Linguistic DNA - Concept Modelling Demonstrator

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
sin_n	gift_n	life_n	wage_n	3,267	5	10.5376	5	false

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
B22921	Justification onely upon a satisfaction, or, The necessity and verity of the satisfaction of Christ as the alone ground of remission of sin asserted & opened against the Socinians together with an appendix in vindication of a sermon preached on Heb. 2, 10, from the exceptions of H.W., in a pamphlet called The freeness of Gods grace in the forgiveness of sins by Jesus Christ / by Robert Ferguson.	Ferguson, Robert, d. 1714.	1668 (1668)	Wing F743; ESTC R37344	97,537	320

of it actual punishing with the principle whence it ariseth and proceeds actual punishing depends upon the divine decree but the inclination to punish is founded in the divine nature He adds that we men have a P. 12. natural right to our Limbs and he that maims us deserves to be punished yet notwithstanding we may forgive the offence Answ 1. There be cases wherein being wronged we cannot without injustice forgive but are bound to prosecute revenge upon the offender see pag. 53. of the former discourse 2. He argues from what a private person may do â—o what God who is the suâ—ream Rector and Governour â—ught to do whereas even â—mong men that which is lawâ—ull for a private person is not â—awfull for a Magistrate vid. â—bi supra 3. The Gentleman â—n this whole affair confounds â—us justitia power and equiâ—y We may have a physical â—ower to do that which we â—ave not a moral right to do â— Father may if we speak as â—o power connive at rebelliâ—n in his Son but it is moâ—ally wicked and destructive â—f Paternal Government to do â—o so here we do not argue â—bout the unlimited power of God what in a way of absoâ—uteness he may do but what in agreeableness to his â—ustice wisdom and holiness is â—it for him to do Whereas he adds that sins give P. 12. â—od a right to punish but that he may dispense with his right if hâ— please or else he were more impoâ—tent than we contemptible wormâ— are Answ 1. If this prove anâ— thing it will prove more thaâ— the Adversary desires namely that God may forgive thâ— obstinate and impenitent seeing we not only can but in somâ— cases are bound so to do buâ— the contrary hereof both Socâ—nus and Crellius affirm and I suppose the Disciple will not varâ— from his Masters 2. It is truâ— that he who sins gives God â— right to punish him and thaâ— God may remit his right buâ— then it must be upon term which may secure his honour now it is against his honouâ— to do it otherwise than upoâ— the conditions we alledge anâ— upon these we affirm that iâ— demonstration of his grace hâ— doth it Neither is it througâ— impotency that God cannot otherwayes act but through infiniteness of perfection His next assault is upon my P. 13. Argument from the nature of God and the account that the Scriptures give us of it in reference to sin â—nd sinners to which purpose I â—ited 2 Thes 1. 6 7. upon which â—e replyes that God is said to be â—ighteous in recompencing rest to â—hem who are troubled as well as â—ribulation to them who trouble â—ut forasmuch as that is not from â—he necessity of Gods nature but â—rom his merciful determination â—o neither is this from the incliâ—ation of his nature but the pleaâ—ure of his will Answ 1. God having proâ—ised to reward obedience â—annot without faileur in his veâ—acity and truth but perform â—t for though his promise was â—n act of grace yet the keeping â—f it is an act of justice and therefore the Scripture asserts that God cannot otherwise do without being false and unrighteous Heb. 6. 10. 2 Tim. 4. 8. and by consequence God having threatned to punish sin is obliged by his veracity to do no less his truth is as prevalent with him in the one case as iâ— the other so that this exception is so far from prejudicing us that it clearly overthrows his cause who brought it 2. God being infinitely good is enclined by his nature to love vertue and though it were noâ— against his justice not to rewarâ— it forasmuch as it is impossiblâ— that a creature should lay an obligation upon its maker yet iâ— is that which his wisdom and goodness will not admit him to do How much more then is iâ— contrary to his nature not to punish sin that being formally against his justice as well as unbecoming his wisdom 3. We affirm that there is a difference betwixt obedience and sin as to the point of ones being punished and the other rewarded for â—e owe the utmost of Service â—o God as we are his creatures â—nd withall there is that in the â—ature of duty which deserves â—hat it should be pursued but â—n the contrary sin is so far from â—eing a debt which we owe to God that he commands us on the â—ighest perill to avoid it and â—here is nothing in the nature â—f sin that should invite us to â—ommission of it and withall â— is contrary both to Gods naâ—re and government and â—erefore though God be obliâ—d by his nature to punish sin â—t he is under no such obligaâ—on to reward obedience obeâ—ence being a debt we owe to â—od as our maker and ruler â—ereas sin is both an opposing his nature and a rebelling against his Rectorship The Apostle asserts the same distinction Rom. 6. 23. for the wages of sin is death but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. The next attempt is upon my P. 13. arguing for the necessity of sins punishment from the sense and notion which the Heathens without revelation have of it Against which he excepts that the same light taughâ— them that God was merciful pardoning sin without a satisfaction Answ If we consider in thiâ— affair the sentiments of the Heathen our Adversaries havâ— clearly the disadvantage for iâ— is most certain that they believed God to be offended anâ— therefore sought by costly offerings lustrations c. to appeasâ— him 2. We readily granâ— that the Heathens had somâ— light of Gods being mercifulâ— herein he left himself nowhere without a witness Act. 14. 17. and the common discoveries which he made of his goodness were intended in a kind of objective way and had a great tendency and usefulness to that purpose to lead us to Repentance Rom. 1. 19 20. Rom. 2. 4. but that they had any notion of Gods pardoning sin without satisfaction we deny and challenge him to prove it if he can yea their whole Worship implyed the contrary to what end were all their Sacrifices but upon a steady belief of Gods being angry to attone him It is very remarkable that of all the parts and principles of justified Worship-Priesthood and Sacrifice made the largest spread there being scarce any People or Nation which hath arrived to our knowledge among whom we do not find some Prints and footsteps of them And though the Heathens mistook the right end of Sacrifices yet the first Rise of them among them was some traditional conveyance from the Church to whom God enjoyned them as Types of the great Sacrifice of the Messiah As to what the Gentleman alledgeth in reference to the Ninivites it is altogether impertinent 1. In that it was but Gods withholding of a temporal judgment and that also but for a time for about forty years after they were destroyed and their City taken and overthrown 2. All the mercy they could suppose in God was

to God by propitiation and attonement will receive further strength and light if we observe that this was the great truth and mystery which was signified and intended in the Aarenical Priesthood and Levitical Sacrifices That these did in their institution and end typifie the sacrifice of the Son of God the Holy Ghost puts out of question by calling them shadows Col. 2. 17. Heb. 8 5. Heb. 10. 1. figures Heb. 9. 9. patterns ibid. ver 23. ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ Now attonement and reconciliation is every where ascribed to these Levit. 4. 20. and 5. 6. and 6. 7. and 10. 11. Num. 5. 8. and 28. 22. and 31. 50. alibi And that not only in reference to some sins or to lesser sins but in reference to all sins to the veâ—y greatest Levit. 16. 21 22. Levit. 5. 1 2 3. 4 5 6 7 14. c. Num. 5. 6 Object If it should be objecteâ— that there were some sins froâ— which by the law of Moses theâ— could not be justified Acts 13. 39 and therefore that their sacrificeâ— did not serve to make attonement for all sins I Answer 1. All that the Apostle intends is that the sacrifices of the law could expiate no sin further than typically and that it was Christ whom they typified who could alone absolutely justifie from any sin The sacrifices of the law could not of themselves so much as attone for one sin Gal. 3. 13. but typically they serâ—ed to make attonement for every â—â—n The Jews in reference to whom â—he Apostle discourseth trustâ—d solely to sacrifices for righteâ—usness and life and in this he â—firms that they were mistaken â—â—d that it was only the blood â—â—d sacrifice of Christ which they â—gnified and shadowed that could â—ally free the conscience from the â—ilt of the least sin 2. It may be Answered that â—der the law there was a twofold â—ilt a Ceremonial and a Moral one external binding over the transgressour unto temporal punishment another spiritual binding over the offendor unto eternaâ— wrath Now sacrifices as theâ— were incorporated into their policy as well as a part of their worship were in many cases appointed anâ— accordingly served to deliver froâ— temporal guilt Heb. 9. 15. bâ— there were other cases whereiâ— they were not at all allowed to deliver from the temporal punishment Psal 51. 16. but accordinâ— to their political constitutions death was without mercy to â— inflicted on the offendor Noâ— says the Apostle these sins froâ— the temporal guilt of which aâ— your sacrifies could not dischanâ— you the blood of Christ is suâ—cient to acquite you from the eteâ—nal guilt even of those This objection being dischaâ—ed it stands established that â— tonement and reconciliation ascribed to sacrifices and that not only in reference to some sins but to every sin Now this expiation was not real but only typical all their sacrifices were not able to acquit them from the moral guilt of one sin Heb. 9. 9. and 7. 19. and 10. 4. For it is not possible that the blood of Bulls and Goats should take away sins But the sole intendment of all their sacrifices was to shaddow forth the great sacrifice of the Messiah and the atâ—onement and expiation which were to be made by it This will arrive with more light to the Reader if we present it in these three â—eads 1. Christ is our true Priest in â—atters pertaining to God whom all he other Priests did but shaddow All others were only called Priests â—ecause they represented him and â—utwardly by type expressed what â—e was really to accomplish and â—o and never one could do the proper work of a Priest namely make reconciliation for the sins of the people but he That he should be a Priest then only in a metaphorical sense is such a contradiction to Law and Gospel as it could not possibly receive the entertainment of any who had not first set themselves in opposition to the whole mystery of God but that Christ was properly a Priest may be many ways rendred evident 1. From the definition of a Priest properly so called Heb. 5. 1. Every high Priest taken from among men is ordained for men in thingâ— pertaining to God that he may offeâ— both gifts and sacrifices for sin That this is the definition of â— Priest properly so called is botâ— clear in the thing it self for if sucâ— a one as is here described be noâ— properly a Priest there was neveâ— a Priest properly so called in thâ— world as also in the Apostles aâ—commodating it ver 4. to Aaroâ— who was unquestionably a Priest in a proper and not in metaphorical sense Now that Jesus Christ is such a Priest as is here described is manifest in that all the parts of this description do admirably appertain to him he was taken from among men To this very end principally and none other did he partake of the humane nature Heb. 10. 5. He was also ordained for men see ver 5 6. and herein he excelled all other Priests that he was constituted only for others and not for himself Heb. 7. 27. Lastly he was ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices yea herein he transcended all other Priests that he had something of his own to offer other Priests had indeed something to offer but nothing of their own they only offered the bodies of beasts which the people brought them but Christ had a body given him to be at this own disposal to this purpose That this description of a Priest belongs properly to Christ yea that it is he whom the Holy Ghost principally describes may be put out of question by observing that the Apostle applies it ver 5. particularly to him 2. That Christ was properly a Priest may be further established from Heb. 8. 3. Every high Priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer Now if Christ be not truly a Priest this way of arguing is altogether impertinent for it might be easily replyed that though it be needful that a Priest properly so called should have somewhat to offer yet it is not necessary that he who is only metaphorically a Priest should have any thing to to offer for it is no ways needful that whatever appertains to that which is true and real should also appertain to that which is figurative and improper Though a man be a rational creature yet it doth not follow that the picture of a man should be so And therefore the Apostle by concluding that Christ behoved to have somewhat to offer because he was a Priest mvst needs intend that he was a Priest in a proper and not in a metaphorical sense 3. It appears further that Christ was truly and properly a Priest in that he was a Priest of a true and proper order namely of the order of Melchisedeck Psal 110. 4. Heb. 5. 10. and 7. 17. 21. I do not now dispute who Melch sedeck was all that I affirm is that

Selected quad for the lemma: sin_n

Text snippets containing the quad