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	wage_n	4,026	5	11.2119	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A30907	William Michel unmasqued, or, The staggering instability of the pretended stable Christian discovered his omissions observed, and weakness unvailed : in his late faint and feeble animadversions by way of reply to a book intituled Truth cleared of calumnies : wherein the integrity of the Quakers doctrine is the second time justified and cleared from the reiterate, clamorous but causeless calumnies of this cavilling cetechist [sic] / by Robert Barclay.	Barclay, Robert, 1648-1690.	1672 (1672)	Wing B742; ESTC R37062	60,482	82

week The Queen of dayes doth not prove that Lords day spoken of by John to be the first day so if Ignatius had been of this mind and had esteemed of it above other dayes that makes nothing against us we know this Superstition was creeping into the Church before Ignatius's time therefore the Apostle Paul warned the Galatians Gal. 4. 10 11. To prove this day spoken of by John to be the first day of the week he saith Christ appeared to his Disciples declared himself to be the Son of God upon the first day of the week That it is supposed that was the day the Spirit was poured forth And that Beza in an ancient Greek Manuscript did find the first day of the week called the Lords day But all this doth not in the least prove the matter in question except this may suffice for proof W. M. thinks this will infer the day of the Lord spoken of by John to be the first day of the week therefore it is so There may be Superstition-enough found in old Greek Manuseripts It is near fourteen hundred years since the Eastern and Western Churches were like to split about the observation of Easter and yet Protestants with good reason look upon that Controversie as both Superstitious and frivolous Now giving but not granting this day spoken of by John were the first day of the week How doth he prove from this that the first day of the week is come to Christians in place of the Jewish Sabbath or that it stands as an obligation upon them as a part of the moral Law whereunto we are bound by the forth Command which though it be the cheif thing in debate remaines yet unproved seeing then he has had very few proofs for these his supposed Ordinances but such as are onely bottomed upon his own affirmations the Juditious Reader may judge it is with out ground he concludes here that we deny the Ordinances of Christ and not the inventions of men His fourteenth Head Pag. 109 Is concerning Original sin so called which the Reader by comparing with Pag. 62 63 64 and 65. of mine will see that he makes no reall but a meer counterfeit shew of answer and I desire the Reader first to observe That neither here nor in his Dialogue he doth not so much as offer to prove that this phrase Original sin is to be found in Scripture and for all his pretences to make the Scripture his rule he hath no ground from this but from Popish Tradi ion Secondly That we grant a reall Seed of sin derived from Sathan which Adams Posterity is liable to But we say none become guilty of this before God nutill they close with this evill Seed and in them who close with it it becomes an Origine or Fountain of evill thoughts desires words and actions And as by granting all capeable of receiving this real Seed of sin we differ from the Socinians and Pelagians So by saying it is not the Childrens sin until they do close with it We agree with Zuinglius a famous Protestant who for this very Doctrine was condemned by the Council of Trent in the Art of the Fifth Ses. Cons. Trent lib. 2. Pag. 208. The acts of which Council not onely against us but against this famous founder of the Protestant Churches in Zuitserland is that which W. M. is here vindicating Thirdly I desire the Reader may observe That the thing he pleads for is that Infants are really guilty before God that Infants are guilty before God simply for Adams sin And that some of them who die in their Infancy and never actually sin in their own Persons do for this sin of Adam Eternally perish Now whither this Doctrine be sutable either to the Justice or Mercy of God I leave the Christian Reader to judge I shall examine the reasons he brings for it his cheif argument for this in his Dialogue Pag. 47. was That because Children die citing Rom. 23. The wages of sin is death now I shew him Pag 64. of mine how that made nothing because natural Death of the Saints is not the wages of sin for their sins are forgiven them c. this he hath not so much as mentioned far less answered And whereas he might as well argue that the Earth Trees and Herbs were sinners because they received great decay by Adams sin He slightly passes it over aledging It will not therefore follow that all mankind who suffer Death are not Sinners Now this is no answer but a meer shift and the thing I intended against his assertion doth very naturally follow from my argument thus If as W. M. sayes Infants be guilty of Adams Sin because they are subject to diseases and Death then the Beasts who are subject to the like and the Earth Herbs and Trees who have received their decay are sinners before God but this is absurd therefore the other let him answer this the next time more effectually The first proof he brings here is 1 Joh. 3. 6. That which is born of the flesh is flesh adding This intimates man by his natural Birth to be Corrupt and Fleshly But for this his gloss he bringeth no proof though That which is born of the flesh be flesh he showeth us not how it followeth thence that Infants are guilty of Adams Sin after the like manner he concludes this his doctrine from Job 14. 4. Psal. 5. 5. But as the words in these places do not plainly express any such thing so he brings no reason to make his consequences deduceable from them after the like proof-less manner he aledgeth Rom. 5. 14. By one mans disobedience many were made sinners Now though the matter in question be Whether these many were made sinners before they actually sinned in their own Persons He doth not so much as offer to prove it in the like manner though David said his Mother conceived him in sin he sheweth us not how it followeth from thence that David was guilty of sin before he actually sinned and here I observe how he asserts That men are guilty of the sin of their immoderate Parents contrary to the plain Testimony of the Scripture Ezek. 18. 20. The Son shall not bare the iniquity of the Father To prove Infants thus guilty he further addeth Rom. 5. 12. aledging these words For that all have sinned includes Infants but I shew him this includes not Infants because the Apostle clears it in the next verse saying Sin is not imputed where there is no law and that there being no Law to Infants they cannot be guilty of sin To this he replies There was a Law to Adam and that he represented mankind and stood as a publik Person Therefore Children had a Law in him But for this signification of his own he produceth no proof and it cannot be received as being direct contrary to the Scripture above mentioned The Son shall not bare the Fathers iniquity He aledgeth That those the Apostle speaks of who sinned