Selected quad for the lemma: nature_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
nature_n	law_n	sin_n	sin_v	3,553	5	9.3146	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A26655	Jesuitico-Quakerism examined, or, A confutation of the blasphemous and unreasonable principles of the Quakers with a vindication of the Church of God in Britain, from their malicious clamours, and slanderous aspersions / by John Alexander ...	Alexander, John, 1638-1716.	1680 (1680)	Wing A916; ESTC R21198	193,704	258

not be Creatures but the Devil is a Creature therefore certainly God made him Secondly If God made not the Devil then the Devil is an Uncreated Independent Being for a Being he is existing from himself and so there is not one but two Uncreated Independent Beings the one of them Essentially Good the other Essentially Evil being the very same thing with Sin as the Quakers would which is the demented Ghost of old Manicheus before the time arisen from the dead but that is most absurd Blasphemy Thirdly If Original Sin be the Devil then the Original Sin of all Mankind was existent before any Man had Sinned and would have been to this day though never Man had Sinned seeing Mankinds continuance in Obedience would not have destroyed the Devils Being but these things are ridiculous and yet that which is aimed in this Query hath been often said by Quakers in my face and hearing Lastly If Original Sin be the Devil then there can be no Original Sin inherent in any Man but we must be all born as Innocent and Spotless as ever Adam was Created for the Devil being a compleat Substantial Being can never inhere as an accident into any other Subject But it 's most false that we have no Original Sin but are born Innocent and Clean which by these few Scriptures I prove Rom. 5.12 Death hath passed upon all Men because all have Sinned but all have not sinned actually viz. Infants have not Therefore it must be meant of Original Sin seeing of one of the two it must be meant or else the Apostle ignorantly mistakes the reason why Death passes upon all Men viz. because of Sin but that cannot be said John 3.6 That which is born of the Flesh is Flesh Job 4.14 Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean no not one viz. naturally and in an ordinary course Again I have proved that God Ordains Infants to be Baptized which is given us for the Remission of our Sins as is shewed Infants then must have Sin to be Remitted otherwise there needed no Remission of Sin but they have no actual Sin Therefore Original Sin Again Except a Man be born again he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God John 3.5 But Infants as well as others partake of the Kingdom of God as is before proved Therefore there are Infants born again and so they must surely be sinful naturally or else they could not be born again or Regenerated Again David for the deeper sence of his own Vileness ascends to the fountain and source of all the Evil and Uncleanness that he was liable unto confessing that in iniquity he was formed and in sin his Mother conceived him Psal 51.5 where what I pray would it have done to Davids deeper sence and further acknowledgment of his Vileness which undeniably is his scope that his Mother being in sin as Pelagianizers have learned to answer did conceive him spotless and without sin Nay surely the wanting of Original Sin would have made him to be the less vile not the more and beside it was his own Sin not his Mothers which he came to confess and again lastly We are by Nature Children of Wrath Ephes 2.3 therefore by nature we must be sinful which must be Original Sin seeing we have no other Sin by nature and that we are born in The Consequence is Infallible seeing we cannot be Children of wrath in that very respect and under that very consideration in which respect and under which consideration we are sinless and pure for then as we are sinless and pure we should be heirs of wrath which is an absurd Blasphemy and cannot stand with the justice of God to curse a Man when he is Innocent tell me not the instance of Christ Jesus who though he was altogether spotless in himself inherently yet he stood in our room as our Cautioner and all our sins were laid upon him Isa 53.6 Pelagianizers answer us that the Posterity of Adam Sins only by Imitation of their Predecessors But Contrariwise then we are only by Imitation and not by Nature Children of wrath contrary to the Apostles Doctrine For we cannot by nature be Children of wrath and yet by nature be pure and sinless Secondly I have shewed that Infants have sin in them but not by imitation surely seeing they are not capable to imitate therein Therefore they must be sinful by nature not by imitation Thirdly if we were made sinners only by Imitation then some men might escape from that for we are not such perfect Apes as to imitate necessarily what we see in others Lastly if Adams sin be propagat to us only by Imitation then we shall be made righteous in Christ only by imitation of his righteousness also But the consequent is utterly false Therefore so is the antecedent from which it followes The connexion of the Major which only needs proving I prove from Rom. 5 19. Where the Apostle declares that as by one mans disobedience many were made Sinners so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous Which comparison requires some special proportion betwixt these members so exactly compared whereof there is scarce any shadow betwixt the imitation and true and real Communication Pelagianizers again answer that though we be by nature corrupt yet that corruption is not our sin but our affliction and punishment only Contrariwise as the habit principle and seed of grace is grace and so also all habits are still of the same nature with their acts so also the seed and principle of sin must be sin Rom. 7.23 is called the Law of sin Warring against the Law of the mind and so it s an enemy to grace and the Image of God Rom 8.7 it s called in the very abstract to shew its wicked nature Enmity against God and that it is not neither can be Subject to this Law Galat. 5.17 Paul sayes it lusteth against the Spirit and is contrary thereunto Shall that then which is the source principle and spring of all our actual sins is enmity against God his whole Image and his Laws and a contrary enemy to the Spirit shall that I say not be sinful nay then surely there is no sin in the World nor is it possible to render a definition of sin if that be not sin George Keith in his Quakerism no Popery page 75 76 answers that our natural concupiscence doth not infer any real guiltiness upon us nor makes us guilty of death without our actual consent thereunto and which is more strange that it doth not indwell in any except where it is kindly received and obeyed and that therefore which is his direct scope our natural corruption is none of our sin untill we consent actually unto it But contrariwise the Scripture which I beleive much better shews that by the sin of Adam all were made sinners and guilty of death Rom. 5.16 17 18 19. and that by nature we are Children of wrath Eph. 2.3 and so George Keith

for that which is before clean needs no more cleansing Fifthly They object That the Apostle says 1 Cor. 7.28 That though a Woman Marry she hath not sinned Therefore there are some actions at least free of all sin Ans If this objection proved any thing it would prove that Reprobates and Pagans also have perfect works Secondly I answer that Paul there means of the action of Marriage considered in respect of it's nature and kind and in order to its proper object as abstracted from all particular circumstances which may attend it which way the action hath no evil in it otherwise it could not be lawful to Marry whereas to forbid Marriage is a Doctrine of Devils 1 Tim. 4.1 2 3. Nevertheless albeit the action of Marriage so considered be not sinful yet seeing every particular action is necessarily exercised in several Circumstances wherewith it ought or ought not to be cloathed it may easily be defiled and become sinful by the Vesture of evil Circumstances instead whereof it should have been cloathed with good ones especially adding the impurity and uncleanness of the Agent which exerts it self in every particular action Sixthly The Quakers object and hereby they endeavour to prove the perfection both of the Saints and of their good works in this life The Saints say they have in this life perfect good works Therefore the Saints in this life must be perfect They prove the Consequence because perfect Effects crave perfect Causes They prove the Antecedent because they are acceptable to God and because if they be not perfect then they are sinful but sinful they cannot be seeing God commands them who commands not things sinful Ans Our good works are acceptable to God thorow Christ into whom all believers are by Faith Ingrafted and thorow whom alone both their persons and good works are accepted but none of aur good works here-away ore in themselves acceptable to God seeing they are still Imperfect Again God accepts them as they are good that is Sincerely done not as they are Imperfect and so evill and so from their acceptation their perfection follows not To the Second I Answer that God Commands our good works not as we perform them but as we ought to perform nor yet as they are defective as to the Degree he does not Command their gradual defect but he Commands them as they are good in respect of their Nature and kind So the objection perishes Seventhly they endeavour to prove that Christians have at least some perfect Actions in this Life and for that purpose they Inquire of us if the Apostles sinned in writing the Scripures Ans First this will not prove the perfection of any Action of any man now living except they can first prove him to have as large a measure of grace and of the Spirit 's Influence and Assistance as the Apostles had when they wrote the Scriptures which will be hard enough I think for them to get done Secondly the writing of the Scriptures wherein the Prophets and Apostles were but Pen-men for the Holy Ghost dictated all may consist with some Degree of imperfection as the Action is considered Morally and as lyable to the Law of God David and Asaph wrote Scriptures when they were not perfect Psal 51 10. and 73 22. or else beside the Instances given what will they say of an Hypocrites writing over in whole or in part the whole Scriptures and of every Action of Printing while our Printers print them over But Thirdly for full satisfaction I Answer that in that Action the Apostles did not at all sin upon the matter which yet is the most Formal sense of the objection which thus proposed directly imports the matter seeing the matter of the Action did perfectly agree with the Law of God as also the Action of an unrenewed man may doe Secondly there was much good in it compared with all the rest of the causes and so it was sincere and of another nature and kind then any Action of an unrenewed man is or can be seeing the principles thereof love to God and men The ends thereof the glory of God and good of Souls the form and manner wherein it was done in obedience to God were all certainly good Yet considering it as a Moral Action lyable to God's Law it was surely for the reasons given Defective and Imperfect as to the exact and compleat Degree of love to God and men and respect to the glory of God and good of Souls and Acting in it in pure obedience to Gods Command wherewith every perfect Action is to be qualified They will may be say that then the Scriptures would be in danger to Contract some Impurity from the Impurity of the Agent and Action of writing Ans That is false as appears from our Instances of an Hypocrite and Printer and of David and Asaph when they were not pure or perfect And if the Doctrine written did necessarily Contract any impuritie from the impurity of the writer by the same Reason and with more Reason seeing the Tongue is a more Immediat Instrument of the Heart then the Hand the Doctrine Preached should Contract some Impurity from the Impurity of the Preacher which is manifestly false to the Worlds eye Christ was the external object of the persecutive Actions of the Jews yet he Contracted no Impurity from thence But the Quakers urge saying though we cannot do all we ought to do yet that which we do we may do it perfectly Ans This reply must either be understood of diverse Actions so that the sense shall be though we cannot do all the good Actions we ought to do yet that Action or these Actions which we do we may do it or them perfectly which seeing by Perfectly they must mean the perfection of Degrees and otherwise it would be nothing to their purpose of a sinless perfection which they plead we must deny because of these and many other Scriptures Prov. 20 9. Eccles 7 20. Galat. 5 17. Rom. 7 21. or else that reply must be understood of one and the same Action And so the sense is though we cannot do an Action in that perfect degree of goodness that we ought yet in that degree of goodness wherein we do it we may do it perfectly where it being the perfection of degrees which is here Controverted and by the Adversaries pleaded for and otherwise we should have no debate with them here their reply involves a strong Contradiction viz. that any Action performed below that degree of goodness which it ought to have should notwithstanding be performed perfectly in respect of the perfection of Degrees seeing so it would both want and yet not want some Degree of goodness which it ought to have For these reasons I justly deny the latter part of their proposition Sixteenth QUERY Can any man be saved by his own works Self-righteousness will worship And are not all men in Self-righteousness that are not in the righteousness of Christ Jesus And

viz. Joh. 1.9 and 8.12 is indeed a saving light but the light of Nature and Reason which is the only light that is universally in all men as was proved at the Survey of the fourth Query is not so SECT II. Concerning sufficient Grace in all Men. The Question here is Whether there be sufficient Grace in all Men Turks Pagans Heathens c. able to convert them and so save them The Quakers boldly affirm that there is and they do not mean of objective Grace or Grace offered only to all which some plead for right or wrong my present purpose is not concerned but of subjective Grace whereby the will is made able and put into Hapacity and freedom to convert and turn to God as George Keith affirms in his Quakerism no Popery page 66. But I utterly deny that there is Grace in all men sufficient for Conversion and though still the Affirmer ought to prove not the Denyer yet I prove my Negative Therefore first There is not sufficient light for Conversion in all men as is proved Therefore neither is there sufficient Grace in all men for Conversion The Consequence is easie seeing Grace without Light will be very blind Grace nor can the will be renewed and the understanding left unrenewed and in darkness for how then shall it behave seeing Nil volitum quin praecognitum ignoti nulla cupido Secondly Every sufficient Cause is able to produce the Effect or else it is no ways sufficient as is palpable But there is no Grace in Reprobates and Unrenewed Men able to convert them subdue the resistance of their will and bring it in subjection to God Therefore there is not a sufficient Grace to Conversion in them The Minor only needs proving and I prove it because the Natural Man cannot by any assistance discern the things of the Spirit and the carnal mind which is enmity against God cannot by any assistance be subject to his Law 1 Cor. 2.14 Rom. 8.7 Nay he must be a Spiritual man that does either seeing a Spiritual act can never proceed from a Natural or Carnal Principle more than a Horse can make a Syllogism or define an Object But Reprobates and Unrenewed men are intirely Natural Men and Carnal minded Therefore there is no Grace in Reprobates and Unrenewed Men whereby they can either discern the things of the Spirit or to be subject to his Law and so I am sure it cannot convert them The Minor of this also only needs proving which is easie for Reprobates and Unrenewed Men neither have Christ nor the Spirit of Christ 2 Cor. 13.5 1 Joh. 5.12 Rom. 8.9 10. Galat. 4.6 and so they cannot be Spiritual but intirely Natural and Carnal being without Christ and without his Spirit Thirdly No Man can come to Christ except the Father draw him Joh. 6.44 but he draws not all men whatsoever Therefore all men whatsoever have not sufficient Grace enabling them to go to Christ and so to convert and turn to God The Major is Christs plain assertion in the place cited The Minor is clear from Joh. 6.45 where Christ positively affirms That every man that hath heard and learned of the Father comes to him But all men whatsoever come not to Christ John 5.40 and 10.26 and 12.39 2 Thes 3.2 Therefore all men whatsoever do not hear and learn of the Father and so are not drawn by him and so the whole Argument is evidently proved Lastly Conversion essentially consists in the Habits Powers and Principles of Grace not in the actual operations of Grace otherwise Believers would lose and recover their Conversion and so be in a state of Nature and Grace as often as they are not and again are in the actual exercise and operations of Grace and so every Convert would be an Apostate fallen from Grace when he sleeps or is not actually exercising his Grace which is utterly absurd so to lose and recover continually his union with and relation to Christ and his right unto Eternal Life But whosoever hath sufficient Grace must certainly have the Powers Principles or Habits of Grace Therefore whosoever hath sufficient Grace is certainly a Convert and so if all men have sufficient grace then they are also all Converts which I do not yet believe The Major is proved clearly already I prove the Minor viz. that whosoever hath sufficient Grace must certainly have the Powers Principles or Habits of Grace because without these there cannot be sufficient Grace for there cannot be sufficient Grace where the actions and operations of Grace are impossible as cannot be denied But where the Powers Principles or Habits of Grace are wanting there the actions and operations of Grace are impossible seeing every action and operation is impossible without the Principles and Powers whereupon it necessarily depends as no man can be ignorant of Therefore without the Powers Principles or Habits of Grace there can be no sufficient Grace They will may be say that habits are not simply necessary for producing of Acts but only for the more easie and ready producing of them Unto this I reply that though that be true in respect of natural and acquired habits as even their acquiring shews that same Acts proceeded the habit viz. these by which it was first acquired yet it is most false in regard of supernatural and infused habits as both their nature and their purchase no ways but by infusion may shew that they necessarily preceed all Acts yea and otherwise a Man might live graciously without grace and grace would be simply needless which a sworn Atheist will not dare to say But they object for universal sufficient grace that the Gentiles do the things contained in the Law Rom. 2 14 therefore they had sufficient grace Ans They did these things by Nature sayes the Text not by grace Secondly a Man may do things Naturaly good and contained in the Law and yet be void of grace seeing he may do them but yet not from gracious principles of Faith and Love nor for gracious ends both which as also the gracious manner are requisit to a gracious action Rom. 14 23. 1 Cor. 10 31. Secondly they object that the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all Men Tit. 2 11. Ans By the grace of god the Apostle there means the gracious Doctrine of the Gospel whereunto teaching which is ascribed to it in the following verse is most proper and by all Men is meant Men of all ranks Stations Qualities c. As the word all is often taken for the Gospel was not then come to every Mans ears in the whole world This objection George Keith makes in his Quakerism no Popery pag. 66. Thirdly they object that the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every Man to profit withal 1 Cor. 12 7. Ans The Apostle speaks only of the members of Christs body here by the Context not of all Men whatsoever again laying aside the Context the meaning is easie viz. that to