Selected quad for the lemma: death_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
death_n	adam_n	nature_n	sin_n	8,709	5	5.4949	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A80793	The refuter refuted. Or Doctor Hammond's Ektenesteron defended, against the impertinent cavils of Mr. Henry Jeanes, minister of Gods Word at Chedzoy in Somerset-shire. By William Creed B.D. and rector of East-Codford in Wiltshire.	Creed, William, 1614 or 15-1663.	1659 (1659)	Wing C6875; Thomason E1009_1; ESTC R207939	554,570	699

but also transcend the most sincere expressions of Love It may be so in all men and I shall alleage two reasons why in Christ c. § 14. To your first question I return that it is readily granted For every prudent Father does often deal so with the child he most loves and God himself sometimes in mercy hides his face and withdraws the light of his countenance from his dear children and servants when yet with an everlasting Love he affects and with everlasting kindness will have Jer. 31 3. Isa 54. 8. mercy upon them But will you thence conclude against the express letter of the Gospell that Christs earnestness in prayer was not greater in his Agony then at other times Sir you must consider that you are not now to remonstrate what may possibly come to pass or what in other men at other times and in other cases happens but what de facto then was at the time of our Saviours bloody Agony And who sees not at first glance that your Proofs fall a hundred short of your Conclusion For we are not now upon the disquisition and enquiry of what was Physicê and naturally possible but what was Morally such and what de facto according to S. Lukes plain Narration and the ordinary course and Practise of men did then come to pass And therefore since the Rule of the Law is that illud possumus quod Jure possumus if it has already appeared and clearly been demonstrated that the Christian Grace of Sincerity does ordinarily and in most cases require it and usually where the Charity is true and perfect and not counterfeit or innocently concealed for the advantage of the beloved there is and ought to be a proportionable correspondence between the Outward and the Inward Acts of Love and as the one falls or rises so also in Proportion do the other then it will not be enough to inferr which yet is all you conclude that the degrees of the inward Acts of Love may not onely equall but also transcend the most sincere expressions you must prove that they still must and ought to do so which I think will be impossible But yet let me tell you that if you should perform this more then Herculean Task you will still be very far short of concluding any thing against the Doctor For again I must remember you that we are not now speaking of the Elicite Acts of the Formall virtue of Charity and the Love of God properly taken but onely of the Imperate Acts of that Charity the Ardency of Prayer which is onely Tropically such and this will yet make your task more impossible § 15. And therefore whereas you add for a Confirmation that he is no hypocrite in expressing his Love that loves Inwardly more then he expresseth Outwardly I answer that this is manifestly impertinent to the matter in debate Christs Ardency in Prayer And though in some cases I shall make no scruple to grant it yet mind you I must that the Christian Grace of sincerity requires that in the Ordinary Course of humane affairs as our Love should not be Personate so it should be fruitfull and operative otherwise it would in this be lame and imperfect as well as in the other it would be counterfeit And this further manifests that from such not onely vain and impertinent but also false allegations as understood according to the ordinary course of morality and practise among men you will never be able to demonstrate that our Saviour in his Agony did not more earnestly according to the inward Act and Fervour deprecate his last bitter cup then any other worldly cross and affliction to which he was exposed in the dayes of his flesh § 16. But yet he will essay to make good his undertaking JEANES It may be so in all men and I shall alleage two reasons why in Christ the inward Acts of his Love were alwayes equally intense though the outward expressions thereof were gradually different § 17. And if you can make this good in the sense that the Doctor understands all along the Phrase The Love of God nay if you can clearly prove it in your own I am so great a friend to any Reason you shall bring that though you have failed in all your other undertakings yet I shall give you the whole cause for that single Reasons sake § 18. Let us weigh then your reasons to this Purpose and try them at the touchstone JEANES The first reason agreeth unto Christ in common with other men Christ as man was alwayes obliged unto the most intense ardent and fervent inward acts of Love of God But he was not c. § 19. Say you so Sir Nay then I do not doubt but notwithstanding my fair proffer you yet will fall short and so lose the golden Ball at last § 20. For Christ as Mediator and one that had undertook to pay our debt was not onely Priviledged in the humane nature by virtue of the hypostaticall union to be holy harmless undefiled but by virtue of the Covenant and contract betwixt him and the Father as well as by that First made with all mankind in Adam was obliged to be spotless and innocent otherwise he could never have been that Lamb of God that takes away the sins of the world But then Man though in his integrity by virtue of the first Covenant he were bound to sinless perfection yet now since the Fall and the Fatall curse incurred and in Part inflicted on him he may as justly by that or any other New Covenant be obliged to be Immortall as the Condition of his Salvation as to be absolutely sinless and pure from all even Originall Pollution since his Corruption as well as his Mortality is an equall fruit of the first Sin and it is a part of the Curse and Punishment of Adam even inflicted on him by God that all his posterity should be left to be born after the similitude of his fallen nature For by one man sin entred into the world and death Rom. 5. 12. by sin and so death by that one passed upon all men to condemnation for that all have sinned or as S. Austin constantly reads it in quo omnes peccaverunt in whom all have sinned § 21. As then God may justly though not by Positive infliction yet by spirituall desertion and Penall decree punish one sin with an other so the Scripture assures us that this originall guilt and pollution and the vitious effects of it seize on us as a part of our punishment and Praeludium of eternall damnation and all the sons of Adam for their transgression in him are by virtue of the first covenant as certainly dead in Law and in some measure also executed as the damned are now in Hell though not so absolutely so irreversibly as they I would not be mistaken I say by virtue of that Covenant so certainly dead in Law though not so irreversibly And if the Mediatour of the new Covenant

sed quod potest adjutus divino Spiritu Quo autem major nunc datur aut offertur spiritus copia eo praeceptum quoque istud vberius praestandum est H. Grot. in annot ad Matth c. 22. vers 37. p. 375. § 48. † Daille l. 1. de Jejuniis cap. 7. apud D. Hammond in his Account of the Triplex Diatribe p. 144 Scalig. Elench Trehaeres c. 22. in the treatise of Will worship sect 28. Vide Bp. Downeham of the Covenant of Grace c. 10. throughout Monsieur Daillé and Joseph Scaliger both Protestants sufficient and in Treatises particularly opposed against Bellarmine and Serrarius the Jesuite have been quoted by the Doctor to this very purpose and others might be added to the Number But these are sufficient to acquit the Doctor from the suspicion of Popery in this his Doctrine and let our Refuter know that all Protestants are not even of the learned Chamier's opinion in this point And now that the Doctor and those of his Judgement are in the right I undertake to defend and shall make it good in * Vide infra sect 32. §. 20 21 22 23 24 c. 32. sect 26 27 29 31. due place § 49. Indeed the assertion of Chamier is so notoriously false that it carries its own confutation in its forehead even to the most ordinary observer and I wonder by what misfortune and inadvertence it dropped from his Pen. What Omnes gradns comprehendimus amoris qui obtineri possunt vel in hac vita vel in altera si quid sit minus id peccato deputamus Let our Refuter himself in his most Protestant Ruff construe it and tell us how he can make it good Can he ever be able to prove that it is my sin that I see not God face to face while I am in the body and walk by Faith not by sight If it be my sin that I be not a Comprehensor in Heaven while I am in the state of a Viator upon earth that I be not present with the Lord while I am absent from him that I enjoy not Heaven happinesse and the sight of God whilst I am in the flesh in which state no man can see him and live then God with all humble Reverence be it spoken must be the Author of it For God has planted us all in that Condition where we can only see him by Faith and Revelation as through a glass darkly and not face to face Even Adam in innocence had only this advantage to see God by 1 Cor. 13. 12. Faith and clearer Revelation but not at all by Sight And now if our Love of necessity must bear proportion to our Knowledge Impossible it is I should love God at that height whilst I am in the flesh as I can do and shall by Gods Grace I firmly hope when I see him face to face and shall know as I am known Even the souls of Adam and all just men now made perfect do far more intensely more fervently love God whom they now see and enjoy in Heaven then ever Adam did or could if he had continued still in Innocence They love him now Naturally Uninterruptedly Constantly and Immutably but Adam in Paradise Habitually and not alwaies Actually for of necessity the Acts of his Love must be interrupted at least whilst he slept and Freely and therefore Mutably as his fall does too sadly evidence Nay the very Angels that fell not but kept their first station do now more fervently love God since their Confirmation in Grace because they now Immutably love him and have had since the fall of Lucifer an Experiment of his Favour to them which the others had not § 50. With what colour of truth then can it be maintained that it must be deputed and reckoned my sin if I love not God to as high a degree in this life as is possible to be attained in the next For does not that height and perfection of Love depend purely upon the sight and enjoyment of God and the participation of Heaven happiness And is not this height and intensenesse of Love an effect at least of the happiness of the Spirits of just men made perfect And does not this wholly and absolutely depend upon Gods bounty For though the wages of sin be death yet the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. Rom. 6. 23. And shall it be my sin that Gods gifts are not at my Command or within my power to purchase them Or must we say with Bellarmine that it is our sin and will be our punishment if we do not even ex condigno merit Heaven For so of necessity it must be said before it can be maintained that it must be our sin and transgression of this first and great Commandement if we love not God to that height and degree that the blessed Saints and Angels do love him in Heaven with that precise utmost height which is possible to be attained not only in this life but also in the next Add to this that the Saints and Angels now confirmed in grace do love God Naturally and Necessarily to that height that they love him and they can as well cease to see God and know God as not so to love him This is not now their election and choice but their happinesse and Crown their reward nay their Nature not their Labour and Endeavour How then can the want of that Fervour be my sin which is not within the compass of my Will and power to arrive at * Vide Davenant de Justit habit Act. c. ●1 p. 470. arg 1. He should as well have said it is our fault that now we be not immortal and glorified whilest we are in the flesh And let me tell our Refuter that he also should have said we are obliged to see God face to face whilest we are in this body as well as to have told us that the first and greatest Commandement enjoyneth us a love of God with as high a degree as is possible Jeanes hic p. 31. unto the humane Nature For I hope he will not say but that is possible to the humane Nature which Enoch and Elias not to speak of our Blessed Saviour at the right hand of God and the Spirits of just men made perfect have now attained to § 51. Indeed this assertion of Chamier is so extremly crude and absurd in that sense which the words at first view do seem to import that I had rather strain them to the meaning and purpose of Grotius and Doctor Hammond then any such monstrous Paradox should be affixed to so Judicious and learned a man Howsoever if Mr. Cawdrey and our Refuter will needs otherwise understand him as they seem in this assertion of theirs to have done which I conceive was to them the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Stone of stumbling and Rock of offence I shall leave them to defend and make it good For