Selected quad for the lemma: truth_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
truth_n	accept_v	acceptation_n	action_n	17	3	6.8320	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A45407	A copy of some papers past at Oxford, betwixt the author of the Practicall catechisme, and Mr. Ch.	Hammond, Henry, 1605-1660.; Cheynell, Francis, 1608-1665.	1650 (1650)	Wing H531; ESTC R18463	111,324	132

that was brought for it that it might looke the more naked and despicable Your third was discreetly order'd to scoffe at what was said for a dictate and admirable which was neither but a plaine evident truth that the impurity of our humane condition may bee matter of godly sorrow to any though not meerely quà an infelicity and you aske againe whether it bee godly sorrow to grieve for an infelicity I say againe such the infelicity may bee particularly that now spoken of that it may bee matter of Godly sorrow or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and be otherwise described in a gracious stile of loving the appearance of Christ which may rid us of our impurities and yet not bee this quà sic meerely as an infelicity which was all that was needfull there to bee inferr'd In your fourth you mention your opinion that all pollution of the soule of man hath been by sinne onely But sure Sir this doth not prove every pollution to bee a sinne but as your words import an effect or consequent of sin Next you pronounce that I am much mistaken and your proof of it is petitio principii a begging i.e. not proving yet assuming the thing before in question and prov'd on the other side by mee both before and now in the last Sect. viz. That no man grieves for a sinne after a godly manner but hee that grieves for it as a sinne against God When you know that by that one instance of the impurity of our nature mourned for by him that tooke it not for a sinne but onely a thing that rendred him 1 imperfect then 2 prone to sinne and 3 lesse amiable in Gods sight c. with an addition of wishing and praying to bee dissolved and bee with Christ as farre better the contrary was undeniably inferr'd and no answer offered by you to these premisses For the undeniable grounds of repentance I suppose they are laid in that Cat. both by requiring it for all sinne and by naming inclinations to evill in the front of sinnes without ifs or ands or any dubious expressions But yet after all your severity in giving your advice for the designing of a Catechisme I conceive your inference in the name of the Acute wretch was farre from any acutenesse for sure whatever were resolved about inclinations being no sinnes when unconsented to 't would never follow for your Client Ergo the like acts to which he is naturally inclined are not evill For sure Sir the acts may bee allow'd sinnes and not bee excused by our being naturally inclined to them whatever were conceived of the inclinations The conclusion from your premisses could onely bee this Ergo this and that act being naturall also are not evill And if you wretch should conclude so you would soone bee able to inform him that his acts are not naturall and therefore may be allow'd to be evil though he be naturally inclined to them because it is very evil not to resist and deny those inclinations You then goe off in triumph with a You know what I could adde Truly Sir I professe I doe not and yet whatever 't is if it bee like this you have allow'd mee I should consider it perhaps in obedience to you but never be much wrought on by it Yet shall I excuse this for the good news it brings with it being a transition to the fourth report another stage toward the end of my very wearisome journey In that you have begun with many little particulars which want of truth particularly that I make a second acknowledgement that I was mis-informed when I onely professe that by your discourse I cannot discerne whether I was in this mis-informed or no. It seemes you are willing to receive acknowledgements of mistakes you would otherwise thinke it more pertinent to tell mee whether in either Assembly you insisted on that particular or no. For an answer to your quaere's you sure perceive though you complaine for want of it that I gave you that whole sense of my soul in that point not onely by that meanes to bee sure to tell you my opinion of your then present quaere's but also of all others of that subject that 't were possible for you to ask And by this time I conceive you do discern that I am neither very forward to make quaere's to divert c. nor to deny answer to them when they are made About the first proposition you mention though you stand not to ask why acceptation is put for pardon 'T were no great matter if I said 't were de industriâ on this head because God first accepts the penitent person in Christ and then after in order of nature though not of time hee pardons his sinnes though indeed 't is true againe that the sinnes are pardoned in order of nature before the acceptation of the actions I meane of all the actions of the subsequent life But then there is a double acceptation of the person first and then of the actions of Abel first as the Fathers observe and then of his offerings Which yet I hope will not passe with you for the double justification but this ex abundanti also But to your maine question for I must now wholly deale in the old trade of answering questions which I have been told is the farre easiest way for him that wants other provision and yet would faine not make an end of disputing Why I speake of remission and acceptation and leave out imputation Sure 't is partly because acceptation of the person and so pardon also includes imputation of Christs righteousnesse as the formall cause of our justification God accepting of Christs 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or payment which is imputation of his sufferings by way of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for us and then accepting our persons and pardoning our sinnes partly because one kinde of imputation is after our pardon of sinne in order of nature a distinct thing from it and so needed not to bee there spoken of as belonging rather to our sanctification for the completing or filling up the imperfections of that I meane now the imputation of Christs perfect obedience to that penitent beleever whose sinnes are pardoned by the sufferings of Christ for to such a one Christs perfect obeying the Law may so farre bee imputed as to give a glosse or tincture to his still imperfect obediences so farre as that they shall bee accepted by God Which imputation therefore may bee antecedent to and have to doe with that acceptation of actions but yet in order of nature bee after the acceptation of persons and forgivenesse of sinnes But the truth is I then meant to give you plaine grosser propositions to prevent mistakes and disputes and not to descend to such nicer distinctions as these But truly you were very wary when you laid such an observation on the This in the second proposition which sure was an innocent particle of reference looking back to the Antecedent justification in the