Selected quad for the lemma: work_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
work_n	faith_n	jesus_n	justify_v	17,800	5	8.9787	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A90870	A serious exercitation upon, or an impassionate vindication of 1 John 5.20. This is the true God--in reference to a printed conference between Mr. Samuel Eaton, and Mr. John Knowles for the beating out of the truth concerning the divinity of Jesus Christ. / By Thomas Porter M.A. Minister of the Gospel at Whitchurch. Decemb. 26. 1650. Imprimatur, Edm. Calamy.	Porter, Thomas, d. 1667.	1651 (1651)	Wing P2998D; Thomason E621_9; ESTC R206411	19,159	28

is no where else in Scripture called the true God yet by your leave he is called God John 1. 1. Blessed God Rom. 9. 5. Great God Tit. 2. 13. The mighty God Isa 9. 6. c. All which and many more Titles ascribed to him in holy Scripture amount to this The true God notwithstanding your exceptions against the forenamed places which like Fig-leaves if I be not prevented by a better pen shall be removed and your nakednesse discovered Iesus Christ is no where called in Scripture Gods Minister Gods Instrument Gods Viceroy Gods Reprseentative c. yet you beleeve Scripture holds forth that which amounts thereto else you would not so frequently call Christ by such names and will you be a Didymist here But to use a better instance The Scripture saith we are justified without works we are justified by faith doth not all amount to this we are justified by faith only So here 4. What will you say if Iesus Christ be elsewhere in Scripture called the true God I humbly conceive so Jer. 10. 10. But the Lord is the true God I am not ignorant it is in the Original Aelohim Aemeth the God of truth But it is an usual Hebraisme as in the same verse A King of eternity i.e. an eternal King and so to name no more 2 Cor. 1. 3. e Genitivus pro Adjectivo i.e. Pater summe misericors Grot. The father of mercies i.e. A merciful father Now that Iesus Christ is here implyed and to be understood take for the clearing and confirming of it these few reasons 1. Because these words in the beginning of the seventh verse Who would not feare thee O King of Nations spoken and applyed to Christ f Praebet hic Titulus NON OBSCVRVM Divinitatis Agni argumentum cui tanquam Authori opus illud stupendum devictae bestiae acceptum ferunt praedicant sancti Pareus in loc Rev. 15. 3 4. Thus our Translators of the Bible into English understood it as appears by the interchangable quotation And this is more probable because Beza saith Arethas reads the words in Revel forenamed g 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 King of Nations i.e. Of all the Saints of in or among the Nations 2. Because the work of Creation mentioned ver 12. which is proper to the most High Psal 104. 25 26. is ascribed to Christ Heb. 1. 10 11 12. your distinction p. 35. of an Agent principal and instrumental in the work of Creation and your bold assertion thereupon that Iesus Christ was only an instrumental Agent in the Creation of the world which shall be examined in its proper place will not help you a jot at this dead lift 3. Because of the name of this true God vers 16. The Lord of Hosts is his name h You acknowledge p. 10. This noble name is by the Apostle from Isay 6. 3. translated Lord Almighty Rev. 4. 8. And given to him that sits on the Throne Which name is given to Jesus Christ if you will compare Isa 6. 10. with John 12. 41. These things said Isaias when he saw his glory and spake of HIM The relative refers to Christ in the precedent vers 37. Though HE had done so many miracles before them yet they beleeved not on HIM Who is he The Lord Jesus vers 36. These things spake Iesus And it refers to Christ in the subsequent vers 42. Many beleeved on HIM but they did not confesse HIM If the context carry it to Christ therefore of necessity here vers 41. So that I hope it is evident that Jesus Christ is elsewhere in Scripture called The true God and that your second reason is very frail and false Mr. Knowles Sect. 6. Reas 3. Because the father is called the true God distinct from the Son 1 Thess 1. 9 10. How ye turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God and to wait for his Son from heaven whom he raised from the dead even Jesus c. It is evident from this text that the Father distinct from the Son is called the living and true God and therefore it is probable in the text under examination the Father only is intended in this expression This is the true God Give me leave to trusse up this reason into an Argument Reply without wronging you if in the 1 Thes 1. 9 10. the Father distinct from the Son is called the true God then also its probable in 1 Iohn 5. 20. But the former is true Therefore Or thus He that is distinct from the true God is not the true God Iesus Christ is distinct from the true God Therefore Sir if you take to the first Syllogistical forme I deny your consequence for the Father even distinct from the A mea non sequit●r Son may be called the true God in 1 Thes 1. 9 10. and yet the Son may be called the true God in 1 Iohn 5. 20. you your self foresaw the inconsequence and therefore you assert it but as probable and probabilities I imagine will not carry it If you own the latter Argument The major is false for the Spirit as well as Christ is distinct from the true God in some sense and yet is the true God i Certè S Sp. ita in Deo ex Deo Dei est ut Deus sit viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Synops par Theol. Disp 9. s 28. Acts 5. 3 4. Isa 6. 9. with Acts 28. 25. 1 Cor. 6. 19. with 1 Cor. 6. 16. May not I as well argue out of Mark 16. 7. Tell his disciples and Peter that Peter was none of Christs disciples because he is distinct from them and out of the title of Psal 18. from the hand of all his enemies and from the hand of Saul that Saul was none of Davids enemies for he is distinct from them But as he appealed from Philip to Philip so do I from Mr. Knowls to Mr. Knowls who seems to answer with indignation pag. 39. What Was Saul none of Davids enemies He was But why do I go so far will you conclude waiting is no serving because its evident from this text 1 Thes 1. 9 10. That waiting is distinguished from serving to serve and to wait Reas 4. Bcause the Father is called the ONLY true Mr. Knowles Sect. 7. God Iohn 17. 3. And this is life eternal that they might know thee the only true God and whom thou hast sent Jesus Christ Here the Father is called the only true God and so the Son is excluded from being the true God and therefore of necessity in 1 Iohn 5. 20. The Father only is intended Reply Your Argument I take it runs thus If the Father be called the only true God in Iohn 17. 3. Then of necessity in 1 John 5. 20. But the former is true Therefore or thus The Sonne is excluded from being true God in Ioh. 17. 3. Therfore of necessity in 1 Ioh. 5. 20. Sir your former inference must be