Selected quad for the lemma: death_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
death_n	aaron_n	affliction_n	lord_n	21	3	3.1150	3	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A50867	An account of Mr. Lock's religion, out of his own writings, and in his own words together with some observations upon it, and a twofold appendix : I. a specimen of Mr. Lock's way of answering authors ..., II. a brief enquiry whether Socinianism be justly charged upon Mr. Lock.	Milner, John, 1628-1702.; Locke, John, 1632-1704. Selections. 1700.	1700 (1700)	Wing M2075; ESTC R548	126,235	194

p. 9. Thus Mr. Lock OBSERVATIONS Expositors are not agreed what Death it is which God threatned to Adam upon his eating the forbidden Fruit. Mr. Lock if I mistake him not can by Death here understand nothing but that which we call the Death of the Body or a natural or temporal Death And I believe few will deny that this Death was threatned in the words Thou shalt surely die Gen. 2. 17. The great Objection against this is that which Mr. Lock intimates viz. that it is said In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die whereas it was above nine hundred years after his eating that Adam died this Death But hereto it may be answer'd 1. That in the day that he did eat taking the words in the strict sense this Death became due to him or he became a Child of Death God might have said to him as Solomon to Abiathar 1 Kings 2. 26. Thou art worthy of death but I will not at this time put thee to death 2. In that day he became liable to Diseases which were Harbingers of this Death which did by degrees weaken the strength of Nature and at last introduce Death 3. St. Hierom and Theodoret do testifie that Symmachus instead of Thou shalt surely die translates Thou shalt be mortal and the rendring is approv'd and commended by S. Hierom in Tradit Hebr. in gen Now according to it there is no difficulty for Adam did become mortal that day 4. Some say that Adam repented and that upon his Repentance the Execution of the Threatning was respited as others say that it was respited upon the account of the Remedy which God had prepared viz. The Seed of the Woman Lastly There is no necessity that the words In the day be taken so strictly we may understand them more largely viz. At what time thou shalt eat thereof know assuredly that thou shalt die the death As Solomon says to Shimei On the day thou goest out and passest over the Brook Kidron thou shalt know for certain that thou shalt surely die 1 Kings 2. 37. It could not be Solomon's Meaning that Shimei should surely die the very same day that he passed over Kidron for he could not foresee that Shimei would return to Jerusalem the self same day or that word would be brought to him the self same day that he had passed over he only tells Shimei that if he should pass over he would forfeit his Life and be certainly put to Death whensoever he should please to give order for the execution of the Sentence Therefore notwithstanding the foremention'd Objection we may conclude that Adam was to die that Death which we call the Death of the Body or a natural Death and thus far Mr. Lock is in the right The Question is Whether he be in the right when he says that by the Death threatned Gen. 2. 17. he can understand nothing but this Death What thinks he of a Death of Afflictions outward Sufferings and Calamities May not this be comprehended under the word Death Gen. 2. Is not the Word Death taken in this Sense in other places of Scripture When S. Paul says of himself that he was in Deaths oft may we not interpret it in Sufferings oft See 2 Cor. 11. 23. In like manner when he says 1 Cor. 15. 31. I die daily may we not suppose that he had respect to the Afflictions and Sufferings that came daily upon him for the sake of Christ But most plainly the Word is thus to be understood Exod. 10. 17. where Pharaoh says to Moses and Aaron Intreat the Lord your God that he may take away from me this Death only Here by Death is understood nothing but the Plague of Locusts With respect to these Afflictions and Calamities one says Incipimus enim si forte nescis tum mori cum primum incipimus vivere mors cum vita protenditur And thus Adam begun to die i.e. to be liable to the Afflictions and Miseries of Life that very day that he sinn'd But Mr. Lock informs us more particularly what he cannot understand by Death Genesis 2. saying 1. Some will have it to be a state of Guilt wherein not only he but all his Posterity was so involv'd that every one descended of him deserv'd endless torment in Hell-fire 2. They would have it be also a state of necessary sinning and provoking God in every Action that Men do see Reasonab of Christianity p. 4 5. whereas he cannot subscribe to either of these significations of the Word Death But I must acknowledge my self so ignorant as not to know the Authors of these two Interpretations It would have been more satisfaction to his Readers if Mr. Lock had given us the Names of them together with their express Words and directed us to the places where we might have found them But he not having done this it cannot be expected that any notice should be taken of what he says concerning them There are who say that by Death Gen. 2. we are to understand not only that natural Death and that Death of external Afflictions and Sufferings of which we have spoken but also a spiritual Death so they call the loss of so much of the Image of God as consisted in perfect Righteousness and true Holiness and of that Light and Strength which Adam had before his Fall and likewise of everlasting Death They conceive that all these are comprehended under the Penalty threatned Gen. 2. And if Mr. Lock had disputed against these I should perhaps have consider'd his Arguments It may be said that he doth argue against those who make everlasting Death to be comprehended in that Threatning for that which we call eternal Death he calls eternal Life in Misery His words are these It seems a strange way of understanding a Law which requires the plainest and directest words that by Death should be meant eternal Life in Misery Could any one be suppos'd by a Law that says for Felony you shall die not that he should lose his Life but be kept alive in perpetual exquisite Torments Thus Mr. Lock Reasonab of Christian. p. 5. labouring to expose those who make a double Death both of Body and Soul not only temporal but also eternal to be threaten'd to Adam but it cannot be said that he argues against them for here is nothing that looks like an Argument 1. He says It is strange that by Death should be meant eternal Life in Misery but instead of Eternal Life in Misery he should have said Eternal Death in Misery for a Life in perpetual exquisite Torments and Misery is more truly a Death than a Life The Margin of our Bibles Gen. 2. 17. instead of Thou shalt surely die hath Dying thou shalt die which Words seem very properly to express Mens dying everlastingly 2. I cannot say that he doth say but I believe that he would have said that he who says for Felony thou shalt die cannot be suppos'd to mean not that he

Second Vindication p. 309. But every one sees that all he could say is that in effect they make but one and that with the same breath he expresly calls them two Articles There is therefore no necessity of our insisting upon this they that please may see what he himself saith in the same Vindication p. 25 26. 2. He insists much upon it that our Saviour's Crucifixion Death and Resurrection are mentioned and made use of as Arguments to persuade men of this Fundamental Truth viz. That Jesus was the Messiah they were not propos'd as Fundamental Articles which the Apostles principally aim'd at and endeavour'd to convince men of Second Vindicat. p. 268 269. So again p. 323. he urges that his Death and Resurrection were Matters of Fact which happen'd to him in their due time to compleat in him the Character and Predictions of the Messiah and demonstrate him to be the Deliverer promised they were no more necessary to be believ'd to make a man a Christian than any other part of Divine Revelation c. Thus Mr. Lock But the Question is not Whether the Crucifixion Death and Resurrection of Christ were propos'd by the Apostles as the Fundamental Truths which they principally aim'd at and endeavour'd to convince their Hearers of but whether they were not propos'd by them as Fundamental Truths Whether this That Jesus is the Messiah be the principal Article and whether it was the only Article preach'd by the Apostles as necessary to the making Men Christians are different Questions Mr. Lock in his Reasonab of Christian. p. 31. says expresly of the Article of Christ's Resurrection that it was also commonly requir'd to be believ'd as a necessary Article Where we may observe the Word Also which denotes that not only the Article of Jesus's being the Messiah but also this of the Resurrection was commonly requir'd as necessary And accordingly the same Mr. Lock says presently after That our Saviour's Resurrection is necessary now to be believ'd by those who would receive him as the Messiah It is true that in a place lately cited viz. his Second Vindication p. 323. he says That the Articles of Christ's Death and Resurrection are no more necessary to be believ'd to make a Man a Christian than any other part of divine Revelation but then it immediately follows But as far as they have an immediate Connexion with his being the Messiah and cannot be denied without denying him to be the Messiah And so he plainly grants That so far as they have such a Connexion with his being the Messiah they are necessary to be believ'd to make a Man a Christian which is as much as we need desire for thence it follows that this that Jesus is the Messiah was not the sole Doctrine that was preach'd as necessary to be believ'd to that end I must not forget that Mr. Lock also saith That our Saviour's Crucifixion Death and Resurrection were mention'd and made use of to prove that Jesus was the Messiah If so these Articles that Jesus was Crucify'd that he Died and that he Rose from Death were the Premisses and this that he was the Messiah the Conclusion Now it must be acknowledg'd that the Premisses are necessary to be believ'd before we can believe the Conclusion and therefore this makes against Mr. Lock not at all for him If we cannot believe that Jesus was the Messiah unless we believe that he rose from the dead which Mr. Lock confesses then the Article of the Resurrection was necessary to be preach'd and believ'd to make a man a Christian. 3. He says that his Resurrection and some other Articles are put for his being the Messiah and proposed to be believ'd in the place of it but I shall ●●ve occasion to examine this very shortly To proceed then How can Mr. Lock say that this that Jesus was the Messiah was the only Gospel-Article preach'd by the Apostles to Unbelievers to bring them to the Faith when he grants that in some of their discourses it was omitted yea and other Articles at the same time insisted on Thus in his Reasonab of Christianity p. 31. he says that Christ's Resurrection was sometimes solely insisted on So in his Second Vindication p. 284. he plainly confesses that in the Story of what Paul and Barnabas said at Lystra the Article of the Messiah is not mention'd tho' at the same time they preached the Article of the one living God See also Ibid. p. 307. where he says that 't is not at all to be wondered that his Resurrection his Ascension his Rule and Dominion and his coming to Judge the quick and the dead should sometimes in Scripture be put alone as sufficient Descriptions of the Messiah Thus Act. 10. our Saviour in Peter's discourse to Cornelius when he brought him the Gospel is described to be the Messiah by his Miracles Death Resurrection Dominion and cocoming to judge the quick and the dead Here he grants in express words that our Lord's Resurrection Ascension Dominion and judging the quick and dead are sometimes put alone and if they be sometimes put alone then the Article of his being the Messiah is sometimes omitted To the same purpose he says Ibid. p. 308. These where they are set alone for the Faith to which Salvation is promised plainly signifie the believing Jesus to be the Messiah Here he grants again That the four Articles just now mention'd are sometimes set alone and that the Article of Jesus's being the Messiah is only signified viz. by those four Articles and not express'd And indeed this is Mr. Lock 's usual Evasion that tho' other Articles are only insisted on in some places yet the Article of our Saviour's being the Messiah is signified by those Articles the believing them is put for believing him to be the Messiah they are proposed to be believ'd in the place of it see his Second Vindication p. 307 327. Where we may be sure that his Meaning is not that the other Articles were to be believ'd and the Article that Jesus is the Messiah was not to be believ'd tho' the words Proposed to be believ'd in place of it are capable of that sense but if I do not mistake his Meaning is that those Articles were propos'd to be believ'd that believing them they might believe also that Jesus was the Messiah because those were convincing Proofs of this But whatever his Meaning is this is manifest that they were proposed by the Apostles to Unbelievers as necessary to be believ'd to make them Christian And this is sufficient for the Confutation of those who say that only one Gospel-Article was preached as necessary to be believ'd to that end Before I leave this I must not omit to take notice that Mr. Lock doth assign a Reason why Paul and Barnabas did not mention the Article of the Messiah which I shall set down in his own words Having says he begun their preaching with that of one living God they had not time to proceed farther

concerning them for there is no Verb for this Nominative Case Men ignorant of Words c. But I suppose that it is to be supply'd out of that which follows so that his Meaning is this When it shall be made out that Men ignorant of Words or untaught by the Laws and Customs of their Country and all Men whatsoever do actually know and allow that it is part of the Worship of God not to kill a Man not to know more Women than one not to procure Abortion not to expose their Children not to take from another what is his tho' we want it our selves but on the contrary relieve and supply his Wants and whenever we have done the contrary we ought to repent be sorry and resolve to do so no more When I say all Men shall be prov'd actually to know and allow all these and a thousand other such Rules all which come under these two general Words Vertues and Sins there will be more Reason for admitting these and the like for common Notions and practical Principles Thus Mr. Lock who seems to deal very hardly with the Lord Herbert's third and fourth Propositions in that he will not admit them to be common Notions or as much as practical Principles until it be prov'd that all Men in the World even those that are ignorant of Words and untaught by the Laws and Customs of their Country do actually know and also allow of all these and a thousand other such Rules Methinks if all Men did actually know these and but half a thousand other such Truths we might see very great Reason for admitting those two Propositions to be of great use for directing our Practice and consequently to have a good Title to be accounted practical Rules or Principles St. Paul Rom. 1. instanceth in many things which the Gentiles actually knew to be ill Actions that will draw on Punishment upon the Doers and consequently according to Mr. Lock Sins for having enumerated them from v. 24. to v. 32. he says v. 32. that they knew that those who do such things are worthy of Death Now must not every one confess that the Lord Herbert's fourth Proposition That Men must repent if they would have those Sins forgiven and escape the Punishment due for them would have been of very great use to them Yea if Men have but Means to know that many things are Vertues or Vices the two fore-mention'd Propositions must not be deny'd to be practical Principles and such as might be very useful in Humane Life because through their own Default many do not actually know that they are Vertues or Vices The Lord Herbert makes that golden Rule St. Matth. 7. 12. Whatsoever things ye would that Men should do unto you do ye so to them to be a common Notion writ in the Hearts of Men and would they but call it frequently to mind and apply it to particular Actions by the Light of this they might know whether they have the Nature of Sin or no. The Application of this Rule to particular Actions would help us to the Knowledge of a great part of our Duty toward our Neighbour and therefore our Saviour says that this is the Law and the Prophets All my Duty toward my Neighbour depends upon it the whole Law concerning that is fulfill'd in it it is the Foundation of all Justice and Charity to Men. Hence it was that the Emperour Severus Alexander having heard this Sentence from the Jews or Christians we may rather think Christians caus'd it to be proclaim'd by the Cryer and to be writ on the Palace and on Publick Works see Jul. Capitolinus in Alexandro Severo To conclude then according to the Lord Herbert as that Proposition They must repent of their Sins if they would have God aton'd to them is writ upon the Hearts of Men so also is this Sentence All things whatsoever ye would that Men should do to you do ye likewise to them By which if they be not wanting to themselves they may know in a great measure what particular Actions are Sins and what they ought to do so that if that Proposition be not useful and instructive to them it is their own Fault Mr. Lock having said that when all Men shall be prov'd actually to know and allow all these and a thousand other such Rules there will be more Reason for admitting these for common Notions lest this Concession should be too liberal adds Yet after all universal Consent were there any in Moral Principles to Truths the Knowledge whereof might be attain'd otherwise would scarce prove them to be innate which is all I contend for Thus Mr. Lock But I do not well understand the meaning of the last words which is all that I contend for Doth which relate to that which is here express'd viz. that universal Consent to Truths the Knowledge whereof might be attain'd otherwise will scarce prove them to be innate so that this is all that he contends for Or doth it refer to something not express'd Mr. Lock having a Privilege to use Words otherwise than ordinary Persons are allow'd to do To this latter I incline that it is his meaning that he contends for no more than this that the Lord Herbert's Propositions are not innate tho' this is not express'd But let the one or the other be his meaning unless we were certain that by his Notitiae communes or Catholick Truths written in the Minds of Men the Lord Herbert meant the same that Mr. Lock doth by his innate Principles we cannot say that that honourable Person is at all concern'd or that Mr. Lock 's Conclusion doth contradict any thing that he hath deliver'd Thus I have consider'd all that Mr. Lock hath said in these five Sections wherein he hath to do with the Lord Herbert And now must it not seem strange that he should take upon him to examine what is written by a Person so eminent for his Parts as well as his Quality and after all have so little to say against him He only toucheth very slightly upon three of his Propositions or Notitiae communes viz. the first second and fifth and as to the third and fourth he had done better if he had pass'd them by as slightly unless he had said something more to the purpose Yea he is so far from confuting that he comes very far up toward the confirming all that the honourable Person design'd For he says plainly § 15. that all the five Propositions are such Truths as if rightly explain'd a rational Creature can hardly avoid giving his Assent to Now of such things as so soon as they are alledged all Men acknowledge them to be true or good they require no Proof or farther Discourse to be assured of the Truth or Goodness of them we need not fear to say that they seem to have a good Title to be receiv'd for common Notions or Catholick Truths written in the Hearts of Men which is all that the Lord Herbert contends