Selected quad for the lemma: work_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A66342
|
An answer to Mr. J. Humphrey's second printed letter wherein he publisheth Mr. Lob's objections against Mr. W's books.
|
Williams, Daniel, 1643?-1716.
|
1695
(1695)
|
Wing W2644A; ESTC R30208
|
9,049
|
10
|
An Answer to Mr. J. Humphrey ' s Second Printed Letter wherein he publisheth Mr. Lob ' s Objections against Mr. W' s. Books SIR YOUR First Letter misrepresents my Judgment in many things as if you little considered my Books whence you pretend your Objections This Letter I suffer to pass without further Animadversion than to inform you that my Adversaries have boldly assured the World that I say The Righteousness of Christ is imputed only as to Effects whereas you truly represent my words that besides the Effects the Righteousness of Christ it self is imputed to us It 's true you had prevented your Plea against it had you consulted Man made Righteous p. 77 78 79 80. Yet have I no reason to complain of my Treatment whilst struck at by both Extreams when deeper thoughts would perceive the truth stated against the excess of both But your Second Letter necessitates a Vindication of my self from the Falshoods imposed on you the Publication whereof is poorly excused by saying You have not my Books now to examine the Quotations Will your Experience allow you to be a Tool to a Man you call learned because Industrious to divide Brethren under a pretence of Reconciling a Breach which is made and maintained to serve a turn against all the self-denying Methods that were possible on our part This Sheet allows not arguing any Point my Concern is to shew how unjustly I am represented by the Objections offered by your Author 1. Obj. Christ where he is called a Surety was a Surety of a better Covenant and therefore not of the Law of Works It was not a Covenant that obliged us to dye for sin or perfectly obey in a way of Merit that he is called a Surety of Man made Righteous p. 102. Ans 1. He leaves out the word here and so changeth the sense My words are That the Covenant he is called a Surety of here viz. Heb. 7. 22. Ans 2. In stating the Question that leads to these words I declared what I affirmed concerning Christ's Surety-ship and what I did deny 1. I granted that Christ hath undertaken in the Covenant of Redemption that he would make Satisfaction to Justice for us and obey the whole Will of God c. He was a real Sponsor engaging to do all that belonged to him Christ accordingly died in our Nature and that not only for our good but in our stead nostro loco We were liable to dye he stept in and died that we might not dye who otherwise must have dyed but now live by his dying for us He was a proper 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He gave his Life for ours yea and this to vindicate the Glory of God in exempting us from Death c. Then I proved that Christ did suffer properly in our stead was a Sacrifice for us c. And concluded Thus far the Word of God directs us to call Christ either Surety Sponsor Representative c. p. 90 91 92. 2. The thing that I did deny was That Christ by his Obedience made Atonement or merited for us as a proper Pecuniary Surety in the Law of Works This I confuted by several Arguments and the words objected are the sixth Argument viz. that in Heb. 7. 22. where Christ is called a Surety it is of the better Covenant which is not the Covenant of Works Sir judge you whether I affirm not Christ to be a Surety Name and Thing though I affirm that it 's the better Covenant he is called Surety of in Heb. 7. 22. And deny him to be a Money Surety 2. Obj. 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 Man made Righteous p. 105. Ans My words are The Covenant Christ is Surety of in this place viz. Heb. 7. 22. is the Gospel-Covenant and if so he can even as a Money Surety hereby be bound with us to no more than what we are engaged to do and Suffer by this Gospel-Covenant It 's true by the Covenant of Redemption he was engaged to suffer Death in the Humane Nature for Satisfaction and this in our place and also to obey the whole Law Sir can you not see that the Objector leaves out in this place Money and hereby And he also makes that to be my Assertion what I only infer from a Supposition which I denyed and leaves out if so He would suggest me to say Christ is to Repent and Believe for us which as I expresly deny p. 91. So I oft declare that his Surety-ship as to the Gospel-Covenant consists in his undertaking that the Covenant shall be performed on God's and on the Believers part And lastly he stops just at the words which confute his whole Imputation viz. That Christ was engaged by the Covenant of Redemption to Suffer c. 3. Obj. Though in Gal. 4. 4 5. it 's said that Christ was made under the Law it is not meant of the Moral Law but Ceremonial Law Ans I was proving that though the Righteousness of Christ for which we are justified be a Righteousness adequate to the Law yea Supra legal as well as in substance truly Legal yet that Righteousness is not a Surety-ship Righteousness that can infer us equally Righteous as Christ Pursuant hereto I propose Gal. 4. 4 5. as an Objection to which I made these four Answers 1. I might shew how the Context confines to the following sense viz. That Christ was made under the Jewish Law delivered Four Hundred Years after the Promise c. And in this sense it is not the Law of Innocency as a Proper Covenant of Works c. The Objection is pretended hence but I said the Jewish Law not the Ceremonial Law which is but part of it The Moral Law was also a part thereof though not delivered to them as a proper Covenant of Innocency 2. My next Answer and in the very same Page was I grant that Christ in taking our Nature became a Servant and subject to the Law of Innocency to its Precepts and its Punishments as a Mediator according to the terms adjusted in the Covenant of Redemption Here I affirmed what he saith I deny My Fourth Answer was Christ did not then become a Surety or Undertaker to dye for us by being made under the Law but he was made under the Law because he had undertaken to dye for us His very being made under the Law of Works was but a performance of a Previous Engagement to the Law-giver this being one Article in the Covenant of Redemption that he should take our Nature be a Servant under the Law and make his Soul an Offering for Sin Ubi sup p. 110 111. 4. Obj. Calling God Creditor and Sin Debts is Metaphorical and using such words as proper hath given Advantage to the Socinians Ans I acknowledge it and such as understand the way of Confuting the Socinians are of the same mind And therefore grant
if God were a Creditor and Sin a Debt God might forgive without Satisfaction and if the Idem be paid it 's not a Satisfaction nor is there room for Pardon nor for Gospel-terms See this urged by Leideker Synopsis Theol. l. 4. cap. 6. S. 4 5 6 7. 11. 20. 45. B. Stillingfleet Suff. of Christ Cap. 1. Grotius de Satisf p. 60. 71. Essen Trium Crucis 340. 390. Dr. Owen of Satisf 141. saith they are the most improper Expressions in this matter 5. Obj. There is no change of Person between Christ and the Elect or between him and Believers Gospel Truth p. 37. 41. Ans 1. If by change of Person be meant simply a change of Persons or Men that is that Sinners were to dye for their Transgressions but Christ by God's Appointment and his own Consent was substituted to obey and dye in Sinners stead and Christ stood obliged so to Obey and Suffer what for substance the Law required I have hundreds of times asserted it in my Books I have not room to instance See in Man made Righteous Eight Propositions clearing this In one I say Divine Grace and Soveraignty exert themselves to answer the ends of the Law by substituting Christ a Saviour of lost Souls c. p. 11 12 13. Ans 2. The change of Person I there denyed is only that which Dr. Crisp and Followers assert and which is the strict meaning of a change of Person viz. A mutual compleat change of Condition and Character and not a transferring a Punishment from a Criminal to an Hostage This is evident 1. By the Error I there confute i. e. that every Elect Person is as Righteous as Christ there is a perfect change of Person and Condition between Christ and the Elect He was what we are and we are what he was viz. perfectly Holy c. Christ himself is not so compleatly Righteous but we are as Righteous as he nor we so compleatly Sinful but Christ became as sinful as we c. That very sinfulness that we were Christ is made that very Sinfulness before God So that there is a direct change of Person 2. It 's plain that I denyed this change of Person in Crisp's sense by what I offer to overthrow it wherein nothing opposeth Christ's dying in our stead by God's Substitution or Surrogation My words are Christ was the Saviour we the saved and not the Saviours Christ was the Redeemer and not the Redeemed we are the Redeemed and never the Redeemers Christ was he who by his Merits forgives us but never was forgiven we are forgiven and never had Merits of our own to forgive our selves or others He was the dying Sacrifice 3. I do in the very Chapter whence the words are objected oft assert as much as the Orthodox intend by Christ's being substituted in our place to dye for us To instance a few of many p. 39. Christ's Sufferings were so in our stead that God cannot exact from us any other Atonement for Sin or meriting Price of any Gospel-Blessings p. 43. The Efficient Merit of Justification is in Christ the Effect of the Judicial Absolution for that Merit is in us Had not he obeyed and suffered for us we could not have been absolved for the sake of his Obedience and Sufferings P. 52. Christ suffered in our stead that the Fruit of his Sufferings might be our deliverance from Sufferings and our being saved at last How many might I add out of that very Chapter It 's worth the Objector's leisure to consider how he lays such stress on a change of Person in Crisp's sense and yet contends for Christ and us being one Legal Person How could Christ and we be One Person in Law and yet Christ's Person and our Persons be mutually changed in Law unless that both Persons were changed from what they once were into a tertium quid that neither were before 6. Obj. There is a change of the Penal Sanction of the Law Pref. Gospel-Truth The Gospel doth not denounce Death for the same sins and for every sin as Adam's Law did Def. Gosp Truth p. 30. Ans 1. The first Clause is false represented I will recite my words After I had said the Gospel includes the Moral Preceptive part of the first Law c. And that the Gospel is taken in a large sense when I say it includes the Moral Precepts But yet the Gospel doth so and they are the Commands of a Redeemer as well as the Law of a Creator I then added The Gospel hath another Sanction to the Preceptive part of the Law than the Covenant of Works had Though nothing be abated in the Rule of Sin and Duty yet Blessings are promised to lower degrees of Duties and a continuance in a state of Death with a Bar to the Blessing are not threatned against every degree of Sin as the Covenant of Works did doth it threaten Damnation or a continuance therein on any true Penitent Believing Godly Man because he is imperfect Sir judge you is a Change of the Penal Sanction of the Moral Law the same as the Gospel hath another Sanction to the Preceptive part of the Law as those Precepts are taken into the Gospel May not the Law have its own Sanction still as a Covenant of Works And yet the Gospel have another Sanction as a Covenant of Grace though it includes the Moral Precepts as a Rule of Duty It seems the Objector thinks with his Associates either the Gospel hath neither Precept Threatning nor Conditional Promise Or if it hath a Sanction it 's this that though a Man be a sincere Penitent Believer yet he shall dye if he be guilty of one evil Thought and shall not be saved if he be not Perfect Answ 2. As to the second Clause my words were The Gospel Law doth not denounce death for the same Sins as Adam's Law did That Law threatned Death for the least Sin yea for one Sin The Gospel doth not bar every Sinner from relief but the impenitent unbelieving and utterly ungodly Hypocrite And it binds not damnation on us unless we are finally impenitent Unbelievers But the Objector wisely leaves out the last part to traduce me by the first 7. Obj. Christ purchased the Covenant of Grace Answ I speak not of God's decree or purpose but of the actual promulgated Promise to the World that he that believeth shall be saved And I can as soon think God might perform this Promise without respect to Christ's Merits as not provide for the Glory of his Justice by Christ's satisfaction in the making this Promise 8. Obj. The Condition of the Covenant of Grace is an antecedent condition Answ My words quoted from Mr. Flavel are An antecedent Condition signifies no more than an act of ours which though it be neither perfect in every degree nor in the least meritorious of the benefit nor perform'd in our own natural strength Yet according to the constitution of the Covenant it is required of us in order