Selected quad for the lemma: nature_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
nature_n	death_n	sin_n	sin_v	3,797	5	9.4651	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A30896	Robert Barclay's apology for the true Christian divinity vindicated from John Brown's examination and pretended confutation thereof in his book called Quakerisme the pathway to paganisme in which vindication I.B. his many gross perversions and abuses are discovered, and his furious and violent railings and revilings soberly rebuked / by R.B. Whereunto is added a Christian and friendly expostulation with Robert Macquare, touching his postscript to the said book of J.B. / written to him by Lillias Skein ...	Barclay, Robert, 1648-1690.; Skein, Lillias. An epostulatory epistle directed to Robert Macquare.	1679 (1679)	Wing B724; ESTC R25264	202,030	218

stated as a publick person whose failings could have no effect untill the persons represented did testifie their approbation of it For here speaking of Failings he must either conclude in contradiction to himself that Adam's sins are laid to the charge of his Posterity or his instance is wholly impertinent And yet to go round again he takes notice p. 125. that the Apostle names One Offence in the singular Number as if thence he would infer that one sin is only transmitted but how he proves his consequence thence he has not shewn for albeit by that first offence he gave entrance to sin that being his first yet it will not follow he then ceased to be a publick person and if not nothing can be proved from granting him to be such as is above observed Next the words are the offence of one and not one offence as he would insinuat which though in the singular number may include many yea all his offences For whatever way he seek to urge this from this place as to Adam the parallel will allow it to be interpreted of Christ where the Apostle speaking of his Righteousness useth also the singular number and thence according to him we might say that it is only the first act of Christ's righteousness that is imputed unto us and none of the rest so that we have nothing to do with his Death Sufferings and Resurrection What thinks he now of his own Divinity Let him loose his knot the next time to give him one of his own modestest proverbs The absurdity he seeks to draw from denying this consequence of his being a publick person that if Adam had stood infants should have no advantage by him since they have no hurt by his fall toucheth not me at all who no where say that Infants have no hurt by Adam's fall Adam by his fall lost his glory his strength his dominion by which he could have easily withstood the Devil and came under great weakness whereby the Enemie's tentations had already access to him and he became very obnoxious to fall under them and so all his Posterity are come under the same weakness and obnoxiousness to the Enemie's tentations who influenceth them by entring into them and powerfully inclining them to sin and this malignant influence is that seed of sin in all men whereunto they become obnoxious by reason of the fall which though in it self really sin yet is it not Man's but the Devil 's untill Man give way to it But I deny not but the least yeelding is Man's sin among which I reckon concupiscence to be one and so differ from Papists For albeit the tentation simply considered or as presented by the Devil be not Man's sin yet if he have the least love or desire to it albeit he joyn not actually that shews his mind is already defiled and corrupted and that he is become a partaker of it Thus are answered his reasonings and questionings how this seed of sin can be and yet not the persons sin p. 121 122 c. as the Reader by comparing may observe only it is remarkable p. 121. where he seems to put a great stress upon the judgment of Augustin and citing him he brings him in saying these words among others concerning Infants Shall they sin that are under no command Now since they who are under no command are under no Law for every Law imports a command how will he reconcile this saying of his holy Father which he brings as a matter of authority with his accounting it both foolish and strange in me p. 119. to prove children are under no Law So that either the authority of Augustin he brings is not to be regarded or his reasonings to prove children under a Law that is a command must be naught let him chuse which he will and clear himself of impertinency His argument in this page that as the Seed of Grace denominats a man gratious even while not exercising works of Grace so the seed of sin must denominat a man sinfull is but a begging of the question as in its place will appear when I come to treat of the Seed of Grace ¶ 7. When he cometh p. 123. n. 18. to reply to my answer to their objection Rom. 5 12. among his preliminary observations the first is very proper where he saith It is observable the Apostle makes comparison betwixt Adam and Christ. I answer it is indeed so for as the righteousness of Christ is not imputed to men for justification untill they actually joyn with it or apprehend it by faith as himself will acknowledge for I suppose by his accounting the Antinomians heretiks he will not with them affirm that men are justified before they believe so neither is the unrighteousness and disobedience of Adam imputed to men for condemnation untill they actually joyn with it but this comparison spoils all his doctrin Then after he has begg'd the question a while by meer allegations affirming his doctrin to be so clear from the Apostle's words that it can not be contradicted without doing violence to the Text he forms an argument thus That sin which is so described to us by the Apostle that he saith it brought death upon all men that men sinned by it and were made sinners even they who could not as yet actually sin that thereby all became guilty of death and of condemnation that sin by imputation is the sin of the whole nature included in Adam and rendereth the whole nature obnoxious to death and to condemnation But the first sin of Adam is described to us by the Apostle c. Ergo That sin is the sin of Natur c. This argument may perhaps satisfie such as are already proselyts of his Theam but will not convince one that either believs other ways or doubts since the Major is a meer begging of the question and if any thing be a foisting-in of words to the text this must be it since he foists-in the thing in debate and words not in the text such as even they who could not as yet actually sin and joyneth them with the words of the text without distinction and not as an interpretation that his unwary Reader may conclude them to be of the text and yet the man has the impudence in the same page to accuse me of intolerable boldness as foisting words into the next while I expressly shew it is but an interpretation by saying That is c. so much is he blinded with self-interest but I am content there be neither addition nor so much as consequence made use of Let him shew me the plain Scriptur that saith Infants are guilty of Adam's sin If he say it must be necessarily inferred from these words in whom all have sinned I say it as necessarily follows that it is only to be understood of all that could sin which Infants could not as not being under any law as I have above proved and Augustin whom he so much reverenceth doth affirm