Selected quad for the lemma: death_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
death_n	die_v	punishment_n	sin_n	9,009	5	5.3068	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A08130	A learned and fruitfull sermon preached in Christs Church in Norwich. By Mr. Nevvhouse, late preacher of Gods word there.	Newhouse, Thomas, d. 1611.; Hill, Robert, d. 1623.	1612 (1612)	STC 18494; ESTC S100052	25,182	96

reason thus The righteousnesse whereby a sinner is iust before God is eyther his owne or the righteousnesse of another but it is not his owne for the Apostle would haue said wee are made the righteousnesse of God in our selues and not in him and thus some of the auncient Fathers expounding this place say that it is not in our selues but in him not ours but his and Chrisostome saith that therfore it is called the righteousnes of God because it is without all staine and defect and therefore cannot possibly be inherent in vs wherefore we may safely conclude that this righteousnesse is not resident in vs but receiued from another and after a sort made ours to wit by imputation Obiect But it is excepted that it is absurd in reason that a man shold be iust by the righteousnesse of another euen as if a man should be wise by the wisedome of another or learned by the learning of another or liue by the life of another Ans This reason had some colour if the righteousnesse of Christ were personall and so limited and tied vnto him that it could not from him be deriued vnto others but it is so in him that it may be ours and conueyed vnto vs by imputation the reason is because Christ is a publike person representing all the Elect yea the roote and stocke of the Elect euen as Adam was the roote and stocke of all mankinde Looke as therefore the first transgression of Adam was not his alone but euery particular mans descending from him by generation euen so the righteousnesse of Christ is not his alone but pertaines to all the Elect being by faith vnited vnto him and made bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh And as the iuyce and sap which is in the roote of the tree is made the sap of the branches by participation euen so the righteousnesse of Christ being inherent in him as in the head is made the righteousnesse of the members by imputation And as the Lands and goods of one man are made ouer vnto another by deed of gift sale exchange or some like conueyance of Law both for title and vse euen so the righteousnesse of Christ by vertue of the free gift of God according to the tenure of the Couenant of Grace is truely and really conueyed vnto vs and made ours These two reasons are sufficient grounds whatsoeuer may be excepted to the contrary whereupon this conclusion may be raised that the sole imputation of the righteousnesse of Christ is the forme of the iustification of a sinner before GOD. Now followeth the third point viz. the answering of those obiections which are alledged to the contrary Ob. First of all it is replyed that Imputation is a conceit inuented and deuised by man not aboue fifty or sixty yeeres old not to be found in Scriptures or in the ancient and Orthodoxe Writers of the Church Ans To this many things may be answered first what greater impudencie and bold-hardinesse can there be then to contradict the manifest and expresse testimonie of Scripture for this very Imputation is beat vpon and repeated no seldomer then eleuen times in the fourth Chapter to the Romanes and it is as ancient as Abraham of whom it is said Gen. 15.6 He beleeued God and it was imputed vnto him for righteousnesse not as the Papists falsely interprete it that Abrahams faith was so excellent that it deserued the infusion of habituall grace but Abraham by faith casting himselfe and relying vpon the promise of grace concerning righteousnesse remission of sins and life by Christ was iustified or his Faith was imputed vnto him for righteousnesse Metonimia adiuncti that is what his faith apprehended became his righteousnesse by imputation Againe it is to be found in the best and soundest auncient Writers Hierome Anselme and Chrisostome vpon this place who though they doe not expresse the word Imputation yet vse it in effect saying that this righteousnesse is not in vs but in him as our sinne is not his but ours not in him but in vs and Chrisostome saith it must be without all staine want So Aug. in tract 3. in Iohn de Sp. litera ca. 9. 26. Bernard ser 62. in Cant. ser ad milites templi ca. 11. mors in Christo morte fugatur Christi iustitia nohis imputatur Many more testimonies might be alledged to this purpose but qui plura videre cupit legat Fulconem in responsione ad annotationes Rhemensium super hunc locum Let then the Rhemists mock so long as they will and call this a new no-iustice it is sufficient for vs that it is grounded on Scriptures and wanteth not the testimonie of the Church To proceede further Imputation is not a meere deuice but a very thing for it is a relation that is an ordination or application of that which the Logitians call the fundament vnto his terme or of the relatiue vnto his correlatiue for example In Imputation the fundament is the righteousnesse of Christ the terme is the person of the beleeuer and the relation is the mercy of God or the action of God mercifully accepting the perfect righteousnesse of Christ in the behalfe of the beleeuer Now this is not a fiction and if a relation be nothing how shall wee distinguish the persons in Trinitie who though they subsist all in one infinite vndiuided essence yet are three really distinguished by an incōmunicable propertie which is nothing else but a relation Again if a relation be nothing what shall be the internall forme of a Sacrament is it any other but a relation or proportion betweene the signe and the thing signified And if a relation be nothing many a man is vniustly adiudged and condemned to dye both in the Courts of men and in the court of Conscience before God for why doe men daily dye the death of the body and the death of the soule is it not because they are guiltie And if sin had not guiltinesse annexed vnto it as an inseparable propertie thereof men might at their pleasures breake and transgresse both the Lawes of God and of men and neuer be obnoxious to punishment for it is not sin but guilt that bindes ouer vnto punishment now what else is this guilt but a relation and if the imputation of Adams sin vnto vs be something why should not the imputation of Christs righteousnesse be also something and not a meere figment as they would make it Nay Relations as the Schoole-men speak though they be minimae entitatis yet are they maximae efficaciae To conclude this point behold what iniurie this Antichristian Synagogue doth offer vnto our Sauiour Christ the Pope forsooth by vertue of the keyes hath power to dispense and apply the merits of one man to another insomuch as all his Indulgences are imputatiue but Christ hath not this power What is this else but to deny vnto the Head that which they allow vnto the members and to giue to

their ministeriall head that which they denie vnto the imperiall as they foolishly distinguish But not content with this they pleade further for themselues saying that there is no necessitie of the imputation of righteousnesse because wee are iustified by an inherent righteousnesse receiued from Christ by infusion this they labour to confirme by testimonie of Scripture principally out of Rom. 5.18 As by the offence of one man many dye out of which place they reason thus As the imputatiue disobedience of Adam did truly print into the nature of man corruption and sinne and not putatiuely onely as they speake so the imputatiue obedience of Christ doth print into the nature of man holinesse grace and notiby imputation onely This argument they take to be so firme and so strong that it admitteth no answere which notwithstanding being well weighed is of no moment for if all were graunted nothing could be proued vnlesse it could be shewed that this righteousnes printed in our natures and resident in vs were that whereby a sinner is iustified before God which cannot be as is manifest by this reason That righteousnesse which must absolue and acquite a sinner before God must be absolute and perfect and in all points answerable and correspondent vnto the rigour and extremitie of the morall Law but our inherent righteousnesse is not such nay Psal 143.2 Dan. 9.18 it is imperfect in this life and therfore Dauid and Daniel durst not oppose it to the seuere examination of gods iudgement seat but renounced it and relyed themselues onely vpon the meer mercy of God merit of Christ and so haue the Saints of God done from time to time Paul 1 Cor. 4.4 Though he had a great measure of this inherent righteousnesse yet testifieth plainely that hee is not thereby iustified and S. Iohn telleth vs 1 Ioh. 3.11 that it is mingled and blemished with sinne in this life and if any man think otherwise he is no better then a lyar and an hypocrite But let all be granted which this place in shew of wordes and according to their interpretation will or can afford it serueth as much to stablish iustification by imputation as by inherencie yea and more rather by how much the cause is of greater force then the effect for as the imputatiue sinne of Adam was the cause of inherent corruption in mans nature euen so the imputatiue righteousnesse of Christ is the cause of inherent grace in the faithfull And now to take this weapon out of their hands which they haue drawne as it were to cut the throate of Imputation it may fitly be retorted vpon their owne heads on this manner As the imputatiue disobedience of Adam was sufficient to make all men guiltie and culpable of condemnation before God though it left behinde it no print or impression of corruption in the nature of man euen so the imputatiue righteousnesse of Christ is sufficient to discharge and absolue vs of this guilt though it should bring with it no inherent righteousnesse in vs. Ob. Further they reason for themselues out of Dan. 9.24 the righteousnesse of the Messias is an eternall righteousnesse but this imputatiue righteousnesse ceaseth at the end of this life ergo An. Though the act of imputation of righteousnesse ceaseth after death because there is no remission of sins this life ended yet the righteousnesse imputed abideth still and standeth a man in stead to discharge and set him free from all the sins of his life by-past which otherwise the Lord might require at his hands Againe it remaineth in an inseparable fruit and effect of it which is perfect holinesse to wit a conformitie of the whole man vnto the will of God Thus being destitute of Scriptures they flye vnto reason pleading for themselues in this manner Obiect Christ the second Adam did restore no more then the first Adam lost but the first Adam neuer had and therefore could neuer lose this imputatiue righteousnesse ergo Ans The proposition is false for Christ as hee was euery way farre more excellent then Adam was so he is far more liberall in conferring grace and in bestowing his gifts then Adam was prodigall in losing them and in depriuing himselfe and his posteritie of them and therfore vouchsafed many more and greater gifts vnto vs then Adam euer lost for first Adam neuer had iustifying Faith neyther indeede was it necessary in that estate hee beleeued in God but hee knew not neyther beleeued in the Messias but Christ hath vouchsafed vs this supernaturall gift of iustifying Faith Againe Adam had not the grace of confirmation and finall perseuerance and therfore being tempted sell though the free motion of his owne will but wee haue the second grace that is of corroboration whereby wee are preserued in the state of grace which is the priuiledge of the state of redemption before the state of innocencie Adam had power to haue stood if hee would but hee had no power to will that hee could but we by the blessing of God haue in some part both the posse and the velle insomuch as it is not possible for vs being once in the state of grace eyther totally to fall or finally to perish For the Assumption Adam had the same righteousnes for substance which we haue but not in one and the same manner Adam had it resident in his person by inherencie but wee haue it out of our selues from another by imputation Now being destitute both of Scriptures and reason they try another way if not to stablish their own supposed righteousnes yet to bring our doctrine of imputation into contempt and therefore they search their wits labouring by all meanes to fasten some grosse absurdities vpon it but all in vaine First therefore they reason thus If the righteousnesse of Christ be the righteousnesse of a sinner then euery sinner that beleeueth is as righteous as Christ and consequently a Sauiour both which are absurd the ground of this argument is because the selfe-same perfect righteousnesse which is in Christ both for parts and degrees is made his by imputation the which is necessary because the righteousnesse which iustifieth must be absolute and in all points answerable vnto the morall Law For the answering of this first consider the absurditie of this kinde of reasoning in the like instances If the light of the Sunne be the light of the Ayre then the Ayre is as lightsome as the Sunne and consequently the Sunne it selfe that is the fountaine of light and heate If the heate of the fire be the heate of a mans hand then the hand is as hot as the fire If the water of the fountaine be the water of the riuer then the riuer is the fountaine or as copious and cleere as the fountaine Who can endure to heare this idle and foolish talking for it deserueth not the name of reasoning nay whose eares doe not glow to heare it But to satisfie this cauill and sophistication more fully both the