Selected quad for the lemma: lord_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
lord_n	aaron_n	according_a	small_a	26	3	6.5513	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A62378	An exposition vvith notes on the whole fourth chapter to the the Romanes wherein the grand question of justification by faith alone, without works, is controverted, stated, cleared, and fully resolved ... / by William Sclater, Doctor in Divinity, sometimes minister of Gods word at Pitminster, in Summerset ; now published by his son, William Sclater, Batchelar in Divinity, minister at Collompton in Devon.	Sclater, William, 1575-1626.; Sclater, William, 1609-1661.	1650 (1650)	Wing S918; ESTC R37207	141,740	211

31. but according to their opinion Remission so takes our sins ut nè vestigium quidem ullum maneat it dispels them as the sun doth clouds so that nothing of them remains washeth them away so as we become whiter then snow Well yet as clean as we are made from fault and sin yet some of the guilt may lie on our persons and the just God may inflict upon his innocent and purest servants punishments temporall yea the same for smart which the devils and damned in hel endure Out upon Popery it is Bilinguis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And of this second argument against Justification by Work thus far VERS 9 10 11 12. 9. Cometh this blessedness then upon the Circumcision onely or upon the uncircumcision also for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness 10. How was it then reckoned When he was in circumcision or in uncircumcision not in circumcision but in uncircumcision 11. And he received the signe of Circumcision a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised that he might be the father of all them that believe though they be not circumcised that righteousness might be imputed to them also 12. And the father of Circumcision to them who are not of the Circumcision onely but also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham which he had being yet uncircumcised THe scope and dependence of this passage is diversly conceived Some think the Apostle here propounds a new argument for justification by Faith against justification by Works and these also diversly collect it Some thus Abraham was justified before he was circumcised Ergò He was not justified by circumcision nor by consequent by any works of the Law The ground of which argument is this because if circumcision were cause of his justification then must he needs have been circumcised before he was justified for the effect cannot be without or before the cause Others thus Paraeus ad loc If Abraham were justified by faith then must all men whether circumcised or uncircumcised be so justified But Abraham was justified by faith Ergo. The consequence of the proposition they imagine to have this proof because Abraham is father of both people and they both his sonnes wherefore by good consequent they think it follows that as be was justified so others must be sith there is one reason of the father and children of the pattern and the imitatours of the head of the covenant and of those that in him are admitted into the covenant The scope But methinks weighing the words the scope seems no more but this To shew that the blessing of justification belongs indifferently to Jews and Gentiles believing A point touched before chap. 3. and here again resumed and more purposely proved because he had immediately before made mention of Abrahams justification and their guess is not without ground that think the Apostle now frames answer to that second quaere of Jews Rom. 301. What profit of Circumcision which to this place he hath purposely deferred because from Abrahams case it receives fittest answer Neither let it seem strange that the Apostle should thus digress from his principall conclusion sith we know it is frequent with him in his passage as well to clear doubt as to confirm his purpose And for the scope thus far See Rom. 3. Now the passage to this Conclusion is by way of Prolepsis Came this blessedness then c. Wherein we have 1. The doubt 2. The reason of it 3. The solution The doubt is whether this blessedness that is justification belongs to the circumcision that is to the Jews onely or to the uncircumcision also that is to the Gentiles yet uncircumcised Metonymia adjuncti frequens as Rom. 2.28 the supply of the Verb whether it be falleth as Theophylact or cometh as our English or is as others we have no cause to enquire of the sense being apparently such as we have shewn The reason of the doubt For we say that faith was imputed to Abraham for righteousness as if he had said This is in confesso that Abrahams faith was reckoned to him to righteousness Now the question here is Whether sith it is apparent Abraham was circumcised this blessedness of justification or having faith imputed to righteousness belong to circumcision onely or also to the uncircumcised The solution follows carried artificially as this whole passage is in a Rhetoricall Dialogisme How was it then imputed c. as if he had said If this be the doubt see in what state Abraham was when he received this testimony of righteousness and you shall find it was long before he was circumcised For this imputation of faith to righteousness whereof we treat was whiles he yet had no child as appeareth Gen. 15.2 and the ordinance of circumcision began after this towards a fourteen years For after the promise made by God and the testimony of righteousness given to Abraham took he Hagar to wife and of her had Ishmael being 86 years old Gen. 16.16 and many years after was given him in charge the ordinance of circumcision and the execution thereof fell into the year 99 of Abraham and of Ishmael the 13. Gen. 17.24 25 so that by the history it is clear he was justified long before he was circumcised and this as the Apostle seems to intimate wanted not his mysterie the Lord thereby testifying that justification is not had to circumcision but that the uncircumcised believing may also be sharers with Abraham in that blessing Observ Thus far of the Context and sense of the first clause Now the things here observable are these First That very circumstances of Scripture stories afford often substantiall conclusions A weighty conclusion that justification belongs to Gentiles and that which was long controversed in the days of the Apostle See Act. 15. Gal. 5. And it is determined by a circumstance in the story Abraham was justified in time of uncircumcision therefore justification belongs not to the circumcised only A like case we have determined by like evidence Gal. 3.17 out of circumstances of story conferred the blessing must needs be ours by promise and not by the Law How is it proved because the Covenant was made with Abraham in Christ 430 years before the giving of the law in Sinai in Heb. 7.12 13 14. The Apostle proves this conclusion that perfection was not by the leviticall Priesthood What is his arguments because another Priest was to arise according to Davids prophecy not after the order of Aaron even Christ a Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedek And because it might be said that that other Priest though another yet might be of Aarons order nay saith the Apostle that appears false by this circumstance for our Lord Christ of whom David speaks was of another tribe even of the tribe of Judah unto which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning Priesthood I might be infinite in this kinde but a tast

sufficeth And it teacheth us in our study and search of Scripture not to let pass the smallest circumstance sith under it lye hid Doctrine so substantiall For wisdome we should search saith Solomon as men do for silver Prov. 2.4 turning up every clod and almost grain of dust wherein the least portion of pure metall may seem to lye hid In sacris liter is nihil est quod non ingentem thesaurum contineat modò scrutatorem habeat Ruizius reg 118. è Chrysostomo singuli sermones syllabae apices puncta in divinis Scripturis plena sunt sensibus Hieron ad Ephes. 3. Howbeit that we mistake not we must not forget that even the Scripture hath its 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and therefore it is not safe always to reason from order of narration except by other circumstances it be evident that the narration be to the order of times A Second collection of some Interpreters hence is this That the grace of justification is not tyed to Sacraments because it may be had without them And that was it as they think the Lord would teach us by the time of Abrahams circumcision and justification that look as the Lord furnishing the earth with hearbs and fruits before he made starrs by their heat or influence to give them vigour or raine to yeild them moysture would teach us that they are but Arbitrary Jnstruments which he useth ad Placitum So the the Lord giving Abraham Testimony of righteousnes before his circumcision would thereby teach us that his grace may be had without the Sacraments The question hath been already treated ad cap 2. Let us yet resume it that at least Our Judgement may be more manifest Necessity of Baptisme whereof the question chiefly is may be two ways conceived First Calvin justifi lib. 4. cap. 19. Serm. 26. Whether the receiving thereof be a necessary duty pressing the conscience by the law of God Whereto we answer with joynt consent it is necessary and so necessary that the wilfull contempt yea neglect of it where it may be had lays guilt of sin upon the conscience of the negligent or contempuous refuser Secondly It may be thus apprehended whether it be necessary as a mean of salvation In this also we consent that it is necessary as a mean of salvation Because 1. The observation thereof is a work of obedience and so part of that vita Regni 2. Because in the right use it serves to confirm faith and to nourish all graces that do accompany salvation What is then the question betwixt us and Papists It stands chiefly about the decree or manner of necessity namely whether it be absolutely necessary Vt perijsse protinùs existimetur cui ejus obtinendi ademta fucrit facultas Bellarm de Bapt. lib. 1. cap. 4. As Calvin explains it This measure of necessity of Baptisme we deny Papists affirm The question is saith Bellarmine whether Baptisme be necessary as a mean of salvation so that if any be not Baptised he perisheth etiamsi forte obignorantiam excusetur a praevaricatione praecepti that they affirm and if any demand what time it came to this height of necessity They answer Baptismus Christicaepit esse necessarius necessitate medii praecepti a die pentecostes As touching what we are to hold in this question I had rather utter in Bernards terms then in my own considering what adversaries we are are to deal with He therefore thus delivers his judgment Bernard Epist 77. That whosoever in men of years if any man since the publishing of that remedy for sin refuseth to be Baptized he adds to the generall contagion of nature the crime of pride and so carries with him a double cause of just damnation if he so dye yet if before death he repent and have a will and desire to be Baptized and cannot being prevented by death so be it he want not fides recta spes pia charitas sincera propitius sit mihi deus quia huic Ambrose de obitu valentiniani imperator ob solam quauam si defuerit nequaquam desperare possum omnino salutem nec vacuam credere fidem nec confundere spem nec excidere charitatem tantum si aquam non contempus sed sola prohibeat impossibilitas His reasons are First from authorities of Ambrose and Augustin Ambrose doubts not of the salvation of Valentinian for his faith only though he dyed unbaptized because he had a purpose S. Augustin de Bapt. lib. 4. cap. 22. and desire to be baptized Hear himself speak I hear saith Ambrose you are grieved because he received not the Sacrament of Baptisme Hear his reply Dicite mihi quid aliud nobis est nisi voluntas nisi petitio Atqui etiam dudum hoc voti habuit ut cúm in Italiam venisset initiaretur proximè baptizari se a me velle significabit c. Non habeat ergó gratiam quam desideravit Non habet quam poposeit Certe quia poposcit accepit mox quem eram regeneraturus amisi sed illi gratiam quam speraverat non amisit To Ambrose Saint Bernard adds S. Augustine determining that not only suffering for Christ but faith also and conversion of the heart doth supply the stead of Baptisme when not contempt of religion but point of necessity excludes the Sacrament of Baptisme 2. His next reason is collected out of Mark. 16.16 Our Saviour in likelihood when he said he that believes and his baptized shall be saved even for this so cautelously did not repeate he that is not baptized but onely he that believes not shall be damned intimating no doubt solam interdum sufficere fidem ad salutem sine ipsa sufficere nihil 3. His third Reason that which gives Martyrdom its value and causeth it to supply the stead of Baptisme shall it be thought so weak that what it gives to another thing it cannot alone by it self obtain we cannot think it Now faith gives Martyrdome this power that without any doubt it is reputed Baptisme For what is Martyrdome without it nisi poena It therefore alone may out of case of contempt suffice to salvation 4. Suppose the Lord see as great Faith in the heart of a man dying in Peace as in his that suffers martyrdome Surely God needs not outward evidences for discerning of faith and there may be in a man dying in peace a readiness to suffer death for the maintenance of faith suppose now this man to desire Baptisme but prevented by death to die without it damnabit fidelem suum Deus damnabit inquam hominem prose etiam paratum mori God forbid his peremptory conclusion is this Pro certo cùm non aliunde martyrium nisi ex Fidei merito illam obtinuerit praerogativam ut fingulariter vice Baptismi secure suscipiatur Non video cur non ipsa aeque sine Martyrio apud eum tantundem possit cùm sine Martyrii probamento proculdubio innotescit 5.