Selected quad for the lemma: death_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
death_n	life_n	lord_n	power_n	8,674	5	4.5803	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A43716	Patro-scholastiko-dikaiōsis, or, A justification of the fathers and the schoolmen shewing, that they are not self-condemned for denying the positivity of sin. Being an answer to so much of Mr. Tho. Pierce's book, called Autokatakrisis, as doth relate to the foresaid opinion. By Hen: Hickman, fellow of Magdalene Colledge, Oxon.	Hickman, Henry, d. 1692.	1659 (1659)	Wing H1911A; ESTC R217506	59,554	166

by every one of those 7. writers that undertook the answer to Mr. Mountagues appeal yet they never thought it incumbent upon them to alter their minds Mr. Mountague saith both in his Gag appeale that our Church hath left this undecided and in the conference at Hampton-Court I find Dr. Reynolds moving that the words totally and finally might be added for explication of the Article and that the Lambeth Articles might be in serted The King then unacquainted with the Lambeth Articles thought not meet to put them in But liked it well enough in his Clergy of Ireland that they took them into their confession Dr. Overall said something touching an opinion of his about which he had been questioned by some but concluded that the elect do never fall away totally or finally The Bishop of London said he knew there were some that did make an ill use of the decrees But had before the conference agreed to the Lambeth Articles and after the conference when he was Archb. his Chaplain with his good liking and approbation published the exposition and Analysis of our Articles in which he gives the Calvinist as fair quarter as could be wished And now I would faing know why I am sent to the conference at Hampton-Court Mr. Hooker had I warrant you read Artic. Homilies forme of Baptism and seeing he could scarce tell how to speak not judiciously we will consult him the rather because it seems this Author was by the late King commended to his Children as an antidote against the poison of Popery Disc of justifi p. 506. As Christ beeing raised from the dead dyeth no more death hath no more power over him So the justified man beeing allyed to God in Iesus Christ our Lord doth as necessarily from that time forward allwayes live as Christ by whom he hath life liveth allway I might if I had not other where largely done it allready shew by many and sundry manifest and cleer proofs how the motions and operations of this life are sometimes so in discerneable and so secret that they seem stone dead who are notwithstanding still alive unto God in Christ For as long as that abideth in us which animateth quickeneth and giveth life so long we live and we know that the cause of our faith abideth in us for ever If Christ the Fountain of life may flit and leave the habitation where once he dwelleth what shall become of his promise I am with you to the end of the World If the seed of God which containeth Christ may be first conceived then cast out how doth St. Peter terme it immortall How doth St. John affirme it abideth If the Spirit which is given to cherish and preserve the seed of life may be given and taken away how is it the earnest of our in heritance untill redemption Anno 1625. one Mr. Damport did answer on this Question An renati possint totaliter finaliter excidere à gratiâ His opponent one Mr. Palmer of Lincolne Colledge urged out of Mr. Mountagues appeal the Article of our Church the Homilies the book of Common prayer the Dr. of the Chair handled the Appellator shrewdly saying he was Merus Grammaticus a fellow that studied Phrases more than Matter that he understood neither the Articles nor the Homilies or at least perverted both And what thinkes Mr. P. of the University of Oxon did not shee know the opinions of the Church of England or would she countenance any thing that had so much as the appearance of contrariety to our Church How came it then to passe that her congregations appointed questions to be disputed of at the publick acts in which are the greatest confluence of the of Sons of Levi. That proceeders maintained in a Calvinistical way How many are now alive that can remember this Question an ex Doctrina reformatorū sequatur Deū esse autorē peccati held Neg. And maintained to the satisfaction of the hearers the Arminian Doctors mean while shewing themselves rather angry than able opponents Let any one who questioneth the truth of what I now say consult the Act Papers that are printed as often as those Academical solemnities are celebrated What should I say more we know when Arminianisme began under whose wings it was sheltered viz. the D. of Buck. and Bishop Laud of whom the first had so much of an Herod in him as would not have suffered him so long to continue friendship with the latter if he had not had too little of a St. Ioh. Baptist whilest they did rule not before nor since passages in books against Arminianisme were blotted out reflections in Sermons upon Remonstrants were disliked by Bishop Lauds meanes Dr. Downhams book against the Totall finall Apostasy of the saints from grace was called in in his dayes Mr. Ford of Mag. H. Mr. Thorn of Baliol Mr. Hodges of Exeter were censured but let it be observed that the ground of the Censure was not their having preached any thing contrary to the Doctrine of the Church which is the forme of the censure possed upon Arminians by the ancient Protestants but onely their going against the Kings Declaration which determined nothing but onely injoyned silence in these points Now I hope the Church did not live and dye with B. and C. Nay their flourishing was the decaying and languishing of Church and State too nor could either body vell recover but by spewing out such evill instruments Obj. The Church of England is for universal redemption the Calvinists that are Antiarminian are against it Ans Mr. P. indeed is hugely confident that it we grant him universall redemption the cause is yeelded to him But I am all most as confident that to grant him universall redemption is to grant him just nothing at all for what though Christ did so far die for all as to procure a salvation for all upon the conditions of faith and repentance what 's this to the absolutenesse of Gods decrees or to the insuperability of converting grace or to the certain infallible perseverance of Gods elect after conversion King Iames understood these controversies far better then either Mr. P. or I. and yet he even at that very time when he sent his Divines to the Synod of Dort to determine against the Arminianisme that was then growing in the Low Countries gave it them in charge not to deny that Christ died for all as I my self was told by Bishop Vsher the first time I had the happinesse to have any personall discourse with him who also further then told me that he gave in his own judgement to Dr. Davenant for universall redemption but withall added that there were a certaine number upon whom God absolutely purposed to bestow his Spirit taking away the heart of stone and giving them an heart of flesh and we know that Dr. Davenant in that very dissertation in which one conclusion is Mors sive passio Christi ut universalis causa salutis humanae deum patrem

saying sinne is good Secondly he saith That a thing privative in one respect is also positive in another and every Sciolist can tell that the corruption of one thing is the generation of another Quorsum haec If he mean that the corruption of one thing is formally the generation of another hee falls into so loathsome a contradiction as would make any Sciolists stomack rise at the naming of it If he understand the Proposition in sensu concomitantiae then it is true that in the ordinary course of nature the generation of one thing is the corruption of another and the corruption of one thing the generation of another because the matter cannot exist without a form nor under two disparate forms But quid haec ad Iphicli boves How that which is properly and by intrinsecal denomination privative in one respect should be positive in another falls not as yet under my comprehension His examples will perhaps clear my Intellectuals The darkness which God created was not more privative of the day than it was positive of the night and that which is privative of life or sight may be positive of death and blindness If his meaning bee that from the want of light in the aire wee may as truely say it is night as from the presence of light wee can say it is day that is a truth but very vulgar if he would either hint or hold forth that the darknesse doth actuate and inform the air per modum qualitatis positivae as the light doth there seems to be such a darkness upon the face of his own understanding as I had thought till now had not been incident to a man of Academical education If darknesse be a Positive Quality pray tell us to what species of Quality belongs it 't is not habitus nor potentia naturalis nor yet is it qualitas patibilis which never was nor ever can be seen felt heard smell 't tasted by any one He hath not yet made himselfe noysome enough the peccant humour still operates A Carneadist will be glad to introduce an opinion that Sin is good by calling it bonum Metaphysicum or transcendentale If so then Mr. P. hath deserved his humble thanks who bestows a positive Entity on sin We poor thick-pated Mortals who make it but a privation shall merit none of his favour Mr. B. must be taught that the adequate subject of Metaphysicall science is Ens quatenus ens reale illud non omnimodò positivum quatenus est positivum A strange sentence Can any thing be directly contained under the subject of Metaphysicks which is not positive or can any thing be unum per se and such is the object of every science which is partly positive and partly privative but we have more either of his ignorance or inadvertencie Bonum in Metaphysicks doth no more signifie good in English than canis the Star doth signifie the Dog which walkes about with four feet Bonum ●n English doth signifie good as opposed to e●ill but in Metaphysicks no more but Ens ●n ordine ad appetitum How came English and Metaphysicks so to fall out that ●hey should stand in opposition Is it not ●nough that it is opposed to Greek and ●atine and other languages but it must so stand as the opposite term to Metaphysicks I see others besides Presbyterians can sometimes talk non-sense But doth not Bonum the affection of Ens if it were to be rendred in English signifie good as opposed to evill Mr. P. sure thinks it doth and therefore in policy he forbears to English it onely in Latine he gives us this description Bonum est Ens in ordine ad appetitum and that Sin is such Mr. B. knows by sad and minutely experience What uncharitablenesse is this to say that Mr. B. hath minutely experience that sin as sin is the object of his appetite Malum qua malum is not the object of any rational creatures appetite Nor can it be the object of the rational appetite any more than falsum quâ falsum can be the object of the understandings assent For a close he tels us that malum morale est bonum Metaphysicum and if Mr. B. aimed at nothing but this he hath gained nothing Yes he hath gained enough For who would ascribe a transcendental goodnesse to moral evill but one who hath either lost all his Metaphysicks or never had any to lose Seeing you have made a shift to swallow such a Camel wee 'll try whether we can fetch it up again May it therefore please yo● to understand that they who describe Metaphysical goodness per ordinem ad appetitum understand it primarily with relation to the Divine will And will you make sin the object of the Divine will But Suarez will tell you that good is not so compared to the appetite as truth is to the intellect for Metaphysical truth includes in its formall nature and denomination some conformity to the understanding but so doth not goodness include a conformity to the appetite though such a conformity be a necessary consequent of goodnesse A thing is not therefore good because desired but it is therefore desired because good Hence they expresse the nature of good by the word perfectum and conveniens alicui and let Mr. P. if he can tell me how sinne bonificates any subject or addes any perfection to that in which it is The second Argument used by me in the Letter was to this effect If sin be a positive Entity then it is either God or from God but it can be neither ergo Cajetane found himself so hard beset with this Argument that he ventured to say God was the Author of malum morale but not of malum simpliciter sic dictum For the absurditie of which distinction he is sufficiently schooled by Suarez in more places than one but Mr. P. hath an art worth twenty of the Cardinals distinctions he hath alwaies a whole flood of vilifying words at command and if he meet with a hard and stubborn Argument he soakes it in that liquor so long till the lesse understanding Reader forget that ever any such Argument was used What Mountaines he rowled up together to keep my Argument from being seen I before observed I will now take notice of a relenting pang with which he seems to be surprised in the height of his persecutions against my Argument Observe how it works pag. 156. He must know that there is a medium betwixt God and his creatures and I wonder what should aile him that he should say there is none Nay if I must there is no remedy but till he have more authority over me than I yet conceive him to have I shall without fear give him my reasons why I neither doe nor can acknowledge any medium First because I finde those that had to doe with the Manichees and heathen Philosophers building their Argument upon this Basis that Omne ens est vel primum vel à primo and that malum