Selected quad for the lemma: truth_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
truth_n	ancient_a	church_n	true_a	2,421	5	5.1957	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A54206	The sandy foundation shaken, or, Those so generally believed and applauded doctrines ... refuted from the authority of Scripture testimonies, and right reason / by W.P. ...	Penn, William, 1644-1718.	1668 (1668)	Wing P1356; ESTC R38009	24,275	37

actually a breaker of it is excluded as not justifying before God If you fulfil the Royal Law ye do well so speak ye and so do as they that shall be judg'd thereby 8. If ye live after the flesh ye shall die but if ye through the Spirit do mortifie the deeds of the Body ye shall live No man can be dead and justified before God for so He may be justified that lives after the flesh therefore they only can be justified that are alive from whence this follows If the living are justified and not the dead and that none can live to God but such as have mortified the deeds of the Body through the Spirit then none can be justified but they who have mortified the deeds of the Body through the Spirit so that Justification does not go before but is subsequential to the mortification of lusts and sanctification of the Soul through the Spirits operation 9. For as many as are led by the Spirit of God are the Sons of God How clearly will it appear to any but a cavelling and tenatious Spirit that man can be no farther justified then as he becomes obedient to the Spirits leadings for if none can be a Son of God but he that 's lead by the Spirit of God then none can be justified without being led by the Spirit of God because none can be justified but he that is a Son of God so that the way to Justification and Son-ship is through obedience to the Spirits leadings that is manifesting the holy Fruits thereof by an innocent life and conversation 10. But let every man prove his own work and then shall he have rejoyceing in himself alone and not in another Be not deceived for whatsoever a man soweth that shall he reap If rejoycing and acceptance with God or the contrary are to be reaped from the work that a man soweth either to the Flesh or to the Spirit then is the Doctrine of Acceptance and ground of Rejoycing from the works of another utterly excluded every man reaping according to what he hath sown and bearing his own burden 11. Was not Abraham our Father justified by works when he had offered Isaac his Son upon the Altar Ye see then how that by works a man is justified and not by Faith only He that will seriously peruse this Chapter shall doubtless find some to whom this Epistle was wrote of the same Spirit with the Satisfactionists and Imputarians of our time they fain would have found out a Justification from Faith in the Imputation of anothers Righteousness but James an Apostle of the most high God who experimentally knew what true Faith and Justification meant gave them to understand from Abrahams self-denying Example that unless their Faith in the purity and power of God's Grace had that effectual Operation to subdue every beloved lust wean from every Dallila and intirely to resign and sacrifice Isaac himself their Faith was a Fable or as a Body without a Spirit and as Righteousness therefore in one person cannot justifie another from unrighteousness so whoever now pretends to be justified by Faith whilst not led and guided by the Spirit into all the Wayes of Truth and Works of Righteouness their Faith they will find at last Fiction 12. Little Children let no man deceive you he that doth Righteousness is Righteous as God is Righteous but he that committeth sin is of the Devil From whence it may be very clearly argued that none can be in a state of Justification from the Righteousness performed by an other imputed unto them but as they are actually redeemed from the commision of sin For if he that commits sin is of the Devil then cannot any be justified compleatly before God who is so incompleatly redeem'd as yet to be under the captivity of lust since then the Devil's Seed or Off-spring may be justified but that 's impossible It there follows that as he who doth Righteousness is Righteous as God is Righteous so no farther is he like God or justifiable for in whatsoever he derrogates from the works of that Faith which is held in a pure Conscience he is no longer Righteous or justifi'd but under condemnation as a Transgressor or dissobedient person to the Righteous Commandment and if any would obtain the true state of Justification let them circumspectly observe the Holy Guidings and Instructions of that Unction to which the Apostle recommended the Antient Churches that thereby they may be led out of all ungodliness into Truth and Holiness so shall they find acceptance with the Lord who has determined never to justifie the wicked Refuted from right Reason 1. Because it 's impossible for God to justifie that which is both opposite and destructive to the purity of his own Nature as this Doctrine necessarily obliges him to do in accepting the wicked as not such from the imputation of anothers Righteousness 2. Since man was justified before God whilst in his native Innocency and never condemned till he had err'd from that pure state he never can be justified whilst in the frequent Commission of that for which the Condemnation came therefore to be justifi'd his Redemption must be as intire as his fall 3. Because sin came not by Imputation but actual Transgression for God did not condemn his Creature for what he did not but what he did therefore must the Righteousness be as personal for acceptance otherwise these two things will necessarily follow first that he may be actually a sinner and yet not under the curse secondly That the power of the first Adam to death was more prevalent then the power of the second Adam unto life 4. It s therefore contrary to sound reason that if actual sinning brought death and condemnation any thing besides actual obedience unto Righteousness should bring Life and Justification for Death and Life Condemnation and Justification being vastly opposite no man can be actually dead and imputatively alive therefore this Doctrine so much contended for carries this gross absurdity with it that a man may be actually sinful yet imputatively righteous actually judged and condemned yet imputatively justified and glorified In short he may be actually damned and yet imputatively saved otherwise it must be acknowledged that obedience to Justification ought to be as personally extensive as was disobedience to condemnation In which real not imputative sense those various tearms of Sanctification Righteousness Resurrection Life Redemption Justification c. are most infallibly to be understood 5. Nor are their words Impute Imputed Imputeth Imputing used in Scripture by way of application to that which is actual and inherent as the Asserters of an Imputative Righteousness do by their Doctrine plainly intimate but so much the contrary as that they are never mentioned but to express men really and personally to be that which is imputed to them whether as guilty as remitted or as righteous for instance What man soever of the house of Israel that killeth

Fellow impudent Villain Blasphemer c. And as the usual refuge of shallow Persons when they have little else to say to prepossess their Hearers with prejudice against the Principles of such as do oppose them he questioned much whether I was not some Jesuite Not remembring or at least unwilling to let the people know that none have been nor are more instant in the vindication of that Doctrine he and his Brethren did assert to wit God subsisting in three distinct persons than the Jesuites So that if I should not as well reflect a scandal upon their learning by a comparison as he did upon my Principle I could more truly invert Jesuitism upon himself In short they neither would keep to Scripture tearms themselves nor suffer it in others but looking upon G. Whitehead's explanation of their Tearms and reduction of their Matter if possible to a Scripture sense thereby fitting it to the Auditories apprehension to be an indirect way of answering as that which nakedly did expose their tradition all folly to the vulgar T.V. in an abrubt manner fell to his prayer in which he falsly and with many strangly affected whines accused us for Blasphemers unto God and that he might prevent the clearing of our selves he desired the people when he had finish'd to be gone giving them an example by his and three Brethrens retreat But we being desirous further to inform the people of our innocency they did not only as before endeavour to pull us down but put the Candles out though several persons of good esteem continued whilst we spoke in vindication of our selves from the invectives of our Adversaries The people still remaining undispersed T.V. came very palely down the Stairs having a Candle in his hand requiring their dismiss at which time he promised us at our request another meeting but as one that knew not well what he said or never purpos'd to perform what he promis'd has given us since to understand he can't in Conscience spare us so much time yet to satisfie G.W. and my self in private he could agree which surely can't be tearm'd another meeting since then it must relate to the proceeding one But how near the relation is betwixt an accusation before hundreds and a satisfaction before none must needs be obvious to every unbyas'd person Our Right should have been altogether as publick as our Wrong For which cause we were necessitated to visit his Meeting where on a Lecture day after a continued silence during all his Worship we modestly intreated we might be clear'd from those unjust reflections before his Congregation leaving a Disputation if he could not then attend it to some more seasonable opportunity But as one who resolv'd injustice to mens reputation as well as cowardize in baulking a defence of his own Principles he slunck most shamefully away nor would any there though urg'd to it assume his place to vindicate his practice towards us or his Doctrine then deliver'd Reader What 's thy Opinion of this savage entertainment Would Socrates Cato or Seneca have treated us with such unseemly carriage whom they call Heathens I suppose not And well is it for the truly sober and consciencious they are not lyable to those severe lashes and that peevish usage which are the inseparable Appendixes to a Scotch Directory whose cold and cutting gales ever have design'd to nip and blast the fairest Blossoms of greater Reformation So much for History And what remains is to inform the Reader that with great brevity I have discust and endeavoured a total enervation of those Cardinal Points and chief Doctrines so firmly believed and continually impos'd for Articles of Christian Faith 1. The Trinity of separate Persons in the Unity of Essence 2. God's incapacity to forgive without the fullest satisfaction paid him by another 3. A justification of impure persons from an imputative Righteousness Which Principles let me tell thee Reader are not more repugnant to Scriptures Reason and Souls-Security than most destructive to Gods Honour in his Unity Mercy and Purity Therefore I beseech thee to exterminate passion from her predominacy in the perusal of this abridg'd Discourse since it was writ in love to thee that whilst 't is thy desire to know Love and fear God Almighty above mens Precepts thou mayest not miss so good an end by the blind embraces of Tradition for Truth But in the nobility of a true Berean search and inquire letting the good old Verity not a pretended Antiquity whilst a meer novelty and solid Reason not an over-fond credulity sway the ballance of thy Judgment that both stability and certainty may accompany thy determinations Farewel A short Confutation by way of Recapitulation of what was objected against us at Thomas Vincent his Meeting IF Disputations prove at any time ineffectual it 's either to be imputed to the ignorance and ambiguity of the Disputants or to the rudeness and prejudice of the Auditory all which may truly be affirmed of T.V. with his three Brethren and Congregation The Accusation being general viz. That the Quakers held damnable Doctrines George Whitehead on their behalf stood up and as it was his place willingly would have given the people an information of our Principles which if objected against he was as ready to attest them by the authority of Scripture and Reason but instead of this better Method T.V. as one that 's often employ'd in Cathechistical Lectures falls to Interrogatories begging that himself he in his slander had taken for granted to wit the knowledge of our Principles The Question was this Whether we own'd one God-head subsisting in three distinct and separate Persons as the result of various revises and amendments which being denyed by us as a Doctrine no where Scriptural T.V. frames this Sylogism from the beloved Disciples words There are three that bear Record in Heaven the Father the VVord and the Holy Ghost and these three are one These are either three Manifestations three Operations three Substances or three somethings else besides Subsistances But they are not three Manifestations three Operations three Substances nor three anythings else besides Subsistences Ergo Three Subsistences G.VV. utterly rejected his tearms as not to be found in Scripture or deduceable from the place he instanced wherefore he desires their explanation of their Tearms inasmuch as God did not use to wrap his Truths up in Heathenish Metaphisicks but in plain Language Notwithstanding we could not obtain a better explication then Person nor of Person than the mode of a Substance to all which G.VV. and my self urged several Scriptures proving Gods compleat unity And when we queried how God was to be understood if in an abstractive sence from his Substance They concluded it a point more fit for Admiration than Disputation But a little to review his Syllogysm the manner of it shows him as little a Scholar as its matter does a Christian but I shall over-look the first and so much of the second as might deserve my