Selected quad for the lemma: truth_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
truth_n	abraham_n	believe_v	faith_n	1,678	5	6.0737	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A29090	The doctrine of free-grace, no doctrine of licenciousnesse, or, That Gods free unconditionall pardoning of sinne is the best way to mortifie the power of sinne in believers asserted and cleared by Edward Bagshawe ...	Bagshaw, Edward, 1629-1671.	1662 (1662)	Wing B410; ESTC R5497	30,451	48

vers 20. Because by the Law is the knowledge of sinne i. e. A strict and impartiall view of the Law in its latitude and spirituall significancy and comparing of our Lives with it is so farre from discovering the Rectitude of our Nature and Actions that it rather serves to manifest the Obliquity and sinfullness of them both And therefore there must be some other expedient found out to Acquit or Justifie men in the sight of God vers 27. than an appeal unto the Law of Works and that is the Law of Faith as the Apostle speaks The Righteousness of God i. e. which avails before God vers 22. and is accepted by him is by Faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe for there is no difference For all have sinned and come short of the Glory of God whereby is meant either the Graces which God requires or the Happiness which he promises Men were not of themselves able to perform the one and therefore had no Right or Title unto the other whereupon it follows that all such as are Justified are Justified Freely by his Grace through the Redemption that is in or by Jesus This Doctrine which doth so levell the Pride of man by putting his Salvation quite out of himself and therein is utterly contradictory to humane conception the Apostle foresaw would meet with great opposition and therefore that he might Assert and Clear this Fundamentall Truth from all possibility of Cavill he urges and answers three of the main Objections which either are or can be alleaged against it Object 1 The first Objection is taken from the Example of Abraham concerning whom the common opinion of the Jews was that he was Justified by Works which they gathered from Gods renewing his Blessing upon him after his signall obedience in attempting to offer his sonne For now I know Gen. 22.12 saith God that thou fearest God seeing thou hast not withheld thy sonne thine onely sonne from me And again Because thou hast done this thing vers 16 17. and hast not withheld thy sonne thine onely sonne In blessing I will bless thee Whereupon the Apostle James seems clearly to Affirm that Abraham was justified by his Works in that Question Was not Abraham our Father Justified by Works when he had offered Isaac his sonne upon the Altar To this Instance Answ the Apostle answers by directly denying that Abraham was Justified by Works for proof of which he quotes a place out of the Old Testament Gen. 13.6 That Abraham believed in God and it i. e. that Faith of his was imputed to him for Righteousness Which was spoken of Abraham long before he had received Circumcision and done that Signall and Heroick Action by which the Sincerity and Truth of his Faith was evidenced So that the Apostle James words cannot be understood as if he intended to decide whether Faith or Works did Justifie but onely that he determins what kind of Faith it was which Justified viz. not a Naked and Barren but an Effectuall and Working Faith And that Abrahams was such a kind of Faith he manifested afterwards in undertaking so Perillous and Dangerous a Task meerly in obedience to Gods Command From whence it follows that if Abraham who is stiled the Friend of God did attain to the esteem of being reputed Righteous before God meerly upon the account of his Faith then all others whose highest commendation is onely to be the Followers and Imitators of Abraham have no other way of obteining True Righteousness but by treading in the same footsteps of Faith which the Patriark Abraham walked in as the Apostle concludes Rom. 4.23 24. It was not written for him i. e. for Abraham alone that it was imputed to him But to us also to whom it shall be imputed if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the Dead Object 2 The second Objection against this Doctrine is taken from that seeming Absurdity and Contradiction which would follow should men think of being saved by the Righteousness of another For as every man is to be condemned onely for his own sinnes so it seems to be most Just and Equall that every man should be saved onely for his own Righteousness according to the Reasoning of God himself who doth not onely say that the Wickedness of the Wicked Ezek. 18.20 but likewise that the Righteousness of the Righteous shall be upon him Answ 2. To this Objection the Apostle excellently answers throughout the whole fifth Chapter of this Epistle by drawing a parallel between Adam and Christ who were the two great Heads and Representatives of all Mankind in their severall Estates Now if it shall appear that Adam destroyed his Race by the Imputation of his sinne then it cannot be Unreasonable to believe that Christ may save his Race by the Imputation of his Righteousness But that Adam destroyed his Race by the Imputation of his sinne appears clearly from hence in that Death which is the Wages of sinne vers 14. doth actually ceaze those who never Actually sinned and therefore could be but liable to it onely upon the Account of Transmitted Derivative and Imputed sinne as he Argues Death reigned from Adam to Moses even over those that had not sinned after the similitude of Adams Transgression i. e. over Infants From whence he inferres As by one mans disobedience Many i. e. All who descend from him by Naturall Generation were made sinners so by the obedience of one man Many i. e. all who are related to him by Faith and supernaturall Regeneration shall be made Righteous Nay by how much Christ is a greater Person than Adam the one being formed from Earth the other 1 Cor. 15.47 being the Lord from Heaven by so much shall the Obedience and Righteousness of that One more avail to Save than the Unrighteousness and Sinne of the other did to Destroy And this the Apostle clears in two Particulars 1. In Extent of the Pardon which is to many sinnes whereas the Condemnation was onely for One. For saith he the Judgment or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Guilt was by one i. e. Offence to Condemnation but the free-gift is of many Offences vers 16. unto Justification In Adam one sinne and that of the lesser sort stiled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a slip or so was sufficient to undoe a World But in Christ Many sins how aggravated and circumstanced soever shall not be sufficient to destroy one Soul 2. In the Excellence of the purchase Adam by his Sinne purchased Death and Damnation which is like a Motion down-hill very Naturall and easie to be conceived For that a Creature should die that a Sinner should be sentenced may without any Difficulty be imagined But Christ purchased Life Eternall which is like a Motion up-hill very Hard and exceeding Difficult to be comprehended From whence the Apostle concludes that where Sinne i. e. the Guilt or Demerit of Adams Sinne

THE DOCTRINE OF FREE-GRACE NO DOCTRINE OF LICENCIOUSNESSE OR That Gods Free Unconditionall pardoning of Sinne is the best way to Mortifie the Power of Sinne in Believers Asserted and Cleared By Edward Bagshawe Student of Ch. Ch. LONDON Printed by Abraham Miller for the Author and are to be sold by the Booksellers in Pauls Church-yard 1662. THE PREFACE AMong those many False and Dangerous Opinions which in this Age are let loose upon us there is none that is either more Destructive of the True Nature of Christian Religion or more likely to be imbraced by some seemingly zealous and devout men than the Doctrine of Free-will whereby the Grace of God is rendred either altogether Needlesse or at best only a Coadjutor and partial Assistant to Mens Salvation Were not men Naturally willing to follow that which serves to puff them up and begets an opinion in them that they are like Gods I should wonder how the Opinion of Free-will could ever finde any Learned Assertour since the Reasons against it ever upon a Philosophical account are such as no Wit of man is able to answer For the subordination of Causes and the Necessity that every Effect should have a Cause which did produce it is so strong an Argument that the Will of man is subject to the enforcing influence of the Causes which move and determine it that the most Learned of the Heathen did upon this score altogether reject Free-will and yet this supposed Fatality in every Action did not at all lessen or abate their strict adherence to and prosecution of Virtue None having been more famous in this kinde than the Stoicks which were the Known Assertors and Maintainers of Necessity But without entring into any such kind of Dispute the Apostle having already forbidden us to medale with things which we have not seen and it being according to him plain folly to affirm too positively about things we know not I shall not scruple to admit that as to things of meerly Civil Con●●●ment God hath endued the will of every man with a Liberty 〈…〉 justify himself and that we are not so tied up by the Concurrence of Causes but that a man hath power over his own Will to embrace or to refuse any thing tendred to him with or without Reason as he himself pleases While I say I am content to admit this my meaning is not that I understand how this can be done for I must professe it is to me altogether unintelligible yet because it contradicts no Article of Faith and likewise serves best to demonstrate the Equity of Humane Laws which are all founded upon that supposition I think it altogether a Needlesse thing to dispute about Free-will in Moral Actions and a very Absurd thing to deny it Since in matters which are capable of Contrary Reasonings to follow the Vncontradicted and Vniversal Assent of Mankind is much more Safe and Prudent than to tread in New paths there being but little difference as to the Effect between an Apparant Error and a Suspected because Vnnecessary Truth But how desirous soever I am to comply with the Common Prolepsis and Inbred Notion of Free-will as to Humane Actions yet as to the things of God I must altogether deny it For it is so clear That the Things of God none can understand and consequently not Practice but the Spirit of God and those to whom that Spirit makes them both Plain and Easie that the Apostle urgeth that Sentence not as a Truth then newly discovered to him but as a Principle founded in Nature and apparent by its own Equity and Reasonablinesse And what the Scripture every where mentions concerning the Actings of the Spirit upon Believers the Experience of all Believers that ever were in the World is able to evidence since such must needs confesse that there cannot be a more dangerous Enemy to the Truths of God then the Understanding nor more Rebellious to the Precepts of God than the Will of Man untill the Spirit of God hath enlightned the one and by his own Immediate Worke mightily overpowred the other For the proof of this I might content my self with what I find conteined in the bare letter of Scripture to which if we are what we professe we ought to captivate our own Reasonings but since many men and those not of least Note even in our own Church plead for that Idol Free-will from the many Absurdities which would follow should it not be granted I shall undertake to demonstrate that much more pernicious Consequences will follow should it once be admitted For First It totally destroyes all belief of Gods Power and Providence in his ordering and guidance of Actions according to his own Will For who is there that understands any thing of Gods Sovereignty but must needs acknowledge that he foresaw and predetermined every thing long before it was actually in being but were there such an Independent and Absolute Free-will in Man as some contend for how the motions of his Will could be fore-seen is altogether Inconceivable Socinus therefore who saw how much this Argument did presse him did make no scruple to deny Gods Prescience thereby doing that very thing which Austine complained of in Tully Dum fecit liberos fecit etiam Sacrilegos While he made Men Free he did most sacrilegiously rob God of his chief Prerogative and that is his Omniscience The Arminians therefore who grant both Prescience in God and Free-will in Man do admit both parts of the Contradiction to be True and so not onely thwart the expresse Revelation of Scripture which every where inculcates Gods Absolute and Irrespective Election but likewise speak that which in Reason to which they pretend so much neither themselves nor any one else can possibly understand Secondly The Opinion of Free-will utterly cuts off all manner of Prayer For whereas the greatest Argument of Prayer ought either to be for Pardoning or Preventing Grace with what face can he aske for Pardon who by owning himself to have a sufficient Power to do Gods Will doth thereby acknowledge all his sins not to proceed from Surprize Inadvertency or Weaknesse but to be sins of his Will and therein himself to be a Wilfull and a Malicious Transgressour The Saints of old did use to plead for themselves their Rashness and Haste as David their Ignorance and Unbelief as Paul their Incogitancy and Unmindfulness as John but he that holds Free-will makes all those Apologies to be vain and uselesse since every offence in such an one must needs arise from his own Resolved and Designed Pravity and sins of Infirmity in others in him are sins of strength because he might have avoided them and would not which discovers so grosse an Enmity and Opposition against God that all the while that sentence remains upon Record If we sinne wilfully after we have received the knowledg of the Truth there remains no more Sacrifice for sinne it will be impossible for such an one to look up with Faith and