Selected quad for the lemma: death_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
death_n	work_n	work_v	world_n	540	4	4.3455	3	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A85957	The fort-royal of Christianity defended. Or, a demonstration of the divinity of scripture, by way of excellency called the Bible. With a discussion of some of the great controversies in religion, about universal redemption, free-will, original sin, &c. For the establishing of Christians in truth in these atheistical trying times. / By Thomas Gery, B.D. and Rector of Barwell in Leicestershire.	Gery, Thomas, d. 1670?	1657 (1657)	Wing G618; Thomason E1702_1; ESTC R209377	93,977	264

it It will be expedient for me to premise certain Theological conclusions or principles which all Orthodox Divines unanimously and univocally have acknowledged to be undoubted Truths as Praecognita and Canons to have recourse unto for the decision and determination of any Controversie as need shall require which if they deny to assent unto they are not to be disputed with as the proverb speaks Contra negantem principia non est disputandum There 's no disputation to be held with him that will deny the principles of Art The Principles I think fit to premise are these four 1. That the Canonical Scripture is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is authentical and creditable of it self 2. That there is no contradictions in the Canonical Scripture 3. That the same makes and so by consequence alloweth to be made distinction between things that sometime in Scripture have the same denomination This appears by many instances in Scripture whereof I will name these three Fear Faith and Sorrow First About Fear the Scripture mentioneth a fear which is gracious and godly which the learned have termed Filial and a Fear which is gracelesse which the learned have termed Servile of this we have an example in 2 Kings 17.33 34. where it 's said of the Babylonians in the former verse that they feared God and then in the latter verse that they feared him not Whence it 's evident that a distinction must be made of the fear of God whereof some is a Gracious Fear and some a Gracelesse otherwise there would be a contradiction between the two verses which Scripture admits not Secondly About Faith The Scripture doth distinguish it into these two sorts namely a Faith that hath Works and a Faith that is without works which it also calleth a dead faith James 2.17 Faith if it have no Works is dead being alone Thirdly About Sorrow The Scripture speaks of a godly sorrow for sin and a worldly sorrow in 2 Cor. 7.10 Godly sorrow worketh Repentance to salvation but the sorrow of the World worketh death Hereby it 's clear that a distinction is sometimes to be made betwixt things that have the same denomination The fourth Principle which I shall premise is this That seeming contradictions in Scripture are so to be expounded by help of other Texts either speaking of the same point or otherwise that they may symphonize and accord together Which help the Scripture affords in one place or other If our Adversaries will yield to be tryed about the forementioned Controversies by these old Canons which have been universally received for undoubted truths by all Christian Churches in primitive times when the waters ran clearest from under the Threshold of the Sanctuary I shall adventure to bear the disgrace if I do not convince them of error about each Controversie that I have before named The first Controversie handled About Election THeir first Error that I shall undertake to confute is their assertion That God's election of men unto salvation is grounded upon his foresight of their Faith and Obedience or sanctification and Good Works That is that he electeth such and such men to life and salvation because he foreseeth that they will believe and walk in obedience to his Commandements This Assertion I shall prove to be an error by these four Arguments The first Argument If men shall therefore believe because they are elected and ordained to eternal life then they are not elected and ordained to eternal life because they will believe This consequence cannot be denied by any intelligent man But men shall therefore believe because they are elected and ordained to eternal life and therefore are not elected and ordained to it because they will believe The Assumption I prove out of Acts 13.48 where it 's said That as many as were ordained to eternall life believed Here Faith is made the fruit and effect of election to eternal life and therefore cannot be the cause of it for nothing can be the cause and effect too of one and the same thing My second Argument is this If men be elected or chosen that they may be holy then their election must needs be the ground and cause of their holinesse and sanctification But men are elected that they may be holy so saith the Scripture Ephes 1.4 He hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the World that we should be holy and without blame before him in love Therefore Election is the ground and cause of holinesse or sanctification and not holinesse the ground and cause of election The third Argument If the good pleasure of God's will be the ground and first cause of mens election and predestination to salvation then God's fore-sight of their Sanctification and Good Works cannot be the first cause and ground thereof This consequence is undeniable But the good pleasure of God's will is the first cause and ground of mens election and predestination to salvation Therefore God's fore-sight of their sanctification and Good Works cannot be the first cause and ground thereof The A sumption I prove from these two Texts of Scripture passing by many other to the same purpose Rom. 9.11 S. Paul there affirms That the purpose of God according to Election stands not of Works but of him that calleth Where works are denied and Gods will affirmed to be the cause of election And Ephes 1.5 and again verse 11. the good pleasure of God's will is made the ground and cause of mens election to salvation The words in the fift verse are these Having predestinated us to the adoption of children by Jesus Christ unto himself according to the good pleasure of his will And the words in the 11. verse are these In whom also we have obtained an inheritance being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the councel of his own will If the Adversaries answer that Election may be according to the good pleasure of God's will and yet the good pleasure of his will may not be the cause of Election To this I reply That the Apostle makes it plain in the 11. verse that he speaks of the good pleasure of God's will as the cause of Election by the addition of these last words in the verse Who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will For if he worketh all things after the counsel of his own will then Election is necessarily one of those things which he worketh after the councel of his own will and therefore the counsell of his own will must needs be the cause thereof The fourth Argument is this If Good Works be no causes of salvation then neither of election unto salvation this is plain because Election is the cause of Salvation But Good Works are no causes of salvation and therefore no causes of Election The minor Proposition or Assumption is proved by Ephes 2.8 9 verses where the Apostle saith By grace ye are saved through faith and that not of your selves it is the

Scripture that he died for many as well as for all as Isa 53.12 He bare the sins of many Matth. 20.28 He gave his life a ransome for many Heb. 9.28 Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many Which expressions import that he died not for all alike but for many in one sense and for all in another or else the expression of his dying for many were needlesse in that it is so oft expressed that he died for all Secondly Because it 's oft said that he died for his Church as John 10.15 I lay down my life for the sheep Eph. 5.25 Husbands love your Wives even as Christ also loved the Church and gave himself for it Which imports also that he died for all men in one sense and for his Church in another Thirdly because the Scripture hath in terminis in expresse words put a difference between his being a Saviour to all men and his being a Saviour to them that believe as in 1 Tim. 4.10 We trust in the living God who is the Saviour of all men specially of those that believe From whence I argue thus Christ died for all men as he is a Saviour of all men but he is a Saviour of all men in a different sense and sort namely generally of the universality of men and specially of his Church witnesse the distinction made by the Apostle in the fore-cited Text Therefore he died for all men in a different sense and sort namely in one sense and sort for the universality of men and in another sense and sort for the particularity of his Church To the third Quaery I answer That he died for all wicked men and unbelievers in these two senses according to Scripture 1. As suffering a satisfactory punishment for the sins of all the men in the world so as they are not left destitute of the means of remission of sins and of salvation according to the words of the Apostle 1 Tim. 2.6 There is one Mediator between God and men the man Christ Jesus who gave himself a ransome for all a testimony in due time And again Heb. 2.9 the Apostle saith that He tasted death for every man 2. He died for them upon condition of their faith and obedience according to these Scriptures John 3.16 God so loved the World that he gave his only begotten Son that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life And Heb. 5.9 He became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him And so in like manner it 's the affirmation of sundry other Texts of Scripture But then he died not for them with an intention and purpose to give them grace to repent and believe and so to bring them to salvation which appears by Scripture to be a clear truth these two ways 1. Because Scripture hath revealed abundantly God's purpose to the contrary namely to save some men but not all The proofs whereof are so numerous that I need not quote any 2. Because if Christ died for all men with an intention and purpose to save all then either all shall be saved which is contradicted by a hundred places of Scripture or else Christ's purpose may be altered But his purpose cannot be altered or disappointed and therefore he died not for all with a purpose to save all That his purpose cannot be altered I prove both because he can neither alter it himself nor can any other alter it That he cannot alter it himself is oft taught in Scripture Mal. 3.6 I am the Lord I change not Jam. 1.17 With him is no variablenesse neither shadow of turning Neither can any other alter it for his purpose is immutable and his will irresistible Isa 46.10 My counsel shall stand and I will do all my pleasure And 43.13 I will work and who shall let it And Rom. 9.19 Who hath resisted his will Thus then from the premises already sufficiently proved I conclude and determine the controversie thus That Christ died for all the men in the world in these two senses First As paying by his death a sufficient ransome for the sins of them all which the Scripture calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a price of redemption several times Secondly That he died for them all upon condition of their faith and obedience but died not for all men with purpose to bring all actually to salvation And so the old distinction of Christ's dying for all men either sufficientur or efficaciter sufficiently or effectually as it may be understood and applied stands still upon its basis and feet and challengeth all the desertors and rejecters of it to frame a more fit and proper distinction between Christ's dying for all men and his dying for his Church Seeing a distinction between them is to be made as hath been already declared by testimony of Scripture The third Controversie which is of all other the most difficult and knotty WHether an unregenerate man hath power to repent and believe and so be saved if he will Mr. Haggar answers hereto in the affirmative in Page the 25. of his fore-mentioned discourse I answer to it in the negative denying that a natural man hath power to repent and believe by the energy or strength of his own free-will but needs the help of the special preventing grace of God ere he can be converted or he cannot convert himself For the fuller opening and enodation of this controversie and because therein I have more learned adverseries to deal with then Anabaptists I will first speak out what the will of an unregenerate man is able to do towards his conversion without the help of God's special efficacious grace or preventing grace as the learned call it And then secondly How far it cooperates with God's grace in his conversion About the first notice is to be taken of a threefold liberty of Will namely The liberty of Nature the liberty of Grace and the liberty of Glory Of which though these two last we lost by Adam's fall yet the first was not lost but remains still so as by vertue thereof the Will hath liberty to will or nill without compulsion or constraint and that not only in natural and civil actions but also in moral and ecclesiastical In moral actions to practise virtue as Justice Temperance Liberality c. And so to do some things commanded in God's Law as both experience shews and Paul testifies Rom. 2.14 where be saith That the Gentiles did by nature the things contained in the Law In Ecclesiastical actions an unregenerate man hath liberty also namely to perform the duties of God's worship and service for the outward act as to come to Church hear and read the word of God pray partake of the Sacraments do works of charity and confer about Religion and the doctrine of faith as common experience shews all which are good preparatives to and ofttimes efficacious means of regeneration and conversion Yet must this liberty of Will about all these actions either

and sinful Parents is flesh that is is fleshly and finful for so we find in other places of Scripture as was said before that where the flesh and spirit are opposed one to another as they are in this verse there by spirit is understood the regenerate part in man and by flesh the unregenerate part as beside the former Text quoted Gal. 5.16 17. verses is to be seen in Rom. 8. several times verse the 5. They that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit And in the next verse To be carnally minded is death but to be spiritually minded is life and peace And in the 9. verse Ye are not in the flesh but in the spirit And again in the 13. verse If ye live after the flesh ye shall die but if ye through the Spirit do mortifie the deeds of the body ye shall live In all which places as also in most other in the New Testament where the Spirit and the flesh are set in opposition one to another there by flesh is meant the unregenerate part in man unless some circumstances in the context do necessarily require that such places should be otherwise understood Hence therefore it follows undeniably That children are conceived and born in sin namely because they stand in need of regeneration to their salvation Argument 2. THey that are subject to diseases and death in their conception and birth are in their conception and birth sinful for these namely diseases and death are affirmed to be the fruits and effects of sin in Scripture very frequently Rom. 5.12 By one man sin entred into the World and death by sin and so death passed upon all men for that all have sinned Rom. 6.23 The wages of sin is death So that where we see death or sicknesse sieze upon any young or old there we may surely conclude that sin hath gone before But Infants are subject to diseases and death in their very conception and birth Therefore they are in their conception and birth sinful To evade the force of this argument one of note amongst the Anabaptisie n●mely one Mr. Brown in a Treatise which he hath penned and published entituled Scripturerede●ption freed from restraint and in page the 7. of the said discourse restrains the death mentioned in the forenamed Texts to a bodily death only affirming that Adam by his sin exposed himself and his posterity not to eternal or the second death to the death of soul and body both but to bodily death only Yet lest he should seem to contradict Scripture which every-where affirms all sin to provoke God's anger and to deserve death and to bring forth fruit unto death he confesseth that any sin deserves death but not every kind of death His words are these I grant saith he that the wages of sin is death but the wages of any sin is not every kind of death And so denies that Adam incurred any other death by his sin then the death of the body Touching this answer and this exposition of the foresaid Texts of Scripture I desire the Reader to take notice of these two failings and falts therein First it extenuates the hainousness of sin and minceth and diminisheth that just demerit and penalty of it which throughout the whole Scripture is denounced against it which is death both of body and soul Secondly It 's a concession and confession in effect that children are by nature sinful born with fin upon them and in them for if the wages of any be death which is truth and he ingeniously affirms it then where there is any death there must needs be some sin or else the wages and penalty of sin should be inflicted where there is no sin Whereas therefore some children suffer in their infancy some kind of death namely bodily death they must needs be guilty of some kind of sin otherwise they should be punished with bodily death undeservedly which to affirm were blasphemy But they can have no actual sin as is confessed of all men and therefore the sin which exposeth them to death must needs be some latent sin wherewith their natures are stained from the womb as the Scripture speakes which is that which we call originall And so ye may see that his answer to the argument is in effect a concession of the unaswerable force of it and of that which he would seeme to deny But I will display Mr. Brown his gross errour about this point yet a little further He confesseth in the same place of his book that actuall sins in men deserve eternall death though not origin all sin Now I would know of him whether Adam's first sin was not actuall sin This I am sure he cannot deny Nay a very hainous actuall sin it was as might be laid open by many circumstances This then being granted I demand of him why actuall sins in us should be punishable with eternall death and not this first hainous actuall sin of Adam's I dare answer for him that he cannot tel For if our actuall sins deserve eternall death much rather that of Adam's as who had greater light and more grace and less temptations then we have All which considerations are so many aggravations of his sin Lastly to trample this vile errour yet once more under foot that it may never lift up it selfe againe I demand of these Anabaptists whether Adam did not by his sin divest and disrobe himselfe of that glorious image of God after which he was made which consisted especially in righteousnesse and true holiness as the Apostle hath declared Eph. 4.22.23 and 24. verses for there he exhorts to put of the old man by which he means the vitiosity sinfulness of our natures transmitted and propagated into us by old Adam and then to be renewed in the spirit of our minds and to put on the new man which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness which implyes that Gods image after which man was first created did consist in righteousness and holiness Now if they deny that Adam by his sin deprived himselfe of God's image consisting in righteousness and holiness they must deny the 5. chapter of Pauls epistle to the Romans to be Canonicall Scripture for there the Apostle affirmes severall times in the five last verses that by Christ we regain both righteousness and life which Adam lost And againe the word renewed which the Scripture useth in speaking hereof implyes a deprivation of that which was before for nothing can properly be said to be renewed but where there hath been a precedent deprivation of that which is renewed Again on the other side if they confess that Adam by his sin deprived himselfe of God's image then they confess by conseqvence that his sin brought upon him spirituall death which is a further penalty then corporall death and so impugneth their tenet that Adam incurred by his first sin no other death then the