Selected quad for the lemma: life_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
life_n	line_n	page_n	read_v	4,280	5	9.9304	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A57067	Some stop to the gangrene of Arminianism lately promoted by M. John Goodwin in his book entituled, Redemption redeemed, or, The doctrine of election & reprobation : in six sermons, opened and cleared from the old Pelagian and late Arminian errors / by Richard Resburie ...	Resbury, Richard, 1607-1674.	1651 (1651)	Wing R1136; ESTC R16922	72,771	138

is that which the understanding represents as good and therefore though the will have a power when it wills the present object to nill it if it should like so to do yet so long as the understanding represents it good to will it and evill to nill it it cannot like to nill it Hence it is manifest how man in the operation of his wil differs from necessary Agents whether natural Agents as the fire or sensitive as the bruit beast they are determined by the force and instinct of nature naturall Agents without either apprehension or choice or any shadow of either sensitive Agents have onely the light of sense according to which they like or dislike and therefore not so much a true choice as a shadow of it man in the operation of his wil doth what he likes or dislikes in the light of the understanding Now to apply this to answer the objection the liberty of Independence being peculiar to God where this liberty of choice is there is all that liberty of will which is found in the Creature Angell or man Object But how doth determination to one part stand with this liberty of choice Ans There is a double determination 1. To one of the contrary objects good or evill morally understood that this may stand with the liberty of the will is clear On the one hand God himselfe Christ the Angels the glorified Saints can will onely that which is good neither have they power to will what is evill yet in them is the highest liberty of will without which there is no holinesse On the other hand the Devill the damned the hardned we may add all the unregenerate can onely will that which is evill yet in all these the will is free naturally free though morally enslaved without which there was no sin determination then to one of these contrary objects takes not away the liberty of the will 2. There is a determination to one of the contrary acts to will or to nill neither doth this take away the liberty of the will for then the exercise of its liberty should take away its liberty when ever it either wills or nills it is for the present not indifferent about the object but determined now as the Adversaries suppose the will to determine it self unto and in its owne operation thereby not destroying but exercising its liberty so wee affirme that God by his motion determines it moving it by its owne principle and according to its owne nature that is by the understanding determining it to its operation and so moving it as in the vertue and by the efficacy of his motion it doth whatsoever it likes in the light of the understanding with a power to the contrary if it should like so that whatsoever is required to its liberty stands faire with the motion of God determining it and the more firmely it is in its operation fixed to the object the more fully doth it exercise its liberty as liking more vehemently what it doth but still in the light of the understanding These are the main Objections where the Answers to these shall satisfie what Objections remain will prove but wash way where satisfaction is not received about these it will be but lost labour to proceed to others FINIS June 5. 1648. Imprimatur John Downame ERRATA Page 1. line 18. for onely of life read onely way of life p. 4. l. 7. for 〈◊〉 degree r. decree p. 5. l. 30. for into this maze r. in this maze p. 7. l. 12. for the Scripture r. that Scripture p. 12. l. 30. for Law r. love p. 15. l. 26. for fore-light r. fore-sight l. 33. for in the first ground r. is the first ground p. 19. l. 13. for it peradventures r. it at peradventures p. 31. l. 23. for harden to Reprobate r. harden the Reprobate l. 32. for it use r. its rise p. 32. l. 24. for 1. r. 2. p. 50. l. 29. for apart together r. apart and altogether p. 52. l. 10. for line of whom r. line excepted of whom p. 56. l. 2. and 3. for glorfying r. glorying p. 57. l. 21. for whereby Christ r. whereof Christ p. 59. l. 17 for two John r. 6. John p. 65. l. 9.10 for to the praise r. 10. To the praise p. 70. l. 24. for understand r. understood l. 33. for when r. whom p. 75. l. 20. for makes for his glory r. makes for glory p. 80. l. 8. for urge an edge r urge and edge p. 89. l. 3. for 1. r. 2. p. 90. l. 8. for he that wills r. he wills p. 93. l. 10. and 13. for acts r. arts p. 94. l. 27 for is the gift r. is his gift p. 95. l. 17. for by hardning others r. by hardning others p. 106. l. 12. for heat r. heart p. 107. l. 17. for Saw r. Law Some other small slips there are and divers mis-pointings which I omit

Faederall off-spring according to that second sence of Covenant-Interest newly laid downe Neither because they are the seed of Abraham by naturall descent are they all children according to the Covenant which he proves by Scripture testimony setling the Covenant upon Isaac and his posterity excluding Ishmael * Christ with all beleevers But in Isaac shall thy seed be called then verse 8. makes an exposition of that Text of Scripture where the children of the flesh are the same with the seed by naturall descent and the seed the same with the children of the promise or Covenant viz. they in whom the Covenant shall effectually be made good and both these the same with the children of God Thirdly he confirmes his Exposition verse 9. quoting Gen. 18.10 the summe of his confirmation comes to this That as Isaac was borne not by the strength of Nature for Abrahams loynes and Sarahs wombe were now dead but by vertue of the Promise so it is with all the faederall off-spring of Abraham not in that they are from him by naturall descent and therefore not all that naturally descend from him but in that they are his off-spring according to the Promise and onely to some the Promise belongs are they the blessed seed The Observations 1. The maine intention of Abrahams Covenant is eternall life 2. They who are the proper subjects and true heirs of this Covenant doe effectually obtainlife 3. It is in the Tenure of this Covenant not only to give life upon condition but withall effectually to fulfill that condition 4. Though the greatest part of those that are under the outward administration of the Covenant fall short of life yet doth the faithfulnesse of God remaine inviolable forasmuch as all the true subjects and proper heires of the Covenant doe certainly obtaine life These are all cleare from the Objection that if the Jewes fell from the state of life the Covenant was void and the answer preserving the firmnesse of the Covenant in that the proper heires of it have life The third instance followes in Isaac's family in the 10 11 12 and 13. verses taken out of that History Gen. 25. v. 23. where first the Apostle cleares it of those exceptions which might bee made against the former instance vers 10. Secondly he layes downe the same difference tending to the same purpose betwixt Jacob and Esau the sonnes of Isaac that he had formerly laid downe betwixt Isaac and Ishmael the sonnes of Abraham v. 12. 13. Thirdly the ground of this difference vers 11. where he opens the great Mystery of predestination 1. For exceptions against the former instance these two might be made First Isaac was borne of the free-woman Ishmael of the bondwoman Secondly after Ishmael was borne was the promise of the blessed seed made and therefore no wonder if the Covenant was setled in Isaacs posterity only but it is otherwise in Jacobs posterity the common Father of the Israelites these exceptions are prevented vers the 10th Jacob and Esau were both by one Father and one Mother at one birth yet as the word of promise unto Sarah setled it upon Isaac and his posterity so the word of the Oracle to Rebecca upon Jacob and his 2. The difference is laid down vers 12. where it is manifest from the question in hand 1. That this difference is not such as is common to Jacob with all his posterity on the one hand and Esau with all his on the other hand because it is brought to prove the difference that hath place in the posterity of Jacob himself All are not Israel that are of Israel 2. That it is not so much a civill as a spirituall difference because that which concludes Jacob in the saving Covenant and with him that seed of his that not onely is of Israel but is Israel excludes Esau and his posterity that Covenant it being the maine instance Vindicating the faithfulness of God in making good that Covenant notwithstanding the Jews generally fell from the state of life in as much as the remnant amongst them obtains life this difference is further both confirm'd and cleared that it is spirituall the servitude of Esau importing his exclusion from that Covenant he in this answering Ishmael in the former instance vers 13. their different condition proceeding from the Law of God to Jacob and his hatred of Esau which love and hatred applyed to the question in hand is manifest to be eternall love and hatred in order to eternall life and death The Apostle singularly taught of God sees more in this hatred of God towards Esau then the desolation of his earthly inheritance exprest by the Prophet 1 Mal. 3. Nay in that desolation as an outward pledge he reads the Lords eternall hatred which is yet further manifest by the ground of this difference which now comes to be considered 3. The ground of this difference vers 11. where the Apostle first denyes the ground of this difference to be in their works which he confirms by observation of the time when the testimony of their different condition was given they being yet unborn c. 2. He so denies it to their works as he ascribes it unto God Not of their workes but of him that is of God Therefore so denyed of their works as likewise of themselves the originall and supream ground of their difference not being of themselves but of God 3. It is so of God as that it is of his purpose of Election and Reprobation For the purpose of Election it is here laid down the purpose according to Election being as much as the purpose of Election or that purpose whereby God Elects for the purpose of Reprobation it is here divers waies insinuated 1. In the specifying of this purpose of Election which because it is a purpose of choyce in regard of Jacob must therefore be accompanied with a purpose of refusall in regard of Esau which purpose of refusall is the purpose of Reprobation 2. In the removall of works as the ground of their difference as well evill works denyed the supream ground of Esau's servitude as good of Jacobs Dominion of Esau's hatred as of Jacobs love Therefore another ground must be found for Esau's condition as well as for Jacobs which can be no other then what is hinted concerning Esau in that which is exprest concerning Jacob. 3. The different state and condition of the parties here instanced if onely the purpose of Election as it is here exprest had been understood well might beloved Jacob as the object of it be mentioned but what place for hated Esau in reference to Election That the Apostle then gives this double and contrary instance removes what might be imagined grounds in themselves from both from Esau especially that which alone might be conceived a ground in him ascribes the condition of the one expresly to Gods purpose as the originall ground it must needs be that the contrary purpose of God is likewise the originall ground