Selected quad for the lemma: death_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
death_n bring_v die_v sin_n 9,905 5 5.1845 4 true
View all documents for the selected quad

Text snippets containing the quad

ID Title Author Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) STC Words Pages
A47191 Truths defence, or, The pretended examination by John Alexander of Leith of the principles of those (called Quakers) falsly termed by him Jesuitico-Quakerism, re-examined and confuted : together with some animadversions on the dedication of his book to Sir Robert Clayton, then Mayor of London / by G.K. Keith, George, 1639?-1716. 1682 (1682) Wing K225; ESTC R22871 109,893 242

There are 4 snippets containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

accusing us as being against all external Ordinances because the Query insinuates That such who are come into Death with Christ need not Bread and Wine to put them into remembrance of his Death from whence he most unjustly inferreth his consequence that we reject all outward helps and means whatsoever But doth not I. A. know that his own brethren acknowledge there is no absolute necessity of using that called the Supper so as none can be saved but such as pa●take of it and the like may be said of any outward helps when people cannot have them But yet we say still whatever outward thing God hath Commanded us to use be it never so small or mean is in that respect both necessary and profitable unto us for there is none of God's Commands but they bring along with them a real advantage to mens Souls but I. A. hath not as yet proved it that using Bread and Wine as aforesaid is any Gospel Command Another abuse of his is that he alledgeth We reject the said practise of taking the Bread and Wine from a conceited perfection which is false for as we do not boast of our perfections so we do not reject that custom● because of any perfection that some of us may become unto beyond others but because we cannot find it to be any Gospel Precept and therefore we cannot acknowledge it either to be necessary or profitable to the weakest Another thing he quarrelleth in the Query is That it makes to dye with Christ and to come to the Death with him all one And here he insults not a little in his knowledge of Philosophy above the Quakers for a meer Grammaticism of saying to for into which perhaps was only a fault in the Transcriber and yet we find commonly that to and into are indifferently used to signifie one thing as to come to Town is all one as to come into it and to come to Christ is all one as to come into him and when Christ said Come unto me he did certainly mean that they were to come into him Hence we read of the Saints being in Christ. And if this be I. A. his Philosophy so to quarrel at words proper enough and according to Scripture let the judicious and sober Reader judge whether some of our Friends that called his Philosophy Foolosophy had not ground so to do And whether he has not discovered more folly than true Philosophy from first to last in his Book against us In his Answer to the reason hinted in the Query from Paul's words to seek the things that are above and the things that are seen are temporal he still beggeth the Question That the outward observation of Bread and Wine is a mean which God hath appointed for the attaining the things above And in Opposition to his Assertion let him read what Paul saith Col. 2. 17. where he putteth mea● and drink in together with the new Moons and other legal Observations which he calleth A shadow of things to come but the body is of Christ. And seeing I. A. acknowledgeth that the Bread and Wine are but external signs and not the real body of Christ I ask him wherein then differ they from Shadows And if they be Shadows they are no part of the Gospel Dispensation according to Paul's Doctrine In the close of his pretended Survey to this Sixth Query he chargeth us most rashly and uncharitably as being related to the accuser of the Brethren as if the writer of the Queries had positively charged all the Ministers of Scotland that they never intended their Hearers should come any nearer to Christs Death than a bare Historical remembrance thereof But doth not I. A. know that to Query a thing is one and positively to conclude it far another And the Enquirer had ground so to Query because he understands that if it were the care of Preachers to bring people into the Death with Christ so as to be Crucified with him they would not plead so much for upholding a Figure or Shadow of Christ's Death to put them in remembrance of it when to suffer and die with Christ is much more effectual to remember them Nor Secondly would they plead so much for carrying a body of sin about with them while they live and that all must be under a necessity of sinning daily in Thought Word and Deed yea in whatever thay think speak or do for such a state is not consistent with a being Dead and Crucified with Christ. And Thirdly If it were their work to bring people to dye with Christ they would turn them to the Light of Christ in their Hearts and Preach it to be unto them of a saving Nature and an effectual mean to obtain the said Death with Christ which yet they do not but on the contrary deny it as meerly natural insufficient And is it not too apparent that the far greatest number of your Church Members know nothing more of Christ's Death than the History of it And whether the fault of this lye not in a very great part upon the Preachers is no small nor impertinent Question And seeing I. A. pretends so much to Scripture Rule I shall ask him a few Queries more upon the former Head First What Scripture hath he and his Brethren to call that eating of Bread and drinking of Wine once or twice in a year in the Pub●●ck Assembly the Sacrament 2. What Scripture have they to instruct them how oft they should use it as once twice or four times in every year And if they have none was it not then left to people according to the Query at least as to the time 3. What Scripture have they for consecrating it or when did Christ say Before ye eat it consecrate it 4. When did Christ give only the power to a Priest or Presbyter or Ordamed Minister to Consecrate it so as without the said Consecration by some Priest or Ordained Minister it is no Sacrament And seeing every Christian may eat it as well as the Minister why may he not also consecrate it as well as he seeing every true Chris●ian is a Priest 5. Where did Christ appoint that these words Take Eat this is my body should be the words of consecration and have ye not received all this from the Papists and not from Christ 6. Seeing ye commonly say that this Sacra●●●● of the Supper is come in the room of the Passo●er and under the Law every Family had power without a Priest to celebrate the Passover why hath not also every Family under the Gospel 〈◊〉 much power without any Ordained Priest or Minister to celebrate that called the Supper 7. Seeing every true Christian feeds daily by Faith upon the body of Christ according to the Protestant Doctrine and ought daily to remember the Death of Christ in all their eating and drinking which is also sanctified unto them by the Word of God and Prayer what peculiar vertue or efficacy hath your sacramental eating more than ordinary eating
Rule and like Proteus turning my self into all shapes sometimes I design Christ himself oftner the Spirit himself but oftnest the Dictate of the Spirit within to be that Rule But he might at that ra●e have no less blamed the Apostle Paul that he turned himself into all shapes while he affirmeth sometimes That Christ spoke in him and sometimes that the Spirit spoke in him and certainly what Christ or the Spirit spoke in him was by a certain Word or dictate But to Answer directly when I say Christ is the Rule And again when I say the Spirit is the Rule there is no absurdness therein for if we mean by the Spirit the Holy Ghost Christ and the Holy Ghost are never separated or divided in what they Speak or Witness in the souls of men but their speech and Testimony is one and the same alwaies and also Christ himself in Scripture is called the second Adam the quickening Spirit and the Lord that Spirit and said Christ I am the way the Truth and the Life and certainly that Life is Spirit and also the Words or dictate of it is Spirit and Life as Christ said The words that I speak unto you are Spirit and Life So the Reader may see that my words are sound and according to Scripture and therefore whether I say Christ or the Spirit or the internal dictate and Word of the Spirit is the Rule it is to the same purpose And to say the dictate of the Spirit is the Rule is no other than to say the Spirit dictating or speaking is that Rule and do not some of your selves use a variety of Speech when ye speak of the Rule one time saying The Scripture is the Rule another time The Word of God contained in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament is the only Rule c. as the Westminster Confession of Faith expresly hath it Another time The Spirit of God speaking in the Scriptures c. Now according to I. A. I may blame him and his Brethren in this case that Proteus like he and his Brethren turn themselves into all shapes when they speak of the Rule And whether these phrases used by them be not more unscriptural I leave unto sober men for to judge In the next place he argueth That Christ cannot be the Rule nor the Spirit because the Rule of Faith must be some complex Proposition Direction or Precept and the like To this I Answer First That the Rule of Faith must be a complex Proposition Direction or Precept formally understood in words formally conceived I altogether deny and I. A. hath not offered to prove it And although the Sp●rit of Christ may and often doth speak express words in the souls of his people yet he doth not alwaies so do when yet he clearly enough signifieth his mind and will unto them for if among men a King may signifie his mind to his Subjects or a Master to his servants without any formal Proposition or direction of words but only by some motion of his hand or face How much more may the Lord God who is the King of Kings signifie his mind unto his servants by the motion of his Spirit without any formal or express words Again I ask I. A. if he hath not learned in the Schools that the reasonable nature of God is the first rule of Manners And certainly the reasonable Nature of God is not a complex Proposition consisting of many words And hath he not read in Boetius that excellent saying Quis legem det amantibus major lex amor est ipse sibi which the Author of a late Book called The Life of God in the soul of man doth use to prove that somewhat more than words is a Law or Rule to Christians and Englisheth thus For who shall give a Law to them that Love Love 's a more powerful Law that doth such persons move And I further Query I. A. seeing the Scripture saith God is Love he that knoweth God to be Love and hath the Love of God shed abroad in his Heart by the holy Spirit which in Scripture is called The Spirit of Love shall not this man be tyed to love God and his Brethren yea and all mankind even his very enemies Suppose it be not said to him in formal express words do so and so Again whether he that only readeth or heareth these outwardly Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy Heart c. and thy Neighbour as thy self but his Heart is utterly void of the love of God or he that hath the love of God in his heart and feelleth the powerful constraint of it is under the most powerful Law Whether the words without or the Spirit and Nature of Divine Love within is the most powerful Law and Rule There may therefore be a Law or Rule which is not a complex Proposition of words either inward or outward to wit the Divine Love it self which hath a Voice and Language to the souls of men in the silence of all words many times and can be understood as well without words as with them And therefore when I say the dictate of the Spirit is the Rule I mean not that there is alwaies a dictate of express words but that which is either such a formal express dictate or equivalent thereunto which those who are acquainted with the experiences of the Saints do well understand although it may seem to I. A. a strange Riddle or Paradox And thus by what I have said in this particular the intelligent Reader I hope shall perceive that in saying The Spirit is the Rule I am not beside my self as I. A. doth alledge but speak the words of Truth and soberness And I further ask Whether I. A. thinks that Ignatius the Martyr was beside himself when he writ in one of his Epistles to the People 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. Vsing the Holy Ghost for a Rule or Whether Paul was beside himself when he said The Law of the Spirit of Life in Christ Iesus had made him free from the law of Sin and Death And whether that Law was not the Spirit of Life even as the Law of sin was sin and the Law of death was death And whether the Law of the Mind mentioned by Paul was not a Divine Principle of Grace in his mind even as the Law of his Members was a principle of sin and corruption that sometime had place in him and not any complex Proposition of words And whether the Law that God writeth in the hearts of his people in the new Covenant be simply a form of words consisting of so many letters syllables and sentences or rather to speak properly is not that Law a new and Divine Nature or substantial Life of Holiness and Righteousness and Wisdom by which the Children of God are led and taught under the new Covenant naturally as it were to love God and all men even as the Law that God hath put in all
read and compare these following Scriptures Isaiah 44. 3. Ioel 2. 28. Ieremiah 31. 31. Psal. 68. 18. Eph. 4. 7 8. and Ioh. 1. 16 17. Rom. 5. 18. PROP. III. WHen once the day of mens Gracious Visitation is at an end which is possible to come to pass on many and doth no doubt come to pass on many even when living in the World after they have finally rejected the Call of God in their Souls and ●●ully resisted and hardned themselves against his tender dealings by his Spirit of Grace gently working on their hearts I do not say that Christ hath died for the sins of all or any one of those after the said day of their Visitation is at an end For although we read in Scripture That Christ hath died for the re●ission of all sins past in the time of ignorance when God winked and for the redemption of the transgressions under the first Covenant according to Rom. 3. 25. and Heb. 9. 15. Yet we find not that Christ hath died for all sins of men that were to come after they were Enlightned And although no doubt all sins as well to come as past are pardoned upon Repentance and that Christ hath died for such sins as are repented of by any men at any time when they truly repent yet seeing many sins are committed by many that are never repented of and wherein they die finally Impenitent and hardned against Gods tender Call and Visitation of Grace in their Souls Also seeing some sin wilfully and fall away after they have received the knowledge of the Truth and die in that state the Scripture is plain That there remaineth no more Sacrifice for them Also Iohn speaketh Of a s●n that is unto death of which he Writes I do not say that such a one is to be Prayed for And what is such a sin but a final impenitence even until the day of Visitation be over and God be provoked to give them up even as many at this day because they received not the Truth in Love are given up to the strong delusions of Antichrist to believe Lies and die in that state PROP. IV. MEn are not according to Scripture called Reprobates within that time that God dwelleth with them by his Grace in order to convert them and renew them by Repentance far less doth the Scripture speak of mens being Reprobated from all Eternity or before the foundation of the World as some alledge although we read of an Election in Christ before the foundation of the World And to say that God doth simply Reprobate men while he is calling them to Repentance and graciously inviting them in true Love to be reconciled with him is an absolute inconsistency The time therefore of any mans final Reprobation is after this day of Grace is over and God hath wholly left striving with him in order to his Conversion We must therefore distinguish betwixt persons and their sins and sinful state for also ●in and state of sin is always rejected and reprobated yet not the persons until their day be over For the Scripture speaketh aboundantly of a day of Grace that all men have or are to have wherein the Lord not only visits them but even endures with much long suffering the Vessels of wrath fitted for destruction These only therefore are properly Reprobates who are finally given over to a Reprobate mind after their day of Grace is over and Gods fore-knowledge and preordination respecteth them only as such PROP. V. ACcording to what is formerly said it may be further concluded that although Christ hath died for all men in a day so that within that day of Grace all their sins past and to come as well as present are pardonable for Christs sake no man being absolutely reprobated and finally given over within this day of Grace yet that day being at an end Christs death is no more a Sacrifice for them nor for their sins and because of their rejecting so great Salvation offered them by Christ all their former sins which formerly were not imputed unto them so as to hinder Pardon are newly charged upon them and that in the just Judgement of God seeing they deny the Lord that bought them and account his Blood as an unholy or common thing And in this respect Christ hath Died for no Reprobates to wit as such And he hath neither died nor Prayed for the World in that sense to wit as it signifieth them who die in the final unbelief and impenitency and so perish for so I find the term World sometimes to signify in Scripture And if I. A. think that this is a contradiction as implying that Christ hath died for all men and yet hath not died for Reprobates who are a great part or the greatest part of mankind I shall mind him of a Rule in his School-Logick that he doth so highly magnifie to wit that Propositions are not contradictory although the one be Affirmative and the other Negative unless they be in ordtne ad idem in order to the same and in regard of the same Circumstances of time place condition c. PROP. VI. THe Sacrifice of Christs death did truely extend for the remission of sins past from the beginning of the world hence all the Believers that lived under the Law and Prophets and before the Law were saved by Faith in Christ and had their sins pardoned not by the Offering of the Blood of Bulls and Rams but by the Blood of Christ who was to die for them and in whom they believed and died in Faith as is clear out of many places of Scripture and especially the Epistle to the Hebrews And by vertue of Christ's death and offering once for all men have had or have or shall have a day of Visitation and offer of Grace through Christ even these who lived before Christ came in the flesh in that prepared body as well as others And therefore all who finally perish and are lost in whatever Age or time of the World they lived they must be accountable to Christ who is judge both of quick and dead and Lord of both and they shall be punished with Fire of Hell for neglecting and despising the Salvation offered by him And although this is a great Mistery and hard to be uttered how this Gospel Invitation and Visitation cometh unto all and how all shall be accountable unto the man Christ Jesus on the score or account of his dying for them yet seeing the Scripture is so plain and clear for it it is better to believe it than curiously to dispute how or after what manner it comes so to be And the opening of this and other great Misteries of the Christian Religion is approaching to many who as yet do not see them and when men are prepared to receive them God will no doubt give that and all other Good things to those that Love and Fear him PROP. VII ANd whereas I. A. and others do urge That either Christ
cannot be any resistance of it in that respect But he may as well say God doth not command perfection and so not to be perfect is no sin for certainly whatever God commands his Grace inclines men to yea it is his Grace in their Hearts that is a Law and command unto them In the close of this Section I. A. falleth on to dispute against the posibility of the falling away of any from real beginnings of Sanctification the which because he doth it so overly and barely not bringing Arguments for what he saith but meerly giving us his own private conjectures on some places of Scripture which are alledged on both sides as also because it is altogether a digression from the Queries I shall not insist upon particularly to refute Only for a service unto those who may desire Information as touching the thing it self because of the seeming contrariety of some places of Scripture which hold forth the state of some in the Grace and favour of God as unchangeable and not lyable to any alteration of falling away from the same are to be understood of the State of such persons after they have come to such a growth in Grace so that perseverance in the same is a reward given them of God with a respect to their Faithfulness and diligence wherein they have been formerly exercised And such especially is that place Rev. 3. 12. CHAP. XVI IN my Examination of I. A. his Survey of the 15 th and two other Queries which are the last I design to be very brief finding little or nothing in all that he objecteth against us on these heads but meer quibbling and trifling together with some manifest abuses and perversions part of which I shall take notice of leaving other things of less moment to the Readers own consideration And indeed were it not for the worth and serviceableness of the things themselves proposed in the Queries and to give to my Native Country as well as unto other places a new occasion to Read and Consider those Queries and the weightiness of the things proposed in them I had not taken the pa●ns to put Pen to Paper in Answer to I. A. notwithstanding his many abusive reflections against me in particular considering of what small repute or esteem he is among his Brethren for although he appears in his Book as some great Pillar mightily concerned in his Brethrens Quarrel and Cause yet so small is their esteem of him or of his work as it seemeth that they have suffered him to lye in Prison in the Tolbooth of Edinburgh for want of Money to pay the Charges of his Book as is not our to many in this place It is like I. A. will be more provident the next time he engageth against the Quakers to get Iohn Hamilton who hath so highly commended his work or some other to secure him from the next inconveniency of that sort First of all he begins on this Query to Quibble about the word should as if the Inquirer did mean by these words That men should not be perfect as if these called Ministers did teach that it was not mens duty to be perfect or as if it were not commanded whereas by the word should is only meant the event or attainment and not the duty as sometimes the word doth signifie a thing most common in ordinary Speech as when one saith if such a man had lived long he should have been Rich or he should have been Wise c. Next he alledges I abu●e some worthy men because I had cited some as holding a Divine condescendence or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and as if the same did consist in God his remitting or nullifying his Law in its obligation but this is a gross perversion for I did not mean any such thing thereby as I. A. doth alledge but only that God out of his infinite goodness and wisdom hath given unto men under the Gospel Dispensation a Law that is so Gentle and so full of Clemency as that by the same he requires no more of any of us but according to the measure of Grace and Strength he doth afford unto us and still as our Strength and Ability is Increased the obligation of the Law becomes the greater upon us Hence it is that he who is Faithful in every respect to the measure of Grace which he hath received is indeed a perfect man and doth please God although he be not equal in his attainment unto others who have more given them For to whom much is given much is required and to whom less is given less is required which is most clear from the Doctrine of Christ in his Parable of the Talents And whereas I. A. doth plead against the possibility of perfection in this Life by divers Arguments deduced from a misapplication of some places of Scripture I shall only point at the defects of his Arguments in general which shall suffice to every one of them if duely applyed in particular 1. One great defect of his Arguments is that the most they prove is That man of himself without the Grace and help of Gods Spirit cannot attain to perfection which we do not deny but this hinders not that by Grace he may 2. A second defect is that his Arguments prove That the Saints had their Imperfections and sins before they were fully washed and cleansed from them which we also acknowledge but this doth not hinder that some time or other they witnessed a perfect cleansing before death A third defect is his confounding ●he States and Conditions of the Saints to wit Their weak Estate when they are but in the warfare and strugling against sin with their Last and final Estate wherein they have overcome and got the Victory And lastly to mention no more his misapplying the word or term perfect when it is taken in an higher sense to the lowest condition of a sinless state as in the Case of Paul when he said Philip. 3. 12. He was not as yet perfected where he ●eaneth certainly that he had not attained to the highest pitch or condition of Holiness that was attainable in this Life which notwithstanding doth not hinder a sinless perfection for although Adam was Created in a sinless perfection yet certainly he was to have gone on to a higher state of Perfection And we Read of Christ who had no sin at all that he was made perfect through Sufferings Again when Christ said I work to day and to morrow and the third day I am perfected This cannot signifie that he had any sinful Imperfection before that time but his being perfected the third day signifieth that his work was then to be done and so that he was prepared for the Glory that he was to receive thereafter Again whereas he maketh some show of bringing our Arguments or Reasons for Perfection I find not my self concerned to Vindicate those Arguments as managed by him because he doth not propose them either in matter or form as they do