Selected quad for the lemma: death_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
death_n	actual_a	adam_n	answer_v	44	3	6.0774	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A30238	An expository comment, doctrinal, controversal, and practical upon the whole first chapter to the second epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians by Anthony Burgesse ...	Burgess, Anthony, d. 1664.	1661 (1661)	Wing B5647; ESTC R19585	945,529	736

make Christs fear of death only natural and say therefore he was more sadly affected with it than any of the Prophets or Martyrs because of the exquisite and tender constitution of his body do greatly derogate from that work of mediation for us and satisfaction which was done by his blood to the justice of God From these examples you see that though grace can subdue sinne conquer lusts overcome the Devil yet it cannot totally take away the anxiety and fear of death which is altogether natural though the sinfulness of it may be mortified But to this it may be objected How could Paul be so sollicitous about death when Phil. 1. 23. he saith He had a desire to depart and to be with Christ Yea he did not know what to choose whether life or death He was in a straight betwixt two a desire to be with Christ and a desire to live that he might be serviceable to the Church That this may be answered it is good to take more exact notice of that place for it is an admirable demonstration of the gracious frame of Paul's heart lest the Philippians should think that he desired their prayers for himself now in bonds for the Gospel as being too inordinately affected to the desire of life he sheweth what a blessed frame of heart he had obtained unto even that if it were put to his choice whether he should live or die he should be straightned what to do The desire to be with Christ on one side did so affect him and the desire of the Churches good by his labours on the other side did so much work upon him where we may observe that his desire to depart was not because he had troubles and calamities here it was not because of the miseries and afflictions he met with but want of love to Christ That I may be with Christ saith he he doth not say that I may have glory that I may reign in Heaven but be with Christ Christs presence maketh Heaven to be Heaven Though Paul in this life was in Christ yet he was not with Christ Further he doth not say meerly I desire but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Having a desire it was a constant setled permanent desire in him and that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to cut the rope as it were and to set fail to Heaven to return to him from whom he had his spiritual being The Apostle then did not only desire to be with Christ but he judged it the farre better condition for him Therefore we must distinguish of a two-fold desire there is a Natural Desire and an Elicite Desire A Natural Desire is that which floweth from the meer principles of Nature desiring to preserve it self and this Paul could not but have as he was a man Even as our Saviour told Peter He should be bound and should be carried whether he would not Joh. 21. 18. that is according to his natural will otherwise according to his will as sanctified did with readiness and joy go to the place of his Martyrdom An Elicite Desire is that which a man putteth forth according to the principles of reason and grace so that we may desire one thing with a natural desire another thing with an elicite A man that hath a putrified arm doth with a natural desire will to continue his arm still in his body but with an elicite desire following reason so he willeth to cut it off And thus Paul did with an elicite desire so he willed Heaven and being with Christ rather than to continue in the flesh To amplifie this Consider First That death is not according to mans creation at first he was not made mortal or corruptible But as the sentence of God doth witness In the day Adam did eat of the forbidden fruit he fell into a dying condition It is true The Question is of a large dispute Whether Adam was made immortal or no The Papists say he was made mortal and the Socinians they do more frowardly oppose this truth affirming Adam would have died though there had not been any eating of the forbidden fruit So that with them actual death was necessary before Adams sinne only it became a punishment after But Rom. 5. the Apostle at large sheweth That by one mans sinne death came into the world And Rom. 6. 23. The wages of sinne is death Death then being wholly against the natural institution At first Adam had an implanted love of his life in him And although his estate was so blessed that there could not be place for any fear yet had he been capable of losing his life his love to it would have made him afraid of being deprived of it This then is the great mystery that the natural wise men of the world were ignorant of Death they would not deny they called it The tribute of Nature which all must pay only they did not know the cause of it they understood not how it came to se●se upon all mankind Secondly Seeing that death is thus connatural and the effect of sinne and the Devil Hence it is that which maketh Death farre more terrible than otherwise it would be is sinne Whatsoever bitterness and gall is in death it doth chiefly come from sinne 1 Cor. 15. 56. The sting of death is sinne So many sinnes as thou committest thou puttest so many stings into death to make it more dreadfull Could a man die and have not any sinne laid to his charge though it would be pain yet it would not be terrour When Aristotle calleth death 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The terrible of terribles He speaketh of death as now it is Now in death as ordinarily men die there is not a bare apprehension of the dissolution of soul and body but there is the guilt of sinne likewise interposing whereby a dying man is usually terrified with the thoughts of what he hath done and in Christians what will become of them when they are dead Animula blandula quae nunc abibis in loca Die I dare not live I cannot and thus his soul is miserably in agonies and grievous tormenting fears and all because sinne is the sting of death Oh it were easie to die were it not for sinne for hell for judgement were it not for conscience accusing and condemning But this is it which maketh the thoughts of it so grievous and terrible Therefore in the third place The Lord Christ came into the world to destroy and remove this sting of death To change the nature of death that it should not be matter of terror but of joy and comfort being like Joseph's Chariot to carry us to the place of our hope and desire Thus we have the Apostle insulting over death 1 Cor. 15. 54 55. Death is swallowed up in victory Death doth not swallow the godly man but he doth swallow that up O death where is thy sting Thanks be to God which giveth us victory by our Lord Jesus Christ Were it not then for

c. These are horrible execratory oaths though God be not named These two things premised let us consider What doubts may be raised from the forementioned definition of an Oath And First In that an Oath is said to be a religious calling upon God it may be asked Whether words be necessary to an oath May it not be by other signes The Answer is That a man may swear mentally and in his heart onely because God is a searcher of that and knoweth every thing which moveth in us And again Dumb men as Zacharias for instance no doubt might have sworne by some signes he might make Hence the Comical Poet cited by Covarruvias and Grotius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is a firme Oath though I doe but nodde with my head A man also may swear by writing and thus the Apostles Oath is here in the Text by writing Yea Austin's observation is That he doth not remember that ever the Apostle did swear any otherwise than in writing not in speech or discourse he delivered by mouth And hereby an Oath is made more deliberate If no men would swear but first write it down it would be a special means to stop much ungodly swearing The second Question is We define an Oath to be a religious calling upon God as a witnesse Whether then it be not lawfull to sweare by the creature What is more ordinary not onely amongst Papists but Protestants also than to swear by the light by this bread by their faith and truth and these are creatures To this it is answered First That the Papists Covarruvias part prima relect de juram though they hold an Oath to be a religious worship of God yet they say we may sweare by creatures but with this distinction not absolutely and terminatively staying in them but relatively to God whose power and goodnesse is eminent in the creatures But this is an empty distinction For our Saviour doth absolutely prohibit to sweare by the creatures Matth. 5. and the command is often to sweare by God alone they are reproved also who sweare by God and Baal God and Milchom For although they were Idols yet the reason of the prohibition is because they are not Gods and every creature is not a god therefore it is not lawfull to sweare by any creature neither terminatively nor transitively for all is Idolatry giving the worship due to God unto the creature It is true though a man sweare by the creature which is unlawfull yet it is an Oath for all that and doth oblige as our Saviour informed against the Pharisees Non te audit lapis loquentem sed Deus te punit fallentem saith Austin speaking of the Heathenish custome which was to hold a flint in their hands while they did sweare saying If I doe deceive let me be cast out of the City as I throw away this stone This they called swearing Pexr Jovem lapidem Therefore it is a foolish and senslesse evasion of many to say they doe not sweare by God they are but petty oaths as is to be shewed For here is the more Idolatry when you sweare by a creature Is your Faith a God Is your Troth a God Is the Light and Bread you sweare by a God These oaths were usual amongst Heathens Socrates whether it was to deride the Heathens opinions about their gods would sweare by a Cocke and by a Dogge It cannot be denied but that it might be men at first out of a superstitious reverence to God did forbeare to swear by him but herein they did more dishonour God while they thought to honour him which is alwayes the fruit of superstition Some Protestants indeed Calvin and Peter Martyr are said in some sense to allow swearing by creatures as the symbols of Gods presence and power but that is not safe and there is no creature but in it the power and wisdome of God doth appear so that then we might swear by every creature God then onely is to be sworne by for he alone is the all-seeing witnesse of all that we doe and omnipotent to punish such as shall take his Name in vaine So that thou art not to thinke thou art clean from the dishonour of God because thou swearest but doest not name him It is true two wayes learned men say we may mention a creature in an Oath though we do not swear by it And The first is when we mention it as a pledge in which we desire God would punish us if we say not the truth As here in the Text Paul doth name his soule though he doth not sweare by it And in this sense some excuse that speech of Joseph's By the life of Pharaoh Genes 42. 15. For say they his meaning is As deare as Pharaoh's life is unto me which I would have God constantly preserve it is thus and thus Even as in the primitive times though the Christians refused to swear Per genium Imperatoris yet they did swear per salutem as that which was dear unto them Although for that fact of Joseph some say it was his sinne and condemn him therein as if by living in Pharaoh's Court he had contracted this sinfull custome In the second place it is lawfull to mention a creature in an Oath and not swear by it When we make a collation and comparison as it were betweene the truth of one thing and another As when David said to Jonathan As the Lord liveth and as thy soule liveth there is but a steppe betweene me and death 1 Samuel 10. 3. Thus Hannah said to Eli O my Lord as thy soule liveth I am the woman that stood here praying 1 Sam. 1. 26. Thus Abner said to Saul when he asked him Whose sonne David was he answered As thy soule liveth O King I cannot tell 1 Sam. 17. 55. In these places they doe not sweare by the soule of a man but make a comparison as sure as they live which is plaine and manifest so surely is such a thing true And in this sense likewise some defend that Oath of the primitive Christians By the safety or life of the Emperour if thereby they did not meane God himself as David often calleth God The health and light of his countenance yea his life also Now although in these respects a creature may be named lawfully yet the latter way is not to be used by Christians For it is offensive to godly eares especially that is a wicked and most ungodly comparison which some men use when they will say Such a thing is as true as God is true For that is blasphemy to compare a creature and the infinite Majesty of God together in matter of truth In the third place Concerning this Definition of an Oath that is A religious calling upon God we may question concerning some forme of speeches which are frequently used amongst us whether they be Oaths or no. As First Many have this ordinary expression I vow to God it is