Selected quad for the lemma: death_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
death_n	apostle_n	sin_n	wage_n	4,685	5	10.8916	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

is onely taken away and the filth remaineth as W. M. falsly supposes they could not be said to be cleansed from all unrighteousness for it is an improper speech to say we are cleansed from Guilt it is from the filth we are cleansed and the Guilt is forgiven us Therefore saith the Apostle vers 9. first He is faithful to forgive us and next he adds To cleanse us from all unrighteousness nor will Johns saying If we say we have no sin import John himself to be of that number more then the Apostle James spaking of the Tongue Jam. 3. 9. saying There-with curse we men who are made after the similitude of God will prove James to have been of these cursers Now in answer to me showing that Scripture 1 Job 1. 8. is conditional else it would contradict what followes vers 9. chap. 24. and chap. 3 9. He returneth no answer but his own assertions He saith The 9. vers speaketh of forgiveness but it also adds cleansing as is above observed He saith That 1 Joh. 2 4. Is understood of a sincere not absolute keeping of the Commands of God but for this he brings no proof at all He saith That Joh. 3. 9. Whosoever is born of God sinneth not is meant of sinning unto death from which the child of God is secured The reason he gives of this gloss is because the Apostle ch 5. v. 16. speaketh of a sin unto death which Sin W. M. supposeth to be that the Apostle means He that 's born of God cannot commit but to prove this supposition we have nothing but his own meer assertion Reader These are the best and strongest arguments he hath to prove his Doctrines His Seventeenth Head Pag. 128. Is to shew his Doctrines not to be acceptable to the wicked and his Eighteenth Head Pag. 131. Is to prove ours to be so But he is so pittifully ridiculous in this matter that such as have the least measure of understanding and are unprejudiced cannot but see his weakness Yet that he may be left altogether without a cover I shall answer his objections and leave the unbiassed Reader as he desires to judge which Principles in their nature have most tendency to strike at or foster wickedness To prove that it is not acceptable to the wicked to hear they must alwayes sin He sayes Some are so conceited of their honesty that they cannot be convineed of their sins And that Mortification of sin is distastful to them But how he makes this to answer the other is not tould us if hypocrites love not to hear of their sins it doth not therefore follow that pleading for a constant continuance in sin is not acceptable to the wicked they may be the easier induced to acknowledg their sins that they hear it tould them for sound and solid Doctrine that they may be reputed good Saints and Christians though they alwayes remain in them to prove that their Doctrine of imputative Righteousness and of Election and Reprobation is not pleasing to the wicked He sayes Some wicked men scof at them what then so some wicked men scof at the folly of Machumetanism will it therefore follow their Doctrine is good The question is Whether their Doctrine of mens being altogether reputed Righteous in the sight of God by a Righteousness altogether without them and mens being elected to Life from all Eternity without any respect to their deeds be not more acceptable to the wicked then to tell them they must seek to be Justified by the Righteousness of God wrought in them And as they are joyned to the elect Seed Christ Jesus born again and brought forth in them which worketh out all iniquity and unrighteousness in them Now this he hath not in the least offered to answer After the like manner Whereas I shew it is more acceptable to the wicked to hear that the outward Letter is the Rule which they can bend and twin then the inward which cannot be so twisted He sayes Some wicked men could wish there were no such outward rule and that some understand not what is intended by Gods immediate speaking but hate the Ministery of the word both which answers make nothing to the purpose What though wicked men hate the Scripture and the Ministry doth it therefore follow that it is not more acceptable to them to hear this is their only rule which they can twin as they please then the inward which cannot be twined as the Scriptures may nor bribed as the Ministry of men He confesses They allow of Laces Ribbons Gold Rings c. and other superfluities And therefore cannot deny but that their Doctrine therein is acceptable to the wicked His shift is here That People ought not to exceed their rank and quallity aledging The Apostle onely condems this 1 Tim. 2. 9. But that his detestable wresting of the Scripture may be manifest I shall cite the Apostles words In like manner also that women adorn themselves in modest apparel with shamfastness and sobriety not with broydred hair or gold or pearls or costly aray is there any word here that they should only not exceed their rank who cannot but abeminate his abusing of Scripture And whereas he says He thinks they should be sparing of lawful games and recreations it seemes their deeds sute not their thoughts in this matter or else it must be accounted a sparingness with him not onely to spend much of the day in Field sports but even largely of the night in Carding c. For so to my certain knowledg some of his Brethren in the Priesthood of the Synod of Aberd en are found doing and justifying themselves in it As to the Sabbath he offereth not in the least to answer That wherein I shew it was acceptable to the wicked according to the same rate In answer to my assertion That the wicked love well to hear that they may be members of the Church without having infallible evidence of Holyness He asketh If all the Members of the Quakers Church have so adding That our raw conceited proselytes are so ignorant and yet so confident That sober men suspect them to be in a fools Paradice First as this is a meer shift and no reply to disprove the Principle aforesaid to be acceptable to the wicked so likewise if his Spirit had not been in a raw conceited posture filled both with ignorance and confidence he had not suffered himself so far to fall in a fools Paradice as to imagine this his meer proofeless Calumny with many more his groundless assertions would have any weight with sober men not being backed with any argument He addeth Their Doctrine once in Grace and ever in Grace hath no tendency to please the wicked because such never had Grace and therefore have no ground to think that belongeth unto them But seeing he himself confesseth That such as had true Grace may fall both unto detestable practices and Blasphemous or Erronious Principles may not such then foster themselves in