Selected quad for the lemma: work_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
work_n	ceremonial_a	law_n	moral_a	5,536	5	9.9611	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A45146	One sheet (or second letter) concerning the difference in some points which is between our united brethren, in order to accommodation	Humfrey, John, 1621-1719.	1695 (1695)	Wing H3696A; ESTC R219058	7,417	8

One Sheet or Second LETTER concerning the Difference in some Points which is between our United Brethren in order to Accommodation SIR HHaving perused the Exceptions you let me see in a Paper that Confronts Mr. Williams with the Books of others of his Brethren which shews the Collector to be a Learned and Industrious man and bent I suppose upon Reconciliation of this late Breach between them and whose Labour therefore is Accepted and in that generous self-denyal I see in it to be imitated I could not choose but take my Pen and make my Animadversions upon them in the perusal but without producing or medling at all with the Opposite Citations The Words or Questioned Passages of Mr Williams CHrist where He is called a Surety was a Surety of a better Covenant and therefore not of the Law of Works For the former part of this it is express Scripture Heb. 7.22 For the latter by the Law Mr W's understands the Covenant of Works that was made with man in Innocency requiring perfect Obedience as the condition of Life Now the Difference between this Covenant and that of Grace with man Faln does lie in this That the same Duty is required in both but speaking Largely the one has and so the Condition laxed the other had no Mediator And no Mediator no Surety It was not a Covenant that obliged us to Die for Sin or perfectly Obey in a way of Merit that He is called a Surety of By the Better Covenant Mr W's apprehends the Covenant of Grace and so speaks this But I remember these words of Mr Rutherford The Lord Jesus hath a Room in each Covenant that of Works and that of Grace I will add to it A Room but not Strictly as Surety of either It is the Covenant of Redemption the Covenant of Suretiship he calls it that is the Covenant between God and Christ not the Covenant between God and Man of Works or Grace wherein the foundation of this Suretiship is to be laid The excellency of Christ's Priesthood is set out by this that it was made by an Oath The Lord hath Sworn God hath Sworn can be no less than his Decree Hath When was that Why when God did Covenant with Christ that he should make his Soul an Offering for Sin then was this Oath took then was this Suretiship Priesthood Mediatorship constituted and established Christ is a Surety according to this Covenant and of that of Grace upon the account only of coincidence with it As to the Covenant of Works Christ hath this Room He hath undertook to satisfie for the breach of it And as for the Covenant of Grace or Covenant of Reconciliation he hath this Room that by that Satisfaction or Suffering he hath procured it for us Christ can be bound by the Covenant of which he is Surety to no more than what we are engaged to do and suffer by the Gospel-Covenant This calls for Mr. W's second Thoughts on what is already said Christ is not bound by the Gospel-Covenant to any thing at all That Covenant belongs only to us He was bound by the Law as Man to perfect Obedience and by his Surety-Covenant to suffering in regard of his Undertaking which was not ex delicto but ex voluntario contractu in our behalf Mr. W's wont deny this or he must explain himself The calling God Creditor and Sin Debts is Metaphorical and using such words as proper hath given advantage to the Socinian This I think judiciously spoken The ransom Christ gave for Sinners is not properly a Payment but Satisfaction that is Redditio oequivalentis aliter indebiti as Scotus hath defined it If Christ was ex ordinatione Dei strictly and precisely a constituted proper Surety of the Covenant of Works He having performed it in our stead we should be freed from the Penalty and enjoy the Reward without any terms to be required farther on our parts it were not just to impose any And if he was such a Surety as some would have it of the Covenant of Grace then must he perform those our terms and so believe and repent for us which is the true Antinomian consequence of it But when he becomes a Surety only upon his Covenant with God and so has a Room only in either Covenant with Man he hath so mediated his Work that we are reconciled to God and God still requires our Duty Though in Gal. 4.4 5. it is said that Christ was made under the Law it 's not meant of the Moral but Ceremonial Law I have not Mr. W's Books now to examine the Quotations but I am verily perswaded that Mr. Williams upon recollection and Dr. Bates who says otherwise and orthodoxly will both agree in this Position Mr W's differing I guess only as to the meaning of this particular place from another Third All Men being born under the Law and Covenant of Works Christ Man must be under the same I believe further that both the one and the other will agree also that Obedience to the Moral Law was the Condition of the Covenant of works which Man Christ as Man was oblig'd to that he might himself have right jure merito federis Operum to Life eternal There is no change of Person between Christ and the Elect Of this particular Point of Commutation I have 9 Pages on purpose against Dr. Owen in my Book call'd Peaceable Disquisitions or betwixt him and Believers Here Mr. W's must have line He will not certainly deny but that Christ dy'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for us so as that it was loco nostro in our stead and allow a Commutation of Person so far that he dying for us we shall not therefore be damn'd our selves but not such a Commutation as that we are to be reckoned to have obey'd suffered and satisfied in his Person so as to be our own Redeemers which is that he means and being therefore at some little loss here I will craving his Pardon lend him my Hand It is not only bono nostro but loco nostro in our stead as Grotius hath evinc'd that Christ dy'd for Sinners Well then In our stead that is Not in our Person strictly but in the Person of a Mediator says Mr. Baxter In our stead that is as a common Person ex re gesta but not a common Person ex fictione suppositi as Mr. Woodbridge hath wrung it out more elaborately from his studying the Civil Lawyers There is a change of the Penal sanction of the Law the Gospel-Law doth not denounce Death for the same Sins and for every Sin as Adam 's Law did The words of Mr. Williams here and Dr. Bates are indeed plain contrary but it is some Slip only I believe and in the bottom sence both will reconcile easily Distinguish we therefore with care between what the Gospel requires sub ratione officii and what it requires sub ratione couditionis between the Duty and the Condition of the Law of Grace or