Selected quad for the lemma: death_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
death_n let_v sin_n soul_n 7,266 5 5.2077 4 false
View all documents for the selected quad

Text snippets containing the quad

ID Title Author Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) STC Words Pages
A25203 A confutation of some of the errors of Mr. Daniel Williams by the Reverend Mr. Vincent Alsop in a letter to the Reverend Mr. Daniel Burgesse. Alsop, Vincent, 1629 or 30-1703. 1698 (1698) Wing A2906; ESTC R16041 13,942 28

There are 2 snippets containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

Brethren as in the late History of the Union p. 28. But that you may see what provokes me I will without Exaggeration set down some of his Erroneous Opinions in his own words Show their Agreement with the Tenets advanced by the Enemies to Christ's Truths and how strenuously the Learned and Reverend Father Alsop has in his Answer to a Socinianizing Gentleman I mean in his Anti-Sozzo confuted Mr. Williams Sect. I. About the Eternity of the Death threatned against Sin The Notion Mr. Williams hath Espoused about the Eternity of the Threatned Punishment is such as the Disciples of Episcopius and Men of the Racovian Twang have in their Attempts to subvert the Doctrine of Christ's Satis●action Advanced For as these Gentlemen do make the Threatned Death in its first Consideration to be Eternal as such so doth He whence it follows That Christ could not suffer the Punishment we Deserved because that was Eternal Death and Christ's Sufferings were but for a Time So Socinus in Crellius Id quod nos pati merebamur erat mors aeterna quam Christus nec sustinuit nec sustinere Decreto Divino obstante Potuit Crel Respons ad Grot. Cap. 9. Partic 1. And Curcellaeus Christus non est Passus mortem aeternam quae erat Poena Peccato Debita Nam paucis tantum horis in Cruce pependit tertia die Resurrexit ex mortuis quod nullam cum aeternitate Proportionem habet Relig. Christo Instit. lib. 5. cap. 19. Sect. 16. And so Mr. Williams The Threatning of the Law was Eternal Death as Eternal Eternity was an Ingredient in the Misery of Every Sinner-Man made Right p. 14. Father Alsop Let none say if Christ bore the Punishment due to sin he must suffer Eternal Death seeing no less was due to our Transgressions For 1. The Eternity of Punishment is only due to Sin by Accident as it is found in a Finite Person who being not able to bear at Once or in the Longest time that Wrath which his Sins have Demerited Divine Justice Exacts of him an Eternity of Suffering 2. Whereas sin is only Infinite or of Infinite Demerit Objective as committed against an Infinite God The Sufferings of Christ are also Infinite Subjective being the Sufferings of that Person who is God tho not as God and therefore Christ in a Finite Time was Able to give Infinite Satisfaction Anti-Sozzo p. 596. Sect. II. The Next Point is about a Change of the Penal Sanction of the Law An Error of such a Nature as hath a Fatal Influence on our Ministry and the Lives and Conversations of Men. For if the Penal Sanction of the Law be changed for another an Evangelical and less Severe Threatning then it must unavoidably Follow that the New Threatning cannot be against any but such as are Transgressors of that Law to which it is Annexed and the Eternal Curse only against them who do not so far Obey it as to get a Right and Title unto Glory so that Original Sin which was committed Antecedently to the giving of this Law falls not under its Lash and the Old Sanction being Vacated we who are only under the New not a Man of us is lyable unto wrath upon it's Account Nor doth any other Sin but Final Impenitence Regnant Hypocrisie and Vnbelief expose the Soul to Gods Curse The Drunkenness the Adultery the Murder of a David the Hypocrisie the Lying the Perjury the Envy the Malice and what sin soever else is in Mr. Williams's Opinion consistent with the Truth of Grace tho in the Lowest Degree falls not under the Curse of the Gospel If these Abominations are Committed by some of his Saints they cannot make 'em liable to Gods Wrath nor to any Curse at all if what he saith be true For the Preaching of the Old Law for Conviction of sin is a Crime As if the Apostle Paul when he said Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are Written in the Book of the Law to do them Gal. 3. 10. And when he Cryed out Rom. 7. 9. I was alive without the Law once but when the Commandment came Sin Reviv'd and I Dy'd had been at that time under the Old Jewish Dispensation For we have with Mr. Williams no other Law to Preach for Conviction of sin but the New Gospel Law Sir that I abuse not this Haughty Leader of our Brethren I will Prove that Crellius and He are one in this Opinion and that he differs from Father Alsop Crellius Mr. Williams I. Crellius That under the Gospel there are Abatements of Gods Anger against sin that most direful Sanction Cursed is every one that continueth not to do all things as in Gal. 3. 10. Deut. 27. 26. Is taken away and that softer one He that Believeth not shall be Damned set up in its Place Sub Evangelio sustulit severissimam illam Legis Mosaicae sanctionem Maledictus omnis c. Gal. 3. 10. c. Deut. 27. 26. Loco ejus hanc Reponens qui non credit c. Mar. 16. 16. John 3. 18 36. Crel de Deo Lib. 1. Cat. 23. But secondly Mr. Williams expresseth himself as cleverly in his Pref. to Gospel Truth Stated The Gospel hath another Sanction to the Preceptive Part of the Law than the Covenant of works had Tho nothing be Abated in the Rule of Sin and Duty yet Blessings are Promised to Lower Degrees of Duty He also tells us that the Threatning is not against Every Degree of Sin so in the Defence of Gospel Truth p. 30. The Gospel Law doth not Denounce Death for the same sins as Adams Law did That Law threatned Death for the least sin yea for one sin But the Gospel Threatens Death not for every sin Most of the threatnings in the Bible that refer to the State of Souls are Evangelical threatnings They are not by the Sanction of the Law of Innocence but of Gospel Grace Every Threatning used by God as an Argument to Conversion is a Gospel Threatning Gospel Truth p. 133 134. There is a Legal Preaching which is opposed to the Gospel and this indeed is a Crime And to that this Chapter Refers Then he sets it down as a Truth That the Legal Preaching which is a Crime is to Preach the Law as a Covenant of Innocency or Works The Real Difference between Doctor Cr. and himself is Whether it be Legal in the Culpable Sense to threaten such Penalties as are short of Damnation against such Offences as are Consistent with Sincerity and yet avoidable by Serious Care and Diligence This he denies It is not Legal Preaching saith he in a Culpable Sense to threaten such Penalties as are short of Damnation against such Offences as are Consistent with Sincerity But to Threaten these Sins with Damnation that is Legal Preaching which must not be endured And why must not the Sins which a Believer consistently with Sincerity commits be threatned with Damnation The Reason is Manifest The Sanction of the Law of
for One Sin but the Gospel threatens Death not for Every Sin Def of Gospel-Truth p. 30 Well then seeing the Gospel-Law doth not threaten Death against Every Sin and the threatning of Adam's Law is v●cated or at least Dispensed with Every Sin deserves not Death For though the Des●●t of and Obligation to Punishment are Distinct and the Obligation may be 〈◊〉 there is no Desert yet wherever the D●sert is there th● Punishment is due and the Pe●son obliged to undergo it till by an Ap●lication of Christ's Blood that Obligation be D●ss●lv'd ●he Sins which are Committed and Deserve Punishment if they Oblige not thereunto there is no need if t●ere is no R●●m for Pardon which lyeth in a Dissolving the Obligation For where there is no Obligation there can be no Dissolving it and where no ●hreatning there no Obligation for an Obligation to Punishment is by Vertue of the Threatning of the Law Thus he must hold That no Sins but Final Vnb●lief and Impenitence falling under the Threatnings of the Gospel-Law can need a Pardon and these he allows shall never be Pardoned or at least those Sins which are consistent with Sincerity or the Imperfections of our Faith Repentance and Obedience need not a Pardon because they fall under no Law Threatning against which Notion I may Justly set down what hath been Asserted by Father Alsop God is by Nature a Holy God as he is Governour of the World he is a Righteous Judge Sin is both contrary to his Holy Nature and his Holy Law And therefore as a Holy God he cannot but hate Sin as a Righteous Judge he cannot but Punish Sin And because this Sin is Inherent in and Committed by Man God hates the Sinner upon the account of his Sin his Person and his Best Services are an Abomination to the Lord. From Hence it follows That Sin being a Transgression of the Law in its Preceptive Part renders the Sinner Guilty that is Obnoxious and Liable to the Law in its Sanction to the Punishment Now this Righteous Judge will certainly Charge the Guilty Sinner with the Penalty due to his Sin But there is a way found out That he may not Impute to Sinners their Traspasses which is by Christ and as he adds by his being made Sin for us Anti-Sozzo p. 631. Mr. Williams That Legal Preaching which is a Crime is to Preach the Law as a Covenant of Innocency or Works Every Threatning used by God to Conversion is a Gospel Threatning Gospel Truth stated p. 222 and 133 134. So that it 's sinful to endeavour to Convince Men of their Sin and Misery by Preaching to them the Law of Works that is to say Adam's Law but we must confine our selves wholly unto the Gospel Law the very Error held by Agricola Islebius the Antinomian and Confuted by Luther Father Alsop The Law is God's Law and when it witnesses to a sinner it witnesses home convinces him of the Perfect Holiness of that God who gave the Law of the Peremptoriness of God in not Abating One Jot or Tittle of the Law of the sinners utter Inability to come up to the Demands of the Law and therefore the utter Impossibility of being Justified by the Law of the Severity of God's Justice in Punishing the Violaters of his Law and therefore unless he can find another Righteousness he must utterly perish 'T is true the Law speaks its Old Language still Do this aud live but then it speaks it only to those who are upon the Bottom of Innocency for to a Transgresser its Language is Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things Anti-Sozzo p. 544 In Rom. 7. 13. it 's said I had not known sin exc●pt the Law had said thou shalt not covet From whence I Argue By that Law which says Thou shalt not covet comes the Knowledge of sin Therefore by the Moral Law comes the Knowledge of sin The Major is the Apostle's own in the place last Quoted The Minor needs no Proof but that a Man be able to Read the Ten Commandments which is the Summ of the Moral Law the Tenth whereof is Thou shalt not covet Anti-Sozzo p. 538. The Knowledge of Sin being by the Law which saith Thou shalt not covet and which saith The Man that continueth not in all things is Accursed That we may Convince Men of their Sin and Misery and of the Necessity of Believing in the Lord Jesus that they may by his Righteousness Receiv'd by Faith be Justify'd We must Preach to them this Law and Denounce the Threatned Curse thereof This is the Doctrine of Protestants this the Doctrine Taught us by the Holy Apostles On the other hand if with Mr. Williams we must confine our selves in our Attempts to convince sinners unto the Gospel Law how can we charge them with the Guilt of Original Sin or Threaten Death against them for any other sins than their Unbelief and Impenitence An Error so Gross so Absurd and Pernicious to the Souls of Men that it becomes Every Good Man to Express his Abhorrence of it But as if the Design was That Men of our Way may Deservedly fail under the Reproach and Scandal of Sheltering supporting Aiding and Abetting a Real Antinomian who that he may cover his mischievous Purposes makes a frightful Out-cry against Antinomianism not a Man of our Number but your self that I know Opposes them so far as to lie under the Rage of these snarling Scriblers Sect. III. Of Procuring and Purchasing the Covenant of Grace One Great Point in Controversie between the Reformed Churches and the Remonstrants was Whether Christ by his Death did Procure Purchase and Merit a New Covenant of Grace The Remonstrants Positively Affirm'd That Christ did by the Merit of his Death and Satisfaction Procure and Enact a Covenant of Grace with sinners The Reformed Churches in Opposition unto them were as Express That Christ did not Merit the New Covenant of Grace but that he was the chief Blessing of this Covenant Promised in Gen. 3. 15. from whom all other Covenant Blessings such as Reconciliation with God Remission of Sins and Eternal Life did as from their Fountain flow That God in Renewing this Covenant with Abraham Isaac Jacob David and the other Patriarchs and Prophets in the Old Testament did first make mention of Christ as the Seed in whom their Posterity together with all Nations are Blessed That in regard hereunto it is that Christ is called a Mediator of the New Covenant Heb. 8. 6. ch 9. 15. ch 12. 24. For the Mediator of the New Testament and the Promise of this Mediator must belong to the New Covenant of Grace Judic Theol. Exteror de quinque Artic. Synod Dordrech Exhib an 1619. pag. 117 118. Now it must be yeilded That a Great Deal turns on this Point for from this Notion of the Remonstrants it doth saith the Learned Voetius Select Disp. Theol. Par. 2. not pag. 133. as Mr. Lobb in his Defence p. 23. cites it but pag.