Linguistic DNA - Concept Modelling Demonstrator

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
truth_n	age_n	church_n	time_n	2,142	5	3.6322	3	false

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
B22921	Justification onely upon a satisfaction, or, The necessity and verity of the satisfaction of Christ as the alone ground of remission of sin asserted & opened against the Socinians together with an appendix in vindication of a sermon preached on Heb. 2, 10, from the exceptions of H.W., in a pamphlet called The freeness of Gods grace in the forgiveness of sins by Jesus Christ / by Robert Ferguson.	Ferguson, Robert, d. 1714.	1668 (1668)	Wing F743; ESTC R37344	97,537	320

93. to 107. 2. I affirm that these words which the Adversary seeks relief to his cause from do utterly disserve it For if he that condemneth the just be an abomination to the Lord how will they salve the righteousness of God in condemning Christ who was an innocent person to pain and death which is the punishment of the nocent who as he had no sin of his own so according to them he stood charged with no sin of ours Death being constituted the penalty of sin could noâ— without unrighteousness have been inflicted upon Christ forasmuch as he had become answerable for ours see this proved pag. 124. to 127. And therefore our adversaries by denying the last and not daring to assâ—rt the first â—re the only men who fasten that â—pon God which the Text stiles â—bominable and now we hope â—hat we have not only wrested â—hese weapons out of the enemies â—and but also wounded himself â—y them SECT II. â—t guilty of any of the three faults â— inexcusable in a Preacher The doctrine momentous Heb. 2. 10. opened and the necessity of a satisfaction justified to be the truth of that Scripture â—HE three faults proposed as inexcusable in a Preacher â— too confessedly so to be apoâ—gized for but whatever other â—aknesses I may have been guilâ— of yet that I am innocent from the whole of that chargâ— comes now to be justified 1. That the Doctrine I discoursâ— is of the highest import and thaâ— to mistake in it is to erre in a matteâ— of the greatest concernment readily acknowledge and do fuâ—ther add that it is of such weigâ— in the matter of a Christians bâ—lief that not to be sound there â— to erre in a main fundamental aâ— consequently to be unavoidabâ— obnoxious to damnation Wheâ— as their are some truths whiâ— we are only bound to believâ— in case we know them to be â—vealed this is a truth we â— bound to know and believe â— be revealed in order to beâ— saved If there be any funâ—mentals of faith at all these â—ctrines wherein we and the Sâ—nians differ are maximes of tâ— nature As to that exceptioâ— have heard of a certain persâ— whose name out of respect I â— â—eaâ— that they cannot be fundamentals because controverted by learned men if it concludes any â—hing it concludes that there is â—o fundamental at all there being â—o one truth so evident which â—ome have not denied yea it will not be a fundamental that â—here is God forasmuch as there â—ave been some and still are who â—are gainsay it The matter then â—herein my Adversary and I differ â—eing of this moment I would â—eset it to the Reader to arbitrate â—n whose side the truth lies wheâ—er with them who can demonâ—rate their Opinion to have been â—e belief of all the faithful down â—om the Apostles to the present â—ge not one dissenting who hath â—ot been by all the Churches of Christ branded for a Heretick or â—ith those who in some whole â—ges can instance none of the same â—ntiments with them and those â—hom in other times they produce are such as the Catholick Church hath from time to time voted unworthy the name oâ— Christians 2. Whether the Doctrine I theâ— insistâ—d on be the truth of any Scripture the former tract hath accounted for where I hope it is noâ— only made evident to be a truth but one of the most considerablâ— truths of the Gospel the very bâ—siâ— of our Religion the foundatioâ— of our present comforts and futuâ— hopâ—â— 3. The third and at present maâ— particular and that which â—aâ— now under consideration is whethâ— it be the truth of that Text froâ— which in my Sermon I deduced iâ— And here I must complain of tâ— unworthiness and disingenuity â— my Adversaries that when I hâ— endeavoured at some length â— prove that the point then insistâ— on arose not only naturally froâ— the place but was one of â— main doctrines intended in the words they have been so far from refuting what was alledged to that purpose that they have not mentioned one word of what was offered in that matter Was ever such tergiversation known as publickly to reproach a person for a conclusion without examining either the premises whence it is drawn or the method of inferring â—t The least I could have expectâ—d was either the overthrowing â—he principles upon which I raised â—t or else the evidencing some misâ—ake in the way of deduction At â—his rate of procedure there is no â—ruth deducible from any Text of â—he Bible but by saying it is not â—ightly drawn they may with the â—ame facility refute The Reader â—ad been spared this labour if my â—dversaries had been but so just â—s in common honesty they ought â—amely if when they declaimed â—gainst my doctrine they had taken notice of the foundations upon which I raised it but seeing they have put me upon this task the speediest way to bring it to anâ— issue will be to open the Text I then discoursed on viz. Heb. 2. 10. For it became him for whom are all things and by whom are all things in bringing many sons unto glory to make the Captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings The Apostle in the preceding Chapteâ— having largely treated of Christ as supream Prophet and having advanced him above all other ministerial revealers of God's will so far as a Son is preferable to a servant after some improvemenâ— made in the beginning of thiâ— Chapter of what he had delivereâ— to that purpose in the foregoing by an admirable thread and line oâ— wisdom he slides from the Propheâ—tical office of Christ to his Sacerâ—dotal and having affirmed thaâ— Christ through the benignity anâ— grace of God was given to taste and suffer death for men he here assigns the impulsive reason or procuring cause of Christ's suffering It became God c. i. e. if God would save sinners his essential justice and righteousness could not allow that it should be otherways That this is the intendment of the words a little further opening of them will confirm We have first then a design of God towards fallen rebellious mankind and that is the bringing many of them as sons to glory The making a company of enemies who lay obnoxious to hell and wrath to be God's Sons and the bringing them to life 2ly We have the method and means pitched on for the compassing of that design and that is the dedicating and consecrating Christ by suffering to be a Captain of salvation ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ we render it to make perfect and that sense sometimes it hath but it signifieth here to consecrate or dedicate unto an office and in this sense the Septuagint use it Exod. 29. 35. and Lev. 21. 10. ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ And the same Apostle several times in this Epistle see Chap. 5. 9. ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ consecratus Bez. being consecrate or set apart he became the author of eternal salvation c. And chap. 7. 28. ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰

that remission and Salvation are of Grace we readily acknowledge and affirm but thaâ— therefore Christ hath not satisfied is a meer non-sequitur There is not the least contrariety betwixt satisfaction and grace but they are the one subordinate to the other The fullest and freest grace in the giving Christ to satisfie in the accepting that satisfaction in our stead and applying the merit of it to our souls and yet still the holiness and justice of Gods nature was such as that he could not pardon sin without a satisfaction the consistency of these two is largely treated and opened before and we referr the Reader thither to avoid repetition here But saith the adversary there is nothing more contrary to grace than to give nothing but what is paid for Answ It is true if the payment had been taken of us to whom the favour is shewn or if the satisfaction had been of our contriving and procuring but nothing being paid by us nor the least influence of ours into the affair It was meer grace that was the impulsive cause of Gods giving Christ Joh. 3. 16. 1 Joh. 4. 9 10. Rom. 5. 8. It was meer grace that gave him for such a number Joh 17. 19. to sanctifie there is to separate and set himself apart to dye as Joh. 10. 36. Heb. 10. 29. But there is one text that the Gentleman seems to reckon on more than the rest it is Jam. 2. 13. and mercy rejoyceth against judgement where he saith mercy is opposed to satisfaction Answ 1. It is not certain whether by mercy we are to understand Gods mercy or mans many Interpreters understand the last 2. Granting him his principle that it is to be understood of Gods mercy yet I deny his inference that therefore there is no satisfaction in order to the better understanding of these I say that as justice is an attribute of God he hath no less of that than of mercy â—he is as just as he is gracious that is he is infinitely both but â—f we take mercy for the effects of his mercy then in this life God is more ready to shew effects of mercy than of â—ustice hence the Lord is now â—aid to be slow to anger and the present time is called the time of long-sufferance whereas the day of Judgement is called the day of wrath God is infinite as well as merciful but the meaning of the Text is that in this life he is more in the discoveries of his mercy than his justice but this is so far from excluding a satisfaction that it supposeth it There is one Scripture I made use of in my Sermon viz. Exod. 34. 7. and that will by no means clear the guilty Which the adversary would wrest out of my hand but without giving the least reason to prove that it iâ— otherwayes applicable than â— applyed it As mercy is a property of Gods nature so iâ— justice sin is contrary to God and his nature inclines him to punish it It is remarkable thaâ— Socinus himself acknowledgeth that where the sinneâ— is obstinate God cannoâ— but punish him now obstinacy in reference to its own nature is not punishable â— for obstinacy in good being nothing but constancy is laudable and therefore obstinacy is not punished for it self but only in reference to evil and consequently it is evil which is punishable and which God cannot but punish and obstinacy is only punishable in respect of sin to which it is joyned And thus we have seen that to pardon sin upon a satisfaction is neither contrary to it self nor to other Scriptures SECT IV. Arguments for the necessity of a satisfaction vindicated that from the truth of Gods threatning justified Likewise those from the holiness and justice of God the nature of sin and Gods being Governour vindicated from the adversaries exceptions HAving seen the impertinency of the Gentleman 's own Arguments and how insufficient they are to establish what â—he intended by them let us see next how happy he will prove in the answering as he stiles them my Argumentations Though I must tell the Reader that he hath abused both the World and me in calling a few notes imperfectly taken and that by a professed Enemy my Sermon and imposing upon his Readers only the shreds of Arguments for the summ of what I produced sure the man had either an itch to be in Print or was in an humour of quarrelling But if he took these for my Reasons he had both lost his own Reason and his Conscience and he that takes his Replyes for Answers either never suspected the controversie or else hath a mind to be deceived But this being a confident age and those I have to do with being a sort of men who suppose their dreams should pass for demonstrations every thing they say however inconsiderable must be attended to 1. Whereas I argued from the P. 10. truth of Gods threatning against the pardonableness of sin without a satisfaction he desires to know where the threatning alloweth a surety Answ The Texts I produced namely Gen. 2. 17. not 1. 17. as the adversary misciteth it and Deut. 27. 26. hold clearly forth Gods judicial denunciation of punishment against sin â—ut the purpose of God for the execution of it upon the sinner â—s not there exprest and that â—his was not the intendment of â—t in reference to all the event â—emonstrates in that it is not â—xecuted upon the Elect and â—et it behoved to be executed â—gainst sin otherwise the truth â—nd justice of God should have â—ailed and therefore the Adâ—ersary must either deny salvaâ—ion to the Elect or truth in â—od It being then obtained that the threatning abides firm God himself is the best interpreter of his own meaning in it and this he hath done in the Gospel both in reference to the stability of the Law it self Rom. 3. 31. and also in reference to the execution of it upon Christ 1 Cor. 5. 21. Gal. 3. 13. 1 Pet. 3. 18. To render this clearer I desire the Reader to observe that threatnings do primarily signifie only the dueness of punishment not that God will alwayes execute it upon the offender God might altogether release his threatnings were he not restrained by his holiness wisdom righteousness and honour and it being against none of all these to release the personal offender seeing by punishing sin though iâ— another than the personal offenders he both secures hiâ— honour and at once gives evidence of the purity of his nature in the hatred of sin and of the wisdom and righteousness of his Government in the execution of his Law But he adds that the Scripture P. 10. saith The soul that sinneth shall dye Ezek. 18. 4. and therefore that it is against truth it self to affirm that another dies in his room Answ The intendment of that place cannot be that never any was or should or might be made suffer for anothers sin for the Scripture furnisheth us with an express threatning Exod.

Selected quad for the lemma: truth_n

Text snippets containing the quad