Selected quad for the lemma: spirit_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
spirit_n	law_n	life_n	sin_n	22,698	5	5.7840	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A55108	A plea for the late accurate and excellent Mr. Baxter and those that speak of the sufferings of Christ as he does. In answer to Mr. Lobb's insinuated charge of Socinianism against 'em, in his late appeal to the Bishop of Worcester, and Dr. Edwards. With a preface directed to persons of all persuasions, to call 'em from frivolous and over-eager contentions about words, on all sides.	Lobb, Stephen, d. 1699.; Baxter, Richard, 1615-1691.	1699 (1699)	Wing P2521; ESTC R217330	67,965	145

the Imputation of Injustice upon the Holy God 6. Yet again According to this Notion How can the Eternal Damnation of any Soul consist with Divine Justice This Surety is a Punishment with a witness but how can it be a righteous one if it be not due And it cannot be due to any Man if it be already paid and every Man has paid it if his Surety have done it I see not upon this Principle how God can in Justice Damn any individual Soul Here then is Universal Redemption and Universal Grace beyond the utmost stretch of Arminianism it self What! is it then not only possible that they may but is it also certain that all shall be Sav'd from Everlasting Perdition Is there not only a Sufficiency of Grace afforded to all but that Efficacious Influence that will secure the Effect Is God not only unwilling to Damn any but is He also unjust unrighteous if He do 'T is strange then that we should read of a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rom. 2. 5. and an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Heb. 2. 2. Certainly a Threatning us with Wrath because of God's righteous Judgment and with Remediless Ruine as a just Recompence of Reward cannot but intimate That God wou'd be Righteous and Just tho' careless obdurate Sinners shou'd finally perish Nay while we are assur'd That Sodom and Gomorrah Jude v. 7. and many others suffer the vengeance of Eternal Fire and that God has not only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Power Ability Mat. 10. 28. but also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Power Authority Luke 12. 5. to cast into Hell those and many like Texts cannot be more true than this Opinion is false that wou'd infer God cannot Punish cannot cast into Hell were unjust if He shou'd do it yea such a Notion must needs be false that these Sacred Scriptures may be true 7. I 'll add but one more absurd Consequence of this Opinion though many more might be subjoyn'd and that is That the Patrons of this Principle do hereby greatly obscure and lessen that Free-Grace in Christ which they so highly pretend to Exalt and Magnifie When they have seem'd to advance Free-Grace beyond all others to cry up Gospel-Grace and Gospel-Preaching they do at length subvert all Purely-Gospel-Grace at once and necessarily resolve the Whole of Divine Grace into the Constitution of the Law of Works For supposing with them that Christ's Name was put into the Original Bond supposing that Law did take in Christ as Surety with us 't is not of Grace but Justice that God is reconcil'd to us or that we are accepted with Him it shou'd not be said that we are Justify'd freely by his Grace but that the Rigour of the Law did exact nothing more and therefore our Justification was a due debt 't was what was owing to us by Governing Justice the Righteous God cou'd not Condemn us having already exacted the threatned Punishment at our Surety's Hands Now is it so Adorable so Surprizing Grace that God shou'd be just to his own Law Is it so very Astonishing and Wonderful a thing that God shou'd be true to his Word Thus after all their Pretences of a more exalted Admiration of and Value for Divine Grace they do by this Notion shrink it into so narrow a Compass as the Framing the Original Law and as for all that which the Gospel magnifies as Grace they render it nothing other than pure Justice all Gospel Grace shou'd with them if they will consist with themselves be nothing differing from a due Debt tho' the Apostle does so carefully contra-distinguish and oppose 'em to each other Rom. 4. 4. § 5. 2. If Christ did suffer by Vertue of the violated Law then his Sufferings were most strictly the same that we were obnoxious to this is as plain as that the Sanction of the Law was the same with it self But is it to be admitted that our Lord Jesus Christ was alienated from the Life and Love of God! that He was dead in trespasses and sins deserted of the Spirit of Holiness was his Soul over-run with outragious and impetuous Lusts All which under one consideration is our Punishment tho' under another respect it be also our Sin Or was the Lord Jesus hated abhorr'd of the Father Did He lose all right to and Interest in God's Favour and Kindness Did He bear the stinging Reflections of a guilty Conscience the horrors of a despairing damned wretch in Hell This is but part of the Punishment included in the Threatning against us but what Pious Soul wou'd not rise with Indignation against any one that shou'd so far Blaspheme the Holy and ever-blessed Redeemer as to say this was his Case his State And if He did not suffer what that Law threatned it cannot be said that He suffer'd by vertue of that Law It remains then that He did only suffer by vertue of the Law of Mediation as before § 6. 3. Then the Law oblig'd him to suffer whereupon it wou'd follow that neither He cou'd refuse the Undertaking nor God refuse to accept it as Punishment but this I shall but mention here § 7. We are next to obviate the seeming Reasonings of this Accuser against this Truth and what he does loosely and immethodically enough offer here and there to this purpose we shall endeavour to reduce into some Order that it may appear with all the force it has against us and be more capable of receiving a just Reply And 1. He does insinuate That Christ's Sufferings cannot otherwise be an Act of Rectoral Justice but only Acts of Obedience and Dominion Take his own Words We are of Opinion That Sufferings which are not from the Obligations of a Violated Law cannot be an Act of Rectoral Justice which does Essentially respect the Law in its Distributions If a Rector sentenceth any to Sufferings without a regard to Sin it is Unjust Appeal p. 7. And again If Mr. B. resolve Christ's Sufferings wholly into a Conformity to the Precept of the Mediatorial Law they can be but Acts of Obedience and Dominion not Acts of Justice p. 50 51. So he goes on p. 52. They affirm 'em to be but Acts of Obedience and consequently Acts of Dominion not of Punitive Justice So again p. 54. The Sufferings of Christ cou'd not be a Judicial Act of God He Christ cou'd not be Condemn'd nor cou'd Sentence pass upon Him nor according to any Sentence cou'd He be executed for where no Obligation to Punishment by the Sanction of the Law there no Guilt in any Sense where no Guilt no Condemning no Passing a Sentence justly no Execution c. And P. 56. His Sufferings cou'd be but an Act of Dominion Now to all this we Answer 1. That He is so Confus'd and Unsteady in the Forming this Objection that we can hardly so much as guess what it is he means Sometimes he speaks of the Sufferings of Christ as an Act of Rectoral Justice and a Judicial Act of God where one

require only that either Christ or we shou'd suffer not that both shou'd now then where is the danger the Psalmist was so apprehensive of And whence is it that he does elsewhere so earnestly deprecate God's Judicial Process Psal 143. 2. Enter not into judgment with thy servant for in thy sight shall no man living be justify'd It must needs be either that the Psalmist or these Men have very greatly misapprehended the Sense of that Law for that according to him if God shou'd judge us by that Law no man living cou'd be justify'd whereas according to them though God shou'd judge us by that Law we cannot but be Justify'd for when the threatned Penalty is inflicted the most rigorous Justice can go no further we are Recti in Curia when the Law is satisfy'd no further charge can have place against us 3. Yea further it follows That we never had as indeed we cou'd never need a Pardon The Case will be very plain by a familiar Instance Suppose two Persons jointly bound for the Payment of a certain Sum of Money or for the performance of any other Condition or Contract if either Party pay the Money or discharge the Bond the other is quit in Law and the Creditor cannot be said to have forgiven him Justice it self is so far from requiring that it wou'd not admit of double Payment Now then if Christ was in the same Bond with us if either He or we suffer the Debt is Paid the utmost Demands of Justice are answer'd what place is there then left for Forgiveness Can a Penalty be said to be forgiven that was not due or can it be yet due when 't is already paid and is it not in Law paid if either the Principal or Surety pay it Upon this Principle then it is plain That God cannot be said to have forgiven us to have been gracious to us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For tho' Socinus did as Grotius has manifested Argue from those Terms with great weakness against all Satisfaction yet nothing can with greater force and evidence disprove a full and proper Solution What shall we then say to those numerous Texts where we and our Sins are said to be forgiven Hereupon the Gospel-Covenant as offering Remission Luke 24. 47. and the Sacraments of the Gospel as Sealing it to Sincerely Penitent Believers Acts 2. 38. Mat. 26. 28. are render'd meer Impertinencies and can it be thought these Persons do ever pray for Pardon or that they do account themselves beholden to God for it how they can consistently with this their Opinion I see not 4. Moreover this Doctrine renders our Repentance and all Obedience of our's needless and a continued course of the most enormous wickednesses wou'd hereupon be unhurtful to us If these Persons will be consistent with themselves it seems necessary for 'em to say as Dr. Crisp that Sin can do us no hurt and Holiness can do us no good Upon this Principle what hurt can Sin the grossest wickedness do us Suppose a Person an Atheist a Blasphemer an Adulterer that he live and die such in this case it can only be said The Law was violated and therefore the Threatning must take place But if this Notion be true that the Law threatens only that either the Sinner or Christ shall die it cannot touch such a Creature as this it having been already executed And alike needless must it needs render Holiness and Obedience in all the Instances of it for to what purpose is it can it be suppos'd to be needful if he may be accepted with God if he may be Rectus in curia without it 5. Again If this Principle be admitted none of our sufferings wou'd consist with the Justice of God for that according to them the Law did oblige only Christ or us to suffer if either suffer therefore full Payment is made the Law has no farther demands to make how is it then that we notwithstanding suffer that we are subjected to any Sufferings Spiritual or Temporal not to make any mention here of Eternal ones Whence is it that God with-draws the Quickning or Comforting Influences of his Spirit from any Whence is it that He gives up any to their own Hearts Lusts Whence is it that any are expos'd to the fiery Darts of the wicked one Or yet that the Arrows of the Almighty do wound do stick fast in any Soul Or if we shou'd yet come lower how unaccountable were it that we shou'd groan under pining Sicknesses noisom Diseases racking Pains and at length yield to Death It will perhaps be pleaded That God may inflict all these Evils and many more at pleasure as being Absolute Lord of his Creatures but it shou'd be remembred That having given us a Law He is become our Ruler and thereby He does declare That He will not however antecedently thereto He might have Arbitrarily inflicted any Evil upon us The very giving out a Law in and by which it is Enacted That such certain Evils shall be inflicted upon the Transgressors of it how plainly does it indemnifie-the Non-violaters of it from such Sufferings Such Threatnings otherwise cou'd answer no End if it were intended That whether they violated the Law or not they shou'd be alike obnoxious Now if we consider God as a Governour the Evils He inflicts come under another Consideration they are not meerly Afflictions or Sufferings but they are also Punishments and therefore they are not dispens'd Arbitrarily but according to a Stated Rule He does not punish any but such as by the Law are obnoxious hence is it that we read of his Righteousness in Reference to this Matter And as this does more generally evince That all Evils inflicted by a Ruler as such are Punishments so with Reference to the particular Instances above-mention'd it might be distinctly made appear that they are in the most strict and proper Sense Punishments In the last which is not the least doubted Case how plain is it that the Separation of Soul and Body is Penal that 't is a natural Evil no one doubts as such 't is abhorr'd of all and that 't is inflicted for or by reason of Sin is as unquestionable if the Apostle's account of the Matter may be allow'd for so he tells us Rom. 5. 12. By one man sin enter'd into the world and death by sin and so death passed upon all men for that all have sinn'd So that Death amongst Men has the nature of a Punishment in it but how then comes it to be inflicted if it be not due If we be not obnoxious to the Sentence of the Law it cannot be said to be due to us if the Threatning was disjunctive both Parties Bound cou'd not be obnoxious if Sentence be executed on either the other is clear how comes it then that we are punish'd and Christ too What shall we say Is God unrighteous that taketh vengeance Rom. 3. 5. Or is not this rather an unrighteous Doctrine that wou'd reflect

represents me does pay in my Name or Purchase Land which my Legal Representative Purchases for me § 19. 2. If Christ had Suffered strictly in our Representative Person we shou'd have had an immediate and absolute right to all the proper Results and Benefits of his Sufferings Indeed if Christ in his own Person as Mediator purchas'd these Blessings by Suffering for us He may confer 'em on us at what time in what measure in what order and upon what terms He pleases as we find He does But supposing Him to have been our proper Representative therein our Right in Law to all the Benefits of his Sufferings wou'd have been absolute as His now is and have immediately resulted from his having so suffered so as that no place cou'd have been left for the introducing and imposing upon us any Terms or Conditions in order to our enjoying such Benefits there cou'd be no room for such a Constitution afterwards if thou Sinner Repent Believe in Christ c. thou shalt be saved For according to this Principle the Sinner has purchas'd Salvation by the Sufferings of Christ as his Representative He has thereupon an absolute and present right to the Salvation so purchas'd to deny or suspend his right or with-hold him from Possession wou'd be injurious to Him as keeping Him from that which is his own How then will this consist with the Justice of God who does not give Sinners immediately the full of what was purchas'd by the Sufferings of Christ God does not give 'em an immediate and absolute Pardon present freedom from all sin and sorrow present possession of the Heavenly Inheritance If Sinners have an immediate absolute right to these Blessings it wou'd be a wrong done to 'em for God to keep 'em out of Possession as He does and such a Right we shou'd have if He Suffer'd strictly as our Representative So that this way consider'd it does as much exceed as the other way it fell short of Answering the Exigencies of our Case § 20. And we may add as a farther Consequent hereupon 3. If Christ had Suffer'd strictly as the Representative Person of Sinners indefinitely as 't is express'd it wou'd follow that every Sinner equally has a right to the fore-mention'd Benefits of Christ's Sufferings why then have not all equally a Pardon Why are not the Influences of the Divine Spirit equally diffus'd Why are some yea even of the truly sanctify'd more freed from Sin and Sorrow than others Some but babes while others are strong Men in Christ Nay why are not all in Heaven whom Christ did represent as well as some there § 21. Moreover 4. If Christ had thus suffer'd as our Representative and we had thus Satisfy'd and Merited in Him what room would there have been left for His Holiness and Obedience to bestead us or be of any advantage to us We are most expresly assur'd That by the Obedience of One i. e. of Christ we are made righteous Rom. 5. 19. Suppose his Sufferings and Death to be included as it cannot be deny'd yet 't is as they were instances of his Obedience Phil. 2. 8. and according to that known Rule a quatenus ad omne valet consequentia if his Sufferings did meritoriously procure our Pardon Peace c. as they were instances of his Obedience to the Law of Mediation then whatever was an instance of such Obedience had an influence upon the same effect His Habitual Active and Passive Obedience are therefore to be consider'd as one entire Meritorious Cause one entire Purchasing Price of such Blessings But upon this Principle That Christ in suffering did strictly Personate or Represent us where can his Habitual Holiness and Active Obedience be taken in what room is there for ' em what need is there of ' em when we have merited a Pardon acceptance with God Eternal Salvation already by the Sufferings of Christ as our Representative what further need can we have of his Obeying for us Or shall we say That He was our Representative in his Obeying as well as in his Suffering So indeed our Accuser would have it in his Defence P. 28. Christ says he thus Suffering and Obeying in the Person of Sinners it is to all intents and purposes as Effectual as if they did it themselves But besides that these two Parts of the Assertion are inconsistent with each other had He Obeyed in our Person He needed not to have Suffer'd in our Person or had He Suffer'd in our Person He needed not so to have Obey'd I say besides that the Notion carries a manifest Inconsistence in it If it were admitted it would infer all those Seven Absurdities mention'd in the fore-going Chapter with many more that I cannot now stay to mention § 22. In a Word then since his strict Representing or Personating us would intimate That Christ and we are in the Sense of the Law but one Person and thereupon his Suffering in our Person our Representative Person properly so call'd would intimate either that He in his Sufferings was in the esteem of God and the Law depress'd to the mean and vile and sinful State of us whom He did Represent or else that we are in the account of God and the Law exalted to the Dignity and Perfection of his State who Represented us and neither of these are to be admitted Not the former for that it would render Christ's Sufferings unavailable to the great purposes that were to be serv'd of 'em not the latter for the Reasons last mention'd It follows That He cannot otherwise than very improperly and with great Limitations be said to have Suffer'd in the Person the Representative Person of Sinners CHAP. III. That Christ's Sufferings were only Materially not Formally the same we were oblig'd to § i THIS our Accuser charges also upon us as a Branch of that Design that Plot he impeaches us of a Socinian Plot a Plot to introduce Socinianism That we have such a Design he once and again insinuates and thereupon Brands us as Episcopians Socinianizing Arminians c. He had signify'd his Apprehensions his fears of a Design against the Doctrine of a Real Full and Proper Satisfaction to God's Justice for our Sins P. 4. but by that time we are got to the 12th Page those Surmizes are improv'd into clear Evidence he is now aware of the Design nay twice together we are told it to intimate no doubt that he is throughly aware of it and to make Proof of it he does alledge amongst other Matters That according to us Christ's Sufferings were the same we were oblig'd to only Materially and not Formally Now the Design he suggests is what we do from our Souls abhorr and if this Accuser were himself a Socinian he could no way more effectually serve their Interests than by persuading the World as he here endeavours That all must be Socinians at least Socinianize that are not Antinomians Sect. 2. But for the Principle he charges upon us we are not