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	sin_n	soul_n	5,612	5	5.5561	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A26655	Jesuitico-Quakerism examined, or, A confutation of the blasphemous and unreasonable principles of the Quakers with a vindication of the Church of God in Britain, from their malicious clamours, and slanderous aspersions / by John Alexander ...	Alexander, John, 1638-1716.	1680 (1680)	Wing A916; ESTC R21198	193,704	258

not be Creatures but the Devil is a Creature therefore certainly God made him Secondly If God made not the Devil then the Devil is an Uncreated Independent Being for a Being he is existing from himself and so there is not one but two Uncreated Independent Beings the one of them Essentially Good the other Essentially Evil being the very same thing with Sin as the Quakers would which is the demented Ghost of old Manicheus before the time arisen from the dead but that is most absurd Blasphemy Thirdly If Original Sin be the Devil then the Original Sin of all Mankind was existent before any Man had Sinned and would have been to this day though never Man had Sinned seeing Mankinds continuance in Obedience would not have destroyed the Devils Being but these things are ridiculous and yet that which is aimed in this Query hath been often said by Quakers in my face and hearing Lastly If Original Sin be the Devil then there can be no Original Sin inherent in any Man but we must be all born as Innocent and Spotless as ever Adam was Created for the Devil being a compleat Substantial Being can never inhere as an accident into any other Subject But it 's most false that we have no Original Sin but are born Innocent and Clean which by these few Scriptures I prove Rom. 5.12 Death hath passed upon all Men because all have Sinned but all have not sinned actually viz. Infants have not Therefore it must be meant of Original Sin seeing of one of the two it must be meant or else the Apostle ignorantly mistakes the reason why Death passes upon all Men viz. because of Sin but that cannot be said John 3.6 That which is born of the Flesh is Flesh Job 4.14 Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean no not one viz. naturally and in an ordinary course Again I have proved that God Ordains Infants to be Baptized which is given us for the Remission of our Sins as is shewed Infants then must have Sin to be Remitted otherwise there needed no Remission of Sin but they have no actual Sin Therefore Original Sin Again Except a Man be born again he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God John 3.5 But Infants as well as others partake of the Kingdom of God as is before proved Therefore there are Infants born again and so they must surely be sinful naturally or else they could not be born again or Regenerated Again David for the deeper sence of his own Vileness ascends to the fountain and source of all the Evil and Uncleanness that he was liable unto confessing that in iniquity he was formed and in sin his Mother conceived him Psal 51.5 where what I pray would it have done to Davids deeper sence and further acknowledgment of his Vileness which undeniably is his scope that his Mother being in sin as Pelagianizers have learned to answer did conceive him spotless and without sin Nay surely the wanting of Original Sin would have made him to be the less vile not the more and beside it was his own Sin not his Mothers which he came to confess and again lastly We are by Nature Children of Wrath Ephes 2.3 therefore by nature we must be sinful which must be Original Sin seeing we have no other Sin by nature and that we are born in The Consequence is Infallible seeing we cannot be Children of wrath in that very respect and under that very consideration in which respect and under which consideration we are sinless and pure for then as we are sinless and pure we should be heirs of wrath which is an absurd Blasphemy and cannot stand with the justice of God to curse a Man when he is Innocent tell me not the instance of Christ Jesus who though he was altogether spotless in himself inherently yet he stood in our room as our Cautioner and all our sins were laid upon him Isa 53.6 Pelagianizers answer us that the Posterity of Adam Sins only by Imitation of their Predecessors But Contrariwise then we are only by Imitation and not by Nature Children of wrath contrary to the Apostles Doctrine For we cannot by nature be Children of wrath and yet by nature be pure and sinless Secondly I have shewed that Infants have sin in them but not by imitation surely seeing they are not capable to imitate therein Therefore they must be sinful by nature not by imitation Thirdly if we were made sinners only by Imitation then some men might escape from that for we are not such perfect Apes as to imitate necessarily what we see in others Lastly if Adams sin be propagat to us only by Imitation then we shall be made righteous in Christ only by imitation of his righteousness also But the consequent is utterly false Therefore so is the antecedent from which it followes The connexion of the Major which only needs proving I prove from Rom. 5 19. Where the Apostle declares that as by one mans disobedience many were made Sinners so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous Which comparison requires some special proportion betwixt these members so exactly compared whereof there is scarce any shadow betwixt the imitation and true and real Communication Pelagianizers again answer that though we be by nature corrupt yet that corruption is not our sin but our affliction and punishment only Contrariwise as the habit principle and seed of grace is grace and so also all habits are still of the same nature with their acts so also the seed and principle of sin must be sin Rom. 7.23 is called the Law of sin Warring against the Law of the mind and so it s an enemy to grace and the Image of God Rom 8.7 it s called in the very abstract to shew its wicked nature Enmity against God and that it is not neither can be Subject to this Law Galat. 5.17 Paul sayes it lusteth against the Spirit and is contrary thereunto Shall that then which is the source principle and spring of all our actual sins is enmity against God his whole Image and his Laws and a contrary enemy to the Spirit shall that I say not be sinful nay then surely there is no sin in the World nor is it possible to render a definition of sin if that be not sin George Keith in his Quakerism no Popery page 75 76 answers that our natural concupiscence doth not infer any real guiltiness upon us nor makes us guilty of death without our actual consent thereunto and which is more strange that it doth not indwell in any except where it is kindly received and obeyed and that therefore which is his direct scope our natural corruption is none of our sin untill we consent actually unto it But contrariwise the Scripture which I beleive much better shews that by the sin of Adam all were made sinners and guilty of death Rom. 5.16 17 18 19. and that by nature we are Children of wrath Eph. 2.3 and so George Keith

Holy Ghost that dwelt in them 1 Cor. 1.2 and 6.11 19. and yet they did Celebrate the Gospel-Supper among them and that by Divine Appointment 1 Cor. 10.16 and 11.21 23 24 28. and so the Gospel-Supper was appointed to be Celebrated by People in whom Christ doth already and previously dwell yea none else but such are allowed to partake of it as is shewed before But need they then Bread and Wine say the Quakers to put them in Remembrance of him after Christ is come to dwell in them Ans Now the Quakers begin to dispute and prove their Thesis against the Gospel-Supper and their Argument is a fruit of their conceipted perfection in this life from whence they infer that they need no Ordinances albeit the Apostle affirms 1 Cor. 8.2 and 13.9.12 that our knowledge in this life is still short of that which it ought to be and is but in part and that all of it is but dark and through a Glass which shews that we have need of Means and Ordinances as so many Perspicils or Glasses to help our weak and dim-sighted Eyes without which we cannot take up the object This conceipted Perfection of theirs I shall discuss at the Fifteenth Query when I come to it But wha● Do these in whom Christ dwells need nothing to put them in Remembrance of him for the Argument carries as much against every such thing as against the Gospel-Supper as is manifest indeed this very well Homologates with their Confession where they decry all manner of External Ordinances calling them Unclean Carnal Dead Babylonish Heathenish Observations and the Whores Cup of Abominations in several places thereof for which see it pages 10 24 77 79 87 92 102 104 105 108 111 122 130 133 135. But I am sure it suits not with the Scriptures any where that shews us many Ordinances and Means appointed of God to keep us in mind of him and our duty unto him and particularly of the Sacred Supper as a Memorial of what Christ hath done and Suffered for us and our memories that are especially weak in Spiritual things have great need of Remembrancers Joh. 14.26 Philip. 3.1 2 Pet. 1.13 and 3.1 2. The Divine Institution of the Gospel-Supper and the Commandment given to the Church to Celebrate the same is enough to warrant our practice of it methinks and our Imperfection in this life proclaims our need of it and other helps and means yea Adam in Innocency had a Tree of Life allowed him of God to eat of as a Symbol and Pledge of Life as long as he stood in his obedience much more need have we of a Pledge to strengthen our weak Faith In the next place to shew us their good skill in Physical Philosophy they give us a very learned and no less true definition of Death To Dye with Christ say they is to come to the Death with him But is it so Then never a Malefactor Died upon a Gibbet but they Died always by the way while they were coming to it seeing they were coming to their Death while they were by the way and to Dye and come to the Death is all one by this definition Hezekiah shewed himself more expert in Physicks when he distinguished betwixt the Birth and coming to the Birth Isa 37.3 but he did not learn his Philosophy at the Quakers School it seems They would have defined Death much better with Aristotle that it is the loss of heat and moisture because the loss of these infers it or if they will stand to my Judgment Death is the separation of Soul and Body because it is the very dissolution of their Union But I shall pass this only I behoove to notice the ignorance of their Inspirer in Naturals as well as Spirituals In the next place they do again vainly repeat that their foolish Argument now refuted and answered viz. That they that are in the death of Christ and buried with him need not Bread and Wine to put them in Remembrance of his Death the contrary whereof is abundantly shewed already and we will not repeat only I cannot but with astonishment wonder that seeing Christ so peremptorily commands it whether it were needful for us or not This do in Remembrance of Me they dare with their Brain-sick fancies directly contradict Divine Commands Oh! who but the Quakers that have gotten a new Christ of their own to be saved by would refuse any Token that Christ had appointed for a Memorial of his Death who wrote his love to us which many waters could not quench in the Characters of his Blood in the day that he was wounded for us in the House of his friends But say the Quakers the Apostle says they must rise with Christ Jesus and if they be risen with him then seek these things that are above and is not Bread and Wine from below Ans Here is another Argument against the Lords-Supper and whereby they reproach and condemn all the Ordinances that ever God appointed from the beginning of the World whereof any External Element was from below as well as the Gospel-Supper Secondly I answer That the seeking of things that are above does not exclude but on the contrary includes the use of the means which God hath appointed for attaining them seeing then the Lords-Supper is one of the means appointed of God for our better attaining things above the use thereof is not there viz. Colos 3.1 disallowed more than the use of Water is in Baptism of which before Thirdly Let the Elements be from whence they will yet I have shewed that the Gospel-Supper Celebrated under these External Elements as the Symbols is an Ordinance Instituted by Christ to be observed by the Gospel Church till his coming to the last Judgment And what then can the Quakers say to enervat Christs Institution Fourthly There is nothing in the Gospel-Supper that is from below excepting the meer External Elements materially and entitatively considered for the Institution the Internal Substance the Mystical Signification the Ends and Effects thereof are all of them things Heavenly and from above and so though Bread and Wine Entitatively considered be from below yet the Sacrament of the Supper and Bread and Wine taken Sacramentally are not from below for Bread and Wine simply or in themselves do not make a Gospel Eucharist more than a Body without a Soul makes a Man as is palpable from many things above said The seeking therefore of these things above mentioned Colos 3.1 is meant only in opposition to the seeking of Corporal commodities belonging to this Life and that not in every respect either but as the chief scope of our Actions Mat. 6.33 or to fulfil our Lusts Rom. 13.14 or with inordinate care and affection Colos 3.2 Luk. 12.22 or with anxious distrust Luk. 12.29 or by unlawful means or without submission to God for that we may seek our worldly necessaries also as Secundary means moderately without anxious care by lawful means for the right use

supposed are all satisfied for misbelief and all I cannot stand no longer upon this But who so pleases may see this universal Conditional Redemption very solidly and yet very breifly Confuted in worthy Mr. Durhams Exposition of the Book of the Rev. from pag. 299 the pag. 326. Objections Answered But now we must hear what our Adversaries have to say for themselves Therefore First they instance that Scripture 1 Joh. 2 2. where it s said that Christ was a Propitiation for the sins of the whole World that is as they will for the sins of all Men whatsoever Ans By the whole World John does not mean all Men whatsoever without exception but his meaning is that Christs death was not only a Propitiation for the sins of the Jewes and Men of their Nation but also of the Nations of the Gentiles throughout the whole World and for that cause he calls it the whole World because the benefit of Christs death was not any more restricted and limited to the Nation of the Jewes with their few Proselyts as it was before but was extended to any Nation throughout the World as well as to them And that this must be the meaning of this Text the Scripture arguments which are already produced against universal Redemption from which the Adversaries can make no evasion as is shewed by the confetation of their Chiefest devices and answers doe Evidently prove seeing this Text of the Scripture does not contradict these but is explained by them Beside the whole world and all Men doe not always in the Scriptures signifie all Men whatsoever without exception as may be easily seen Isai 40 5 Joel 2 28 Joh. 12 32. Rev. 13 3. Secondly they object from 1 Cor. 15 22. where its said For as in Adam all die even so in Christ shall all be made alive Say they Christ died for all men whatsoever Ans If they will have this Scripture to be meant of all men whatsoever without exception it will prove that all men whatsoever shall be made eventually to live in Christ for the sence of this Text is plainly eventual They shall be made alive in Christ says it But the Adversaries themselves know that all men whatsoever are not made eventually alive in Christ and so they cannot urge this Text as meant of all men whatsoever but only of these who eventually are made partakers of Life The meaning thereof is That all that Dye Dye in Adam and he by his fall is the Author of their Death So all that again get Life they get it in Christ and he is the Author thereof unto them seeing out of him there is no Life Act. 4.12 Thirdly They object That Christ is the Saviour of all Men especially of them that believe 1 Tim. 4 1● Therefore Christ Died for all men whatsoever The Text cited for answer is meant only of Gods general providence which he hath over all men in this Life in preserving them and providing for them which is chiefly extended towards Believers otherwise in the sence of the Adversaries who mean it by the objection of Eternal Salvation it will prove that all men whatsoever are Eternally saved especially Believers which I am sure the Adversaries will acknowledge to be false and absurd too Fourthly They object That if Adam hath lost more than Christ hath restored then Adam was stronger than Christ which is most absurd Ans This Argument endeavours to prove that the number of them that are eventually saved is greater than of the eventually damned contrary to the Scriptures Matth. 7.13 14. and 20.16 for as long as the number of the eventually lost is more than that of the saved Adam hath still lost more than are by Christ restored Secondly Christs Death was indeed sufficient to have expiated the sins of all men and to have restored all that Adam lost but it was not appointed to expiate all mens sins whatsoever but only of the Elect and so the Argument reaches not that which it aims at Lastly It is an act of much greater power to quicken one dead man than to kill many Millions of living men for Adam was able to destroy many Millions but not to restore one man and so still the Consequence comes short Fifthly God will have all men to be saved 1 Tim. 2.4 Therefore Christ died for all men whatsoever Ans The Apostle by all men means not of all men whatsoever but of all Sorts Ranks and Degrees of men as the word all is frequently in the Scripture understood as I partly before shewed and as it is expresly explained Revel 13.16 and so the word all is meant of Genera singulorum that is all kinds of Men Not of Singula generum that is every Individual man An answer of the same kind may be given to the Objection which they draw from Heb. 2.9 where we have it turned Christ tasted Death for every Man But the truth is there is no more in the Original in this Text but that Christ tasted Death for all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the word Men is not in the Original and so it may be as well supplied in our Language with the word Elect or Believers as with the word Men or albeit it be supplied with the word Men yet it must be understood as is said of men of every Sort Station Condition Calling Quality and Degree not of every Individual Man seeing by our foregoing Arguments that would be utterly false Sixthly We are forbidden to destroy him for whom Christ Died Rom. 14.15 and again there are some 2 Pet. 2.1 that deny the Lord that bought them Therefore Christ Died for some who for all that may be destroyed and damned Ans The Apostle in the first cited Text means plainly of laying a scandal before a weak Brother of whom he there speaks whereby we destroy him as much as in us and gives him an occasion and temptation to destroy himself if that could be but it is not meant that any for whom Christ Died do or can eventually perish yea in that same Chapter Ver. 4. the Apostle expresly says the contrary where he confidently affirms That he shall be holden up The second place cited does not mean of these mens being bought and redeemed from Hell but of their being bought redeemed or delivered from the ignorance of the World in a Moral or Historical sence through some common Illuminations and from the external pollutions of the World through some common Operations from all which they did once seem to the Church to be also bought and redeemed from Hell and were so in her Judgment of Charity according to which respects the Apostle there speaks most part whereof may be seen in that same Chapter Ver. 18.20.21 where the Apostle says That these men had escaped the Error of the World and the Pollutions thereof and had got some knowledge of the way of Righteousness viz. an External Moral and Historical knowledge and the rest of it is declared by John 1