iustification but belieuing wee haue this priuiledge nothing comming betweene Iohn 1.12 Resp The second part of this reason is not true and the proofe is vnsufficient for though we be adopted beleeuing on Christ which the testimony voydeth yet it followeth not that we are immediately adopted nothing comming betweene our faith and adoption Wee are said to be saued by faith to haue eternall life belieuing yet betweene faith and life iustification must be conceiued so heere also Obiect 2 The second reason is that which giueth vs a title to life that must be a branch of our iustification to life But our adoption giueth vs title to life To the first part I answere with limitation thus That which giueth vs title to life Resp being it selfe no circumstance nor part of life now executed in vs But so adoption doth not which is the giuing of life in regard it maketh life now ours as an Orphans lands are his ours as who haue the right to it but are not yet actually possessed in it Should not the proposition be limited as I haue said it would proue that the giuing of the spirit belongeth to iustification for that doth giue me right to life as an earnest penny or part of paiment doth giue a man right to challenge the whole summe This benefit then is fitly couched vnder that last of our glorification Rom. 8. Whom he predestinated he called whom he called he iustified whom he iustified he glorified in this manner executing their glory First he giueth them of grace the dignity of sonne-ship and so a right to glory and after hee doth actually possesse them of it thus glorifying those whom out of grace he had iustified to the receiuing of life from him as a gift of his meere grace Vse 1 This then being that God did before all worlds dispose the meanes whereby we that are his should be brought to adoption how should wee admire this so great grace which we found in his eyes from all eternity Thou beleeuing soule who by faith art married to Christ Iesus thou who hast receiued the spirit which maketh thee call Abba Father the spirit of this Adoption what is this now wrought in time but that which God did preordaine before all time euen thy Adoption through Christ See then what loue the Father did beare thee that thou shouldest be made a Sonne admire it When Dauid was told of matching with Sauls daughter what said he seemeth it a small thing to be sonne in Law to a King And shall it seeme a small matter to vs that wee are now according as we were predestinated that we are sonnes in Law adopted heyres ioynt-heyres with Christ of the kingdome of glory Vse 2 We may see hence what duty wee owe to God we I say whom he hath now adopted for his children euen as of grace he did predestinate If I be a Lord where is my feare if a Father where is my honour Earthly Parents the greater things they meane to leaue their children the more they expect all obsequious and dutifull behauiour from them so doth God from vs the greater and more excellent condition he hath appointed vs vnto the more he doth challenge from vs all such care and duety as may declare vs not vnworthy so great fauour Doct. Secondly that we are predestinate to adoption Obserue that the life which God hath ordained by meanes prepared to bring vs is a life comming immediately from his grace that life which is a consequent of Adoption yea called adoption it selfe that which accompanieth sonneship is an inheritance that life cannot but come from the free grace of God our Father Adoption and sonnelike inheritance are not things purchased by contract of Iustice but are freely vouchsafed Behold what loue the Father hath

of that manner electing and reiecting which are heere expressed and for the two conclusions hee doth argue from these words The first is true but not a thing heere to be prooued for the Apostle had said that ergo the word was true notwithstanding the multitude of Israelites were reiected because that all Israelites were not that Israell and all the seede of Abraham were not those children to whom the word belonged This is then that which here is to be concluded that those who are the seede of Abraham and Israelites in course of nature were not that Israell and that seede to whom the word signifying Gods election and adoption belonged the force of the argument therfore is in this not that the decree is after election but that Iacob onely was in decree of election and Esau borne alike of Isaac was not The second syllogisme concludeth a thing that neuer came into the Apostles minde and cannot be accommodated to these types vnlesse types in that wherein they are types may be contrary to the thing testified by them as I haue shewed aboue Beside who will yeeld him that Gods calling is heere put for faith obeying God calling when the sight of faith and euery thing else was before excluded in this election of Iacob and therefore the decree electing him excludeth and opposeth it selfe in workes to this faith aswell as any other thing Now then we see that this decree electing and adopting is so from Gods will that nothing in man is considered in it as a meane or cause but onely his meere pleasure for cleering which I entred the explication of this place to this only the context following will agree which seeing I am thus far entred I will shew so shortly as I can What shall wee say then saith the Apostle is there iniustice with God God forbid For hee saith to Moses This is plaine that the doctrine next before deliuered giueth occasion to this obiection Let any iudge then whether Arminius his sense is made probably a ground of this imagination we see this doth naturally arise from our construction for if God from his meere pleasure doth choose one cal him to adoption and the heauenly inheritance reiecting another euery way equal to him Then God seemeth vniust for vpon his meere pleasure to deale so vnequally with equals vpon meere pleasure seemeth very hard doe but lay that of Arminius by it and there neede no other confutation If God decree to reiect such as reiect his grace offered in Christ stiffely cleauing to their own righteousnes if out of his meere pleasure none deseruing it he decree to saue such as shal by faith lay hold on his mercy offered in Christ then he seemeth vniust I answer Here is no shew of iniustice to the reason of man for that which he supposeth to be the groūd of their suspecting iniustice namely that God shold of his meere pleasure decree that beleeuers on Christ not followers of the Law should be saued contrary to his former decree in the couenant with Adam for had this beene the ground of their imputation the Apostle should haue answered that God did not of meere pleasure decree otherwise about attaining life then at first he had but he came to this couenant of the Gospell by reason that we had broken the former and through weake flesh made it impossible to vs But he maintaineth the will of God from meere pleasure showing mercy to Iacob to haue beene iust in him it followeth Hee who hath power to shew sauing mercy where himselfe pleaseth he is not vniust in showing to some without any consideration on their parts and denying to other some But God hath power to shew mercy electing adopting calling to the heauenly inheritance to whom he will This is the expresse testimony of Moses which tendeth to proue God free from iniustice in his grace to Iacob and in denying it to Esau For if hee may show it to such as he please hee may refuse it others by the same liberty He doth amplifie this by a consectory deduced That which is wholly in the free pleasure of God that commeth not from any thing in the power of man But this mercy electing adopting calling is meerely in Gods free pleasure it is not therefore in man to procure it but in Gods liberty to show this mercy This answere doth plainely shew that the point which distasted was this That God should at his meere pleasure show mercy to Iacob which he refused Esau which would make our election calling adoption quite out of our power meerely depending on Gods free pleasure For both these are here auouched to stand with iustice in God what euer might be surmised And marke here that the Apostle doth maintaine it without iniustice to show and refuse mercy when he considereth not any thing in the persons which might make this equall For were the equity of Gods mercy shewed to Iacob and denied Esau in this that now all were become children of wrath whom God might pardon and restore or leaue and execute at his pleasure then the Apostle should in the honour hee owed to the name of God haue here expressed this consideration that God might iustly show mercy to some and deny it to othersome who were no● such that they had by sinne brought themselues vnder sentence of condemnation For if he had not shewed it to any hee had not beene vniust but Saint Paul did know that he had affirmed that God looking neither at merit in the one nor demerit in the other had chosen and loued the one refused lesse loued the other Here marke Arminius If that purpose God reiecting such as seeke righteousnesse by their owne workes electing beleeuers depend onely on his mercy then it is not vniust But that purpose is neither from him that runneth c. but dependeth on Gods meere mercy Ergo it is not to be accused of iniustice First Marke how he maketh the Apostle not answer the difficulty of the Obiection which was this How could God goe from one Couenant decreeing saluation on workes and decree contrary that not workers but beleeuers should be saued for Gods mercy cannot be the cause nothing else comming betweene why God should change his order and goe from one vnto a contrary Secondly Let him show how mercy can be the onely cause why a iusticiarie cleauing to his own righteousnesse is reiected from saluation Thirdly The Apostle doth not proue this decree that beleeuers shal be saued to be iust in God but Gods shewing mercy in destination and execution to one before another Now this decree I will saue all that shall beleeue doth not show any mercy to one before another but offers mercy to all alike Lastly Who would euer accuse the mercy of God for decreeing in a iust course to bring men to saluation when now they had made themselues guilty of wrath Marke how he depraueth that consectorie which showeth that it is not in our power