Selected quad for the lemma: death_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
death_n	begin_v	die_v	life_n	4,706	5	4.9213	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A95131	An answer to a letter written by the R.R. the Ld Bp of Rochester. Concerning the chapter of original sin, in the Vnum necessarium. / By Jer. Taylor D.D.	Taylor, Jeremy, 1613-1667.	1656 (1656)	Wing T286; Thomason E1683_1; ESTC R209161	32,605	117

to the trial This guilt that is in nature what is it Is it the same thing that was in the person that is is it an obligation to punishment If it be not I know not the meaning of the word and therefore I have nothing to do with it If it be then if this guilt or obligation to punishment remains in the nature after it is taken from the person then if this concupiscence deserve damnation this nature shall be damned though the person be saved Let the Objectors my Lord choose which they will If it does not deserve damnation why do they say it does If it does then the guilty may suffer what they deserve but the innocent or the absolved must not the person then being acquitted and the nature not acquitted the nature shall be damn'd and the person be saved But if it be said that the guilt remains in the nature to certain purposes but not to all then I reply so it does in the person for it is in the person after Baptism so as to be a perpetual possibility and proneness to sin and a principle of trouble and if it be no otherwise in the nature then this distinction is to no purpose if it be otherwise in the nature then it brings damnation to it when it brings none to the Man and then the former argument must return But whether it prevail or no yet I cannot but note that what is here affirmed is expresly against the words commonly attributed to S. Cyprian De ablutione pedum Sic abluit quos parentalis labes infecerat ut nec actualis nec Originalis macula post ablutionem illam ulla sui vestigia derelinquat How this supposing it of Baptism can be reconcil'd with the guilt remaining in the nature I confess I cannot give an account It is expresly against S. Austin Tom. 9. Tract 41. in Johan epist ad Ocean saying deleta est tota iniquitas expresly against S. Hierom Quomodo justificati sumus sanctificati si peccatum aliquid in nobis relinquitur But again My Lord I did suppose that Concupiscence or Original Sin had been founded in nature and had not been a personal but a natural evil I am sure so the Article of our Church affirms it is the fault and corruption of our Nature And so S. Bonaventure affirms in the words cited by your Lordship in your Letter Sicut peccatum actuale tribuitur alicui ratione singularis personae ita peccatum origiuis tribuitur ratione naturae Either then the Sacrament must have effect upon our Nature to purifie that which is vitiated by Concupiscence or else it does no good at all For if the guilt or sin be founded in the nature as the Article affirms and Baptism does not take off the guilt from the nature then it does nothing Now since your Lordship is pleas'd in the behalf of the objectors so warily to avoid what they thought pressing I will take leave to use the advantages it ministers for so the Serpent teaches us where to strike him by his so warily and guiltily defending his head I therefore argue thus Either Baptism does not take off the guilt of Original Sin or else there may be punishment where there is no guilt or else natural death was not it which God threatned as the punishment of Adam's fact For it is certain that all men die as well after baptism as before and more after then before That which would be properly the consequent of this Dilemma is this that when God threatned death to Adam saying On the day thou eatest of the tree thou shalt die the death he inflicted and intended to inflict the evils of a troublesome mortal life For Adam did not die that day but Adam began to be miserable that day to live upon hard labour to eat fruits from an accursed field till he should return to the earth whence he was taken Gen. 3.17 18 19. So that death in the common sense of the word was to be the end of his labour not so much the punishment of the sin For it is probable he should have gone off from the scene of this world to a better though he had not sin'd but if he had not sin'd he should not be so afflicted and he should not have died daily till he had died finally that is till he had returned to his dust whence he was taken and whither he would naturally have gone and it is no new thing in Scripture that miseries and infelicities should be called dying or death Exod. 10.17 1 Cor. 15.31 2 Cor. 1.10 4.10 11 12. 11.23 But I only note this as probable as not being willing to admit what the Socinians answer in this argument who affirm that God threatning death to the Sin of Adam meant death eternal which is certainly not true as we learn from the words of the Apostle saying In Adam we all die which is not true of death eternal but it is true of the miseries and calamities of mankinde and it is true of temporal death in the sense now explicated and in that which is commonly received But I add also this probleme That which would have been had there been no sin and that which remains when the sin or guiltiness is gone is not properly the punishment of the sin But dissolution of the soul and body should have been if Adam had not sin'd for the world would have been too little to have entertain'd those myriads of men which must in all reason have been born from that blessing of Increase and multiply which was given at the first Creation and to have confin'd mankinde to the pleasures of this world in case he had not fallen would have been a punishment of his innocence but however it might have been though God had not been angry and shall still be even when the sin is taken off The proper consequent of this will be that when the Apostle sayes Death came in by sin and that Death is the wages of sin he primarily and literally means the solemnities and causes and infelicities and untimeliness of temporal death and not meerly the dissolution which is directly no evil but an inlet to a better state But I infist not on this but offer it to the consideration of inquisitive and modest persons And now that I may return thither from whence this objection brought me I consider that if any should urge this argument to me Baptism delivers from Original Sin Baptism does not deliver from Concupiscence therefore Concupiscence is not Original Sin I did not know well what to answer I could possibly say something to satisfie the boyes young men at a publique disputation but not to satisfie my self when I am upon my knees and giving an account to God of all my secret and hearty perswasions But I consider that by Concupiscence must be meant either the first inclinations to their object or the proper acts of Election which are the second acts of Concupiscence

or by To this I would be content to submit if the observation could be verified and be material when it were true But besides that it is so used in 2 Cor. 5.4 your Lordship may please to see it used as not only my self but indeed most men and particularly the Church of England does read it and expound it in Mat. 26.50 And yet if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were written 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is the same with in or by if it be rendred word for word yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 twice in the Scripture signifies for as much as as you may read Rom. 8.3 Heb. 2.18 So that here are two places besides this in question and two more ex abundanti to shew that if it were not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but said in words expresly as you would have it in the meaning yet even so neither the thing nor any part of the thing could be evicted against me and lastly if it were not only said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but that that sense of it were admitted which is desired and that it did mean in or by in this very place yet the Question were not at all the nearer to be concluded against me For I grant that it is true in him we are all sinners as it is true that in him we all die that is for his sake we are us'd as sinners being miserable really but sinners in account and effect as I have largely discoursed in my book But then for the place here in question it is so certain that it signifies the same thing as our Church reads it that it is not sense without it but a violent breach of the period without precedent or reason And after all I have looked upon those places where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is said to signifie in or by and in one of them I finde it so Mar. 2.4 but in Act. 3.16 Phil. 1.3 I finde it not at all in any sense but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 indeed is used for in or by in that of the Acts and in the other it signifies at or upon but if all were granted that is pretended to it no way prejudices my cause as I have already proved Next to these your Lordship seems a little more zealous and decretory in the Question upon the confidence of the 17 18 19. verses of the 5. chapter to the Romans The sum of which as your Lordship most ingeniously sums it up is this As by one many were made sinners so by one many were made righteous that by Adam this by Christ But by Christ we are made 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 just not by imputation only but effectively and to real purposes therefore by Adam we are really made sinners And this your Lordship confirms by the observation of the sense of two words here used by the Apostle The first is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies a sentence of guilt or punishment for sin and this sin to be theirs upon whom the condemnation comes because God punishes none but for their own sin Ezek. 18.2 From the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 clear from sin so your Lordship renders it and in opposition to this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to be rendred that is guilty criminal persons really and properly This is all which the wit of man can say from this place of S. Paul and if I make it appear that this is invalid I hope I am secure To this then I answer That the Antithesis in these words here urg'd for there is another in the chapter and this whole argument of S. Paul is full and intire without descending to minutes Death came in by one man much more shall life come by one man if that by Adam then much more this by Christ by him to condemnation by this man to justification This is enough to verifie the argument of S. Paul though life and death did not come in the same manner to the several relatives as indeed they did not of which afterwards But for the present It runs thus By Adam we were made sinners by Christ we are made righteous As certainly one as the other though not in the same manner of dispensation By Adam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 death reigned by this man the reign of death shall be destroyed and life set up in stead of it by him we were us'd as sinners for in him we died but by Christ we are justified that is us'd as just persons for by him we live This is sufficient for the Apostles argument and yet no necessity to affirm that we are sinners in Adam any more then by imputation for we are by Christ made just no otherwise then by imputation In the proof or perswasion I will use no indirect arguments as to say that to deny us to be just by imputation is the Doctrine of the Church of Rome and of the Socinian Conventicles but expresly dislik'd by all the Lutheran Calvinist and Zuinglian Churches and particularly by the Church of England and indeed by the whole Harmony of Confessions this I say I will not make use of not only because I my self do not love to be press'd by such prejudices rather then arguments but because the question of the imputation of righteousness is very much mistaken and misunderstood on all hands They that say that Christs righteousness is imputed to us for justification do it upon this account because they know all that we do is imperfect therefore they think themselves constrain'd to flie to Christ's righteousness and think it must be imputed to us or we perish The other side considering that this way would destroy the necessity of holy living and that in order to our justification there were conditions requir'd on our parts think it necessary to say that we are justified by inherent righteousness Between these the truth is plain enough to be read Thus Christ's righteousness is not imputed to us for justification directly and immediately neither can we be justified by our own righteousness but our Faith and sincere endevours are through Christ accepted in stead of legal righteousness that is we are justified through Christ by imputation not of Christs nor our own righteousness but of our faith and endevours of righteousness as if they were perfect and we are justified by a Non-imputation viz. of our past sins and present unavoidable imperfections that is we are handled as if we were just persons and no sinners So faith was imputed to Abraham for righteousness not that it made him so legally but Evangelically that is by grace and imputation And indeed My Lord that I may speak freely in this great question when one man hath sin'd his descendents and relatives cannot possibly by him or for him or in him be made sinners properly and really For in sin there are but two things imaginable the irregular action and the guilt or obligation to punishment Now we cannot in any sense be said to have