Selected quad for the lemma: truth_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
truth_n	speak_v	true_a	word_n	8,834	5	4.4618	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A63765	An endeavour to rectifie some prevailing opinions, contrary to the doctrine of the Church of England by the author of The great propitiation, and, A discourse of natural and moral-impotency.	Truman, Joseph, 1631-1671.	1671 (1671)	Wing T3140; ESTC R10638	110,013	290

sinned before the knowledg of the Gospel and because of those sins to have been guilty of Eternal death and so yet to be guilty unless the Grace and Mercy of the Gospel should Relieve us we are plainly Lyars and basely ingrateful toward the Gospel and that Truth which we profess What need of many words John himself is a manifest * Why may not both Speeches be true Or why may not the latter Speech as well be Expounded by the former I could shew that these words were spoken against such as pretended Perfection and that Grotius's interpretation is not right but that would require too many words It is a shorter way to refer you to other Scriptures speaking in the Present tense Jam. 3. 2. In many things we offend all He puts himself into the number and saith not we have offended Eccles 7. 20. There is not a just man upon the Earth that doth good and sinneth not 1 Kings 8. 46. There is no man that sins not If it should be replyed Such are not properly sins I shall ere long answer that Interpreter of himself when afterwards he Expounds not by we sin in the Praesent tense but we have sinned in the Praeter tense that which before he had said viz. We have no sin But let us return to Paul It appears from what we have spoken that this is the Sum of the first Hypothesis the Apostle's Argument leans on viz. That both Jews and Gentiles if you consider the far greatest part of them were plainly under the dominion of sin enslaved Pag. 119. to most filthy Vices And they who were the best and most holy of either Nation had not so ordered their life but at some time they had faln into some sins or at least into some † But they all according to his great Argument could have lived without all these sins or without that grievous sin worthy of Death and consequently so as to have no need of Pardon or Christs death to free them from Eternal de●th else no Law could require them to live free from such sin and consequently would be guiltless in committing that Act and not need pardon for it and consequently not need pardon or Christs death at all one more hainous sin and worthy of death And so all both Jews and Gentiles without difference and without acception were guilty before God Rom. 3. 19. were obnoxious to Divine wrath and Eternal death Thus he verbatim His great Argument against the ordinary Interpretation of the words of the Apostle Paul viz. That no Law of God requires any more than a man can do which I grant to be true but not in his sense in the sense that he useth it will do strange feats By the same Argument that he proves that God doth not require his people to be free from their dayly failings viz. Because no man cloathed with flesh can live without such he may prove that any man for any Impotency on him to the contrary may be free from standing in need of Pardon or the Blood of Christ thus Whosoever can live free from any great sins deserving or threatned with Eternal death can live without need of pardon or Christs satisfaction But all men can live free from any great sins deserving or threatned with Eternal death Ergo. The consequence is apparent He may prove his Minor thus If there was any man that could not live without any great sin threatned with Eternal death then he is not bound no Law requires him to live without such sin But the Law of God requires him to live without such sin Ergo. Yea And he might produce Aquinas and others affirming that though a man may live a little while without Venialsin though yet not long yet he may live without Mortal sin all his life Yea this Argument will as well prove the Heathen may live perfect and without sin as any else If they do what they can do what they can do And it is a contradiction he saith to say otherwise The consequence he may prove still thus That no Law requires any man to do more than he can As for such words Properly sins Improperly sins Less properly sins sins not deserving Eternal death and then sometime again saying no Law requires a man to live without them It is such slippery Discourse off and on That I can but ask Questions to have him clear his meaning in Answering and such Questions I would ask a man speaking obscurely about Venial-sins amongst which some reckon Fornication Are these Things or Entities that are consistent with truth of Grace or Sincerity those peccata quotidianae incursionis as they are commonly called forbidden by any Law of God or not If you shall say as Lombard Aquinas Bellarmine that they are not then they are not Transgressions of the Law are not sins at all and no punishment whatsoever can be due to or deserved by them being no faults and a man is perfect notwithstanding them Bellarmine saith There is no way possible to maintain the Catholick Doctrine of mans ability perfectly to keep the Law but by denying Venial-sins to be forbidden by the Law Lib. 4. de Justif Chap. 14. Again may a sincere Christian seriously ask Pardon for these sins of dayly Incursion Then they are Sins and Transgressions of a Law or they could not be pardoned neither could Christ be a Sacrifice for them and then they are threatned with and deserve Eternal death for a man cannot with understanding ask pardon for that punishment which God cannot in Justice inflict There can be no Pardon but of Grace and Mercy and Favour and whatsoever God doth of Grace and Favour He might justly not have done it and so might in strict Justice not have pardoned but have condemned us for these Shall a man be condemned for these except he repent of his other sins Aquinas and Bellarmine maintain that men should be punished with Eternal death for their Venial-sins that do not they say deserve death Eternal except they repent Then they do deserve Eternal death for He may not so much as punish a man except he repent for those things which do not deserve the Punishment for he may not do unjustly though men do not repent Will any say though they be not contra legem against the Law yet they are pr●●ter besides the Law as many say concerning Venial-sins I would only say What do you mean Do you mean that they are neither commanded to commit those sins of dayly Incursion nor forbidden then they are as some say the Ceremonies are meerly things indifferent If they be not meerly indifferent will you say that the abstaining from such things is commendable though not commanded And so say as this Author rightly tells us the Pharisaical Jews held that those Commands that required Spiritual and inward Holiness as the Tenth Command were not Commands but Counsels If so then the abstaining from such Sins is a work of Super-erogation And then indeed

on verbatim thus But how doth the Apostle gather this Pag. 264. from the words cited I answer Some think that this Argument is placed in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was accounted or imputed as if the word signified graciously accepting or accounting according to Grace and Favour and that it signifies accounting or rewarding according to Debt either never or very Improperly Whence Erasmus Interpreteth the word acceptum fert adding Est autem acceptum ferre pro accepto habere quod non acceperis quae apud Jureconsultos nifallor vocatur acceptilatio That is the word imputed it self signifies such a Law acceptation as when one grants he hath received a thing and acquits as if he had received it when indeed he hath not received it Many most learned Pag 265. Interpreters follow this Interpretation of Erasmus thus forming the Apostles Argument If the reward had been given to Abraham of debt it would not have been said God Imputed Righteousness unto him For Imputation denotes gracious and free Donation But the Scripture saith God Imputed Righteousness to Abraham Ergo c. But this Interpretation doth not please me since it is manifest from the Scriptures that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used in the Old Testament and also the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used by the Apostle in the Greek and which answereth to the Hebrew word are used concerning the Imputation of a thing to or for sin 2 Sam. 19. 19. which every one will grant is Imputation in Justice yea and the same word often signifies in Scripture a true and just Estimation and Judgment of a thing Deut. 2. 11 20. And it is too manifest that the Apostle himself in the very next verse ver 4. uses this very word for rewarding according to debt Therefore this Argument of the Apostle whereby he infers from the Text cited that the Justification of Abraham was meerly Gracious cannot lean upon the naked signification of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Accounted or Imputed or Reckoned Since this Objection hath a colourable shew and the right Interpretation of this Chapter Rom. 4. doth depend wholly upon it as I have shewed in a short Discourse of the Apostles meaning and since many Learned men are perplexed so with this difficulty as to be driven to Interpret this place otherwise than right thinking the very word doth not signifie Accounting of Grace and Favour and so that the Apostle's Argument cannot lean on this word And since none that I know of have attempted to Answer it I shall speak largely in Answer to this that I may speak satisfactorily I know the Hebrew and Greek words in dispute are Polysema have divers significations just as the English word Account also hath For they signifie properly and in the first sense meerly the immanent Acts of the Understanding as to Think Esteem as also the immanent acts of valewing computing Sums together devising inventing though not so primarily Now when these words are used in this sense they may be according to the reality and truth of things or not according to the reality or truth of things If there be an Accounting or Esteeming in this sense not according to the reality and truth of things it is an errour of the Understanding and a fault or weakness though it can neither be an Act of Kindness or Severity and so cannot be ascribed to God his Judgment and counting and valuation in this sense being always according as things are But the words cannot have this proper sense here as is apparent for imputing Righteousness is either an Act of Mercy or Justice For Acts of Justice and Mercy belong not to the Understanding nor are Acts of that for they proceed from the Will and are not neither meer immanent Acts of the Will but transient Acts proceeding from it and caused by it Therefore let this proper and most common use of the words pass as not capable of being meant in such Speeches Sometime these words are used not for Acts of the Understanding as I said But for the Rectoral transient Acts of Rewarding or Punishing of dealing Kindly or Severely Graciously or Justly For these words when used of such transient Acts are capable of either of these significations and which of the significations they have in particular places is known readily by seeing whether it be some good or evil that is reckned or imputed or whether it be some good or evil thing that is not reckned or not Imputed But let these words when used in this Rectoral Law-sense be used in whether of the senses they will viz. of doing Justly or Mercifully Severely or Graciously yet this is true of them that they always signifie the accounting or imputing something that is not in reality the thing that it is accounted or imputed for but only by a kind of Law Construction or Acceptilation or the not accounting or not imputing the thing that is that in reality which it is not accounted or not imputed for Now if this be true which I shall after make appear by producing all the places of Scripture where the word is used in any sense different from a meer Act of the Understanding then it follows that when ever we read of Imputing or accounting to a man a thing that is a good thing as here Righteousness or Reward then it is an act of Grace or Law acceptilation and kindness and that God might justly have done otherwise because the word Implys a man had not that Righteousness that perfect Innocency that was accounted to him And also when ever we read of God's not Imputing or not accounting that which is evil to a man as Sin Iniquity then it was an act of Kindness or Grace because the very word Implys the man had that sin had done that evil that was not accounted to him Now to make it appear that these words when they do not signifie a meer immanent Act of the understanding but are used in the sense of doing good or evil kindly or severely yet they always signifie the accounting something that is not or not accounting something that is the thing respectively as I have said First Let these Scriptures be considered wherein the words are used in the Penal or Inimical sense and not in the Benigne rewarding favourable sense Lev. 7. 18. Where speaking of a mans Peace-offering It is commanded that he eat all he eats of it in two days and burn the rest with fire If any of it be eaten by the man on the third day the Offering shall not be accepted neither shall it be imputed to him that offereth it That is though he did offer indeed this Offering yet this Offering for an offence committed three days after shall be null and void for any benefit coming to the man by it even as if he had not offered it at all not that Godwill account that in reality he did not offer it So Lev. 17. 4. If any man kill