Selected quad for the lemma: death_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
death_n	adam_n	eternal_a	life_n	4,215	5	5.0608	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A45121	Animadversions, being the two last books of my reverend brother Mr. Williams the one entituled A postscript to Gospel-truth, the other An end of discord : conscientiously examined, in order to a free entertainment of the truth, in some momentous points in divinity, controverted among the nonconformist brethen, occasionally here determined, for the sake of those honest among us that seek it, without trick or partiality / by John Humfrey ...	Humfrey, John, 1621-1719.	1699 (1699)	Wing H3666; ESTC R16328	37,926	42

If this be so here is a difficulty arises We are punished and that with Death for the sin of another how can that be just And if God may punish us with Temporal Death for Adams sin he may with Eternal I answer therefore That though Death inflicted on Adam for his sin was indeed a punishment on him yet is Death in it self no punishment on us Adam was made of the Earth Mortal as we but he was put into the Garden where was the Tree of Life whereof so long as he might eat it would save his Life but upon his sin God excluded him from it and having not the Free to eat on when his time came he must needs dye The Sentence of Death was in effect executed on him in excluding him Paradise But as for us we never had the Tree to eat on and cannot be punished by the exclusion from what we never had but according to Nature we being Mortal and of course appointed to dye our Death as Natural is neither good nor evil in it self but in regard to what follows it that is the reward to come according as out Lives have been in the World and if good it is but a Gate to Blessedness After this you may ask What think you then of the more common Doctrine that it is not as we were in Adams Loins but as we were in Adams Covenant that we sinned in him and so were liable to the same punishment I answer besides that it can never be proved that those words In the day thou eatest thereof was said to you or I when they were said to Adam this Assertion is too grievous for my embrace because it makes the Constitution only of God that is his Will alone without any of the sinner to be the cause of Mans damnation I will yet not leave but seeing I am fallen on the Point I will consider what Original Sini● is that I own There are three things according to the common Doctrine wherein original Sin consists the Want of Original Righteousness Adams first guilt and the Corruption of our Nature from whence Actual Transgressions proceed For the second I have spoke to For the first The Schools have conceived that Adam was Endowed with a supernatural Grace besides his Natural Righteous Constitution which by his Fall he lost and so we but our naturals and Free-will remains Now I believe no such thing as that Adam had any Righteousness or Grace supernatural but only Nature entire for Grace is indeed a Medicinal thing or Auxiliatory for fallen Nature which Adam needed not and there can be no loss of that which never was If by Original Righteousness the integrity of Adams Nature be meant only the want or loss of this is included in the third As for which I believe that Adam falling depraved his Nature and being depraved himself he begets Children with this Corruption in their Nature The Mind and Will is infected with ignorance and disobedience the Ataxy in his Faculties upon his Fall is begotten in ours and so I hold Original Sin according to the Article of the Church of England which speaks of this and nothing else though I did not therefore so take it up Omnes peccaverunt id est in omnes propagatum est malum quod est peccatum says Melancthon and so we are by Nature filii ira not upon Adams but our own account This or thus much I hold with the Church against Pelagius so that there is a necessity therefore of Grace in order to Salvation But whether of special Grace against Arminius also which I have hitherto imbibed I leave others to their own Sentiments P. 77. Mr. Ws. and I do hold that Christs Obligation to bear our punishment was a single Obligation or an Obligation of his own not our Obligation though our punishment Our Obligation is ex delicto his ex voluntario contractu so that he suffered not as a Sinner But the Brethren think otherwise That our sins were so imputed to Christ as to give him the denomination and judicial acceptation of a Sinner in the esteem of God and the Law This being so what says Mr. Ws. to it to end the Discord Why Notwithstanding this so long as they deny that Christ bad any defilement in him or any sin of his own only our sins imputed to him and he was but a Legal Sinner this difference cannot justifie mutual Censure What And can it not indeed Then I promise you we must be more friendly to the Antinomian also for it is very abusive for any to think that such a one as Dr. Crisps or any University Graduate did ever believe that the Accident of one Subject could migrate into another so that we are to take their words how broad soever as when they account Christ took on him the fault as well as the punishment to wit our faults and only Legally in the sense of those Orthodox Divines as have commonly said he suffered as a Sinner and Luther as the greatest Sinner Yet are such sayings reprehensible by and according to us who deny that he was our Legal Person though a Days-man betwixt God and us he bore our punishment that we might not bear it An Opinion may be of ill consequence and he that holds it not see it and a Man may hold a Tenent in the Theory which he does not in the Practice but live as free from those ill consequences as he that holds the contrary Opinion In such a case such a Brother is not to be censured but born with but the Opinion the Tenent is to be censured and refuted and such Censure to be justified P. 80 81. The Apology he makes there for our Opinion that is his I mean and mine and Mr. Baxters against the common Protestants is so well handsome humble true clear and taking that I cannot but commend it Ut nihil supra The following Pages are as judicious in clearing us from Popery I thank him for them P. 84. He speaks of the Manner of Imputation of Christs Righteousness and tells us the double sense thereof on the one side the sense of the Brethren which is the same that God reckons us to have Legally done and suffered what Christ did as before but in more words And on the other side our sense which he might dispatch in two words Quoad Effectus but he clouds it so with his Notion of Gods adjudging that the Obedience and Sufferings of Christ is our Pleadable Security for his benefits purchased that I cannot tell what to make of it For what an idle impertinent thing is this to talk of Gods adjudging Christs Obedience to be our Pleadable Security for the enjoyment of that whereof he does adjudge us upon the account hereof to the very enjoyment P. 86. By this you see says he that we rise ●ot so high as to say we are accounted to do or suffer what Christ did and so to be absolved immediately by the Sentence of the

the Righteousness for which yet it is Faith is the Justifying Righteousness or that Righteousness by which we are justified Do not you again concur p. 258. Seeing the Gospel is a Law promising pardon and life to all such as believe to be exercised in vertue of Christs Obedience it is Faith being the performed Condition is imputed to us for Righteousness or is that upon which God accounts us righteous and so these benefits thereby belong to us Justification being a forinsick act say you more fully p. 276. that upon which the Law a Man is tried by doth acquit him from its threatned penalty and entitles him to is promised benefits is so far Justifying Righteousness by that Law An impartial acknowledgment P. 263. You state a difference which you have or make with others by the Question Whether the Death of Christ is legally esteemed to be endured by us and his Obedience by us to be performed Or whether they are imputed to Believers as their pleadable security for their pardon and title to Eternal Life in the right of Christ Here you say the former they affirm and you deny the latter you affirm and they deay But see what it is to be fudled with a Notion and that such as disturbs the brain more than strong Drink There is not and never was any such question and difference broached by any but your self It is true that as to the former the Antinomian maintains but you deny and upon Reasons that are good For if that were so then must the Believer be in Gods sight as righteous as Christ as you argue and that is inconsistent with pardon But when you say as to the latter that you affirm and they deny it I pray where is the Man that ever opposed you or once thought of the matter to deny it Who ever besides you made such a Distribution Who ever before you offered this Question whether Christs performance of the Covenant of Redemption does afford us a pleadable security that if we believe and repent we shall be saved Why do you pretend a difference with any in this matter that no body ever questioned or perhaps thought on How can Mr. H. deny say you p. 269. such a pleadable security Why Mr. H. denies ●t not and none else ● Let this which you teach us and we never considered before be granted how does this prove the Point that the Righteousness of Christ therefore is imputed to us otherwise than in the Effects It is imputed to us for our pleadable security Be it so and is not that pleadable security an Effect of Christs performance It is we must both acknowledge it and do we not agree in this that Christs Righteousness is indeed imputed to us in the Effects Where is the difference We both assert that Christs Righteousness is no Legally to be esteemed ours and neither of us deny this pleadable security to be every true Believers How then do we differ This pleadable security is not Christs Righteousness it self is it It is an Effect arising from it is it not How then does this make good your assertion that Besides the Effects the very Righteousness of Christ is imputed when it makes out no more but that here is an Effect in regard to which it is imputed or which the Believer has by vertue of it He that enjoys a benefit as merited for him by anothers act be hath that act imputed to him as his pleadable security for his possessing that merited blessing you say and I say so too that is imputed in regard to that Effect and no otherwise than so P. 268. The application of Christs Death to Believers Gods Judicial accounting them the persons in whom the Promise made to Christ is performed and his giving them pardon and eternal life as the merited Reward of his Death and Obedience gives just ground for us to say the Righteousness of Christ is imputed to Believers I say no all this straining will not do It is indeed a ground and proof that it is imputed therefore in the Effects but not otherwise You add they do not only enjoy pardon and such Effects but his Righteousness it self is imputed to them relatively in that pardon Oh Sir Are you come hither How much more ingenuous had it been then for you to make the acknowledgment of your coming up here to me and Mr. Baxter and said plainly that though you have said that Besides the Effects made ours the very Righteousness of Christ is imputed to Believers you mean nothing but as we do or your meaning is but this that the Effects being indeed made ours his Righteousness is relatively only to be said ours in regard to those Effects In my Book Ult. Man p. 5. supposing there the Question what we are to apprehend by the Imputation of Christs Righteousness which is no Scripture expression I say there are these two things in it The one is that God did indeed account or allow of what Christ did and suffered to be in our behalf for our sakes for us in our stead as to the Impetration of the benefits we have by him upon condition And the other is our having those benefits as to the Application upon the performance and that is the having his Righteousness to be ours Really in the Effects and Relatively in regard to them In my Appendix to you p. 83. I have the same where asking how the very Righteousness of Christ is or can be ours or reckoned to us as ours I answer The Effects are ours Really and his Righteousness ours Relatively in regard to those Effects I do not doubt but I can find in some Book of Mr. Baxters words to the same purpose or these same words When we three then thus agree why should not you being put upon it and brought into the case of confession have acknowledged this Agreement as to us and Disagreement with the Brethren for herein it is wherein Mr. Baxter hath broke loose from the commonly received Doctrine of the Protestants who have still talked of Christs Righteousness it self to be the Believers which they meant all even the Antinomian that is learned only Legally and we say not so but Relatively only in regard to the Effects How then comes it to pass that in so many places in your Books you bring in the Charm of Christs Righteousness imputed and as it were sometimes by head and shoulders as it seems purposely to make folks believe as if you were one that maintained the same Doctrine with your Brethren whom you oppose How can this pass and not appear to be without sincerity so long as you are not of their mind As for what you else have in this Postscript that may concern me I would say something more particularly to if I could gather it up and digest it You distinguish between the Covenant of Redemption and Covenant of Grace or Mediatorial Law and Law of the Gospol Of the one you say well that Christ only is