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	impute_v	sin_n	4,587	5	6.1488	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A41016	Sacra nemesis, the Levites scourge, or, Mercurius Britan. disciplin'd, [Mercurius] civicvs [disciplin'd] also deverse remarkable disputes and resolvs in the Assembly of Divines related, episcopacy asserted, truth righted, innocency vindicated against detraction.	Featley, Daniel, 1582-1645.	1644 (1644)	Wing F593; ESTC R2806	73,187	105

just not in themselves but in him Et in Psal. 21. Mors Christi morte fugatur Christi nobis justitia imputatur our death is put to flight by Christs death and Christ his righteousnesse is imputed to us Bernard ad Mil. Temp. c. 12. Adae peccatum imputabitur mihi Christi justitia ad me non pertinebit Adams sin is imputed to me and shall not Christ his righteousnesse belong to me Et Serm. 61. in Cant. Nempe factus es tu mihi Christe justitia à Deo nunquid mihi verendum ne una amb●bus non sufficiat non est pallium breve quod non possit operire duos te pariter me operiet larga aeterna justitia thou O Christ art made righteousenesse unto me from God need I fear lest thy righteousnesse being but one cannot suffice us both it is no short or scantie cloak or garment that cannot cover two thy large and eternall justice or robe of righteousnesse shall cover both thee and me M. Prolocutor IUdicious and devout Calvin alluding to the words of the Prophet let us draw water out of the well● of salvation saith nusquam legimus reprehens●s ●ui nimium de puteo aquae vivae hauserint none ever were found fault with for drawing too much out of the well of life Sith then we have free libertie to draw and the water is so precious and soveraign the well so full and exubera●t that as S. Cyprian speaketh quantumfidei capacis aff●rimus tantum gratiae inundantis haurimus we take up so much grace as our faith can hold or receive I professe for my owne part I had rather draw more out of this well then lesse they who are onely for the imputation of Christs passive obedience seem to me to draw bu●one bu●kes full but they who are for the imputation of both two the former draw from thence only pretium redemptionis the price of our ransome the other meritum aeternae vitae the merit of eternall life But to leave all rhetoricall expressions and handle this subtile question logically and scholastically First we are to take notice of a double obedience of Christ a generall which he performed to the whole law through the whole course of his life a speciall which he performed to that particular command of his Father to lay down his life for his sheep Secondly when we speak of this generall and speciall obedience of Christ which some tearm active and passive though it be most true which Bernard saith Christus in vita habuit actionem passivam in morte passionem activam Christ in his life performed a passive action in his death he sustained an active passion It is confessed on all hands that both are necessarie to justification that Christ performed both for us but then we must distinguish of this tearm for us for it may either signifie bono nostre only for our good and behoof or also loco nostro in our stead and place that Christ satisfied the punishment of the law and fulfilled all the precepts thereof for us that is for our benefit is not denyed by any and therefore those texts puer natus est nobis oportet nos implere omnem justitiam factus est sub lege ut eos redimeret to us a Child is borne and so we ought to fulfill all righteousnesse and he was made under the law that he might redeem those that were under the law and the like might be spared they are like the Lacedemonian swords too short to reach their adversaries But that he fulfilled the law loco nostro in our stead and place that 's denyed by Piscator and Vilenus who conceive that the passive obedience only is imputed to us et implet utramque paginam not the active Their principall reasons are First Christ as man being a creature was bound to fulfill the law of his Creator for himselfe otherwise he had not been sacerdos inculpatus a high Priest without blame neither would his sufferings have steaded us but being an innocent man he was not bound to satisfie for the breach of the law that therefore is to be allowed to us which he did undergoe in our stead Secondly the Scripture attributeth our redemption and reconciliation to the blood of Christ Christs blood cleanseth us from all sin 1 Io. 1 9 and 6. Christ gave his flesh for the life of the world Thirdly he that is freed from the guilt of all sins of omission as well as commission is to be reputed as if he had fulfilled the law for idem est esse iustum insontem it is all one to be a just and an innocent man But by the imputation of Christs passive obedience we are freed from the guilt of all sin as well of omission as commission ergo c. Fourthly if Christs active obedience be imputed to us then there needs no remission of sins for he who is esteemed to have fulfilled the law needs no forgivenesse for the breach it Fifthly those who are freed from eternall death of necessitie attain everlasting life but by the imputation of Christs passive obedience we are freed from eternall death ergo by it we obtain everlasting life To the first a three-fold answer may be given First that Christ in regard of his hypostaticall union was freed from all obligation of law which otherwise had layen upon him if he had been meer man Secondly admitting that Christ as man after he had taken upon him our nature was bound to fulfill the law for himself yet because he freely took upon him our nature and consequently this obligation for us his discharging it shall accrue to us as if I freely enter into bond for another mans debt if I discharge the bond I both release my self and my friend Thirdly we must distinguish of a publike person and private what a man doth as a private person belongeth only to himself but what he doth as a publike person to himself and others To the second I answer that either the blood death of Christ are taken by a Synechdoche for his entire obedience it being the coronis and crown of all or that salvation and life is attributed to it because it merited for us the imputation of Christs active obedience also To the third he that is freed from sinne of omission is in the state of an innocent but not of a just man he is indeed freed from all punishment yet because he hath not actively fulfilled the law in the course of his life he hath no good title to eternall life by the law hoc fac vives doe this and thou shalt live he that is guiltie of no sin of omission is equivalent to a just man quoad liberationem à poena but not quoad meritum aeternae vitae in regard of freedom from punishment but not in regard of the meriting eternall life secundum quid

that according to our protestation made at our first meeting we ought to resolve upon nothing in matter of faith but what we are perswaded hath firm and sure ground in Scripture and howsoever some texts have been alledged for the imputation of both active and passive obedience yet that at our last sitting they were wrested from us and all inferences from thence cut off all the re-doubts forts built upon that holy ground sleighted it will import therefore very much those who stand for the affirmative part to recruit the forces of truth and make up the breaches in our forts made by the adversaries batteries First our first fort is built upon Rom. 5.18 19. after this manner if we are made righteous by the obedience of Christ his entire obedience must needs be imputed to us But we are made righteous by the obedience of Christ as the Apostle affirmeth in the text quoted Therefore Christs obedience must needs be imputed to us In this fort they make a breach thus by obedience the Apostle here understandeth that speciall obedience which Christ performed to the commandement of his Father for laying down his life for his sheep of which the Apostle speaketh Phil. 2.8 He became obedient to death even to the death of the crosse therefore this text maketh nothing for the imputation of Christs active obedience But First the breach is thus repaired the word in the former verse is not {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} but {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} which is never taken in Scripture for suffering or meer passive obedience Secondly the Apostle saith loc. supra cit. many are made righteous and righteousnesse came upon all to justification of life and Christ is the end of the law for righteousnesse and the abundance of grace and gift of righteousnesse shall reign by one Jesus Christ but no man is said to have justification of life or abundance of grace and the gift of righteousnesse or to be made righteous by suffering only for the willing undergoing of punishment satisfieth the law but in part it denominateth a man patient but not absolutely righteous Christ himself was not righteous only in regard of his sufferings and therefore the imputation of them only unto us will not make us formally righteous though it fully acquitteth us from all punishment Thirdly the obedience here mentioned is set in opposition to Adams disobedience but Adams disobedience was active therefore Christs obedience must be active This argument may be illustrated by S. Bernards paraphrase ad exhort ad Templar c. 11. ablato peccato redit justitia porro mors Chrsti m●rte fugatur Christi nobis justitia imputatur plus potuit Adam in malo quam Christus in bono Adae peccatum imputabitur mihi Christi justitia ad me non pertinobit Sin being taken away righteousnesse returns moreover death is put to flight by the death of Christ and Christs righteousnesse is imputed unto us could Adam more hurt us by sin then Christ benefit us by righteousnesse Shall the sin of Adam be imputed to me and shall the righteousnesse of Christ no way belong unto me or I have no interest in it Our second fort is built upon 2 Cor. 1.30 after this manner If Christ be made unto us righteousnesse as righteousnesse is distinguished from redemption then Christs active obedience is imputed to us as well as his passive But Christ is made to us righteousnesse and sanctification as they are distinct things from redemption or satisfaction as the letter of the text importeth he is made to us of God righteousnesse sanctification and redemption Ergo Christs active obedience is imputed to us as well as his passive In this fort they make a breach thus Christ is made to us righteousnesse as he is made wisdom for so runneth the text Christ is made to us of God wisdom and righteousnesse c. But he is not made to us wisdom by imputing his wisdom unto us but by instructing us and making us wise to salvation therefore neither is he said to be made righteousnesse to us because his righteousnesse is imputed to us but because he sanctifieth us and maketh us by his grace righteous and holy But the breach is thus repaired First whatsoever Christ is made unto us he is made perfectly such unto us else we shall lay a defect upon him who is perfection it self But Christ is not made perfectly wisdom or sanctification or righteousnesse to us save onely by imputing his own righteousnesse and wisdom and holinesse to us which are most perfect for as for our inherent righteousnesse and holinesse and wisdom they are imperfect and defective as all confesse save Papists and Pelagians Secondly Christ is so made righteousnesse to us as he is made redemption for so carrieth the letter Christ is made to us righteousnesse and redemption But he is made redemption unto us by imputing his passive obedience therefore in like manner he is made righteousnesse unto us by imputing the active obedience Yea but say they Christs wisedom is not imputed to us I answer it is and it covers our follies and errors as his righteousnesse doth our sins and by vertue thereof we are acompted wise unto salvation and for proof of this exposition I alledge an Author of greatest authoritie next the Apostles Clemens Romanus in his for●er Epistle ad Corinth so highly cryed up by all the antients p. 41. Non per nos ipsos justificam●r neque per sapentiam nostram intelligentiam pietatem aut opera quae in puritate cordis sanctimonia operati sumus sed per fidem per quam omnipotens Deus omnes ab initio justificavit we are not justified by our wisedom or godlinesse c. but by faith by which God justified all from the beginning Thirdly our third fort is built upon 2 Cor. 5 21. after this manner those who are made the righteousnesse of God in Christ must needs have Gods righteousnesse imputed unto them But Gods righteousnes in Christ is the perfect fulfilling of the law ergo the perfect fulfilling of the law is imputed to us In this fort they make a breach thus By sin is here meant a sacrifice for sin and it is granted on all hands that Christ was made a sacrifice for sin that we might be accompted righteous before God and this maketh for the imputation of the passive but not the active obedience of Christ But the breach is thus repaired First there is no necessitie of expounding here sin by this glosse a sacrifice for sin the words will carrie as well another interpretation namely that as Christ was reputed a sinner for us or in our stead so we are accompted righteousnesse in him But our sins are no way in him but by imputation therefore his righteousnesse also is in us by imputation and this is the current sense which we find in the expositions

Thirdly aeque pronunciamur justi ut Christus we are equally pronounced just as Christ that is we are as truely acquitted and absolved as he sed non pronunciamur aeque justi but not pronounced equally just for his justice was inherent ours imputed his from himself ours from him his of infinite worth sufficient to justifie all beleevers ours of finite and sufficient only for our selves The Arminians object if {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} credere or the very act of believing justifie us then not Christs imputed righteousnesse But the very act of believing justifieth as the Apostle saith Abraham beleeved and it was counted to him for righteousnesse To this I answer that saith may be considered either ratione actus or ratione objecti in regard of the act or of the object Faith justifieth not ratione actus for then some work should justifie but ratione objecti not in regard of the act but in regard of the object as the spoon feeds the child in regard of the milk in it and the chirurgions hand heals in regard of the playster he applies those that were healed by looking upon the brazen serpent were not cured by the sharpnesse of their sight for the purblind were as well healed as the sharp-sighted but by a supernaturall vertue at that time given to the object the brazen serpent a type of Christ 4. The Socinians object God doth not justifie man by an act of injustice but it is injustice to punish one man for another or attribute one mans righteousnesse to another for justitiae est suum cuique tribuere it is the office or property of justice to give to every man his owne therefore we are not justified by the imputation of Christs active or passive obedience But this objection may be assoyled with a double answer First it is not against justice but agreeable to justice to lay the debt or penalty of one man upon another in case that one man voluntarily undertake for the other and becomes his surety as it was just to lay Cimon in the gaol for his father Miltiades debt after he ingaged himself for it and made it his own neither was it unjust to put out one of Zaleuchus his eyes for his sons adulterie after hee undertook to satisfie for his son and to save him one eye who otherwise should have lost both Secondly when God imputes Christs righteousnesse unto us he gives us our own namely that which Christ hath purchased for us by his death and secondly in regard of our union with Christ whatsoever is Christs in this kind is ours and Ro 5. he that hath given Christ to us hath given his righteousnesse also M. Prolocutor THe Roman orator in his oration pro Sex●o Roscio Amerino writeth of Caius Fimbria that he indicted Q. Scaevola upon a strange point that he would not suffer himself to be slain out-right by him diem Scaevolae dixit quod non totum ●elum corpore recepisse● accused Scaevola for not receiving his whole weapon into his body methinks some of our brethren put in a like bill against us that we suffer them not to have a full and fair blow at us quod non tota t●la argumentorum rec●piamus that we receive not the weapons of their arguments whole entire I will therefore propound their arguments as neer as I can remember in their own words to the best advantage and then return a punctuall answer unto them If any of their arro●s be headed if any of their s●ords be keen edged and sharp pointed if any of their arguments have acumen robur sharpnesse and strength they are these five following Every humane creature is bound to fulfill the Law of God for himself jure creationis by the right of creation But Christ is a humane creature ergo he was bound to fulfill the Law of God for himselfe and consequently he fulfilled it not in our stead To the consequence inferred upon the conclusion of this Syllogism I have spoken heretofore I now answer to the Syllogism it self by distinguishing of humana creatura a humane creature which may be taken either ratione naturae onely or ratione personae also which may be so tearmed either in regard of the nature or the person every humane creature ratione naturae personae that is such a creature as hath not only humane nature but a humane person also is bound to fulfill the morall Law for himself but Christ was not so he had a humane nature but no humane person Now we know Lex datur personae the Law is given to the person Thou shalt doe this or thou shalt not doe that In the accompt of the law and all judiciarie proceedings it is all one to be insons justus to be guiltlesse and righteous but by the imputation of Christs satisfaction we are accompted guiltlesse before God ergo righteous and fully justified I answer There are two sorts of causes in courts of justice criminall and civill in criminall it is true idem est esse insontem justum it is all one to be accompted innocent and just but not in civill where justice hath a respect to reward and in that regard a guiltlesse man is not necessarily a just man that is a deserving man It was not sufficient for Demosthenes to plead for Ctesiphon that he was a harmelesse man and therefore ought in justice to have the crown but he proves that he was a deserving man and by the law ought to have it as his due Thirdly Justification is a judiciary act opposite to condemnation but imputation of active obedidience is no judiciary act opposite to condemnation ergo c. God is said to be a righteous judge not only in respect of inflicting punishment rightly but also in conferring rewards and crowns of glory justification hath respect to both for there are two questions put to us at Gods tribunall first what hast thou to say for thy self why thou shouldst not be condemned to hels torments the answer is I confesse I have deserved them by my sins but Christ hath satisfied for me the second question is what canst thou plead why thou shouldst in justice receive a crown of glory sith thou hast not fulfilled the law the answer is Christ hath fulfilled the law for me both these are expressed by Anselm in his book de modo visitandi infirmos si dixerit meruisti damnationem dic Domine mortem Domini nostri Iesu Christi obtendo inter me mala merita mea ipsiusque meritum ●ffero pro merit● quod ego debuissem habere nec habeo if he saith thou hast deserved damnation answer thou I set Christs death between me and my ill deserts or wicked works and I offer his merit for that merit which I should have but of my self I have not Fourthly all they who are freed from the guilt of all sins of omission as well as commission are

of the antient Fathers Chrys. in hunc locum p. 322. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} c. he said not righteous but righteousnesse for that righteousnesse he speaks of is Gods since it is not of works and it is such in which there must be no stain or spot which cannot be inherent but imputed he made the just to be unjust that the unjust might be made just and S. Aug. in Psal. 21. delicta nostra sua delicta feci● ut justitiam suam nostram justitiam faceret he made our sins his sins that he might make his righteousnesse our righteousnesse Secondly admit we take sin for sacrifice for sin in this place this very interpretation rather strengthneth then weakneth the former argument for that righteousnesse which is said to be in Christ would never have been ours if his death had not been a sacrifice for our sins thus therefore I collect the argument out of this place The righteousnesse which is in Christ can be no otherwise ours then by imputation but the righteousnesse here spoken of is the righteousnesse in Christ ergo it cannot be ours any other way then by imputation Thirdly Christs sufferings are not properly his righteousnesse though he who suffered were righteous nay righteousnesse it self neither are these sufferings now in Christ but his active obedience and holinesse is truely and properly righteousnesse and it remains in him and is that eternall righteousnesse spoken of by the prophet Daniel c. 9 v. 14. he shall take away sin and bring everlasting righteousnesse Our fourth fort is built upon Col. 2 10. after this manner if all the faithfull are compleat in Christ as the Apostle here affirmeth we are compleat in him in whom dwelleth the fullnesse of the God-head then Christ supplyeth whatsoever is otherwayes defective in them and yet required of them But the perfect fulfilling of the law is required of them which they cannot doe in their owne persons ergo Christs fulfilling it for them is imputed to them In this fort they make a breach thus whatsoever we were bound to doe Christ hath done for us either in specie or per aequivalentiam in kind or in value according to which distinction although the fulfilling of the law be not imputed to us in speci●i yet it is per aequivalentiam because his satisfaction is imputed to us and so there is no defect in us because no man is bound both to fulfill the law and satisfie the breach thereof we therefore having satisfied for the breach of the law are accompted as if we had fulfilled the law But the breach is thus repaired No man who standeth rectus in curiâ as Adam did in his innocencie or the Angels before they were confirmed in grace is bound both to fulfill the law and to satisfie for the violation thereof but to the one or to the other to fulfil only the law primarily to satisfie for not fulfilling it in case he should transgresse but that is not our present case For we are all born and conceived in sinne and by nature are the children of wrath and are guiltie as well of Adams actuall transgression as our own corruption of nature drawn from his loyns Therefore first we must satisfie for our sinne and then by our obedience lay claim to life according as it is offered us by God in his law fac hoc viv●s doe this and live Now we grant freely that Christs death is sufficient for the satisfactorie part but unlesse his active obedience be imputed to us we have no plea or title at all to eternall life To illustrate this by a lively similitude and such an one to which the Apostle himself elsewhere alludes In the Olympian games he that overcame received a crown of gold or silver or a garland of flowers or some other prize or badge of honour but he that was overcome besides the losse of the prize forfeited something to the keeper of the games Suppose then some friend of his should pay his forfeiture will that intitle him to his garland Certainly no unlesse he prove masteries again and in another race out-strip his adversarie he must goe away crownlesse This is our case by Adams transgression and our own we have incurred a forfeiture or penaltie this is satisfied by the imputation of Christs passive obedience but unlesse his active be also imputed to us we have no plea or claim at all to our crown of glory for we have not in our own persons so ru● that we might obtain After this speech the Divines cryed generally to the Vote and though some few of eminent parts in the Assemblie dissented yet far the major part resolved for the affirmative but before the close D. F. produced an advice of King James of blessed memorie directed to an Assemblie of Divines at Privase in France for the deciding the present Controversie which here followeth Consilium serenissimi principis Iacobi Magnae Britanniae Regis de controversia sequente sopienda FEcit Deus inquit Solomon hominem rectum sed ipse infinitis se immiscuit quaestionibus Cujus sententiae veritas hinc elucet quod tam infinitae indies oriantur controversiae quae tantum ad turbandam ecclesiae pacem spargi ubique videntur Inter quas haec nupera non ante quadraginta annos nata qua car uit ecclesia annis mille quadringentis sexaginta nec quicquam inde tulit d●trimenti nunc vero inter duos doctissimos viros tan● acriter ventilata potest recenseri utrum scilicet passiva Christi obedientia qua vitam pro ovibus speciali mandato posuit tantum nobis imputetur ad justi●iam vel simul cum passivâ activa etiam qua se legi obedientem praestitit Hanc quaestionem quae inde emanant necessariò quarum specimen in propositionibus Molinaei oppositionibus Tileni cer●ere licet nec generatim discutere nec particulatim examinare nobis est propositum sed ex iis tantum quae legimus ipsi coram audivimus consilium dabimus quale fidei defensorem non dedecere arbitramur Et hoc quidem illud erit nempe ut ipsa penitus sepeliatur quaestio cum omnibus inde emergentibus cum fas●●i● linteis quibus revinctum erat involutum Christi corpus in sepulchro relinquatur ab iis presertim qui se cum Christo resurrexisse profitentur ut relictis impedimentis omnibus òmnes simul in perfectum virum in Christo coalescamus ne forte nimium altercando infantem vivum quod indulgens mater non passa est discindere aut inco● sutilem Christi tunicam quod crudelis non tulit miles divider● videamur Haec consilii nostri summa cuius ratio haec est quaestio quod plan● nova si● 〈◊〉 necessaria prioribus seculis inaudita a conciliis non desinita a patribus non tractata nec denique a scholasticis