Selected quad for the lemma: death_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
death_n	body_n	see_v	sin_n	6,816	5	4.6347	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A30899	Quakerism confirmed, or, A vindication of the chief doctrines and principles of the people called Qvakers from the arguments and objections of the students of divinity (so called) of Aberdeen in their book entituled Quakerism convassed [sic] by Robert Barclay and George Keith.	Barclay, Robert, 1648-1690.; Keith, George, 1639?-1716.	1676 (1676)	Wing B733; ESTC R37061	83,121	93

still looked upon them to be deceivers It is clear from Scripture that Antichrist shall be permitted to work false miracles but that they shall so counterfeit the true that it will be hard to discerne the one from the other without Gods immediat direction and teaching And therefore the preaching of sound doctrine accompanied with a holy life is a better evidence of a true Prophet then all outward miracles whatsoever as Christ said by their fruits ye shall know them he doth not say by their miracles but by their fruits Now we are most willing to be tryed by this rule if both our doctrine and life and manner of conversation be not answerable to that of the Prophets Christ and the Apostles then let them say we have not that spirit which was in them But if they can not make out this they but fight as men beating the aire Pag. 80. They argue that there is no substantiall living principle in man that is the good seed because then the evill seed or principle should also be substantiall But this is absurd therefore That this is absurd they argue for then it should be created by God and so God should be the author of evill and sin or it should be uncreated and consequently God To this we answer The same argument militats as much and rather more against their own principle for seing they hold sin to be somewhat whether a substance or an accident is all one as to the argument we argue by a retortion against themselves either it is created or uncreated and so the same inconvenience would follow But to answer directly we say sin considered in its formall reason is rather a privation then any reall being as blindness or lameness in a mans body or corruption in wine or any other liquor But if they enquire about the subject of this privation whether it be a substance We answer it is and it is clear from the Scriptures testimony that as Christ rules in the Saints so the devil rules in the wicked and is in them and as God hath his seed and birth in the Saints so the devil hath his seed and birth in the wicked which is of the devils nature But if it be asked further whether it is a substance we answer first with inquiring at them another question and retorting the argument upon them whether the devil is a substance yea or nay If yea either he is created or uncreated if created then God is the author of the devil if uncreated then he should be God their own consequence which is blasphemy But 2. the true answer to both is that he who is now the devil was created of God a good Angel but by his own voluntary fall he hath reduced himself to be a devil not by any reall creation but by a degeneration and as is the devil himself so is his seed a corrupted degenerated principle from what it was originally before sin was but if we take the seed of the devil distinctly as distinct from himself we do not say it is any percipient principle that seeth or knoweth c. for it is rather of the nature of a body then of a percipient intelligent spirit and the Scripture calleth it a body to wit the body of death But whether the seed of sin be a substance or not the Students argument is altogether impertinent to argue that because the good seed is a substantiall living principle c. then the evill principle or seed should also be substantiall living c. for the same reasons We deny this Consequence for there are greater reasons whereby to prove the one then the other If they think to argue from the rule of contraries they think foolishly for it would as much follow that because a man is a substance who seeth and heareth c. that therefore a mans blindness and deafness and lameness are also substances and that blindnesse seeth deafnesse heareth lamenesse walketh Do they not know the maxim in Logick that telleth them substantia substantiae propriè non contrariatur i. e. one substance properly is not contrary to another But last of all we may more justly retort this blasphemous consequence upon many of their own church who hold that God stirreth up the devil and all wicked men unto all their wicked actions by an irresistible motion or quality which he infuseth into them commonly called praedeterminatio physica Is not this to make God the author of sin As also many of them teach that Originall sin is a positive quality infused into the souls of men at their creation Concerning which positive quality we thus argue either it is created or uncreated c. and so the inconveniences of their argument will fall much more upon their own heads for they cannot alledge that this positive quality at its first creation was first good and afterwards became changed into evill because no quality can admit any such transmutation as for example whitnesse can never become blacknesse nor sweetnesse bitternesse nor streightnesse crookednesse although a substance that is white may loose its whitnesse and may become black and that which is sweet may become bitter and that which is streight become crooked In the prosecution of their second argument they bring their matter to this issue that G. K. holds the seed it self to be contradistinct from the manifestation becaus the manifestation is in the feed but we deny the consequence doe not they say that the manifestation of Gods will is in the Scripture and also that the Scripture it self is the manifestation of Gods will That G. K. calleth the seed both a substance and a manifestation is as reasonable as to say there are outward manifestations of Gods goodnesse power and wisdome in the heavens and earth and yet the heavens and earth are the very outward manifestations themselves Are not our meat and drink and cloathing naturall and outward manifestations of the goodnesse of God to us and are not these things substances and doth not God manifest his goodnesse also in them What blind reasons are these which those poore blind men bring forth against the truth Again they argue that this manifestation which wee say is a substance depends not â solo Deo cannot exist without a subject nay not without the understanding to which it is made All which they barely assert but do not offer to prove Again they say it is but a meer action and applicatio agentis ad passum But how do they prove it here they are as dumb as stones Perhaps they think to prove it because manifestation is a nomen verbale which commonly being derived from the active verb signifieth an action but this is meerly to play in words and not to dispute for they may as well say because the whole world is called the creation for Creation is an active verbale therefore the whole world is a meer action or applicatio agentis ad passum We deny not but the action or motion