Selected quad for the lemma: death_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
death_n	law_n	sin_n	sin_v	8,157	5	9.6294	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A81734	The Quakers folly made manifest to all men: or a true relation of what passed in three disputations at Sandwich, April, 12, 13, 19, 1659. between three Quakers, and a minister, viz. Mr. Samuel Fisher, George Whithead, Richard Hubberthorn, and Thomas Danson wherein many popish tenents were by them maintained, and by him refuted. Occasioned by an imperfect and (in many things) false relation of the said disputations, published by R. Hubberthorn, one of the three Quakers, which said relation is also censur'd and amended. Together with a brief narrative of some remarkable passages. / By Tho. Danson, late fellow of Magd. Coll. Oxon, and now minister of the Gospel at Sandwich in Kent.	Danson, Thomas, d. 1694.	1659 (1659)	Wing D215; Thomason E2255_3; ESTC R34492	40,882	71

come in at a pinch to help when none else could is a great constraint to obedience upon all the dead for whom Christ died That place is fully parallel and opens this putting but Christ in stead of God into the former clause God commendeth his love toward us speaking of believers v. 1 2. in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us Rom. 5.8 G. Whithead Still thou pervertest Scripture by thy meanings T. Danson I pervert it not but I reconcile the Scripture to it self G. Whithead The Scripture is at unity with it self and needs not thy reconciling 'T is said the Scripture cannot be broken T. Danson I say so too that the Scripture is at unity with it self but withall that it seems to disagree and cannot approve it self to our understandings without the mediation of a meaning or interpretation It was an usual thing with Christ to speak words of a doubtful sense as John 3.19 Destroy this Temple which they understood of the material Temple he being in it at the time v. 15. and likely enough speaking with his eye as well as his tongue v. 20. but he meant of the temple of his body v. 21. G. Whithead Thou art such a giver of meanings as they were who gave it contrary to Christs meaning T. Danson Whether I be such a one or no is not for you to judge in your own cause ● leave it to the understanding hearers But in the mean while the place serves my purpose viz. to prove that Christ's meaning may be mistaken when his words are taken in the most ordinary and literal sense and so it would be if by every man we should understand every individual man so that 't is your self and not I that am such a giver of meanings as the Jews G. Whithead How canst thou prove that thou art to give meanings to Scripture T. Danson I do not pretend to power to give meanings to Scripture as your phrase is if you mean thereby adding any thing to the Scripture which is not in it but to find out what already is by causing the Scriptures with the Cherubims to face one another that is my duty and all other mens This the Scripture warrants Neh. 8.8 So they read in the Book in the Law of God distinctly and gave the sense and caused them to understand the reading And I should be glad to know of any of you who are against meanings how you can understand such Scriptures as these without a meaning God is not a man that he should repent It repenteth me that I have made man God tempted Abraham God tempts no man Answer not a fool according to his folly Answer a fool according to his folly And once more Paul and James The former saies that a man is justified by Faith without the works of the Law Rom. 3.28 And the other flatly contradicts him in terms that by works a man is justified and not by Faith only Jam. 2.24 When as any of these do sweetly consent if the ambiguity of phrases be once removed As for instance in Paul and James the one speaks of being formally justified the other declaratively Justification in Paul is opposite to the condemnation of a sinner in general and justification in James is opposite to the condemnation of an hypocrite in particular In Pauls sense a sinner is absolved in James's sense a believer is approved So Diodat whose words I used but forgot to name him in the discourse Here the two disputants had nothing to say but what was absurd and impertinent and thereupon I desired we might leave what had been spoken to the hearers judgment and to go on to another Question which at length was agreed to The Second Question was Whether in this life the Saints attain to a state of perfection or freedom from sin This they held in the affirmative T. Danson Your Doctrine of perfection is against the tenour of the Scripture let us hear what you can say for the proof of it R. Hubberthorn 1 John 3.9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin T. Danson That cannot be meant of freedom from sin but either there is an emphasis in the word sin intending under that general term one kind or sort of sin which is spoken of 1 John 5.16 There is a sin unto death Or if not on the Substantive on the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which notes to make a trade or businesse of sin as 't is explain'd v. 8. where he uses the same verb for the Devil sinneth from the beginning He hath never ceased to sinne since he began thus indeed the Saints sin not but a course of sin is broken of● and there is not such a free trade between the soul and sin as in the state of unregeneracy whereof this is given for one character that cannot cease to sin 2 Pet. 2.14 G. Whithead Thou wrestest the Scriptures to thy own destruction T. Danson No I wrest them not if I do shew wherein And if you will observe either it must be meant of all Saints or none for the New birth agrees to all if then the phrase excludes the being of sin in some it must in all and mark the reason given because his seed remaineth in him and he cannot sin because he is born of God Now the seed remains in all as well as any now lest you should be so mad as to assert all Saints to be free from sin pray read 1 John 1.8 If we say that we have no sin we deceive our selves and this is spoken of such persons as of whom it is denied that they commit sin persons that had fellowship with the Father and his Son Jesus Christ v. 3. Mr. Fisher Pray do not multiply words to no purpose but read v. ult If we say that we have not sinned we make him a liar The born of God should lie if they did deny themselves to have sinned before they were in the new birth T. Danson Sir you must not think to put us off so v. 8. 't is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the other is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Suppose the latter verse were to be understood of the sin which preceded the new birth yet the former is expresly de praesenti that we have not have had no sin and yet I see nothing to the contrary but that we hav● not sinned v. ult may relate to particular acts of sin in the state of the new birth denied either in whole or in part G. Whithead Phil. 3.15 As many as he perfect let us ●e thus minded T. Danson For the phrase upon which you ground your notion 't is used in a comparative sense 1 Cor. 2.6 speaks of grown Christians who could fancy the Gospel in a plain dress whom he cals perfect in comparison of others as he cals Babes in Christ carnal in respect of those who are more spiritual Ch. 3.1 And often in Scripture perfect is put for upright and made synonymous or of

pervertest Scripture T. Danson I leave it to the judgement of judicious hearers whether I have perverted Scripture or no and so pray do you The third Qu●stion debated on was though with much ado at length stated in these terms Whether our good works are the meritorious cause of our justification And Mr. Fisher held it in the Affirmative Mr. Fisher Thus I prove that our good works are the meritorious cause of our justification by a rule that you own Contraria contrariorum ratio whence I argue thus If our evil works are the meritorious cause of our condemnation then out good works are the meritorious cause of our non-condemnation or justification But our evil works are the meritorious cause of our condemnation therefore our good works are the meritorious cause of our non-condemnation or just●fication T. Danson Now you shew your self a rank Papist indeed We deny your consequence because our evil works are perfectly evil but our good works are but imperfectly good and any one evil is a violation of the Law and deserves the penalty of the Law but any one or more good work is not the fulfillin● of the Law Let me add that there is no consequence in that Popish Argument notwithstand●ng that Canon because our good and evil works are not absolute contraries the one being perfectly evil the other but imperfectly good Mulum oritur ex quolibet defectu Bonum fi●●ex integris causis which latter appears by Isa 64.6 All our righteousnesses not our unrighteousnesses only are as filthy rags And again thus the rule will allow to argue Evil works which are the violation of the Law deserve damnation Ergo good works which are the fulfilling of the Law deserve salvation And we know no good works such but Christ's And once more in respect of the subject the Rule will not hold being one who owes all his good works to God and is a finite creature now those works which merit must not be due and they must be of infinite value or else there is no proportion between them and the reward And thus we might argue à contrariis If his evil works from whom only good works are due as from a finite creature to an infinite Creator do truly deserve damnation then his good works who owes none and is an infinite person do truly deserve non-condemnation But verum prius ergo et posterius And to understand this we must know that the desert of disobedience arises chiefly from the dignity of the Object against which sin is committed when as the desert of obedience arises from the dignity of the subject by which it is performed Mr. Fisher I will prove my consequence from Gal. 5.18 But if ye be led of the Spirit ye are not under the Law Whence I argue If they who are led by the Spirit are not under the Law then the leading of the Spirit is the meritorious cause of their not being under the Law but they who are led by the Spirit are not under the Law Ergo. T. Danson Sir you are very silly your self or take your hearers to be so that you think this to be a proof of your former consequence or that there is any consequence in this Argument You should have proved that there is par ratio for the merit of good and of evil works And surely Sir the leading of the Spirit or Sanctification is a fruit and effect not a meritorious cause of not being under the Law that is obliged to its penalty Mr. Fisher I will prove by another Scripture that leading by the Spirit is the meritorious cause of our Justification 1 Cor. 6.11 And such were some of you but ye are washed but ye are sanctified but ye are justified in the Name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God Observe here the Co inthians are said to be justified by the Spirit T. Danson I might say that perhaps the clause should be referred to Sanctification which is in a more appropriate manner attributed to the Spirits efficiency as if the order of the words had been but ye are sanctified by the Spirit of our God and such transpositions are not without instance in the Scripture as Mat. 7.6 Give not that which is holy to dogs neither cast ye your Pearls before swine lest they trample them under their feet and turn again and rent you where turn again and rent you is to be joyned to the dogs for as swine do trample under their feet so dogs do fly upon a man and tear him down Or else justified by the Spirit may be meant of the Spirits application I mean the third Person in the Trinity not of the work of Grace whereof we are the Subject Mr. Fisher In the 8th of the Rom. v. 2. The Law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the Law of sin and death Now 't is the same Law of the Spirit of life that is in Christ and the Saints T. Danson That place is much against you For the Apostle asserts the Holinesse of mans Nature as a work of the Spirit conforming it to the Law to be the merito●ious cause of ou● freedom from sin and death but mark withal 't is not that which is in us but in Christ And though 't is true that the same spirit is in Christ and the Saints yet neither does the spirit in us conform us fully to the Law notwithstanding your vain assertion of perfection nor if it did were that conformity the merit of J●stification Let me add that the Law of the Spirit of life here spoken of is not only the meritorious cause of our freedom from death but from the Law of sin or obeying of sin as a Law now I would fain know what precedent holinesse in the Saints merits subsequent holinesse or whether the exercise of what they have is the meritorious cause of what they have not or of perfection especially if the law of sin intends the corruption of nature as the Law of the Spirit of life does holiness of nature I would be instructed how a nature in part corrupted can deserve total freedom and I am sure the first work of the Spirit renews our natures but in part Mr. Fisher Pray read on Rom. 8.4 That the righteousness of the Law might be fulfilled in us who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit This place saies the righteousnesse of the Law is fulfilled in the persons of the Saints T. Danson Sure Sir you never read v. 3. which tells us that the Law was weak through the flesh that is unable to justifie us in regard of our inability through corruption to fulfill it which were untrue if we are able to fulfill it and what follows God sent his own Son to give us what we could not attain to by our own obedience to the Law and as for the 4th v. it imports the end for which God sent Christ that the righteousnesse of the Law might