Selected quad for the lemma: death_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A66342
|
An answer to Mr. J. Humphrey's second printed letter wherein he publisheth Mr. Lob's objections against Mr. W's books.
|
Williams, Daniel, 1643?-1716.
|
1695
(1695)
|
Wing W2644A; ESTC R30208
|
9,049
|
10
|
if God were a Creditor and Sin a Debt God might forgive without Satisfaction and if the Idem be paid it 's not a Satisfaction nor is there room for Pardon nor for Gospel-terms See this urged by Leideker Synopsis Theol. l. 4. cap. 6. S. 4 5 6 7. 11. 20. 45. B. Stillingfleet Suff. of Christ Cap. 1. Grotius de Satisf p. 60. 71. Essen Trium Crucis 340. 390. Dr. Owen of Satisf 141. saith they are the most improper Expressions in this matter 5. Obj. There is no change of Person between Christ and the Elect or between him and Believers Gospel Truth p. 37. 41. Ans 1. If by change of Person be meant simply a change of Persons or Men that is that Sinners were to dye for their Transgressions but Christ by God's Appointment and his own Consent was substituted to obey and dye in Sinners stead and Christ stood obliged so to Obey and Suffer what for substance the Law required I have hundreds of times asserted it in my Books I have not room to instance See in Man made Righteous Eight Propositions clearing this In one I say Divine Grace and Soveraignty exert themselves to answer the ends of the Law by substituting Christ a Saviour of lost Souls c. p. 11 12 13. Ans 2. The change of Person I there denyed is only that which Dr. Crisp and Followers assert and which is the strict meaning of a change of Person viz. A mutual compleat change of Condition and Character and not a transferring a Punishment from a Criminal to an Hostage This is evident 1. By the Error I there confute i. e. that every Elect Person is as Righteous as Christ there is a perfect change of Person and Condition between Christ and the Elect He was what we are and we are what he was viz. perfectly Holy c. Christ himself is not so compleatly Righteous but we are as Righteous as he nor we so compleatly Sinful but Christ became as sinful as we c. That very sinfulness that we were Christ is made that very Sinfulness before God So that there is a direct change of Person 2. It 's plain that I denyed this change of Person in Crisp's sense by what I offer to overthrow it wherein nothing opposeth Christ's dying in our stead by God's Substitution or Surrogation My words are Christ was the Saviour we the saved and not the Saviours Christ was the Redeemer and not the Redeemed we are the Redeemed and never the Redeemers Christ was he who by his Merits forgives us but never was forgiven we are forgiven and never had Merits of our own to forgive our selves or others He was the dying Sacrifice 3. I do in the very Chapter whence the words are objected oft assert as much as the Orthodox intend by Christ's being substituted in our place to dye for us To instance a few of many p. 39. Christ's Sufferings were so in our stead that God cannot exact from us any other Atonement for Sin or meriting Price of any Gospel-Blessings p. 43. The Efficient Merit of Justification is in Christ the Effect of the Judicial Absolution for that Merit is in us Had not he obeyed and suffered for us we could not have been absolved for the sake of his Obedience and Sufferings P. 52. Christ suffered in our stead that the Fruit of his Sufferings might be our deliverance from Sufferings and our being saved at last How many might I add out of that very Chapter It 's worth the Objector's leisure to consider how he lays such stress on a change of Person in Crisp's sense and yet contends for Christ and us being one Legal Person How could Christ and we be One Person in Law and yet Christ's Person and our Persons be mutually changed in Law unless that both Persons were changed from what they once were into a tertium quid that neither were before 6. Obj. There is a change of the Penal Sanction of the Law Pref. Gospel-Truth The Gospel doth not denounce Death for the same sins and for every sin as Adam's Law did Def. Gosp Truth p. 30. Ans 1. The first Clause is false represented I will recite my words After I had said the Gospel includes the Moral Preceptive part of the first Law c. And that the Gospel is taken in a large sense when I say it includes the Moral Precepts But yet the Gospel doth so and they are the Commands of a Redeemer as well as the Law of a Creator I then added The Gospel hath another Sanction to the Preceptive part of the Law than the Covenant of Works had Though nothing be abated in the Rule of Sin and Duty yet Blessings are promised to lower degrees of Duties and a continuance in a state of Death with a Bar to the Blessing are not threatned against every degree of Sin as the Covenant of Works did doth it threaten Damnation or a continuance therein on any true Penitent Believing Godly Man because he is imperfect Sir judge you is a Change of the Penal Sanction of the Moral Law the same as the Gospel hath another Sanction to the Preceptive part of the Law as those Precepts are taken into the Gospel May not the Law have its own Sanction still as a Covenant of Works And yet the Gospel have another Sanction as a Covenant of Grace though it includes the Moral Precepts as a Rule of Duty It seems the Objector thinks with his Associates either the Gospel hath neither Precept Threatning nor Conditional Promise Or if it hath a Sanction it 's this that though a Man be a sincere Penitent Believer yet he shall dye if he be guilty of one evil Thought and shall not be saved if he be not Perfect Answ 2. As to the second Clause my words were The Gospel Law doth not denounce death for the same Sins as Adam's Law did That Law threatned Death for the least Sin yea for one Sin The Gospel doth not bar every Sinner from relief but the impenitent unbelieving and utterly ungodly Hypocrite And it binds not damnation on us unless we are finally impenitent Unbelievers But the Objector wisely leaves out the last part to traduce me by the first 7. Obj. Christ purchased the Covenant of Grace Answ I speak not of God's decree or purpose but of the actual promulgated Promise to the World that he that believeth shall be saved And I can as soon think God might perform this Promise without respect to Christ's Merits as not provide for the Glory of his Justice by Christ's satisfaction in the making this Promise 8. Obj. The Condition of the Covenant of Grace is an antecedent condition Answ My words quoted from Mr. Flavel are An antecedent Condition signifies no more than an act of ours which though it be neither perfect in every degree nor in the least meritorious of the benefit nor perform'd in our own natural strength Yet according to the constitution of the Covenant it is required of us in order
And what if some Socinians use some Expressions in a sence contrary to that wherein I plainly use them They do also own a Commutation of Person and then they must be Socinians by as strong a Consequence who use that phrase If I have not in my Books said enough to clear me from all suspicion of that Error the objector's Malice must be the standard of Socinianism and not the fundamental positions which have by all its Celebrated opposers been hitherto confuted To omit Christ's eternal Generation as the Son of God of one Essence with the Father which I oft assert Could I say more as to his Satisfaction than I have ex professo done and oft with enforcing Reasons See Man made Righteous p. 7 9 10 11 12 15 16 35 to 42 229 c. I place the necessity of satisfaction in God's essential justice I describe it by Christs perfectly obeying the Law of Works in its essentials and doing much more as also in his suffering death in our stead I assert his Sufferings to be Punishments satisfactory to justice for our Sins that Christ was a proper Sacrifice and himself the Priest that offered it on earth I make his Obedience properly meritorious of all our saving Benefits himself a proper 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in his death with much more which I challenge him to prove consistent with Socinianism But some Men think they can gain a point among their Credulous silly Admirers by branding with a scandalous name all they bear an ill will to if not affright the Persons injured or at least their Friends But I bless God I have found more of his defence and am more assured of the goodness of my Cause than to be affrighted from my Duty by such Bug-bears And should all they of the same judgment with me expose the truth by little arts and trimming methods in pretence of designs never so plausible I shall have peace when my testimony is faithfully given as occasion shall offer by whatever implacable rage I am pursued I conclude Sir blameing your Credulity in Printing things as mine before Examination tho in most you declare your self to be of my side and in the rest farther from my Enemies Nor perceive I your Author's self-denial or peaceableness unless you think because I have been so injured therefore I must still by farther Suffering justify the injurious and bear the name of a hinderer of the Union because they who never were of it persecute me for my diligence in making and care to preserve that Union against their various and unwearied attempts from the first to break it And let me tell you that as they rested not till by their Errours noise of Doctrines and other Arts they had gained several to make this breach so a Compliance even to the allowing their Errours and Sacrificing the truth to their Lusts would be insignificant to bring such into the Union who refused it long before any of my Books were written or firmly restore such who by their influence deserted it unless God give a Spirit that shall prefer publick good to little designs and encline to Love and Peace above Division and Wrath. Experience of the unsuccessfulness of many overtures for Peace a narrative whereof would amaze the World induceth this Conjecture And yet no hardships I have endured shall abate a desire of a solid Union upon honest Terms You will find Dr. B's Mr. H. and Mr. A design no more than what 's agreeable to what I affirm and they hate the Errours I oppose And which tho so dangerous M. L. for Partysake will promote by blasting my Confutation and pressing an implicit disowning my Books as a term of Union with those who rejected it as sinful long before my Books were written Yea who influenced the dividing of P. Hall Lecture to break the Fond for poor Ministers that both these added to their stated seperate Meeting of Ministers at the same hour the United Brethren met a perfect Breach might be proclaimed And for a Grave-stone over it the only four Pastors in London who never came into the Union are with two more the only Lecturers at P. H. Could then the Subscribes to my Book be so false to Truth and their Ministry as to abate their Testimony Will a general Union ensue No Unless the Dissenters former Declaration against it were a Trick Why then so insisted on It 's because it will not be yielded to and so they get an Excuse long after this Subscription why they United not before it Or if complyed with then besides a Countenance to their Errors Men will judge the Presbyterians cause these Divisions altho they ask nothing of the Dissenters but to meet with them and be quiet And Lastly the English and Foreign Churches would affix the Crispian dotages to the Presbiterians for thus revoking their Testimony against them A Censure of which sort on a lighter occasion was going into the Press just as my Book so Subscribed came out I am Your Brother and Servant 〈◊〉 WILLIAMS