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
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

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.

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

well that unless underproped with such damnable hypotheses his Doctrine cannot stand but he buyeth bad Wares at a full dear price for with the same breath he overthroweth both his own Apology and Vindication with whatsoever beside he has written in the defence of his principles seeing these are not found in the Scriptures in so many Letters Syllables But I again return to his seventh number and in it next he alleadgeth Augustin as the Patron of his opinion in contradiction to his own Apology Chap. 4. Where he granted Augustin to be of the same Opinion with his Adversary acknowledging that according to the mind of Augustin Infants even before their birth are Guilty of Eternal Death and the pains of Hell. Thus he either speaketh self contradictions or would make Augustin to do it 2. The words of Augustin from which he would conclude this self contradiction are these Serm. 7. Ex verb. Apostoli what do ye think to say And whose eares can hear it Did they sin themselves Where I pray you did they sin When and how did they sin They know neither good nor evil Shall they sin that are under no Command Prove that Infants are sinners prove what is their Sin is it because they weep that they sin Do they Sin because they take pleasure or repell trouble by motion as dumb Animals If these motions be sin they become greater sinners in Baptism for they resist most vehemently But I say another thing You think they have sinned otherwise they had not dyed but what say ye of such as die in there Mothers womb Will you say they have sinned also You Lye or are deceived c. Thus Augustin in opposition to the Pelagians who to evite the force of the arguments of the Orthodox proving Original sin did assert that Children presently after their birth become actual Sinners And yet from this the Quaker will conclude that Augustin in these words contradicteth his own doctrine of Infants being guilty of Original Sin of which there is not the least appearance seing this will be admirable Logick to inferr from Augustin his proving of Infants not to be guilty of actual sin therefore he denyed them to be guilty of Original sin Now what wou●d not these Men adventure to say in the dark when they are so audacious as to publish to the world in print that Augustin denyed Infants to be guilty of Original sin when his own works do every where and the World proclaim the contrary yea and the Quaker himself also confessed it Here he alledgeth that the Apostle no where sayeth that Children are under any Law which is true if he understand it in so many words which yet notwithstanding may be gathered from the 13. and 14. verses of this Chapter where the Apostle having said That there is no Sin where there is no Law subjoyneth that nevertheless Death which I have in my former Section proved to be a punishment reigned even over these who had not sinned after the Similitude of Adam Which holdeth true of Children who never sinned actually as Adam did When he seeth that it cannot be denyed that in this place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is of the same meaning with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he would have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to repeat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 making the words to run thus In which or by occasion of which death all have sinned A Pelagian exposition makeing men sin by imitation only and the righteousness of Christ to be the occasion and patern only and not the price of our acceptation and Salvation And altho he say that this is resolved by a serious consideration of the comparison between Christ and Adam as stated by him in his Apology This is not to be regarded seing after an impartial search nothing of this resolution can be perceived He ought therefore to have shewed u● how in particular he had in his Apology preoccupied our argument whereby they are proved to be amongst the grossest of Socinians who make the death and sufferings of Christ an occasion or example only whereby to walk and so to be saved But not at all the procuring cause of Salvation but Vltra posse non datur esse But indeed this is a fine way of Vindicating ones Doctrine to say in opposition to their Adversaries argument how pressing soever in the general only you do not understand our doctrine aright or consider what we say And upon this answer only erect his Triumphal Arches and Cry Victoria 4. Our Doctrine is to the conviction of all except of the Old and New Pelagians evicted from Eph 2 3. and yet Rob Barclay following Bellarmin who played the like audacious pranks with Rom. 4. whereby we evince against the Papists Justification to be by Faith would turn our weapons against our selves and overthrow from this place our Doctrine of Original Sin alledging that Mens evil walking is the cause why they are counted the children of Wrath But if the Apostle had so meaned in all likelyhood he should not have spoken so generally as he did but had made some Intimation that Children were excepted which he neither here nor any where else doeth 2. This Phrase by Nature is still taken in Scripture for so soon as a thing hath a beeing or for its very rising or Original which these Scriptures confirm Rom. 2.27 and 11 24. Gal 2.5 and 4.8 1 Cor. 15.44 46. Hence we thus with Calvin in opposition to the Pelagians on the place reason What is naturally in every one is in them from their very Original and therefore if all be the Children of Wrath or 〈◊〉 to wrath by Nature they are so 〈◊〉 their very Original These Scriptures and this Argument of Calvin used by his Adversary Robert Barclay in his Vind● Is so far from attempting to answer that he maketh not the least mention thereof From which one Omission though there were no more any may easily see that his book deserveth nothing less than the name of a Vindica●tion 3. We add as a good secondary Confirmation that the primitive Ch●rch used still this place to prove the same Doctrine which we hold of Original sin in opposition to the Pelagians denying it and in particular Augustin de Fide ad Petram diaconum Cap. 26. who sayeth firmissime tene hold most constantly and without so much a● once wavering that every one who is conceived by the conjunction of man and woman is born with Original sin under the power of ungodliness subject to death which he explaineth of eternal as well as bodily death Ibid and upon the same very account a Child of wrath concerning which the Apostle saith and we were by nature the Children of wrath And the like Doctrine did Fulgentius and fourteen bishops with him assert as also Theodoretus Primasius and Haimo on the place taking by nature c. to import all carnally born and partaking of the nature of Adam and so to be verified of all brought

that because it is said that they are not all Israel that are of Israel therefore it seems that all are not elected To which he answers that the Apostle intimat● that the Carnal Israel or all that are come of Jacob surnamed Israel are not the Israel to whom the promises of Salvation are absolutly and finally made tho in general the conditional promises belong to all Israel as the Apostle shews vers 4. That we may not be misunderstood know that among others there are seven promises made to the overcomers Rev. 2 3 Chap. and such as persevere in the Christian Race unto the end or to the death and burial of sin Now these and the like promises belong unto the Elect that are chosen out of the furnace of affliction Isa. 48.10 Which with Paul have fought the good fight of Faith. 2 Tim 4 7 8 And so may fullie expect the reward because God is faithful that hath promised it Heb 6 12 and 10 36. James 1.12 I Reply this commentarie I shall not say a comment is founded upon some Scriptures violentlie detorted for none of them doth in the least insinuat that these of whom they speak were chosen to grace only not to glory which groundless distinction was invented of old by the Pelagians and condemned and refuted by the Orthodox as is evident in the Epistles of Prosper and Hilarius Arelatensis and tendeth to the overthrow of the Covenant of Redemption and the promises of God the Father to Christ viz. that he should see his seed and the travel of his soul. Isa. 53.10 11. and many such like for if this Doctrine were true it might so fall out that none should come to Glory for according to it the gift of perseverance is bestowed upon none and so the Apostle's perswasion that None could separate him from the Love of God Rom 8.35 Should have been vain and groundless And the promise to cause the Israel of God to keep his Statutes and his Judgments to do them Ext 36 27. Should be meer words of deceit these and six hundred beside of such absurd blasphemies are unseparably linked to this Doctrine As for the Scriptures cited by him they hold forth a Character of such a● shall be saved viz. That they do through grace overcome love the Lord Jesus exercise Patience Faith and the like graces but they do not at all hold forth that these graces and perseverance therein are in Mans own power so that he may reject or refuse them according to the inclinations of his own will and that God doth not make Men irresistibly yet sweetly of unwilling to become willing All which this Neo Pelagian through the Violence of torture makes these Scriptures to speak but the verse it self doth sufficiently refute this exposition for according to it the word or promises of God might be without any effect seing it might fall out that tho all were elected none might be saved Now seing this Exposition cannot Stand the other which this Arminian would fain reject of its own accord follows viz. That not all and every one is from all Eternitie elected and chosen to Salvation as the whole Scope and series of this Chapter doth demonstrate as we shall evince while we reply in particular to the Answers he makes to the objections which he frames from this place 2. He goeth on thus Rom 9.7 Neither because they are the Seed of Abraham are they all Children but in Isaac shall thy seed be called Where the Apostle alludeth to Gen 17.18 19 20 21. It may seem then that only Isaac and not Ismael was chosen Ans. Isaac was chosen alone to be the representative seed of God being a Type first of Christ in whom God hath made his Covenant 2. He being a seed born by Sarah represents Faith out of the promises rather then by the Strength of Nature So is a Figure of the Spiritual Seed of Abraham which are begotten or born by vertue of the promises For so the Apostle explains himself v. 8. That is they which are the Children of the Flesh of whom Ismael carried the Type These are not the Children of God but the Children of promise are counted for the Seed As for Ismael who was begotten by the Strength of Nature and according to the Flesh of Hagar which represents the the Law Gal. 4.21 31 He figured forth these which should be saved not by the grace of the promises but by the works of the Law a people with whom God has not erected His Covenant that they should be saved in that way but tho Ismael carried the Figure of such it was without any prejudice to his Eternal Election or Salvation For Abraham praying thus for him Gen 17.18 O that Ismael might live before Thee or in thy presence v 20 As for Ismael I have heard thee His being such a Type was no more prejudicial to Him then that Moses and Aaron were debarred entrance into Canaan They therein being a Figure of those that should be shut out of Gods Kingdom for unbelief without any hazard to their own Salvation as hath been said before In order to our Reply to this and the following Objections we premit 1. That this and the following Verses of this Chapter are brought in by the Apostle as Arguments to prove his Proposition laid down v. 6. viz. That all are not Israel that are of Israel therefore whatever floweth from these Verses as their immediate Consequents is the meaning of the sixth Verse 2. That the convincing clearness of this place hath forced all to acknowledge that the Apostle is here speaking of Predestination of men in order to their eternal estate and not as to the things of this Life only as Bellarmin de Grat et Lib. Arb. L. 2. C. 15. Stapleton Ant pag. 526. And among the modern Lutherans Hunnius upon the place in hand who confesseth that the Apostle digresseth into the large field of Predestination Yea Arminius himself in his Analysis of this Chapter dareth not deny it tho he fain would Having premised these things we come to his Answer The Substance of which is That Ismael was not himself rejected of God but only a Type of these that are not the Children of God which we shal refute by evincing these two Things 1. That tho Ismael be considered here as a Type only this place gives good ground for the Doctrine of our Confession of Faith against which he here fighteth 2. That Ismael himself was not elected As for the first of these Propositions it is evident For otherwise there should be no Correspondence betwixt the Type and the Antitype and so a Type should not be a Type I prove it If Ismael was excluded from being counted the Seed of Abraham only by the meer good pleasure and absolute Dispensation of God and not conditionally so that Ismael himself could have caused it to come to pass that he should have been counted the Legittimate Heir and Lawful begotten Son of