Selected quad for the lemma: death_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
death_n	punishment_n	sin_n	wage_n	4,100	5	11.0461	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A49183	An apology for the ministers who subscribed only unto the stating of the truths and errours in Mr. William's book shewing, that the Gospel which they preach, is the old everlasting Gospel of Christ, and vindicating them from the calumnies, wherewith they (especially the younger sort of them) have been unjustly aspersed by the letter from a minister in the city, to a minister in the countrey.	Lorimer, William, d. 1721.	1694 (1694)	Wing L3073; ESTC R22599	321,667	222

him occasion to speak there of God's Law according to which he glorifies or damns men eternally and not of the Gospel-law according to which he either justifies or not justifies Men. But 2. We say that the Doctor 's Judgment was the same as to both to wit as to Justification as well as to Glorification and that 1. Because in his Answer to the foresaid Arminian Book called The Synod of Dort and Arles reduced to Practice Pag. 16. these are his express Words We say that Pardon of Sin and Salvation of Souls are benefits purchased by the death of Christ to be enjoyed by men but how not absolutely but conditionally to wit in case and onely in case they believe And Pag. 28. Men are called upon to believe and promised that upon their Faith they shall obtain the grace of remission of sins and Salvation and these graces may be said to be offered unto all upon condition of Faith And Pag. 189. The Promises assured by Baptism according to the Rule of Gods word I find to be of two sorts Some are of benefits procured unto us by Christ which are to be conferred on us conditionally they of this first sort are Justification and Salvation And Pag. 190. Justification and Salvation is promised in the Word and assured in the Sacraments upon performance of a condition on mans part Now the condition of Justification and Salvation we all acknowledge to be Faith And in his other Book against Hoard Some Benefits saith the Doctor are bestowed upon man only conditionally though for Christs sake and they are the pardon of sin and salvation of the Soul Twiss against Hoard p. 154. and these God doth conferr onely upon the condition of Faith and Repentance All these are the Doctor 's own express Words by which it plainly appears that his Judgment was the same with respect both to Justification and Glorification and that he held that God dispenseth to us both these benefits for Christs sake according to a Law 2. We say that the Doctor 's Judgment was the same as to both because there is the like reason for both and the Doctor 's own Argument holds for the Law of Justification as strongly as for the Law of Glorification since God hath as much constituted and ordained that all penitent Believers and none of ripe years but penitent Believers shall be justified as that all penitent persevering Believers and no others shall be glorified As it is written John 3.18 He that believeth on Christ the Son of God is not condemned but he that believeth not is condemned already Acts 3.19 26.18 because he hath not believed in the name of the onely begotten Son of God Luke 13.3 5. Except ye repent ye shall all likewise perish Acts 2.38 Repent and be Baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins Acts 10.43 To him give all the Prophets witness that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins Acts 13.39 By him all that believe are justified c. Rom. 3.25 God hath set him forth to be a propitation through faith in his Blood Rom. 4.24 It shall be imputed to us if we believe These Testimonies of Holy Writ do as certainly and evidently shew that God proceeds according to a stated Rule and standing Law of his own making in Justifying or not Justifying Men as any other Testimonies do shew that he proceeds according to a stated Rule and standing Law in Glorifying or not Glorifying Men. 3. We Answer that our wise Accuser in the end of the 18th and beginning of the 19th Pages of his Letter seems plainly to be as much against God's proceeding according to a Law in Glorifying Men or not Glorifying them at death as he is against God's proceeding according to a Law in Justifying them or not Justifying them before death Otherwise we would fain know what he means by saying that the Doctrine of Conditions Qualifications and Rectoral Government and the distribution of Rewards and Punishments according to the new Law of Grace will make but an uneasie Bed to a dying Man's Conscience and will leave him in a very bad condition at present and in dread of worse when he is feeling in his last Agonies that the wages of sin is death if he cannot by faith add the Gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. We profess we cannot see what our Authour should design by this passage but to reflect upon us as Subverters of the true Grounds of Christian Comfort and as driving People to despair by our Doctrine of God's being a Governour and Judge who distributes eternal Rewards and Punishments unto Men See Rev. 11.18 who live in the visible Church according to the Rule of the Evangelical Law and as he finds them to be qualified through Grace or not qualified to have performed the Condition or not to have performed the Condition to have complyed with the terms of the Evangelical Law or not to have complyed with them We say we cannot see what other design he should have therein but thus to reflect upon us And if this was really his design then he denies that God proceeds according to a Law as well in Glorifying or not glorifying as in Justifying or not Justifying Men And therein he opposes Dr. Twiss and all our other Divines that he knevv of as well as us And further upon that Principle that there is no such stated Rule and known standing Law according to vvhich God hath assured us that he vvill either give eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord or inflict eternal death We chalenge our Authour to shevv us hovv in an ordinary vvay vvithout a Miracle the dying disconsolate Man can be assured by Faith that God for Christs sake will give eternal life to him in particular and not inflict upon him eternal death for his Sins For if God have not revealed in his vvritten Word to Men that through Christ he vvill give eternal life unto all penitent Believers and consequently to that dying Man in particular if he be really a true penitent Believer We say if God hath not revealed this in his vvritten Word but kept it secret vvithin himself as a thing vvhich he vvill give arbitrarily as he pleaseth without regard to any stated Rule or knovvn Lavv hovv is it possible for the poor dying Man vvithout an immediate extraordinary Revelation to knovv but that eternal death vvhich he knovvs he hath deserved and not eternal life vvhich he cannot possibly deserve shall be his everlasting portion What depends upon the meer arbitrary will and pleasure of God can never be knovvn by Man unless God reveal it either by his vvritten Word alone or by his Word and Spirit conjunct or by his Spirit immediately vvithout the Word But the poor disconsolate Man can have no hopes that God will reveal it to him by his Written Word alone or by his Written Word and

were then any such foolish ignorant Christians in the World but in regard he was not acquainted with every individual Christian he did not absolutely deny it only he said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 perhaps there might be some such Christians in the World And if there were as there might be or not be some for ought he knew they were none of the right breed of Christians they were but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 foolish ignorant Christians 3. Origen acknowledges that that senseless Opinion did impute unto the Holy God a thing that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 most unjust 4. Therefore in the Name of the Christian Church he declares to Celsus That Christians believed that God pardons and receives into Favour no unconverted impenitent Man and that he rejects no good Man no penitent Believer 5. He declares that according to the Faith of Christians a Man must always repent before God pardon him and receive him into his Favour 6. That the Repentance which goes before Pardon and to which pardon is promised must be such as makes a real change in a Man's Heart and Soul and that the change is so great as that the Man greatly condemns himself on the account of his sins he mourns for them and turns from them unto the Lord in Heart and Affection yea it is so great as that the reigning power of sin is in a good measure broken and it is cast down from its Throne in the Heart 7. That upon this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God immediately grants unto the Man thus changed the graci●● bene●t and Feui● of his Repontance that is the pardon of his sins which in the very next Sentence Origen calls an Amnesty or an Act of Oblivion And here by the way those who are intelligent may see that we were in the right before when we said that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Grace of Repentance in Clement doth signifie pardon of sin as the Gracious Fruit of Repentance for here the self-same words are used by Origen where they are capable we think of no other meaning 7. Origen declares that if the Gracious Principle that comes to take possession of the penitent Believer's Soul be not at first a confirmed habit of Christian Vertue yet it is such as at that present time doth in a good measure purge out sin and for the time to come makes it well nigh impossible for sin ever to recover its power in and over the Soul again This Book of Origen against Celsus is acknowledged by all learned Men to be genuine and uncorrupted and so far as we know he was never yet taxed with errour by any Man for asserting ●● here he doth that Repentance is antecedently necessary to Justification and pardon of sin If our Authour have the confidence to affirm that he ever was by any mortal Man taxed with errour for this let him prove his assertion if he would be believed The same Doctrine was taught by Justin the Martyr writing in defence of the Christian Religion against a learned Jew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Justin Mart. Dialog cum Trypho pag. 370. Edit Paris● Anno 1636. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. So then saith ●ustin if they repent all that are willing to receive mercy from God they may and the Word hath before declared them to be blessed saying blessed is he to whom the Lord imputeth not sin And that is thus that whoso repenteth of his sins shall receive from God remission of sins but not so as ye deceive your selves and some others also that are like you in this matter who say that though they are sinners yet if they know God i. e. believe the Lord will not impute sin unto them We have a Testimony and Evidence of this in one of David 's sins which he fell into by his pride and vain-glory which was then forgiven when he had so wept and lamented as is written of him And now if Pardon was not granted to so great a Man 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 before he had repented but when that great King and anointed One and Prophet ●had wept and done such things 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 how cau filthy and foolish witless Men or Men quite out of their right mind unless they lament mourn and repent have hope that the Lord will not impute sin unto them Here it is observable that Justin Christ's blessed Martyr Fifteen Hundred Years agoe positively denies that God pardons Sinners before they repent and declares that they deceive themselves that they are desperate or witless Creatures quite out of their right mind who perswade themselves that if they know God he will pardon their sins before they repent mourn for and turn from their sins About the beginning of the Third Century Tertullian in his Book of Repentance Chap. 4. writes thus Omnibus delictis c. that is The same God who by his righteous Judgment hath ordained punishment for all sins that are committed either in the Flesh or Spirit either in the outward Deed or inward Will and Desire hath also promised pardon by Repentance saying to the People Repent and I will save thee And again As I live saith the Lord I had rather Repentance then Death Therefore Repentance is Life that is it is the way and means to Life since it is preferred before or more desired than death And a little after Poenitentia quae per Dei gratiam ostensa indicta nobis in gratiam nos Domino revocat Repentance saith he which by the grace of God is revealed to us and commanded brings us into Favour again with the Lord that is Repentance is a means and condition of God's own appointing upon the use and performance whereof we are received again into favour with the Lord. And after the middle of the same Book desertam dilectionem Ephesiis imputat c. The Lord imputes unto the Ephesians that they had left their first Love he upbraids them of Thyatira with Fornication and eating of things sacrificed to Idols He accuses them of Sardis that their works were not perfect before God he reproves them of Pergamus for teaching perverse Doctrine he rebukes the Laodiceans for trusting that they were rich and needed nothing And yet he admonishes them all to repent with threatnings indeed but he would not threaten to punish the impenitent if he were not willing to pardon the penitent and saith if any doubt of this for the removing of such doubts illum etiam mitissimum patrem non tacebo qui prodigum filium revocat c. I will not forbear to mention that most meek Father in the parable who calls back his Prodigal Son and after his poverty and distress gladly receives him upon his Repentance kills the fatted Calf adorns his Joy with a Feast and why not For he had found his Son whom he had lost and he had felt his love to be the greater towards him because he had regained him Now whom must we understand by

if he be ignorant of this matter of fact let not his ignorance make him boldly deny it before he know what evidence there is for the Truth of it We give him these two Arguments to prove the Truth of this matter of fact that Pelagius denyed universal Redemption 1. It is known and acknowledged by all who have any understanding of these matters and our Author himself knows it That Pelagius denyed Original sin from whence it follows by necessary Consequence that he must needs also deny Universal Redemption of all Mankind For Infants that dye in their Infancy before they commit any actual sin are a considerable part of Mankind the Infants who from the beginning of the World have dyed and who daily do dy and hereafter will be dying to the Worlds end and that both within and without the Church before they commit any actual sin will make up a vast number even many Millions of the race of Mankind But Pelagius denyed that these Infants who so dye in their Infancy have any sin either Original or Actual to be redeemed from and therefore he must needs deny also that they were Redeemed and consequently he must needs deny universal Redemption of all Mankind Where there is no manner of sin there is no manner of punishment due for sin and consequently no room for Redemption by the Blood and Death of Christ either from sin or punishment But Pelagius denied that Infants who dy in their Infancy have any manner of sin or that any manner of punishment is due to them for their sin Therefore Pelagius denyed that such Infants are Redeemed by the Blood and Death of Christ either from sin or punishment and consequently he denied universal Redemption 2. Our Second Argument to prove the truth of this matter of Fact is from the testimony of Augustin who is a very competent witness because he lived at the same time with Pelagius and wrote against him and confuted his Errors and Heresies Now Augustin in his writings against Pelagius and his Disciples testifies plainly that they denyed universal Redemption on the account aforesaid For thus he writes Contra duas Epistolas Pelagianorum lib. 2. ad Bonifacium cap. 2. Manichaei dicunt Deum bonum non omnium naturarum esse creatorem Pelagiani dicunt Deum non esse omnium aetatum in hominibus mundatorem salvatorem liberatorem Catholica utrosque redarguit c. The Manicheans say That the good God is not the Creator of all natures The Pelagians say That God is not the Purifier the Saviour the Deliverer or Redeemer of all Ages among men But the Catholick Church refutes them both defending both against the Manichaeans the Creature of God least any nature should be denyed to be made by him and also against the Pelagians that the human nature which is lost in all Ages might be sought out and saved Again the same Augustin in several other of his Books proves against the Pelagians from 2 Cor. 5.14 both that all mankind even Infants who dy in their Infancy Lib. 20. de Civit. dei cap. 6. contra Julian lib. 6. cap. 4. are guilty of Original sin and also that in some sense all are Redeemed by the death of Christ In the Second Book of his imperfect Work against Julian a Pelagian Bishop Chap. 28. having alledged 2 Cor. 5.14 15. We thus judge that if one died for all then were all dead And that he died for all c. He adds Unde colligitur quod dicit Apostolus ergo omnes mortui sunt pro omnibus mortuus est Dic apertè mortui parvuli non sunt qui peccatum nullum habem morte pro se Christi in quâ baptizentur non opus habent Jam dic evidenter quod latenter sentis quoniam sa●is prodis tuâ disputatione quod sentis From which words we gather or inferr for what the Apostle saith Therefore all are dead and he Christ died for them all say plainly Infan●s are not dead who have no sin They have no need of the death of Christ for them into which they should be baptized Now speak out evidently that which thou thinkest secretly for thou do'st sufficiently discover by thy Disputation what it is that thou thinkest By this and the forgoing passage of Augustin it is very evident that the Pelagians first denied that Infants had any Original sin Secondly That Christ died for Infants to Redeem them either from sin or punishment of sin For though they declined to speak out and say plainly that Christ died not for Infants yet they really believed and held it for a truth that he did not dy for Infants to Redeem them because they were not guilty of any evil either of sin or punishment from which they could be Redeemed By these two Arguments our Author and others may plainly see that the Pelagians denied universal Redemption by the blood-shedding and death of Christ And this being so how is it possible that we should be middle-way-men who hold universal Redemption and yet that our cause should be Coincident with that of Pelagius who denied universal Redemption Surely our Author cannot think both these things to be true of us without supposing us to believe both parts of a contradiction at once But whatever he himself may be able to do as to believing of contradictions he is greatly mistaken if he think that we have so strong a Faith or so wide a Swallow For we that know our selves much better than he doth declare sincerely that we were never Masters of such a Faith as can believe known contradictions and that we could never make both ends of a contradiction meet so as to be able to swallow them down both at once Either then our Author knew that the Pelagians deny Original sin and universal Redemption or he knew it not if he knew that they deny both how can he be excused from lying against his Conscience in telling the World in Print such a known untruth and contradictious falshood that we are Middle-way-men and that our cause is Coincident with that of Pelagius that is that we are for the middle-way and the extreme way for the middle-way and not for the middle-way at the same time But if he knew not what the cause of Pelagius was and is with what Faith and Conscience could he say that our cause is Coincident or is the same with the cause of Pelagius Is it lawful for him and his judicious Observers to defame the Ministers of Christ and to charge them with Pelagian Heresie and Confederacy with Pelagian Hereticks when they do not well know what the Pelagian Heresie was Hath our Author a priviledge boldly to affirm what he doth not know nor understand And is he fit to inform the people of that which he is ignorant of and wherein he needs to be informed himself We expect the People for whose Information he pretends to write will be more just and reasonable than to believe the Calumnies