Selected quad for the lemma: england_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A32773
|
A rejoynder to Mr. Daniel Williams his reply to the first part of Neomianism [sic] unmaskt wherein his defence is examined, and his arguments answered : whereby he endeavours to prove the Gospel to be a new law with sanction, and the contrary is proved / by Isaac Chauncy.
|
Chauncy, Isaac, 1632-1712.
|
1693
(1693)
|
Wing C3757; ESTC R489
|
70,217
|
48
|
but Works done by God's Grace may and are joyned with it as Causes of Salvation and in these Points the Protestants oppose them I could fill a Volume with it if need were but it s enough to say you are mistaken in telling us what the Protestants oppose them in You say also that I say That Pardon is rather the condition of Faith nay Pardon is the cause of Faith R. I say rather for if a federal condition must lye between giving and receiving giving is the causal condition of receiving and not receiving of giving 2. The Object must be before the Act of the Organ Pardon is the Object applyed by Faith Application before there is an Object is contradictio in adjecto 3. The Promise of Pardon is the Ground and Reason of our believing therein is the Grace brought therein doth the Truth and faithfulness of God appear and the Apostle saith Faith comes by hearing this Word of Promise i. e. is wrought by it Rom. 10. And he opposeth the Works of the Law and the hearing of Faith in Justification Gal. 3.2 5. And what is that acceptation but of Faith which the Apostle speaks of 1 Tim. 1.15 And what doth it accept but that faithful Gospel saying there mentioned That Christ came into the World to save Sinners and the chiefest It s the Grace of God working in this Promise that hath wrought Faith in the hearts of thousands 4. We say with all soundest Protestants That Justification in Nature is before Sanctification and the Cause of it and therefore of Faith because Faith as a Grace wrought is a part of Sanctification It s enough for you to hold up that you call Error and give it Name and so let it go 10. It is not whether Sanctification taken strictly do follow Justification this I affirm R. If you affirm this you should not make so strange of my saying Pardon is the condition of believing What you hide under strictly I concern not my self Sanctification is Sanctification and if Justification goes before it you allow it to be conditio ordinis at least Therefore I conclude Pardon is rather a condition yea I say not meerly of Order but such a condition as is an influential Cause But go on stating your difference But whether effectual Vocation make a real habitual change in the Soul and that this Vocation is in order of Nature before Justification This Mr. C. and the Letter and I affirm with the Assembly R. As to the Letter I must tell your Answer to it is short and ungenteel and as he did Bellarmine who said Bellarmine thou lyest when you say it was rather to serve a turn than to argue it spake Truth weakly and other things erroneously and ignorantly c. It justifies a necessity of dealing a little more roughly with Men of your Country and Kidney But to our Point in hand it need not be enquired whether you take effectual Vocation in the active or passive Sense seeing you say its such as makes a real habitual change in the Soul And seeing it makes such a change it must be a change of Sanctification and this you say is before Justification how can that be when you had said before that Justification is before Sanctification strictly taken What kind of Sanctification I pray is effectual Calling Is it not so in a strict sense when you say its a real habitual change in the Soul Is this not turning from Darkness to Light raising us together with Christ or being born again But all this must be done before the Relative change a Man must be free from the reigning Power of Sin and alive from the Dead without Jesus Christ our Lord. See what the Assembly saith in the larger Catech. Q. 67. That effectual calling is the Work of Gods Almighty Power and Grace whereby out of his free and especial Love to his Elect and from nothing in them moving him thereto he doth in his accepted time invite and draw them to Jesus Christ c. and they are hereby made able and willing freely to answer his Call and to accept and embrace the Grace offered and conveyed therein i. e. then they are effectually called when they have embraced the pardoning Grace of God offered and conveyed which shews the previousness of that Grace working the effectual Calling consummated in believing and embracing the Gospel offered the Gospel Grace in the Promise is always that which works first upon the Sinner moves his Heart and draws it forth in believing 11. It is not whether our sincere Faith and Love c. are imperfect and so can be no meriting Righteousness which I affirm R. You affirm they are imperfect and so do I but not therefore that they can be no meriting Righteousness for the Merit of Righteousness doth not depend upon the perfection of the Duty or Service in it self but its perfection in relation to the Law that requireth it if the Duty required be never so weak little and lame if I have such a degree as the Law requires its perfect as to that Law The Law requires a poor Man to pay a Shilling to a Tax it s as good obedience as another Mans that's required to pay twenty Many Instances might be given the Papists say Merit lies not in the value of the Action but in Gods Acceptation The Council of Trent saith Our Works are meritorious of eternal Life Quia a patre acceptantur per Christum yea saith S. de Clara Actus meus dicitur meritorium quia elicitus seu Imperatus a gratia ex pactione divina acceptatur ad premium Deus ab aeterno ordinavit hujusmodi actus esse dignos vita eterna quando eliciuntur a gratia habituali non igitur tota ratio meriti a gratia ipsa So Scotus Actus non est meritorius praecise quia perveniens ex gratia sed quia acceptatur a Deo tanque dignus vita aeterna But where 's the Question then Whether Faith and Love c. are disobedient even in a Gospel account and so uncapable of being Conditions of any of its promised saving Benefits R. In the sense of the Papists they be not but be accepted of God for this end to be federal conditions of a Law Covenant they are perfect in that kind and relation and merit the Benefit but we say tho' any of our Gifts of Grace or Duties are accepted in Christ yet they are not accepted to any Merit or Worthiness of any other Grace federal conditions and worthiness of all Grace and Blessings bestowed on us are only in Christ and hence Faith and Charity and other Gifts of Grace tho' they have a conditional connexion one to another yet they are all of Promise and can't be federal conditions of any promised saving Benefits Mr. C. saith I am against the Articles of the Church of England and the Assembly I am sure he'el never prove it and I profess the contrary but I am sure he 's against all the
Confessions of Faith that we own as Orthodox R. How your Principles agree with the said Articles and Confessions upon Impartial Examination let others judg 't is not your saying your profess the contrary will satisfy the World when res ipsa loquitur especially when you have the Confidence to suggesâ— such a false thing of me in the same Breath That you are sure I am against all the Confessions of Faith that are orthodox but indeed you say which we call orthodox that we I suppose are you and your Schematists and then what they account orthodox I shall not trouble my self You go on and say In the Strength of Christ you 'l sustain the utmost Persecution at the Hands of these angry Men and while God enableth me they shall not overturn the Gospel by their unscriptural Abuse of the blessed Names of the Righteousness of Christ and free Grace and the Gospel way of Application R. Enduring Persecution is no Infallible Argument that a Man's Principles are good if it were Papists and Quakers then have more to say for the justification of their Principles than ever you had or are like to have and let the wise judge how near akin yours is to theirs And whereas you insinuate as if you had suffered Persecution from the angry Men as you call them who have conscientiously contended earnestly for the Faith Impartial Men will if they do weigh and consider duly what you have done and said in these Matters determine which side hath been the Persecutors if Reproaches and false Imputations be Persecution and God will judge one Day whether you be a Champion as you would be accounted for Christ or against him the Day will reveal it it s not enough to brave it out before the World a Judgment at Man's Day will not serve our Turns he that judgeth you and I is the Lord and therefore consider what you do while you call so much upon the Name of God and Christ to countenance your confident undertakings in this Affair You say there 's a Mystery in it that one Explication of a Text should be pretended for a Reason against my whole Book and so countenance all Dr. Cr. Errors which they profess they dislike Rep. There 's no Mystery in it that any faithful Minister or People should not only be highly jealous of but exceedingly blame such a Book and the Author which shall rob them of so high an Article of their Religion as the true Nature of the Doctrin of Imputation of Christ's Righteousness and for the maintaining himself therein must wrest so eminent a Portion of Scripture out of their Hands as to its genuine and plain meaning upon which thousands of the most eminent Saints in all Ages have lived and do live no be you confident they will not lose that sense of that Portion of Scripture Phil. 3. which you oppose they 'll tug hard for it first and it will stand in the Hearts and Prayers of God's Children maugre all Opposition And whereas you say you hear Augustine is of your Mind He tell you what an Author of none of the least Name tells me concerning Austin's Opinion Thus Augustinus breviter ostendit ab Apostolo c. Austin briefly shews from the Apostle Phil. 3.9 that whatsoever is of his own Righteousness is excluded there and that Paul speaks not of the Law of Circumcision or Vncircumcision but of the Precepts in which 't is said Thou shalt not covet Lydeker de discr legis Evangel You proceed to vindicate yourself against the Charge of not being against the Articles and Confession and pitch upon the Doctrin of Imputation for an instance wherein you know you differ from them and your stating your Judgment in that Point sufficiently evinceth though you do it after that perverse manner which is usual with you to make your Principles look sound You say You will state that Case viz. of Imputation 1. It is not whether Christ was a publick Person as a Mediator in his Undertakings and so transacted all for Sinners that they might be pardoned and saved by his undertaken Satisfaction and Merit This I affirm but whether we are so represented in Christ as that we are in Law Sense they that undertook to atone and merit this I deny R. What do you mean by a publick Person as a Mediator Did he stand in such a Capacity as to represent undertake for and stand in stead of the Elect were they federally in him as his Seed for so the Assembly say they were See Confess c. 8. sect 1. He was made the Head and Saviour of his Church the Heir of all things Unto whom God did from all eternity give a People to be his Seed So Larg Cat. The Covenant of Grace was made with Christ the second Adam and in him with all the elect as his Seed But you say he only transacted for Sinners as a Mediator but do you mean such a Mediator as is a Surety if so the Persons for whom he is a Surety are federally in him for he takes the Debts upon him stands in their room and stead and they federally in him accounted and to all Intents and Purposes he is entertained as comprehending all their Debts in him A Man may be a Mediator and treat with both Parties at Variance but not take the whole cause upon so as to treat and engage and make Payment in the Room of the offending Parties But let us hear what your Question is Whether we are so represented in Christ that we were in Law Sense those that undertook to atone or merit this I deny R. I will appeal to all Men of Sense in the World whether they can tell by your stating this Question whether you own or deny Christ to be a publick Person representing the Elect. He is a publick Person as Mediator and represents so as no body ever said any person did represent another viz. That we are in Law Sense they that undertook to atone and merit A person comes to be bound as surety to a Creditor for an hundred Debtors in Ludgate he becomes Debtor and is accepted in the room of all and every one they all pay and are discharged in him Doth the Law reckon that all these Men were Sureties or that they atoned or merited but that in the Surety's Atonement and Merit they being all represented by him their persons are accepted and their Debts paid Doth any Body look upon the Debtor to be the Surety because the Surety stands bound Or because the Surety pays or undertook to atone and merit I would fain know whether this be not perverse perplexing a Question instead of stating of it 3. You go on stating thus Nor whether Christ was a Surety for us in a Bond of his own to pay our Debt to the full or more that we might in a due Time and way be released This I affirm Reply If Christ came under Obligation to pay our Debt absolutely he represented not as if