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	punishment_n	sin_n	6,862	5	5.5451	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A45407	A copy of some papers past at Oxford, betwixt the author of the Practicall catechisme, and Mr. Ch.	Hammond, Henry, 1605-1660.; Cheynell, Francis, 1608-1665.	1650 (1650)	Wing H531; ESTC R18463	111,324	132

that there was Gospel under the Law and the Spirit c. and divers Iewes penitent beleevers and therefore under the second Covenant Sir all this is granted most willingly and yet Christs comming in the flesh did bring more light more plentifull effusions of the Spirit and so might possibly be allowed to give new precepts also 2 For the promises how plaine they were to the Jews needed not to bee disputed by him who speaks onely of precepts save onely as the height or plainnesse of the promises is amongst other arguments apt to make higher precepts more seasonable and yet that the promises might be cleared by Christ and made more universally knowne you will hardly deny or disprove also For though they were so plaine that they saw them yet 't was afarre off in your owne citation of Hebrewes 11 and they that were present to Christ who was one of the promises might sure have a clearer sight of them The same will bee answer to your third argument for that concernes the promises againe and in that respect 't is sufficient to adde that the promises were they never so high before were now sure clearer under Christ and that is all that is affirmed by that Author and will suffice to inferre his concluded obligation to higher obedience And so likewise the fourth will be answered concerning the Ceremonies which I acknowledge to have had some good in them in order to Christ whom they prefigured but yet many of them had none in themselves I am sure none when Christ is come and hath removed the obligation of them and so may bee allowed to have added some new precepts in lieu of them and I am as sure they have not so much of goodnesse or easinesse the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as now is in the very highest and strictest precepts that are given us under Christ and therefore there is nothing like unreasonable in the change In your fifth sure 't is not so strange that I should mention the pardoning of sinne now under Christ for though that was to bee had for the penitent beleever under the time of the Law of Moses yet was it 1. Not by the power or purport of the Law but onely by Christ And 2 't was not at all to bee had in the state of nature or first Covenant which required unsinning obedience and to the Law of nature that law of Christ was said to super-add as well as to the Law of Moses and therefore that particular in the 95 page was not impertinent neither or capable of your sad wonder But how I am obliged to thinke your question Whether there is any veniall sinne tolerably pertinent or fit to expect any returne from mee at this time I cannot guesse yet shall 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and answer that also that though no sinne have any title to pardon under the first Covenant yet under or by the purport of the second many sinnes not gotten out of infirmities c. shall be washed in Christs blood and so bee actually pardoned which is more then veniall or pardonable in that sense whereas many other shall never bee capable of that washing or that pardon without particular forsaking but bring them that lye under them impenitent unbeleevers into condemnation This were abundantly enough considering the call I have to the answering of that question at this time Yet to demonstrate to you that I am not over shy of answering you a question though it bee of some nicety when you think fit to ask it me I will goe a little farther to serve you and give you the state of this question if you please by way of supposition at large in such a manner possibily that no party will find much to object to it Thus What is the meaning of this ordinary question an aliquod peccatum sit suâ naturâ veniale will appeare by the answer that must bee given if it bee satisfactory to this argument which I shall imagine produced against it No sinne is in its owne nature mortall for that sinne should bee the cause of damning any or that punishement eternall should bee due to sinne is but an accident that the Law or Covenant of God brought in either to Adam Quo die comeder is morte morieris or after Behold I set before you life and death c. for sure had it not beene for that Law of prohibition that Covenant with that penalty on breach of conditions sinne had never damned any one and therefore those irrationall creatures to whom no such Law is made and Covenant given though they should be supposed to sinne against the Law of their creation they shall not be punished eternally for that Now it is an old rule in Logick that Accident advenit enti in actu existenti and is not de naturâ subjecti though sometimes so ingraffed into it that it becomes inseparable from it therefore this being mortall or damning being an accident that came in by Gods Covenant or Law cannot bee of the nature of sinne what ever that sinne bee For if it were so then God who cannot make contradictions true nor consequently take away the nature of the thing and preserve the thing could not take away the damningnesse of sinne from sinne any more then quantity from a body manente peccato realiter which yet wee know God can doe and ordinarily doth by pardoning of sinne for however it may be said by way of answer to that part of the Argument that Christ suffered and satisfied for sinne or else God could not pardon any not to dispute the truth of that whether hee could or no it still remaines that the damningnesse of sin is then taken from sin by what meanes it now matters not This is the Argument I meant to suppose made against that plaine granted truth and to this argument hee that had proposed the maine question and held it negative if hee will ever answer must say that the Law and Covenant of God whether that signifie the eternall Law or even the eternall will of God who wills holinesse as hee is God or in any other motion of Law is a maine ingredient in the constituting of sin the very formalis ratio that makes that which is of its selfe materially an act to become formaliter a sinfull act that makes the killing of a man which is materially murder to be also formally the sin of murther and therefore if by the Law or Covenant of God all sinne bee made mortall then may it truly bee said in this other notion or respect or for this reason that all sinne is so of its owne nature This answer must bee acknowledged to bee pertinent and satisfactory and so any Protestant will receive it and in stead of excepting against it I desire to strike in and close with both Disputer and Answerer and inferre that then it seemes this is resolved on by that party that holds all sinnes in their owne

Judaicall and will now accept of sincere though it bee not unsinning obedience If this Divinity will not please you in any measure I shall never approve my selfe to you but yet hope that you doe not thinke in earnest that the Antinomians errour is that Christ added higher precepts or by more light encreased the obligation to obedience above that which the Law required I suppose you meant that name onely as a mormo to fright mee not that now because I am no Socinian I must bee an Antinomian presently After the setting downe the All that you desire and that closed as I conceived with a finally it seemes you have two desires more and one of them hath many more in it also and when your desires doe so increase upon you I can scarce hope to give you satisfaction and therefore shall desire to be excused if I proceed not to them because some parts of those desires I cannot imagine how I am obliged to answer at all as to tell you what grace was brought into the world by the Law of Moses when I make no doubt to acknowledge that grace came by Christ and as I remember 't was you not I that seem'd to say the contrary in the top of the second page of your fifth leafe of this last returne The Spirit was administred c. during the time of legall administrations which yet I would not there quarrell with neither but think them reconcilable by a commodious interpretation and other parts are utterly impertinent to any part of our point in hand as that Of all mankind's being under the second Covenant Of Christs satisfying for all and so of pardon and revelation of the Law of faith to all which if it were the thing which brought in all the former will be easily satisfied by saying that what was before so revealed sufficiently pro statu was not yet so fully and clearly as now by the comming of Christ and so that also of the Aaronicall Priesthood wherein yet I perceive you conclude strangely against that Author For sure hee can very well think what he doth that Christ can satisfie for sinnes notwithstanding that the exercise of his Aaronicall Priesthood consists in his sacrifice For though that sacrifice bee a ceremony of his consecration to his Melchisedechian Priesthood in one respect yet as a sacrifice not in the shadow but of the substance as a sacrifice not of the bullock or goat which indeed can make but a typicall satisfaction but of the Lambe and eternall Sonne of God this sacrifice may well expiate and satisfie and so did indeed And if you can get the Socinians to affirme this also I shall never quarrell with you I should bee glad you could thus make them your converts But sure Smalciu's Non est dissimulandum nos non negare Christi mortem ad ejus sacrificium pertinere will not come home to it For they can say this frequently and yet not think that any satisfaction for sinne was made by any sacrifice of Christ not that that sacrifice consisted in Christs death or was offered by his dying but expresse the meaning of those words sufficiently that the death of Christ did onely pertinere to that sacrifice which was not offered up in his death Which you see is not my sense but that the death it selfe was a sacrifice and in it satisfaction made for sinne by the sacrificer I was afraid a word would not bee enough to every wise man and therefore I have beene forced to adde this also As for your 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of your conquests you have liberty to use it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and triumph as much as you please For though the perhaps foolish wanton using of Gods name which is not alwaies in oaths would not restraine from foolish wanton swearing and yet me thinks à majori it might yet sure the sure all prophane c. and the exposition of Christs 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may bee allowed to doe it and so all had beene safe and to that matter altogether as cleare if the perhaps had never been blotted out 2 Christs new precepts will do it whether they signifie superaddition of more precept or more light which inferres encrease of obligation and if they would not I should not by that bee obliged to rest satisfied without them However you see I doe not rest so satisfied but onely tell you what you are to understand by them and that just agreeably or in terminis the same to what had beene said before in that Catechisme 3 For Christs not forbidding swearing it selfe you will give me leave to have been long since of that opinion with you meaning by it that swearing for Gods glory or the publique good is not forbidden by Christ and therefore sure the meaning of the answer A totall universall prohibition of swearing it selfe was something else viz. of swearing at all by the name of any other beside God which formerly you might have beleeved if you had pleased But I am afraid Sir you are fallen upon some new notion of the sinne of dogmatizing For to the notion that I alwayes have had of it viz. teaching for doctrines or necessary duties the Traditions of men or imposing things as doctrines of God which are not such 't is impossible your words can belong Doe not you meane by the sinne of dogmatizing transire in dogmata vel sententias aliorum I suppose you do by what follows of my condescending too passively to take up both opinions This may possibly bee a slip in you I shall not upbraid you with it By what hath now twice or thrice been said your new argument is superseded and I am for all my assent to the answer in the Catechisme verily perswaded that forswearing my selfe for the publque good were a farre greater sinne then swearing truly in order to that end But that that Author must still bee forced to have contradicted himselfe is very hard when the cleare account of his not having done so hath so oft been given and cannot yet get a little audience from you I would you would bee but so well natured as to tell mee the meaning of your sic notus Vlysses and what the designe is that you could so easily guesse at This plaine dealing would deserve farre more thankes but indeed not set mee out for so dangerous an undermining designer then your suspitious speakings and then affected reservation Speake out the deepest of your heart 't will bee as seasonable and as just I suppose and in all reason as well taken as your question about the weighty superstructure or your collections in either Sermon For your stumbling at my 12 page about reduction I am sorry and shall labour to keepe you from falling downe right By telling you 1 That sinnes forbidden by the same authority may yet more or lesse clearely bee forbidden by that authority and under the second of those viz. those that are lesse clearely forbidden that of reduction