Selected quad for the lemma: spirit_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
spirit_n	father_n	prayer_n	son_n	6,000	5	5.5465	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A96867	The method of grace in the justification of sinners. Being a reply to a book written by Mr. William Eyre of Salisbury: entituled, Vindiciæ justificationis gratuitæ, or the free justification of a sinner justified. Wherein the doctrine contained in the said book, is proved to be subversive both of law and Gospel, contrary to the consent of Protestants. And inconsistent with it self. And the ancient apostolick Protestant doctrine of justification by faith asserted. By Benjamin Woodbridge minister of Newbery.	Woodbridge, Benjamin, 1622-1684.	1656 (1656)	Wing W3426; Thomason E881_4; ESTC R204141	335,019	365

purchase See Exod. 19. 5. We shall cleare all this by a distinction at the end of Mr. Eyres Arguments Mr. Eyre proceeds fourthly We receive faith it self upon this §. 6. account because we are Gods people Ergo God is our God before we believe The antecedent he proves Gal. 4. 6. Because ye are sons God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts crying Abba father So. Isa 48. 17. I am the Lord thy God which teacheth thee to prof●t Answ I deny the Antecedent The proof is such as I never expected to have met with from a Scholar and a Divine To Gal. 4. 6. I deny that the Spirit of the Sonne there mentioned is to be understood of faith but of that Spirit of prayer which includes that boldnesse liberty and confidence spiritual which God gives to them that are his Sonnes by faith For we are the Sonnes of God by faith in Jesus Christ saith this Apostle not farre before chap. 3. 26. and receive the Spirit of the Sonne through faith ver 14. a Spirit given to believers not a Spirit given to make men believers Joh. 7. 38 39. Rom 8. 14 15. for we are believers before we are Sons Joh. 1. 12. as to the other text Isa 48. 17. I consent to Junius that the meaning is Praesto quod mearum est partium not that they had actually believed which sense the very next ver contradicts but as Piscator in his Scholia upon the place because he had taught them ea quae apta vel comparata sunt ad prodessendum those things which if they had observed would have been very much for their profit and advantage Fifthly saith Mr. Eyre None do or can believe and repent §. 7. but they to whom the Lord doth manifest this grace That he is their God Erg● the Lord is our God before we beleeve and repent Answ This is strange Divinity that the soul must be assured by revelation that God is his God before he can believe or repent If this be true souls are in worse condition after they have repented and believed then before many faithful souls are groaning all their daies after this manifestation of God to be their God But what is the proof We ch●se and love him because he chose and loved us first Joh. 15. 16. 1 Joh. 4. 10 19. H●● 2. 23. And Burroughs Rivet and Zanchy are quoted to prove what That God begins with us first and makes us his people before we owne● him for our God Alas the thing to be proved is not that God gives faith and repentance of which there was never an● question between Mr. Eyre and me but that he is our God and we his people before he give it us we have shewed from Scripture that he gives faith that he may be our God and we his people And if God make us his people viz. by giving us faith and repentance before he be our God which is the sense of the Authours whom Mr. Eyre quotes have they not fairely proved his proposition viz. That none can believe and repent but they to whom God hath manifested himselfe to be their God His sixth and last Argument is They to whom God is a Father §. 8. and a Shepheard have the Lord for their God But God was our Father and Shepheard before we believed All the Elect are the sheep and children of Jesus Christ before they believed Joh. 10. 16. Isa 53. 10. Heb. 2. 13. Jer. 3. 19. Answ I deny the assumption Indeed the Elect are called the sheep of Christ Joh. 10. 16. not that they were his sheep at present for none of the qualities of sheep mentioned or not ment oned in that Chapter a gree to men dead in sinne and ungodlinesse and much lesse to men that are not and a shepheard actually there cannot be where there are no sheep but pro●eptically from what they should be of which manner of speech we have given many instances before from Scripture Thus saith Abraham to his servant Gen. 24. 4 38. Thou shalt go unto my kindred and take a wife unto my Son Isaac Not that she was his wife or any mans else before he took her but because she was to be made his wife or she whom God had appointed for him ver 44. and if Abraham knowing Rebeckah had said to his man as is usual to be said amongst our selves in like cases I have a wife for my son in such a place it would have argued no more then that he had an intention if he could to make such a one his sonnes wife Thus a Q●est super L●v●t cap. 23. Hieron in Ez●k 30. Augustine observes that before the ordination and sanctification of the Priests they are yet called by the name of Priests Exod. 19. 22. Non quia jam sacerdotes erant sed quia futuri erant hoc eos jam tunc Scriptura app●llavit per anticipationem sicut sunt pleraque talium locutionum Nam filius Nave Jesus appellatus est cum longe postea hoc nomen ei Scriptura narret impositum As to Isa 53. 10. and Heb. 2. 13. We have spoken to them often It should be proved and not only said that the seed and children there mentioned are meant precisely of the Elect. As to Jer. 3. 19. But I said how shall I put thee among the children and give thee a pleasant land and I said Thou shalt call me my Father and shalt not turn away from me Deodate gives the true sense viz. my will indeed is firme to re-establish you but true conversion is the only means and necessary condition of it God according to the order of government he hath established cannot give the inheritance of children to any but those whom he hath converted and made his children Junius upon the place to the same purpose Upon the survey of this whole dispute I have onely two things to §. 9. observe 1. That whereas I have proved the words of those covenant I will be their God and they shall be my people to be a promise made to them that beleeve of the many places in Scripture where those words are used Mr. Eyre cannot find us so much as one wherein they are applyed to men that are not converted unto God 2. His arguings from such passages of Scripture wherein men are sometimes said to be the Lords or to be Gods or the Lord thy God and the like conclude nothing till it be proved that such expressions imply as much and the same with those words in the Covenant I will be their God c. forasmuch as men may be said to be his and he theirs sometimes in some other sense then those words in the Covenant signifie All the earth is Gods and all the fullnesse thereof Psal 50. 12 10. 11. All men are his Ez●k 18. 4. generally whatsoever is made by him or used to his glory or subject to his government or separated more immediately

judgement If a man shall come to him and say Sir I am assured by the Spirit of God that I am justified and that all my sins are pardoned but whether I beleeve or no or ever did that I cannot tell Would he allow this perswasion to be of God If not then doth not the Spirit testifie to any man immediately that he is justified but the evidence of the Spirit as I said before is if not expressely yet implicitly syllogistical If so I would thus convince the Pretender from Mr. Eyres principles He that doth not believe cannot be assured that he is justified But thou dost not believe Ergo thou canst not have assurance from the Spirit that thou art justified What will be here denied Not the major for that 's an undoubted truth grounded in Mr. Eyres interpretation Not the minor for the man whom we are now convincing of his errour in pretending to assurance by the Spirit is supposed not to know whether he have faith or no. Ergo he cannot truly say he hath faith though he have it because to affirme that for truth which we do not know to be true is a lie though the thing should be so as we say Ergo he must yield to the Conclusion that his assurance is not from the Spirit else the testimony of the Spirit is contradictory to that of Scripture Secondly Mr. Eyres words do also contradict themselves notoriously §. 23. First he tells us that faith evidenceth our Justification by assenting to and tasting the general Propositions of the Gospel then he tells us that those general Propositions are made particular by the Spirit to a beleever otherwise he could taste no sweetnesse in them To tell us that faith evidenceth by tasting general Propositions and then to say in the same breath that it can taste no sweetnesse in general Propositions but they must be first made particular by the Spirit is to say and unsay 3. Accordingly the general Propositions in the Gospel must first be made particular by the Spirit before the soul can taste any sweetnesse in them for which I confesse there is all the reason in the world for the object apprehended must be before the act apprehending the Proposition assented to and tasted must be before the act assenting and tasting But then hence it will follow that a man before he believes hath a particular testimony from the Spirit that he is justified For this Proposition thus made particular by the Spirit is the object of his assent and taste that is of his faith Ergo it exists before his faith even as the general Promises in the Word exist before we can believe them But to say it is evidenced to any man before he believes that he is justified is that which Mr. Eyre hitherto disowned as well he may A mans faith suppose Peters can evidence no more to him subjectively §. 21. then the Word doth evidence to him objectively even as the eye can see no other thing then what the light makes manifest But this Proposition He that believes is justified doth not evidence objectively immediately that Peter is justified for the former is general and the latter is proper And otherwise every one in the world that believes that Proposition might thereby have the evidence of Peters Justification as well as of his own Even as we know by faith that they to whom the Lord said Your sins are forgiven you were justified as well as themselves And all believers one as well as another know by faith that the world was made by the Word of God Heb. 11. 3. because the Scriptures say so Object But the Spirit makes this general Proposition to be particular unto Peter Answ I ask whether the Scriptures be not equally the rule of all mens faith If not then neither of their obedience which will introduce Antinomianisme with a vengeance If so as most undoubtedly so then this particular testimony of the Spirit is no object of Peters faith which I farther argue thus It is no object of Pauls faith that Peter is justified Ergo it is no object of Peters faith The reason is because the rule of all mens faith is one and the same equally Therefore the faith of Christians is called a common faith Tit. 1. 4. the faith of Gods elect ibid. ver 1. which is but one Eph. 4. 5. But if Peter beleeve upon the testimony of the Spirit that which Paul cannot or hath no ground to beleeve upon the testimony of Scripture then Peters faith doth not act by the same rule that Pauls doth but there will be as many rules of faith as there be persons in the world that pretend to this particular testimony of the Spirit 5. To conclude to make a general Proposition particular is to §. 25. change the substance and nature of it for it cannot be general and particular too though I readily grant as before that a truth proposed in common may be made particular in respect of its effectual operation upon one and not upon another but the Proposition it self remaines general still Ergo this particular testimony of the Spirit must be some other then that of Scripture unlesse by being made particular be meant no more then that a particular is inferred out of a general which is a syllogistical evidence not axiomatical which Mr. Eyre now disputes for But I do wholly deny any such particular testimony of the Spirit for which there is not so muth as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Scripture and Mr. Eyre I think is of the same mind for he produceth not one text for it That which seemes most to favour it is Rom. 8. 16. The Spirit beareth witnesse with our spirits that we are the children of God which text Mr. Eyre doth not mention and therefore I answer it for the sake of some others Compare this verse with the foregoing and with a parallel place to the Galatians and it will not be difficult to give the right sense of it Gal. 4. 6. Because you are sonnes God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Sonne into our hearts crying Abba Father So Rom. 8. 15. Ye have received the Spirit of Adoption whereby we cry Abba Father Then it followes ver 16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That very same Spirit so I render the words beareth witnesse c. Hence I gather that this witnesse of the Spirit is not any secret revelation of a Proposition as this Thou Peter or Paul art justified made by the Spirit to the soul But the Spirits working in us liberty in our accesses unto God to call him Father is the thing that evidenceth to us as an infallible Argument that we are the children of God And because Arguments by themselves do not m Argument● non arguunt extra dispositionem evidence actually but virtually therefore the Spirit by this work helping us to conclude our selves the children of God doth thereby witnesse that we are Gods children SECT VI. MY second