King James Bible Adam Clarke Bible Commentary Martin Luther's Writings Wesley's Sermons and Commentary Neurosemantics Audio / Video Bible Evolution Cruncher Creation Science Vincent New Testament Word Studies KJV Audio Bible Family videogames Christian author Godrules.NET Main Page Add to Favorites Godrules.NET Main Page

Bad Advertisement?

Are you a Christian?

Online Store:
  • Visit Our Store




    PREFATORY NOTE BY THE EDITOR, EPISTLE DEDICATORY, TO THE CHRISTIAN READER, Qemoci>av Aujtexousiastikh~v SPECIMEN, 1. — Of the two main ends aimed at by the Arminians, by their innovations in the received doctrine of the reformed churches,2. — Of the eternity and immutability of the decrees of Almighty God, denied and overthrown by the Arminians, 3. — Of the prescience or foreknowledge of God, and how it is questioned and overthrown by the Arminians, 4. — Of the providence of God in governing the world diversely, thrust from this pre-eminence by the Arminian idol of free-will, 5. — Whether the will and purpose of God may be resisted, and he be frustrate of his intentions, 6. — How the whole doctrine of predestination is corrupted by the Arminians, 7. — Of original sin and the corruption of nature,8. — Of the state of Adam before the fall, or of original righteousness 9. — Of the death of Christ, and of the efficacy of his merits, 10. — Of the cause of faith, grace, and righteousness,11. — Whether salvation may be attained without the knowledge of, or faith in, Christ Jesus,12. — Of free-will, the nature and power thereof, 13. — Of the power of free-will in preparing us for our conversion unto God. 14. — Of our conversion to God, SALUS ELECTORUM, SANGUIS JESU; OR, THE DEATH OF DEATH IN THE DEATH OF CHRIST.

    PREFATORY NOTE BY THE EDITOR, EPISTLE DEDICATORY, TWO ATTESTATIONS TOUCHING THE ENSUING TREATISE, TO THE READER, Book 1. 1. — In general of the end of the death of Christ, as it is in the Scripture proposed, 2. — Of the nature of an end in general, and some distinctions about it, 3. — Of the agent or chief author of the work of our redemption, and of the first thing distinctly ascribed to the person of the Father,4. — Of those things which in the work of redemption are peculiarly ascribed to the person of the Son, 5. — The peculiar actions of the Holy Spirit in this business,6. — The means used by the fore-recounted agents in this work,7. — Containing reasons to prove the oblation and intercession of Christ to be one entire means respecting the accomplishment of the same proposed end, and to have the same personal object, 8. — Objections against the former proposal answered, Book 2. 1. — Some previous considerations to a more particular inquiry after the proper end and effect of the death of Christ,2. — Containing a removal of some mistakes and false assignations of the end of the death of Christ,3. — More particularly of the immediate end of the death of Christ, with the several ways whereby it is designed 4. — Of the distinction of impetration and application — The use and abuse thereof; with the opinion of the adversaries upon the whole matter in controversy unfolded, and the question on both sides stated, 5. — Of application and impetration, Book 3. 1. — Arguments against the universality of redemption — The two first; from the nature of the new covenant, and the dispensation thereof, 2. — Containing three other arguments, 3. — Containing two other arguments from the person Christ sustained in this business,4. — Of sanctification, and of the cause of faith, and the procurement thereof by the death of Christ,5. — Being a continuance of arguments from the nature and description of the thing in hand; and first, of redemption, 6. — Of the nature of reconciliation, and the argument taken from thence, 7. — Of the nature of the satisfaction of Christ, with arguments from thence, 8. — A digression, containing the substance of an occasional conference concerning the satisfaction of Christ,9. — Being a second part of the former digression — Arguments to prove the satisfaction of Christ,10. — Of the merit of Christ, with arguments from thence, 11. — The last general argument, Book 4. 1. — Things previously to be considered, to the solution of objections, 2. — An entrance to the answer unto particular arguments, 3. — An unfolding of the remaining texts of Scripture produced for the confirmation of the first general argument for universal redemption, 4. — Answer to the second general argument for the universality of redemption, 5. — The last argument from Scripture answered, 6. — An answer to the twentieth chapter of the book entitled, “The Universality of God’s Free Grace,” etc., being a collection of all the arguments used by the author throughout the whole book to prove the universality of redemption, 7. — The removal of other remaining objections, Some few Testimonies of the Ancients, An Appendix, in reply to Mr. Joshua Sprigge, OF THE DEATH OF CHRIST.

    PREFATORY NOTE BY THE EDITOR, To the Reader, 1. — The occasion of this discourse, with the intendment of the whole. 2. — An entrance into the whole — Of the nature of the payment made by Christ, with the right stating of the things in difference, 3. — The arguments of Grotius, and their defense by Mr. Baxter, about the penalty undergone by Christ in making satisfaction, considered, 4. — Farther of the matter of the satisfaction of Christ; wherein is proved that it was the same that was in the obligation, 5. — The second head; about justification before believing, 6. — Of the acts of God’s will towards sinners antecedent and consequent to the satisfaction of Christ — Of Grotius’ judgment herein, 7. — In particular of the will of God towards them for whom Christ died, and their state and condition as considered antecedaneous to the death of Christ and all efficiency thereof, 8. — Of the will of God in reference to them for whom Christ died, immediately upon the consideration of his death; and their state and condition before actual believing in relation thereunto, 9. — A digression concerning the immediate effect of the death of Christ,10. — Of the merit of Christ, and its immediate efficacy — What it effecteth —In what it resteth; with the state of those for whom Christ died in reference to his death, and of their right to the fruits of his death before believing, 11. — More particularly of the state and right of them for whom Christ died, before believing, 12. — Of the way whereby they actually attain and enjoy faith and grace who have a right thereunto by the death of Christ,13. — The removal of sundry objections to some things formerly taught about the death of Christ, upon the principles now delivered, A DISSERTATION ON DIVINE JUSTICE.

    PREFATORY NOTE BY THE EDITOR, To the Public, Epistle Dedicatory, The Preface to the Reader, Part 1. 1. — The introduction — The design of the work — Atheists — The prolepsis of divine justice in general — The divisions of justice, according to Aristotle-The sentiments of the schoolmen respecting these — Another division — Justice considered absolutely; then in various respects, 2. — The universal justice of God — The idle fancies of the schoolmen — The arguments of Durandus against commutative justice — Suarez’s censure of the scholastic reasonings — His opinion of divine justice — The examination of it — A description of universal justice from the sacred writings — A division of it in respect of its egress — Rectitude of government in God, what, and of what kind — Definitions of the philosophers and lawyers — Divisions of the justice of government — A caution respecting these — Vindicatory justice — The opinions of the partisans — An explication of the true opinion — Who the adversaries are — The state of the controversy farther considered, 3. — A series of arguments in support of vindicatory justice — First, from the Scriptures — Three divisions of the passages of Scripture — The first contains those which respect the purity and holiness of God — the second, those which respect God as the judge — What it is to judge with justice — The third, those which respect the divine supreme right. A second argument is taken from the general consent of mankind — A threefold testimony of that consent — The first from the Scriptures — Some testimonies of the heathens — The second from the power of conscience — Testimonies concerning that power — The mark set upon Cain — The expression of the Emperor Adrian when at the point of death — The consternation of mankind at prodigies — The horror of the wicked, whom even fictions terrify — Two conclusions — The third testimony, from the confession of all nations — A vindication of the argument against Rutherford — The regard paid to sacrifices among the nations — Different kinds of the same — Propitiatory sacrifices — Some instances of them 4. — The origin of human sacrifices — Their use among the Jews, Assyrians, Germans, Goths, the inhabitants of Marseilles, the Normans, the Francs, the Tyrians, the Egyptians, and the ancient Gauls — Testimonies of Cicero and Caesar that they were used among the Britons and Romans by the Druids — A fiction of Apion concerning the worship in the temple of Jerusalem — The names of some persons sacrificed — The use of human sacrifices among the Gentiles proved from Clemens of Alexandria, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Porphyry Philo, Eusebius, Tertullian, Euripides — Instances of human sacrifices in the sacred Scriptures — The remarkable obedience of Abraham — What the neighboring nations might have gathered from that event — Why human sacrifices were not instituted by God — The story of Iphigenia — The history of Jephthah — Whether he put his daughter to death — The cause of the difficulty — The impious sacrifice of the king of Moab — The abominable superstition of the Rugiani — The craftiness of the devil — Vindications of the argument — The same concluded, 5. — The third argument — This divine attribute demonstrated in the works of providence — That passage of the apostle to the Romans, Romans 1:18, considered — Anger, what it is — The definitions of the philosophers — The opinion of Lactanius concerning the anger of God — Anger often ascribed to God in the holy Scriptures —In what sense this is done — The divine anger denotes, 1.

    The effect of anger; 2. The will of punishing — What that will is in God — Why the justice of God is expressed by anger — The manifestation of the divine anger, what it is — How it is “revealed from heaven” — The sum of the argument. The fourth argument — Vindicatory justice revealed in the cross of Christ The attributes of God, how displayed in Christ — Heads of other arguments — The conclusion, 6. — Another head of the first part of the dissertation — Arguments for the necessary egress of vindicatory justice from the supposition of sin — The first argument — God’s hatred of sin, what — Whether God by nature hates sin, or because he wills so to do — Testimonies from holy Scripture — Dr. Twisse’s answer — The sum of it — The same obviated — The relation of obedience to reward and of sin to punishment not the same — Justice and mercy, in respect of their exercise, different — The second argument — The description of God in the Scriptures in respect of sin — In what sense he is called a “consuming fire” — Twisse’s answer refuted — The fallacies of the answer, 7. — The third argument — The non-punishment of sin is contrary to the glory of God’s justice — Likewise of his holiness and dominion — A fourth argument — The necessity of a satisfaction being made by the death of Christ - No necessary cause or cogent reason for the death of Christ according to the adversaries — The objection refuted — The use of sacrifices — The end of the first part of the dissertation, Part 2. 8. — Objections of the adversaries answered — The R ACOVIAN C ATECHISM particularly considered — The force of the argument for the satisfaction of Christ from punitory justice — The catechists deny that justice to be inherent in God; and also sparing mercy — Their first argument weighed and refuted — Justice and mercy are not opposite — Two kinds of the divine attributes — Their second and third arguments, with the answers annexed, 9. — C RELLIUS taken to task — His first mistake — God doth not punish sins as being endowed with supreme dominion — The first argument of Crellius — The answer — The translation of punishment upon Christ, in what view made by God — Whether the remission of sins, without a satisfaction made, could take place without injury to anyone — To whom punishment belongs — Whether everyone can resign his right — Right twofold — The right of debt, what; and what that of government — A natural and positive right — Positive right, what — A description also of natural right — Concessions of Crellius, 10. — The opinion of SOCINUS considered — What he thought of our present question, namely, that it is the hinge on which the whole controversy concerning the satisfaction of Christ turns — His vain boasting, as if, having disproved this vindicatory justice, he had snatched the prize from his adversaries — Other clear proofs of the satisfaction of Christ — That it is our duty to acquiesce in the revealed will of God — The truth not to be forsaken — Marcy and justice not opposite — Vain distinctions of Socinus concerning divine justice — The consideration of these distinctions — His first argument against vindicatory justice — The solution of it — The anger and severity of God, what — Universal and particular justice, in what they agree — The false reasoning and vain boasting of the adversary,11. — The arguments of Socinus against punitory justice weighed — A false hypothesis of his — Sins, in what sense they are debts — The first argument of Socinus, in which he takes for granted what ought to have been proved — A trifling supposition substituted for a proof — Whether that excellence by virtue of which God punishes sins be called justice in the Scriptures — The severity of God, what — Our opponent’s second argument — It labors under the same deficiency as the first — It is not opposite to mercy to punish the guilty — The mercy of God, what — there is a distinction between acts and habits — Our opponent confounds them — The mercy of God infinite, so also his justice — A distinction of the divine attributes — In pardoning sins through Jesus Christ, God hath exercised infinite justice and infinite mercy — The conclusion of the contest with Socinus, 12. — The progress of the dispute to the theologians of our own country — The supreme authority of divine truth — Who they are, and what kind of men, who have gone into factions about this matter — The Coryphseus of the adversaries, the very illustrious Twisse — The occasion of his publishing his opinion — The opinion of the Arminians — The effects of the death of Christ, what — Twisse acknowledges punitory justice to be natural to God — The division of the dispute with Twisse — Maccovius’ answers to the arguments of Twisse — The plan of our disputation, 13. — T WISSE’ S first argument — Its answer — A trifling view of the divine attributes — Whether God could, by his absolute power, forgive sins without a satisfaction — To let sins pass unpunished implies a contradiction; and that twofold — What these contradictions are — Whether God may do what man may do — Whether every man may renounce his right — Whether God cannot forgive sins because of his justice — The second argument — Its answer — Distinctions of necessity — God doth no work without himself from absolute necessity — Conditional necessity — Natural necessity twofold — God doth not punish to the extent of his power, but to the extent of his justice — God always acts with a concomitant liberty — An argument of the illustrious Vossius considered — God a “consuming fire,” but an intellectual one — An exception of Twisse’s — Whether, independent of the divine appointment, sin would merit punishment — In punishment, what things are to be considered — The relation of obedience to reward and disobedience to punishment not the same — The comparison between mercy and justice by Vossius improperly instituted, 14. — Twisse’s third argument — A dispensation with regard to the punishment of sin, what, and of what kind — The nature of punishment and its circumstances — The instance of this learned opponent refuted — The considerations of rewarding and punishing different — How long, and in what sense, God can dispense with the punishment due to sin — God the supreme governor of the Jewish polity; also, the Lord of all — The fourth argument of Twisse — The answer — Whether God can inflict punishment on an innocent person — In what sense God is more willing to do acts of kindness than to punish — What kind of willingness that assertion respects — The conclusion of the answer to Twisse’s principal arguments, 15. — The defense of Sibrandus Lubbertus against Twisse — The agreement of these very learned men in a point of the utmost importance — A vindication of his argument from God’s hatred against sin — Liberality and justice different — The opinion of Lubbertus undeservedly charged with atheism — What kind of necessity of operation we suppose in God; this pointed out — The sophistical reasoning of this learned writer — How God is bound to manifest any property of his nature — The reasons of Lubbertus, and Twisse’s objections to the same considered — That passage of the apostle, Romans 1:32, considered and vindicated — His mode of disputing rejected — The force of the argument from Romans 1:32 — The “righteous judgment of God,” what — Our federal representative, and those represented by him, are one mystical body — An answer to Twisse’s arguments — Exodus 34:6,7; the learned writer’s answer respecting that passage — A defense of the passage — Punitory justice a name of God — Whether those for whom Christ hath made satisfaction ought to be called guilty — Psalm 5:4-6, the sense of that passage considered — From these three passages the argument is one and the same — Lubbertus’ argument from the definition of justice weighed — How vindicatory justice is distinguished from universal — The nature of liberality and justice evidently different — Punishment belongs to God — In inflicting punishment, God vindicates his right — Will and necessity, whether they be opposite — The end of the defense of Lubbertus, 16. — Piscator’s opinion of this controversy — How far we assent to it — Twisse’s arguments militate against it — How God punishes from a natural necessity — How God is a “consuming fire” — God’s right, of what kind — Its exercise necessary, from some thing supposed — Whence the obligation of God to exercise it arises — Other objections of Twisse discussed, 17. — R UTHERFORD reviewed — An oversight of that learned man — His opinion of punitory justice — He contends that divine justice exists in God freely — The consideration of that assertion — This learned writer and Twisse disagree — His first argument — Its answer — The appointment of Christ to death twofold — The appointment of Christ to the mediatorial office an act of supreme dominion — The punishment of Christ an act of punitory justice — An argument of that learned man easy to answer — The examination of the same — The learned writer proves things not denied; passes over things to be denied — What kind of necessity we ascribe to God in punishing sins — A necessity upon a condition supposed — What the suppositions are upon which that necessity is founded — A difference between those things which are necessary by a decree and those which are so from the divine nature — The second argument of that learned man — His obscure manner of writing pointed out — Justice and mercy different in respect of their exercise — What it is to owe the good of punitory justice to the universe — This learned man’s third argument — The answer — Whether God could forbid sin, and not under the penalty of eternal death — Concerning the modification of punishment in human courts from the divine appointment — The manner of it — What this learned author understands by the “internal court” of God — This learned author’s fourth argument — All acts of grace have a respect to Christ — His fifth argument — The answer — A dissertation of the various degrees of punishment — For what reason God may act unequally with equals — Concerning the delay of punishment, and its various dispensations, 18. — The conclusion of this dissertation — The uses of the doctrine herein vindicated — The abominable nature of sin — God’s hatred against sin revealed in various ways — The dreadful effects of sin all over the creation — Enmity between God and every sin — Threatenings and the punishment of sin appointed — The description of sin in the sacred Scriptures — To what great miseries we are liable through sin — The excellency of grace in pardoning sin through Christ — Gratitude and obedience due from the pardoned — An historical fact concerning Tigranes, king of Armenia — Christ to be loved for his cross above all things — The glory of God’s justice revealed by this doctrine, and also of his wisdom and holiness


    God Rules.NET
    Search 80+ volumes of books at one time. Nave's Topical Bible Search Engine. Easton's Bible Dictionary Search Engine. Systematic Theology Search Engine.