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	sin_n	sin_v	13,883	5	9.2456	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A39674	Planelogia, a succinct and seasonable discourse of the occasions, causes, nature, rise, growth, and remedies of mental errors written some months since, and now made publick, both for the healing and prevention of the sins and calamities which have broken in this way upon the churches of Christ, to the great scandal of religion, hardening of the wicked, and obstruction of Reformation : whereunto are subjoined by way of appendix : I. Vindiciarum vindex, being a succinct, but full answer to Mr. Philip Cary's weak and impertinent exceptions to my Vindiciæ legis & fæderis, II. a synopsis of ancient and modern Antinomian errors, with scriptural arguments and reasons against them, III. a sermon composed for the preventing and healing of rents and divisions in the churches of Christ / by John Flavell ... ; with an epistle by several divines, relating to Dr. Crisp's works.	Flavel, John, 1630?-1691.	1691 (1691)	Wing F1175; ESTC R21865	194,574	498

Covenant of Grace though more obscurely administred But because Latin Authors are of little use to you and among English ones the Judgment of Dr. Crisp I suppose will be instar omnium with you I will recite it faithfully out of his Sermon upon the two Covenants where he makes the Old and New Covenants to be indeed two distinct Covenants of Grace for which I see no reason at all but proves the former to be so in these words It is granted of all men That in the Covenant of Works there is no remission of Sin there is no notice of Christ but the whole business or imployment of the Priests of the old Law was altogether about remission of Sins and the exhibiting and holding forth of Christ in their fashion unto the People In the 15th of Numbers vers 28. I will give you but one Instance there you shall plainly see That the administration of that Priestly Office had remission of Sins as the main end of that Administration If a Soul sin through ignorance he shall bring a She-goat unto the Priest and he shall make an atonement for the Soul that sinneth ignorantly and it shall be forgiven him See the main end is administring forgiveness of Sins And that Christ was the main Subject of that their Ministry is plain because the Apostle saith in the Verse before my Text That all that Administration was but a Shadow of Christ and a Figure for the present to represent him as he doth express in the 9th Chapter of this Epistle And the truth is the usual general Gospel that all the Iews had was in their Sacrifices and Priestly Observations So that it 's plain the administration of their Covenant was an administration of Grace and absolutely distinct from the administration of the Covenant of Works And what can be said more absolutely and directly contradictory to your Position than this is And yet again p. 250. speaking to that Scripture Heb. 8. 8. where the Apostle distinguishes of a better and a faulty of First and Second he saith Finding fault with them The days come when I will make a new Covenant with the House of Israel and with the House of Judah not according to the Covenant I made with their Fathers when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the Land of Egypt and as Ieremiah adds it for the Apostle takes all this out of Ier. 31. 31. although I was an Husband to them and in the close of all Your Sins and Iniquities will I remember no more Here are two Covenants a new Covenant and the Covenant he made with their Fathers Some may think it was the Covenant of works at the promulgation of the Moral Law but mark well that Expression of Ieremiah and you shall see it was the Covenant of Grace For saith he not according to the Covenant I made with their Fathers although I was an Husband unto them How can God be considered as Husband to a People under the Covenant of Works which was broken by man in innocency and so became disannulled or impossible by the breach of it The Covenant of Works runs thus Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things that are written in the Book of the Law and In the day thou sinnest thou shalt die the death Man had sinned before God took him by the hand to lead him out of the Land of Egypt and Sin had separated Man from God how then can God be called an Husband in the Covenant of Works The Covenant therefore was not a Covenant of Works but such a Covenant as the Lord became an Husband in and that must be a Covenant of Grace c. How the Doctor makes good his two distinct Covenants of Grace I see not nor expect ever to see proved and is not my present concernment to enquire but once it is evident by what he hath here said That the Ceremonial Law whereof Circumcision is a branch can be no other than the Covenant of Grace And nothing is more common among our Divines than to prove not only the Sinai Law but God's Covenant with Abraham Gen. 17. to be the Covenant of Grace by this Medium That God having entred into a Covenant of Grace with Abraham before would never bring him under a Covenant of Works afterwards which must nullify and void the former And beside such a Covenant of Works as you make this was never heard of in the World wherein God promises to be a God to Abraham and his Seed in their Generations upon the rigorous and impossible Terms of Adam's Covenant By this time I presume you must feel the force of those Arguments produced against your vain and groundless notion and how little you are able to do to deliver your Thesis from them but the more you struggle the more still you are intangled Go which way you will your Absurdities follow you as your Shadow haeret lateri lethalis arundo Leaving therefore all your Absurdities upon you till God shall give you more illumination and ingenuity to discern and acknowledge them I shall pass on to the examination of your third Position which led you into these other gross Mistakes and if God shall convince you of your Error in this point I hope it may prove a means of recovering you out of the rest which in love to your Soul I heartily desire III. Your third Position is That God's Covenant with Abraham Gen. 17. can be no other than the Covenant of Works because Circumcision was the Condition of it For say you the new Covenant is altogether absolute and unconditional Of the Conditionality of the New Covenant This Question Whether the Covenant of Grace be conditionate or absolute was moved as a learned Man observes in the former Age by occasion of the Controversy about Justification betwixt the Protestants and Papists Among the Protestants some denied and others affirmed the Conditionality of the Gospel-covenant Those that denied it did so for fear of mingling Law and Gospel Christ's Righteousness and Man's as the Papists had wickedly done before Those that affirmed it did so out of fear also lest the necessity of Faith and Holiness being relaxed Libertinism should be that way introduced But if the Question were duly stated and the sense of its Terms agreed upon the Gospel-Covenant may be affirmed to be conditional to secure the People of God from Libertinism without the least diminution of the Righteousness of Christ or clouding the Free-grace of God I did in my first Answer to your Call endeavour to prevent the needless trouble you have here given your self by a succinct state of the Question telling you the Controversy betwixt us is not 1. Whether the Gospel-covenant requires no duties at all of them that are under it nor 2. Whether it requires any such Conditions as were in Adam's Covenant namely perfect personal and perpetual Obedience under the penalty of the Curse and admitting no place of Repentance nor 3.

account to confute and destroy this Fancy and much more may be rationally urged against it Let the following Particulars be weighed in the Balance of Reason 1. Can we rationally suppose that Pardon and Acceptance can be affirmed or predicated of that which is not Reason tells us Non entis nulla sunt accidentia That which is not can neither be condemned nor justified But before the Creation or before a Man's particular Conception he was not and therefore could not in his own Person be the Subject of Justification Where there is no Law there is no Sin Where there is no Sin there is no Punishment Where there is neither Sin nor Punishment there can be no Guilt for Guilt is an Obligation to Punishment And where there 's neither Law nor Sin nor Obligation to Punishment there can be no Justification He that is not capable of a Charge is not capable of a Discharge What remains then but that either the Elect must exist from Eternity or be justified in time 'T is true future Beings may be considered as in the purpose and decree of God from Eternity or as in the Intention of Christ who died intentionally for the Sins of the Elect and rose again for their Justification But neither the Decree of God nor the Death of Christ takes place upon any Man for his actual Justification until he personally exist For the Object of Justification is a Sinner actually ungodly Rom. 4. 5. but so no Man is or can be from Eternity In Election men are considered without respect to Good or Evil done by them Rom. 9. 11. not so in actual Justification 2. In Justification there is a Change made upon the state of the Person Rom. 5. 8 9. 1 Cor. 6. 9 10 11. By Justification men pass from a state of Death to a state of Life Ioh. 5. 24. But the Decree or Purpose of God in it self makes no such actual change upon the state of any person It hath indeed the nature of an Universal Cause but an Universal Cause produceth nothing without particulars If our state be changed it is not by an immanent act of God Hence no such thing doth transire A mere velle non punire or intention to justify us in due time and order makes no change on our state till that time come and the particular Causes have wrought A Prince may have a purpose or intention to pardon a Law-condemned Traitor and free him from that Condemnation in due time but whilst the Law that condemned him stands in its full force and power against him he is not justified or acquitted notwithstanding that gracious intention but stands still condemned So is it with us till by Faith we are implanted into Christ. 'T is true Christ is a surety for all his and hath satisfied the debt He is a common Head to all his as Adam was to all his Children Rom. 5. 19. But as the Sin of Adam condemns none but those that are in him so the Righteousness of Christ actually justifies none but those that are in him and none are actually in him but Believers Therefore till we believe no actual change passeth or can pass upon our state So that this Hypothesis is contrary to Reason As this Opinion is Irrational so it is Unscriptural For 1. The Scripture frequently speaks of Remission or Justification as a future act and therefore not from Eternity Rom. 4. 23 24. Now it was not written for his sake alone that it was imputed to him but for us also to whom it shall be imputed if we believe on him c. And Gal. 3. 8. The Scriptures foreseeing that God would justify the Heathen through faith preached before the Gospel unto Abraham The Gospel was preached many years before the Gentiles were justified but if they were justified from Eternity how was the Gospel preached before their Justification 2. The Scripture leaves all Unbelievers without distinction under condemnation and wrath The Curse of the Law lies upon them till they believe Iohn 3. 18. He that believeth on him is not condemned but he that believeth not is condemned already And Eph. 2. 3 12 13. The very Elect themselves were by nature the Children of wrath even as others They were at that time or during that state of nature which takes in all that whole space betwixt their conception and conversion without Christ without hope without God in the World But if this Opinion be true that the Elect were justified from Eternity or from the time of Christ's death then it cannot be true that the Elect by nature are Children of Wrath without Christ without Hope without God in the World except these two may consist together which is absolutely impossible that Children of Wrath without God Christ or Hope are actually discharged from their Sins and Dangers by a free and gracious act of Justification But doth not the Scripture say Rom. 8. 33. Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's Elect If none can charge the Elect then God hath discharged them God hath not actually discharged them as they are Elect but as they are justified Elect for so runs that Text and clears it self in the very next words It is God that justifieth When God hath actually justified an Elect Person none can charge him 3. 'T is cross to the Scripture-order of Justification which places it not only after Christ's death in the place last cited Rom. 8. 33. but also after our actual vocation as is plain vers 30. Moreover whom he did predestinate them he also called and whom he called them he also justified and whom he justified them he also glorified Is it absurd to place Vocation before Predestination or Glorification before Justification sure then it must be absurd also to place Justification before Vocation the one as well as the other confounds and breaks the Scripture-order You may as well say men shall be glorified that were never justified as say they may be justified before they believed or existed So that you see the notion of Justification from Eternity or before our actual existence and effectual Vocation is a notion as repugnant to sacred Scripture as it is to sound Reason And as it is found repugnant to Reason and Scripture so it is highly injurious to Jesus Christ and the Souls of Men. 1. It greatly injures the Lord Jesus Christ and robs him of the glory of being our Saviour For if the Elect be justified from Eternity Christ cannot be the Saviour of the Elect as most assuredly he is for if Christ save them he must save them as persons subject to perishing either de facto or de jure But if the Elect were justified from Eternity they could in neither respect be subject to perishing for he that was eternally justified was never condemned nor capable of condemnation and he that never was or could be condemned could never be subject to perishing and he that never was nor could be subject

pardon The desert of Sin is Hell 't is an artifice of Satan to draw men to Sin by persuading them there is no great evil in it but none except Fools will believe it Fools indeed make a mock of Sin but all that understand either the intrinsick evil of it or the sad and dismal effects produced by it are far from thinking it a light or inconsiderable evil The sins even of Believers greatly wrong and offend their God Psal. 51. 4. and is that a light thing with us They interrupt and clog our Communion with God Rom. 7. 21. They grieve the good Spirit of God Ephes. 4. 30. Certainly these are no inconsiderable mischiefs 3. Now if there be sin in Believers and so much evil in their sins neither of which any sober Christian will deny then undoubtedly it is their duty to confess it freely mourn for it bitterly and pray for the pardon of it earnestly unless God have any where discharged them from those Duties and told them these are none of their concernments and that he expects not these things from justified persons but that these are Duties properly and only belonging to other Men. But on the contrary you find the whole current of Scripture running strongly and constantly in direct opposition to such idle and sinful notions For first 1. He hath plainly declared it to be his will that his people should confess their sins before him and strongly connected their Confessions with their Pardons 1 Iohn 5. 9. and frequently suspends from them the comfortable sense of forgiveness till their Hearts be brought to this duty Psal. 32. 5. compared with vers 3. 4. the more to engage them to this duty by the sensible ease and comfort attending and following it 2. He also enjoyns it upon them That they mourn for their Sins Isa. 22. 12. expresses his great delight in contrition and brokenness of spirit for sin Isa. 66. 2. To this man will I look even to him that is poor and of a contrite spirit Christ himself pronounces a blessing upon them that mourn Matt. 5. 4. Justified Paul mournfully confesses his former blasphemies persecutions and injuries done against Christ 1 Tim. 1. 13. So did Ezra Daniel and other eximious Saints Yes say some they did indeed confess their sins committed before their justification but not their after-sins According to Antinomian Principles I would demand If all the Elect were justified from Eternity what sins any of them could confess which they had committed before their Justification Or if they were justified from the time of Christ's death what were the Sins any of us have to confess who had not a being and therefore had not actually sinned long after the death of Christ But I hope none will deny that the mournful complaints the Apostle makes for Sin Rom. 7. 23 24. were after he was a sanctified and justified person 3. It is not the Will of Christ to exempt any justified person upon Earth from the Duty of Praying frequently and fervently for the remission of his sins This the most eminent Saints upon Earth have done The greatest favourites of Heaven have freely confessed and heartily prayed for the remission of sin Dan. 9. 4 19. And that the Gospel gives us no exemption from this Duty appears by Christ's injunction of it upon all his people Matt. 6. 12. Error V. To give countenance to the former Error they say That God sees no sin in Believers whatsoever sins they commit and seek a covert for this Error from Numb 23. 21. and Ier. 50. 20. In the former place it is said by Balaam He hath not beheld inquity in Iacob nor seen perverseness in Israel And in the other place it is said In those days and in that time saith the Lord the iniquity of Israel shall be sought for and there shall be none and the sins of Iudah and they shall not be found for I will pardon them whom I reserve Refutation Now that this Opinion of our Antinomians is Erroneous will appear four ways 1. By its repugnancy to God's Omniscience 2. By its inconsistency with his Dispensations 3. By its want of a Scripture-foundation 4. By its contradictoriness to their other Principles 'T is true and we thankfully acknowledge it that God sees no Sin in Believers as a Judge sees Guilt in a Malefactor to condemn him for it that 's a sure and comfortable truth for us but to say he sees no Sin in his Children as a displeased Father to correct and chasten them for it is an Assertion repugnant to Scripture and very injurious to God For 1. 'T is injurious to God's Omniscience Psal. 139. 2. Thou saith holy David knowest my down-sitting and my uprising and understandest my thoughts of afar off and art acquainted with all my ways Job 28. 24. He looketh to the ends of the Earth and seeth under the whole Heavens Prov. 15. 3. The Eyes of the Lord are in every place beholding the evil and the good Psal. 33. 14 15. From the place of his habitation he looketh upon all the Inhabitants of the Earth he fashioneth their hearts alike he considereth all their works He that denies that God seeth his most secret Sins therein in consequentially denies him to be God 2. This Assertion is inconsistent with God's Providential Dispensations to his People When David a justified Believer had sinned against him in the matter of Vriah it is said 2 Sam. 11. 27. The thing that David had done displeased the Lord and as the effect of that displeasure it 's said Chap. 12. 15. The Lord struck the Child that Uriah's Wife bare unto David and it was very sick Among the Corinthians some that should not be condemned with the World were judged and chastened of the Lord for their undue approaches to his Table 1 Cor. 11. 32. Now I would ask the Antinomian these two Questions 1. Qu. Whether it can be denied that David under the Old Testament and these Corinthians under the New were justified Persons and yet the former stricken by God in his Child with its sickness and death and the latter in like manner smitten by God in their own persons and both for their respective sins committed against God and yet God saw no sin in them Did God smite them for sin and yet beheld no sin them Beware lest in ascribing such strokes to god you strike at once both at his Omnisciency and Justice 2. Qu. How God upon Confession and Repentance can be said to put away his People's sins as Nathan there assures David he had done when in the mean time he saw no sin in him either to chastise him for or to pardon in him Do you think that God's A●flictions or Pardons are blind-fold Acts done at random how inconsistent is this with Divine Dispensations 3. This Opinion is altogether destitute of a Scripture-foundation 't is evident it hath none in the only places alledged for it It hath no footing at all in Numb 23. 21.

to perishing can never truly and properly be said to be saved If it be said the Elect were not justified till the death of Christ I demand then what became of all them that died before the death of Christ If they were not justified they could not be glorified for this is sure from Rom. 8. 30. That the whole number of the glorified in Heaven is made up of such as were justified on Earth Let men take heed therefore lest under pretence of exalting Christ they bereave him of the glory of being the Saviour of his Elect. 2. It bereaves him of another glorious Royalty The Scripture every-where makes our Justification the result and fruit of the meritorious death of Christ Rom. 3. 24 25. Rom. 8. 3 4. 2 Cor. 5. 19 20. Gal. 3. 13 14. Eph. 1. 7. But if men were justified from Eterternity how is their Justification the fruit and result of the blood of the Cross as it plainly appears from these Scriptures to be Nay 3. This Opinion leaves no place for the satisfaction of Justice by the Blood of Christ for our Sins He did not die according to this Opinion to pay our debts And here Antinomianism and Socinianism meet and congratulate each other For if there were no debts owing to the Justice of God from Eternity Christ could not die to pay them and 't is manifest there were no debts due to God's Justice from Eternity on the account of his Elect if the Elect were from Eternity justified unless you will say a person may be justified and yet his debts not paid for all Justification dissolves the obligation to punishment If there were any debts for Christ to pay by his Blood they must either be his own debts or the Elect's To say they were his own is a blasphemous reproach to him and according to this Opinion we cannot say they were the Elect's for if they were justified from Eternity their debts were discharged and their bonds cancell'd from Eternity So that this Opinion leaves nothing to the Blood of Christ to discharge or make satisfaction for 2. And as it hath been proved to be highly injurious to the Lord Jesus so it is greatly injurious to the Souls of men as it naturally leads them into all those wild and licentious Opinions which naturally flow from it as from the radical prolifique Error whence most of the rest derive themselves as will immediately appear in the II. Error That Iustification by Faith is no more but the manifestation to us of what was really and actually done before Or a being persuaded more or less of Christ's love to us And that when persons do believe that which was hid before doth then only appear to them Refutation As the former Error dangerously corrupts the Doctrine of Justification so this corrupts the Doctrine of Faith and therefore deserves to be exploded by all Christians That there is a manifestation and discovery of the special love of God and our own saving concernment in the death of Christ to some Christians at some times cannot be denied St. Paul could say Gal. 2. 20 21. Christ loved him and gave himself for him but to say that this is the justifying act of Faith whereby a Sinner passeth from condemnation and death into the state of righteousness and life this I must look upon as a great Error and that for these following Reasons Reason I. Because there be multitudes of believing and justified Persons in the World who have no such manifestation evidence or assurance that God laid their Iniquities upon Christ and that he died to put away their Sins but daily conflict with strong fears and doubts whether it be so or no. There are but few among Believers that attain such a persuasion and manifestation as Antinomians make to be all that is meant in Scripture by Justification through Faith Many thousand new-born Christians live as the new-born Babe which neither knows its own Estate or Inheritance to which it is born Vivit est vitae nescius ipse suae A Soul may be in Christ and a justified state without any such persuasion or manifestation as they here speak of Isa. 50. 10. And if any shall assert the contrary he will condemn the greatest part of the Generation of God's Children Now that cannot be the saving and justifying act of Faith which is not to be found in multitudes of believing and justified Persons But manifestation or a personal persuasion of the love of God to a Man's Soul or that Christ died for him and all his Iniquities are thereby forgiven him is not to be found in multitudes of believing and justified Souls Therefore such a persuasion or manifestation is not that saving justifying Faith which the Scripture speaks of That Faith which only justifies the person of a Sinner before God must necessarily be found in all justified Believers or else a man may be justified without the least degree of justifying Faith and consequently it is not Faith alone by which a man is justified before God Reason II. That cannot be the justifying act of Faith which is not constant and abiding with the justified Person but comes and goes is frequently lost and recovered the state of the Person still remaining the same And such contingent things are these persuasions and manifestations they come and go are won and lost the state of the Person still remaining the same Iob was as much a justified Believer when he complained that God was his Enemy as when he could say I know that my Redeemer liveth The same may be said of David Heman Asaph and the greatest number of justified Believers recorded in Scripture There be two things belonging to a justified state 1. That which is essential and inseparable to wit Faith uniting the Soul to Christ. 2. That which is contingent and separable to wit evidence and persuasion of our interest in him Those Believers that walk in darkness and have no light have yet a real special interest in God as their God Isa. 50. 10. Here then you find Believers without persuasion or manifestation of God's love to them which could never be if justifying Faith consisted in a personal persuasion manifestation or evidence of the love of God and pardon of Sin to a Man's Soul That cannot be the justifying Faith spoken of in Scripture which a justified Person may live in Christ without and be as much in a state of pardon and acceptation with God when he wants it as when he hath it But such is persuasion evidence or manifestation of a man's particular interest in the love of God or the pardon of his Sins Therefore this is not the justifying Faith the Scripture speaks of Reason III. That only is justifying saving Faith which gives the Soul Right and Title to Christ and the saving benefits which come by Christ upon all the Children of God Now it is not persuasion that Christ is ours but acceptance of him that gives us interest in Christ and the