Selected quad for the lemma: law_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
law_n	sin_n	sin_v	transgression_n	4,837	5	10.4181	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A30907	William Michel unmasqued, or, The staggering instability of the pretended stable Christian discovered his omissions observed, and weakness unvailed : in his late faint and feeble animadversions by way of reply to a book intituled Truth cleared of calumnies : wherein the integrity of the Quakers doctrine is the second time justified and cleared from the reiterate, clamorous but causeless calumnies of this cavilling cetechist [sic] / by Robert Barclay.	Barclay, Robert, 1648-1690.	1672 (1672)	Wing B742; ESTC R37062	60,482	82

week The Queen of dayes doth not prove that Lords day spoken of by John to be the first day so if Ignatius had been of this mind and had esteemed of it above other dayes that makes nothing against us we know this Superstition was creeping into the Church before Ignatius's time therefore the Apostle Paul warned the Galatians Gal. 4. 10 11. To prove this day spoken of by John to be the first day of the week he saith Christ appeared to his Disciples declared himself to be the Son of God upon the first day of the week That it is supposed that was the day the Spirit was poured forth And that Beza in an ancient Greek Manuscript did find the first day of the week called the Lords day But all this doth not in the least prove the matter in question except this may suffice for proof W. M. thinks this will infer the day of the Lord spoken of by John to be the first day of the week therefore it is so There may be Superstition-enough found in old Greek Manuseripts It is near fourteen hundred years since the Eastern and Western Churches were like to split about the observation of Easter and yet Protestants with good reason look upon that Controversie as both Superstitious and frivolous Now giving but not granting this day spoken of by John were the first day of the week How doth he prove from this that the first day of the week is come to Christians in place of the Jewish Sabbath or that it stands as an obligation upon them as a part of the moral Law whereunto we are bound by the forth Command which though it be the cheif thing in debate remaines yet unproved seeing then he has had very few proofs for these his supposed Ordinances but such as are onely bottomed upon his own affirmations the Juditious Reader may judge it is with out ground he concludes here that we deny the Ordinances of Christ and not the inventions of men His fourteenth Head Pag. 109 Is concerning Original sin so called which the Reader by comparing with Pag. 62 63 64 and 65. of mine will see that he makes no reall but a meer counterfeit shew of answer and I desire the Reader first to observe That neither here nor in his Dialogue he doth not so much as offer to prove that this phrase Original sin is to be found in Scripture and for all his pretences to make the Scripture his rule he hath no ground from this but from Popish Tradi ion Secondly That we grant a reall Seed of sin derived from Sathan which Adams Posterity is liable to But we say none become guilty of this before God nutill they close with this evill Seed and in them who close with it it becomes an Origine or Fountain of evill thoughts desires words and actions And as by granting all capeable of receiving this real Seed of sin we differ from the Socinians and Pelagians So by saying it is not the Childrens sin until they do close with it We agree with Zuinglius a famous Protestant who for this very Doctrine was condemned by the Council of Trent in the Art of the Fifth Ses. Cons. Trent lib. 2. Pag. 208. The acts of which Council not onely against us but against this famous founder of the Protestant Churches in Zuitserland is that which W. M. is here vindicating Thirdly I desire the Reader may observe That the thing he pleads for is that Infants are really guilty before God that Infants are guilty before God simply for Adams sin And that some of them who die in their Infancy and never actually sin in their own Persons do for this sin of Adam Eternally perish Now whither this Doctrine be sutable either to the Justice or Mercy of God I leave the Christian Reader to judge I shall examine the reasons he brings for it his cheif argument for this in his Dialogue Pag. 47. was That because Children die citing Rom. 23. The wages of sin is death now I shew him Pag 64. of mine how that made nothing because natural Death of the Saints is not the wages of sin for their sins are forgiven them c. this he hath not so much as mentioned far less answered And whereas he might as well argue that the Earth Trees and Herbs were sinners because they received great decay by Adams sin He slightly passes it over aledging It will not therefore follow that all mankind who suffer Death are not Sinners Now this is no answer but a meer shift and the thing I intended against his assertion doth very naturally follow from my argument thus If as W. M. sayes Infants be guilty of Adams Sin because they are subject to diseases and Death then the Beasts who are subject to the like and the Earth Herbs and Trees who have received their decay are sinners before God but this is absurd therefore the other let him answer this the next time more effectually The first proof he brings here is 1 Joh. 3. 6. That which is born of the flesh is flesh adding This intimates man by his natural Birth to be Corrupt and Fleshly But for this his gloss he bringeth no proof though That which is born of the flesh be flesh he showeth us not how it followeth thence that Infants are guilty of Adams Sin after the like manner he concludes this his doctrine from Job 14. 4. Psal. 5. 5. But as the words in these places do not plainly express any such thing so he brings no reason to make his consequences deduceable from them after the like proof-less manner he aledgeth Rom. 5. 14. By one mans disobedience many were made sinners Now though the matter in question be Whether these many were made sinners before they actually sinned in their own Persons He doth not so much as offer to prove it in the like manner though David said his Mother conceived him in sin he sheweth us not how it followeth from thence that David was guilty of sin before he actually sinned and here I observe how he asserts That men are guilty of the sin of their immoderate Parents contrary to the plain Testimony of the Scripture Ezek. 18. 20. The Son shall not bare the iniquity of the Father To prove Infants thus guilty he further addeth Rom. 5. 12. aledging these words For that all have sinned includes Infants but I shew him this includes not Infants because the Apostle clears it in the next verse saying Sin is not imputed where there is no law and that there being no Law to Infants they cannot be guilty of sin To this he replies There was a Law to Adam and that he represented mankind and stood as a publik Person Therefore Children had a Law in him But for this signification of his own he produceth no proof and it cannot be received as being direct contrary to the Scripture above mentioned The Son shall not bare the Fathers iniquity He aledgeth That those the Apostle speaks of who sinned

not after the similitude of Adams Transgression are Infants but after his usual manner bringeth not the least proof for it the 1 Cor. 15. 22. cited by him is so far from makeing any thing for his purpose that it maketh directly against him which any that have the least grain of true understanding may perceive the words are As in Adam all died even so in Christ all are made alive for here all are said to die in Adam even as all are said to be made alive in Christ now as none are made alive in Christ until they actually receive and joyne with his Righteousness so none die in Adam until they actually receive and joyn with his unrighteousness c. He maketh a deal a do Pag. 110 111. about the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wherein though it were easie to refute him were it not needless to fill up paper with Gramatical Criticismes for giving but not granting the words might be Translated in Adam all have sinned it will not from thence follow that Infants are guilty before they actually sin seeing all are said to die or have sinned in Adam even as all are said to be made alive in Christ and yet none are said to be so until they actually receive his Righteousness as is above demonstrated Pag. 113. He aledgeth Though it be said that the Kingdom of God is of little Children yet some Infants are not saved because they are not of the Kingdome of Grace But for this he bringeth no proof at all And I here take notice That he acknowledges that God Sanctifies and Regenerats some Infants and thereby he notably conradicts his second Sect. concerning the Light And Pag. 29. of his Dialogue where he condems it as a dangerous errour in us to say any can be saved without the outward knowledg of Christ of which Infants are not capable to prove That some Infants perish even eternally He aledgeth The burning of Sodom and Gomorrah citing Jude 7. But his wresting this Scripture is very manifest for the reason Jude gives of their suffering vengance was because they gave themselves up to Fornication and went after strange flesh Now of this Infants were not capable of whom therefore Jude speaks not one word He terms Impudent or else Ignorant for bringing Mat. 1. 22. against them aledging It is an uniust charge to say they plead for a Salvation in their sins and yet he has the Impudence immediatly to aver it himself saying They are but in part delivered or saved in this Life do they not then dream of Salvation while in part they remain in their sins Compare Math. 1. 21. with 1 Joh. 1. 7. Christ is said to cleanse us from all iniquity not a part of it It is a bad inference drawn from my assertion that Children are not guilty of sin to say that therefore they need not a Saviour I told him in my last Christ was truely a Saviour unto them in that he kept them from sinning as one that 's kept from faling in a ditch is as truely saved as he that 's taken out of one It is altogether Inconsequential to infer from this That Christ died to save the holy Angels from sin because they are not suffered to fall into it for Christ is said onely to have died for Adams Posterity of which number Infants are but not Angels It is likewise without reason that he compares us to Pelagians as if we took from Christ the name Jesus seeing it has been shown we own him to be Jesus or Saviour to all even to Infants He beginneth his fifteenth Head Concerning the perseverance of the Saints Pag. 115. Aledging That in saying the Quakers hold not a falling away from Regeneration I seek to hide my self Because G. Keith sayes That Saints may fall away from saving Grace asking if Saints be Regenerate Answ. Though all that be fully Regenerate are Saints yet some may be called Saints who are not fully Regenerate Pag. 116. He aledgeth It is in vain to assert this falling away because it is said Some who believed afterwards fell away and some make shipwrack of the Faith and some who tasted of the good word of God and the powers of the life to come c. Because they use to distingish betwixt seeming counterfeit Grace and sound saving Grace Answ. Can there be any more palpable wresting of Scripture For if so be that Faith which they had were not real they were not to be blamed for falling away from it it were their mercy to make shipwrack of that which was counterfeit The Apostle speaks positively Heb. 6. 4. of the capacity of such to fall away who were once enlightned who have tasted of the heavenly gift yea who were partakers of the holy ghost and have tasted of the good word of God and the powers of the world to come he sayeth not they seemed to be so Nay the very context sheweth the contrary saying It is imposible to renew such again to repentance Now had this been all in appearance the Apostle needed not to speak of renewing them again to repentance or say they crucifie the Son of God afresh seeing if so they had never been penitent and been allways Crucifiers of Christ whereas in answer to Phil. 1. 6. I tould him it might be supposed that Paul was as confident that God would perfect the work in himself as in any other and yet he supposes the contrary where he sayes Least preaching the gospel to others I my self become a castaway to this he replieth nothing but citeth another Scripture Jer. 32. 29. I will give them one heart that they may fear me for ever though God give them this that they may fear him yet such may abuse the gift of God and so run out of his fear he gives to all his Grace and yet it is said that some turn it unto wantonness Jud. 4. He jeereth at my answer to Peter saying A goodly reply forsooth as if he had said if the Saints fall from Faith they must fall but he might spare his insulting until he had found some way to answer my words which are That those that abide not in the Power of God through Faith must fall away for he might as well Scoff at all the conditional Promises of the Gospel such as He that continueth stedfast to the end shall obtain the crown To say that Faith and the Power of God concurs to prevent the Saints faling away answers nothing for so long as these concur we do not deny it and though they be allways willing to concur yet it is clear that some who have believed not counterfetily but really have departed from the power and so fallen away as is above shown Pag. 117. Upon the words of Jer. 32. 40. He sayes It proves the perseverance or impossibillity of faling away because it is said God put his fear in their hearts for this end That they might not depart from him what then that doth not prove that they