Selected quad for the lemma: death_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
death_n	deliver_v	good_a	lord_n	8,077	5	5.2704	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A41639	The court of the gentiles. Part IV, Of reformed philosophie. Book III, Of divine predetermination, wherein the nature of divine predetermination is fully explicated and demonstrated, both in the general, as also more particularly, as to the substrate mater [sic] or entitative act of sin.; Court of the gentiles. Part IV. Book III	Gale, Theophilus, 1628-1678.	1678 (1678)	Wing G143; ESTC R16919	203,898	236

greatly gloriose as means to procure our salvation and therefore God is deservedly judged the cause and author of them as Act. 2. 23. And 2 we denie with him that the wickednesse and malice of those acts was from God 3 He also grants That the occision or killing of Christ considered absolutely was not sin Whereunto we retort That neither the hatred of Christ considered absolutely without relation to its object is sin But 4 he concludes But to prosecute Christ out of hatred and il-wil is intrinsecally evil c. Whence we argue That the crucifying of Christ was a sin intrinsecally evil and yet as to its substrate mater and entitative acts from God For did not the Jews prosecute Christ out of hatred and malice yea malice blowen up to the sin against the Holy Ghost in some of them And was not in this good work of crucifixion the good action of God and the evil action of the Jews the same as to the substrate mater or natural entitative act This pincheth Strangius closely and therefore he seems to make the natural entitative act of God distinct from the natural entitative act of the wicked Jews For he saith Here truly in the same work the good action of God is distinguished from their evil action and therefore their wickednesse and malice was not from God Here we grant 1 his consequence or conclusion That their malice was not from God 2 We thus far also grant his Antecedent That the good action of God considered both naturally and morally was distinguished from their evil action considered formally and morally for the malice and vitiositie which formalised the action as theirs is no way imputable to Gods act considered either naturally or morally 3 But yet we stil avouch and no way dout but to demonstrate in its place that in the crucifixion of Christ the act of the wicked Jews considered materially naturally and entitatively was one and the same with Gods act So much al these Texts clearly evince so much also reason dictates For if there were two acts the one primarily yea only from the wicked instruments the other from God the prime Efficient then how could they be said to be the instruments of Gods Efficience Must we not then also suppose two Crucifixions one from God and the other from the Jews What a world of absurdities would follow this Hypothesis That the action of God in the Crucifixion of Christ considered entitatively materially and naturally was really distinct from the action of the Instruments considered entitatively materially and naturally But to conclude we find an excellent solution to al these evasions and subterfuges in Augustin Epist 48. ad Vincentium thus When the Father delivered his Son and Christ his own Bodie and Judas his Lord why in this Tradition is God just and man guilty but because in one and the same thing which they did the cause was not one and the same A solution sufficient to satisfie any sober mind Wherein note 1 That the act of Tradition and so of crucifying Christ was one and the same entitatively and physically considered both in regard of God and the sinner 2 That the difference sprang from the Causes God delivered his Son to Death thereby to bring about the greatest good that Sinners could wisn for their Salvation but Judas and the malitiose Jews delivered the Lord of Glorie to death with wicked hands out of an avaricious humor malice c. Hence 3 The Action was most just and gloriose on Gods part but most unjust and wicked on the Sinners part This answer of Augustin is so great that it might serve to answer al the objections against our Hypothesis were not men bent to cavil against the truth § 3. I come now to a third Head of Scriptural Arguments namely such wherein God is said to make use of wicked Instruments for the punishing or afflicting his people in such a way wherein the Instruments could not but contract guilt I shal divide this Head into two members 1 Such Scriptures wherein God is said to make use of wicked Instruments for the punishing his sinful people 2 Such as mention Gods afflicting his righteous People by sinful Instruments 1. We shal begin with such Scriptures wherein God is said to make use of wicked Instruments for the punishment of his sinful people So Esa 10. 5 6. O Assyrian the rod of mine anger I will send him against an hypocritical Nation The Assyrian is sent by God as his rod to punish his sinful people and every stroke of this rod was from God his hand guiding ordering and actuating the rod in al its motions And yet how much sin was there committed on the Assyrians part in punishing Israel How little did he intend to serve God herein were not Pride and Ambition the main springs of his action Thence it 's added v. 7. Howbeit he meaneth not so neither doth his heart think so c. whence v. 12. God threatens to punish him for his sin So that it 's evident this sending of the Assyrian by God mentioned v. 6. cannot be meant of any legal permission or commission given him by God but of the secret efficacious predeterminative concurse and Providence of God ordering what should come to pass So Jer. 16. 16. Behold I wil send for many fishers saith the Lord and they shal fish them and after wil I send for many hunters and they shal hunt them from every mountain c. Note 1 That these words contain not a promisse but threat begun v. 9. This is evident from v. 17. 2 By Fishers and Hunters in the general we must understand enemies to the Jews To fish and to hunt is to take and destroy War has a great ressemblance with fishing and hunting which is a kind of war against bestes as war is a kind of fishing and hunting of men whence Nimrod the first Warrier after the Floud is stiled Gen. 10. 9. a mighty hunter i. e. of men Ay but more particularly 3 Who are these fishers Why as it is supposed the Egyptians who are called Fishers Esa 19. 8. 4 And who are the Hunters The Babylonians as it is generally said But 5 Who is it that sends for these Fishers and Hunters It is God I wil send c. 6 Why doth God send for them To punish his sinful People and that by those very Nations in whom they had so much confided and to whom they had so much conformed as is intimated v. 17. And what more just than that Professors should be punished by such Instruments as have been the ground of their confidence and the exemplars of their sins 7 How doth God send for these Fishers and Hunters Surely not by any legal Act or formal Commission given to them but providentially by exciting their minds applying their wils and drawing forth yea determining the same to the substrate mater or material entitative act of afflicting the Jews whereunto there was

gives to this distinction of Bellarmine thus However it be in the Text there are two things to be observed 1 That Joseph there cannot distinguish the Action from the Passion as if the Passion were to be ascribed to God not the Action for it 's plainly said and repeted in the Text according to the Hebraic veritie Gen. 45. 5 7 8. that God sent him 2 Thence c. 50. 20. he doth plainly distinguish between the good work of God and their evil in the same mater from the diversitie of the Intention You designed evil against me but God designed that for good Then he addes Here the various operation and provident administration of God is seen that he might bring to pass what he had presignified before by the dreams of Joseph c. And p. 773. he subjoins There is no incommoditie if it be said that God elected and also procured the Vendition of Joseph as a means to the end fore-ordained by him and that may be understood not only of passive Vendition but also of active which truely can never be separated For if God willed that Joseph be sold he willed that some one should sel him and that no other should sel him but his brethren For neither was that Vendition a thing in it self evil if it be considered apart from the vitiositie and defect of the second Causes Then he concludes The Permission of God here was not otiose but an efficacious operation in the tradition of Joseph subministration of occasions out of the concurse which he made both by the direction of al circumstances and moderation of the wil of his brethren that their purpose of killing him being changed they might do no other than what God intended And the same efficace and force of Divine providence shines brightly in working disposing and directing al other things that relate to this Historie This Answer of Strangius to Bellarmine I have been the more prolixe in reciting 1 because the fore-mentioned Divine of so much repute among us makes great use of this distinction touching active and passive vendition or crucifixion endeavoring thereby to solve al our Arguments from the vendition of Joseph and crucifixion of Christ whereas Strangius one of his own partie rejectes it as spurious and frivolous 2 Because the concessions of Strangius in this his Answer to Bellarmine do indeed give a mortal wound to his own cause For if the active vendition of Joseph was from Gods efficacious providence and wil decreeing the same then actions intrinsecally evil are as to their entitative act or substrate mater naturally considered from God albeit their moral vitiositie is to be ascribed to no one but the sinner 2. I now passe on to demonstrate That God doth predefine or foreordain and predetermine such natural actions whereunto sin is necessarily annexed from the Crucifixion of Christ And the Textes that confirme this part of our demonstration are so great and illustrious that I cannot but greatly wonder how any Christian that assentes to the veracitie and authoritie of Scripture can evade the evidence thereof or dissent from our Hypothesis 1 I shal take the Scriptures as they lie in order and begin with Mat. 26. 24. The Son of man goeth as it is written of him but wo unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed 1 Note here that Christs death was infallibly predicted or foretold so much as it is written of him necessarily infers Now how could the death of Christ be infallibly predicted if it were not predefined and preordained by God Yea if the death of Christ were not necessarily predefined and preordained by God how could God infallibly foreknow the salvation of any one elect soul which necessarily dependes on the death of Christ So that it remains most certain that the death of Christ was predefined and foreordained by God and that in every the least circumstance thereof the whole series of intentions and actions in Judas's betraying his Lord and the Jews malitiose and bloudy crucifying of him was predefined and preordained by God 2 Hence also it follows that al the bloudy contrivements barbarous and cruel executions with al the particular circumstances in the betraying and crucifying of Christ were predetermined by God Thus much reason strongly evinceth and Strangius with others grant that eternal predefinition or predestination and predetermination in time are parallel and commensurate each to other whatever is eternally predefined or preordained by God is predetermined by him in time Indeed if we wil take the true Idea of Divine Predetermination what is it but the eternal act of the Divine wil whereby God predefined or preordained al persons actions and effects to existe in such or such a period of time So that to speake truth predefinition and predetermination differ not really and originally as to their active principe albeit we may out of compliance with the Scholes put this difference between them by understanding Predefinition Preordination or Predestination of the eternal active Decree of God and Predetermination of the execution of the Decree or its passive Attingence in regard of the effect But take predetermination in what sense you please it must necessarily be applied to the Crucifixion of Christ and al the most minute circumstances thereof And so much indeed is implied in those words The Son of man goeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Where or to what Surely to die and how without al peradventure as efficaciously conducted moved yea predetermined by the Divine wil. There was not the least step he took to the Crosse the least intention action or circumstance in the whole complexe or systeme of Christs Crucifixion as wel active as passive but was predetermined by God But 3 note also hence that this Crucifixion of Christ although it were predefined and predetermined by God yet this Divine predefinition and predetermination did not at al diminish the guilt of those bloudy instruments who had their hands embrued in that immaculate blood This is particularly specified in those words but wo unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed Judas neither did nor could justly plead Divine preordination or predetermination as an excuse for his treacherie No his own conscience told him that he had voluntarily yea malitiosely betrayed innocent bloud neither could the Jews plead the same in as much as their own malitiose and bloudy wils were as deeply engaged in this Crucifixion as if there had been no predetermination which doth no way diminish the libertie of the wil. Hence 4 it is most evident that this Crucifixion of our Lord was a sin intrinsecally evil For was there not a world of enmitie and hatred of God in it Did there not much blasphemie attend their wicked deeds Is not the shedding innocent bloud yea the bloud of God as it is stiled Act. 20. 28. a sin intrinsecally evil And doth not this sufficiently demonstrate that the substrate mater of an act intrinsecally evil is predefined and

predetermined by God 2 Another Texte that evidently demonstrates the Crucifixion of Christ to be predefined and predetermined by God is Luke 22. 22. And truly the Son of man goeth as it was determined but wo unto that man by whom he is betrayed This Text is the same and refers to the same passage with that before of Matthew yet with this difference Matthew saith As it is written of him but Luke As it was determined which puts it out of al dout that Christs crucifixion was determined or predetermined by God And for the more ful explication and demonstration hereof we are to remarque that Luke being a Physician was most intimely versed in the Greek Tongue for a Physician in those days was of little repute if not wel acquainted with the Grecanic Monuments relating to medicine And thence we find even by the confession of some Atheistic spirits that Lukes Greek both in this his Evangel as also in the Acts of the Apostles is most pure elegant and significant And among other this notion here used gives us a specimen of his accurate skil in the Greek For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here is a philosophic notion of much use among the Grecians to signifie that which is defined determined predetermined predestinated decreed constituted and ordained by an unalterable Decree as we have more copiosely demonstrated from the genuine import of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cap. 1. § 6. Of determinative Concurse And that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here may be properly rendred predetermined is evident from the use of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. 4. 28. To do whatsoever thine hand and thy counsel determined before to be done Where it is in the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 predetermined And indeed Determination and Predetermination as to the Divine concurse admit not so much as any mental distinction according to the confession of some Adversaries The Syriac Luk. 22. 22. renders it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is defined 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the O. T. signifies to expand to make clear to explicate more fully and clearly by the distribution of al parts c. Whence it is rendred by the LXX Ezech. 37. 12 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to separate and Num. 15. 34 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to decree which sense agrees with the mind of our Lord Luk. 22. 22. So that it is most evident that this notion 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here considered in itself and in al its synonymies notes the Crucifixion of Christ in al its circumstances both active and passive to be determined predetermined and foreordained by God Yea we have for this a great concession of Strangius lib. 3. cap. 13. pag. 665. But that the workes of Christ specially his Passion and voluntary death were absolutely predetermined by God is manifest from Scripture Luk. 22. 22. Act. 2. 23. 4. 28. Whence I argue that if the death and crucifixion of Christ were absolutely predetermined by God then the substrate mater of a sinful act yea of an act intrinsecally evil was absolutely predetermined by God How poor and evanid the evasions of Strangius and others are as to this Text we shal examine and lay open when we have explicated the following Texts which demonstrate the same 3 I passe on to the Conference between Pilate and our Lord Joh. 19. 10. Then saith Pilate unto him Knowest thou not that I have power to crucifie thee and have power to release thee Pilate having power of life and death committed to him by Tiberius Cesar he threatens our Lord therewith and what replie doth our Lord make vers 11. Jesus answered Thou couldest have no power at al against me except it were given thee from above therefore he that hath delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin We find several particulars here very remarquable for the demonstration of our Hypothesis 1 Whereas Pilate boasted of his power to crucifie or release our Lord he tels him plainly that he could have no power against him except it were given him from above The power that Pilate pretendes unto was legal Autoritie backed with an executive power committed to him so much 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 notes our Lord doth not denie his claim of legal Autoritie as commissionated by Cesar but yet confines and restrains the execution thereof to Gods predeterminative Concurse As if our Lord had said I grant thy power and autoritie of life and death as Cesars Commissioner and Minister yet know thou couldest not execute this thy power on me unlesse the providential concurrence of my Father did efficaciously move and predetermine thee thereto 2 Observe here the double negative 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which among the Grecians implies a more vehement negation As if he had said Alas thou hast not the least umbrage or shadow of power to execute against me but what is dispensed forth unto thee by the efficacious predeterminative hand or providential concurse of my Father whose wise and omnipotent hand has put in every bitter ingredient into the Cup I am to drink of 3 Neither doth al this excuse Judas the Jews or Pilate as to their guilt in crucifying the Lord of Glorie no Gods predeterminative concurse is so far from excusing these Traitors as that it aggravates their sin So it follows Therefore he that hath delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin Therefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for this very reason because my Father hath left that traiterous wretch Judas to be hurried by his own avaricious lust into this horrid Treason of betraying me and predetermined thine execution thereof his guilt is the greater 4 Lastly hence also we may argue that this sin of crucifying our Lord was intrinsecally evil So much that last clause hath the greater sin implies As if he had said Oh! what a world of treason murder blasphemie hatred of God and al manner of sin is involved in the wombe of this sin 4 We find the predefinition and predetermination of Christs crucifixion more expressely explicated and demonstrated Act. 2. 23. Him being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God ye have taken and by wicked hands have crucified and slain What could more plainly be said for the predefinition and predetermination of our Lords crucifixion as to its substrate entitative act and yet for the aggravation of their sin in acting their parts in this bloudy Tragedie Let us examine the particulars 1 It 's said he was delivered by the determinate counsel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 primarily notes counsel with a decree or a decreed fixed counsel from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the cast of an arrow or the like Whence the formal act of the wil is termed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is but a derivation from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But Luke to expresse Peters mind more significantly addes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by that determinate defined firme immutable decretive predeterminative counsel