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
A46640	Verus Patroclus, or, The weapons of Quakerism, the weakness of Quakerism being a discourse, wherein the choicest arguments for their chief tenets are enervat, and their best defences annihilat : several abominations, not heretofore so directly discovered, unmasked : with a digression explicative of the doctrine anent the necessity of the spirits operation, and an appendix, vindicating, Rom. 9. from the depravations of an Arminian / by William Jamison.	Jameson, William, fl. 1689-1720.	1689 (1689)	Wing J445; ESTC R2476	154,054	299

in contradict●on to the express Text expoundeth it neither is his reason more weightie than his exposition is sound which is that the whole Creation received a decay by Adams fall and yet Herbs and Trees are not to be called sinners seeing the Apostle is not here speaking of herbs and trees but of Men Women who are capable of receiving the wages of sin as being the workers thereof and certainly one may with the like reason say that H●rbs and Trees are capable of eternal life as that they may be capable of the wages of Sin. His other shift which he hath Ibid by which also he destroyes the former viz. that by death is not to be understood Bodily Death because Eternal Life is put as the Opposite of the death here spoken of and obtained by Christ Iesus and yet natural death is not avoided is not much better then the former seeing that after the resurrection the Bodies of the Godlie shall live as well as their souls and the re-union of both doth belong to Eternal Life and so natural Life is comprehended in Eternal Life as well as Spiritual Life and tho believers die a Bodily Death yet it is not a punishment to them on this account that the Sting and Bitterness thereof is removed by Christ who did bear the same otherwise death is in it self a punishment being the separation of Soul and Body the most strictly united friends and companions in the World. 3ly Our Doctrine of Original Sin is clearlie evinced from Rom. 5.12 As by one Man Sin entered into the World and Death by Sin c. together with the following verses whence diverse strong arguments may easily be collected for 1. The Apostle that he may prove justification not to be by works but by Faith or the imputed righteeousness of Christ maketh a comparison betwixt the two common Heads or Representatives Adam and Christ in this that both of them represented the parties related to them the same way so that Adam was a Type of Christ in his standing in the room of one partie as Christ did in the Room of another by bearing of their Iniquities Isa 53.11 By being made sin for them 2 Cor. 5.21 i. e. by Imputation thereof unto him for no otherwise this text can be understood without Blasphemie that they may be made the Righteousness of God in Him i. e. by imputation of it to them as their Sin was imputed to him Therefore Adam the Type stood in the name and Room of Mankind so as his doings or failings were imputed to them Robert Barclay Vindication Sect. 5. numb 7. Alledgeth that this comparison spoileth all our doctrine because if the Righteousness of Christ is not to be imputed to men for Iustification untill they actually joyn with it apprehended by Faith so neither is the unrighteousness and disobedience of Adam imputed to Men for Condemnation untill they actually joyn with it But I wonder not to see a man intending by right or wrong to Stick to his preconceived opinions make use of Fig-leaf defences when he can find no other For may not Children before they come to the use of Reason be justified and Saved by the Righteousness of Christ imputed unto them and by consequence others before the use of reason stand guilty of Adams sin imputed to them which is the Conclusion he fain would evite Moreover he may as well say that Adams Sin doth not at all hurt any of his posterity untill they having the use of reason actually joyn with it which yet he no where sayeth but granteth the contrary in several places of this Section 3ly Omne simile claudicat this parallel ought not necessarily to be stretched to every particular mode and circumstance but only to the particular which is intended here viz. the Imputation of what the two common representatives did or suffered unto the parties represented by them but the Quakers have Learned Bellarmin's Art who by racking of this Parallel thought to overthrow our Doctrine of Justification by faith 2. The Sin of Adam is such that if this Text have any sense at all by this Sin of his all have sinned and by it Death without exception is brought upon all Mankind 3. It is such a sin of which they are guilty who have not sinned after the similitude of Adam seeing death reigned over them for death can reign over none but Guilty persons but Infants are subject to Death tho they have not sinned after the similitude of Adam i. e. by actual transgression Ergo Infants are guilty of Adams sin 4. This Offence of Adams was of such a nature that the Guilt of it or judgement flowing therefrom came upon all the partie represented by him to the condemnation thereof i. e. if it be any thing so that this party stood really condemned thereby v. 18. But all Mankind were represented by Adam Ergo all Men are condemned by the sin of Adam imputed to them To this Robert Barclay answereth Vind. pag 101. That Iudgment or Guilt is not expressed in the Original which is true but while he sayeth it ought not to be supplied one would expect that he should give a better answer which I looked for but all that he giveth is an individuum vagum Something which supplement denudeth the Text offense making a Welshmans hose thereof therefore certainly there can be no other thing understood but either Iudgement as our Translation hath it or Condemnation as the version of Tremellius out of the Syriak or Guilt as Beza Seeing the effect thereof was the condemnation of the whole party represented by Adam as the Text clearlie sheweth But to declare his Harmonie with Rome he followeth the Versio Vulgata which in this place hath non-sense supplying nothing From all that is said I argue thus that sin which is described to us by the Apostle that he saith brought death upon all Men that men Sinned by it and were made Sinners even they who could not as yet actually sin that they all became Guilty of Death and condemnation that Sin by imputation is the sin of the whole Nature included in Adam and rendreth the whole nature obnoxious to death and condemnation but the first Sin of Adam is thus described to us by the Apostles c. Ergo that sin is the sin of Nature c. Robert Barclay denyeth the Major of this argument and that to the admiration of all Logicians seeing no connexion can be clearer in the World as might easily appear to any that consider it for who can deny not to mention other Members of this Argument that if these who had not actually sinned are made sinners by this Transgression of Adam then this is the Sin of the whole Nature or imputed to it which is our Doctrine of Original Sin who I say will deny this Seeing there is no other thing in the consequence then in the antecedent except a variation of words and Phrases holding forth the same thing which yet cannot be

cited after several serpentine windings and turnings to the end he may tho he retain the thing yet evite the Name wholly rejecteth Augustin and therefore give●h up the Cause ridiculously enquiring at his Adversary if he will assert every thing that Augustin said ridiculously I say seing the question is if Augustin did not hold our Doctrine anent Original Sin as the Antithesis to that of the Pelagians in this point which Pelagians have had many successors tho known by other Names as Socinus and his School and holy and pure Anabaptists as they called themselves and were by contrariety of speech called by others the Fry of a deluded Enthusiast Thomas Muncer The horrid abominations of which Sect and this their Doctrine of Original Sin among the rest that famous reformer Bullinger hath by Scriptures and Reason so hammered that one in reason should have thought that it should never have had a Resurrection as may be seen Lib 1. cap 11. adversus Anabaptistas where he also to purpose vindicateth Zuinglius from the calumny of the denyal of Original Sin wherewith first the Council of Trent although contrary to their own Light as judicious Soave observeth and of late Rob Barclay both in his Apology and Vindication hath traduced him Secondly Altho this Doctrine hath by many Ages been assaulted most fiercely by corrupt men both of subtile wit and earnestness of Intention yet the providence of God hath sufficiently pre-occupied what they have said or can say and fortified all who truly believe what God hath said in His Word where there is good Store both of Sword and Buckler for managing of this War and of these many I shall here excerpt and vindicate a few And First Gen. 2.17 For in the Day thou Eatest thou shall surely Die or Dying thou shalt Die where is a clear proof of our Doctrine whence we reason as well against Pelagians Anabaptists Socinians and Quakers as against the Papists who deny Original sin in Infants after Baptism Thus Infants Die Ergo they are guilty of Original Sin seeing according to this present Text Death is the punishment due to the breach of the Command To this the Pelagians as Augustin in several places and particularlie Quest. 3. C. 899-tom 4. colum 666. And the Socinians as Pareus on the place sheweth with other Enemies of the Christian Religion and at this day the Quakers answer that Bodily death is not included in this Threatning But besides that the Pelagians were anathematized for this doctrine by one Council of Carthage consisting of 224 Bishops Photius Biblioth Colum. 42. This answer is evidently false seeing that by this word Death frequently in Scripture Bodily as well as Spiritual is understood and by the Phrase to die the Death the separation of Soul and Body is frequently holden forth Moreover none can deny that Bodily Death of it self is an evil and no evil could have befallen Mankind persevering in the State of Innocency But Chap. 3.19 Will aabundantly dissolve all doubts about the meaning of the text to any unbyassed Men Where God himself describing the punishment of Adams transgression denounce●h and foretelleth his return to the dust as not the least part thereof But we need not multiply reasons for the vindication of this text seeing none except Socinians and Pelagians oppose our meaning thereof and the reason adduced by our present adversaries common to them with the Socinians and in particular Crellius for it s overthrown in strength excelleth not a cobweb although they pitched upon it as the only weapon which had any Teeth or keenness therein The reason is Adam died not that day that he did eat therefore say they Bodily death is not Comprehended in the threatning Neither hath this reason any stronger nerves than the rest used by Pelagians Socinians which yet for ought any thing I can find the Quakers do not use judging them as it seems unfit to serve their turn Therefore Robert Barclay tho he had Apolog chap 4. Fought with this Reason as the only prop of his cause his adversary chap. 5. num 8. Having hewed it in pieces in his Vindication essayeth not the reinforcement thereof only Sect. 5. num 3. In stead of a Vindication hath its repetition adding that death as it is now circumstantiated with Sickness and the like miseries is a consequence but not a punishment of Sin which distinction is most Blasphemou● as here it is made use of seing it insinuateth that God Transgresseth his own Law by inflicting more miserie on fallen man than was denounced in the Threatning Either this he must say or else that Sickness and Death as they are now circumstantiated are not inflicted by God which I am sure is little better than the former But to shut up all he sayeth that his Adversarie hath not said enough to proselyte him to his Opinion notwithstanding that he had so d●shed his reason upon which it was builded that the Quaker attempteth not the Restauration thereof He addeth further as a reason why his Adversary had not said enough to proselyte him that death to Adam in the state of Innocency should have been a pleasure not a pain which reason is altogether reasonlesse seeing the reason why death is pleasant to any is its being the port to free Men from all evil especially from Sin without which Adam should have wholly remained if he had persevered in his integrity but it is too evident that the Quaker is of Bellarmins mind who de Statu primi Hominis alledgeth that man during his Integrity was not free of concupiscence and evil inclinations which doctrine maketh God the Author of sin But I leave this matter only I cannot but here observe which I might do in most places and weightiest points of Robert Barclay's Vindication that per fas aut nefas as they say the Quakers must have the last words for who will think it requisite to write after one who can tell his Adversary that he hath not said enough to proselyte him and yet never so much as essay to vindicate his own or remove his adversaries reasons as Robert Barclay doth here and yet publishes his book to the world as a sufficient answer or refutation of what his adversarie had said living in the mean time without so much as an attempted vindication these points with which the whole frame of Quakerism standeth and falleth for if Bodily death was included in the threatning then our doctrine of Original sin is proved which doctrine once being evinced all the pretended absurdities and blasphemies which Socinians Quakers and others infer from our Doctrine of Original sin and Reprobation fall to the Ground and they are if they be Christians obliged to remove these themselves Further its clear from Rom. 6.23 The wages of sin is Death where death without exception of any kind of death is called the wages not the consequence only of sin as the Quaker both in his Apology and Vindication Sect. 5. num 8.

counted a Tautology in strict Syllogistical a●g●mentation the scope of which is to evince the same sense by a clearer phrasiology or way of speaking 2. He sayeth that in this argumentation words not in the Text are foisted in viz. they who have not actually sinned But in this he only bewrayeth his Own and his Brethrens capital error that the Scriptures ought not to be interpreted or reasoned from for his adversary used only this argument as a clear deduction from the Text yet because it is not in so many words in the Text he rejecteth it yea he saith Ibid. let him shew me the place of Scripture that saith that Infants are guilty of Adams sin Behold Reader how the Quakers new light hath extinguished the light of sound reason and provided for their ancestors the Sadducees a shield such as it is toward off the argument of our Saviour whereby He to purpose proved the Resurection from the dead but had Robert Barclay been there he had given him more ado by saying shew me the plain Scripture that sayeth the dead shall rise again Moreover we say that this followeth clearly from these words in whom all have sinned To this he answereth that it is to be understood of all that could sin i. e. actuallie having come to the use of reason but this answer hath in its bosom a blasphemous falshood that the righteousness of Christ cannot be imputed to Infants and therefore that they are not saved by him only and come to Heaven throw his Righteousness for whatever he say for the defence of this h●●●nswer doth of its own accord tend to the protection of this Blasphemy for altogether with the like reason it might be replyed to any pleading from this Chapter that the Justification and Salvation of Infants is to be ascribed to the Righteousness of Christ that these are only righteous for the Righteousness of Christ who could be righteous i. e. After the use of reason actually joyned themselves to that Righteousness 2. He may as well say that these received hurt and damage by the sin of Adam who could receive it i. e. actually join themselves to it for there is alike reason for both His reason why Infants cannot sin is because they are under no Law for the proof whereof he refers me to what he has said above whither with him I will return which is num 4. where he requireth in what Countries they use to kill all the Children whose Fathers are put to death for their crimes To which I reply 1. That it is enough to prove Children to be under a Law that tho in non-age or unborn they undergo forfeiture and deprivation of Goods and priviledges for no evil of their own but their Fathers misdemeanors only 2. Both in divine and humane writing Children are recorded to have suffered dea●h who had committed no actual sin and yet suffered the same punishment with their Fathers who had actually sinned In divine story the Sodomites I am sure were put to death for their crimes all whose Children were killed with them Gen. 19. Behold reader how easily his most perplexing questions are resolved The like fell out to the Children of Core Numb 16. The Children of Achan Jos. 7. and to the Canaanitish Infants the Children of Benjamin the inhabitants of Iabesh-Gilead of the like examples humane Histories are full of which the reader may see good store collected by that excellent divine Turret in vol. 1. loco 9. Quest 9. pag. 671. I am sure there is nothing more common than for Kings or Common-wealths to sack the Cities and Countries of Obstinate rebells and thus to destroy the Children with the Fathers and to kill the hostages of Covenant-breakers without respect regard to their age examples of which see in Livie decade tertia 3. If in any point of Religion and Faith the admirable depth of the judgm●nt and Secret Counsel of God be to be seen certainly it is be observed here for I am sure Mans luxuriant reason can find so much to object against even the very inherent corruption of Man his miseries tho in non-age and his deprivation of the image of God as being the effects or sure consequence of Adams eating of the forbidden fruit as may send the answerer to Pauls Sanctuarie Rom. 9.20 Who art thou c. We answer therefore 1. That Adam was a publick person standing and falling in the Room of his posterity in whose name and behalf the Covenant of works was made with him as their representative so that his first sin was not personal but the sin of the whole Nature To this Robert Barclay replyeth num 6. requiring Mr. Brown to prove by plain Scriptures that Adam ceased to be a publick person after he had committed his first sin Answer he denyeth not if this be proved but that our Doctrine of Original sin will stand for so much he here insinuateth I therefore with the more chearfulness prove that Adam did cease to be a publick person which is evident from this that he died in that day he did eat and therefore made the Covenant void and null now certainly no Man with reason can say that a Man dead in Law as Adam was after the breach of the Covenant by eating can in his future actions be a publick person in respect of the same Law broken by eating Therefore seing the day he did eat did put a term to this Covenant of Life as no man with reason can deny it and a period to this common headship for the one of these standeth and falleth reciprocallie with the other it is clear and manifest to all that Adam after his fall was no more a publick person Moreover the sin of Adam whereby we were damnified is still holden forth as one and not as many sins as for example Rom. 5. All along in the comparison betwixt Christ and Adam Robert Barclay replyeth that we may as well hence conclude that we are only justified by the first act of Christs obedience and so have nothing to do with Christs death and sufferings But by his favour Bonum oritur ex integra causa Malum autem ex defectu q●ovis The Scriptures every where and in particular Isa. 53. throughout express a long series of doings and sufferings agreed upon in the Covenant of Redemption none of which could be wanting for the fulfilling of the bargain and accomplishment of our Salvation Whereas on the other hand one defect in Adam was enough to compleat so to speak his fall and make the breach of the Covenant it being an evil thing for the makeing of which one defect is enough And thus his Gordian and insoluble knot for so he accounteth it is with all easiness untyed But we need not insist on this seing he endeavoureth to Shre●d himself under the covert of his accustomed antiscriptural dottage calling for plain Scripture that is That Adam was a publick person before his fall in so many Letters and Syllables knowing