Selected quad for the lemma: sin_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
sin_n	body_n	death_n	sting_n	3,690	5	11.8999	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A46640	Verus Patroclus, or, The weapons of Quakerism, the weakness of Quakerism being a discourse, wherein the choicest arguments for their chief tenets are enervat, and their best defences annihilat : several abominations, not heretofore so directly discovered, unmasked : with a digression explicative of the doctrine anent the necessity of the spirits operation, and an appendix, vindicating, Rom. 9. from the depravations of an Arminian / by William Jamison.	Jameson, William, fl. 1689-1720.	1689 (1689)	Wing J445; ESTC R2476	154,054	299

in contradict●on to the express Text expoundeth it neither is his reason more weightie than his exposition is sound which is that the whole Creation received a decay by Adams fall and yet Herbs and Trees are not to be called sinners seeing the Apostle is not here speaking of herbs and trees but of Men Women who are capable of receiving the wages of sin as being the workers thereof and certainly one may with the like reason say that H●rbs and Trees are capable of eternal life as that they may be capable of the wages of Sin. His other shift which he hath Ibid by which also he destroyes the former viz. that by death is not to be understood Bodily Death because Eternal Life is put as the Opposite of the death here spoken of and obtained by Christ Iesus and yet natural death is not avoided is not much better then the former seeing that after the resurrection the Bodies of the Godlie shall live as well as their souls and the re-union of both doth belong to Eternal Life and so natural Life is comprehended in Eternal Life as well as Spiritual Life and tho believers die a Bodily Death yet it is not a punishment to them on this account that the Sting and Bitterness thereof is removed by Christ who did bear the same otherwise death is in it self a punishment being the separation of Soul and Body the most strictly united friends and companions in the World. 3ly Our Doctrine of Original Sin is clearlie evinced from Rom. 5.12 As by one Man Sin entered into the World and Death by Sin c. together with the following verses whence diverse strong arguments may easily be collected for 1. The Apostle that he may prove justification not to be by works but by Faith or the imputed righteeousness of Christ maketh a comparison betwixt the two common Heads or Representatives Adam and Christ in this that both of them represented the parties related to them the same way so that Adam was a Type of Christ in his standing in the room of one partie as Christ did in the Room of another by bearing of their Iniquities Isa 53.11 By being made sin for them 2 Cor. 5.21 i. e. by Imputation thereof unto him for no otherwise this text can be understood without Blasphemie that they may be made the Righteousness of God in Him i. e. by imputation of it to them as their Sin was imputed to him Therefore Adam the Type stood in the name and Room of Mankind so as his doings or failings were imputed to them Robert Barclay Vindication Sect. 5. numb 7. Alledgeth that this comparison spoileth all our doctrine because if the Righteousness of Christ is not to be imputed to men for Iustification untill they actually joyn with it apprehended by Faith so neither is the unrighteousness and disobedience of Adam imputed to Men for Condemnation untill they actually joyn with it But I wonder not to see a man intending by right or wrong to Stick to his preconceived opinions make use of Fig-leaf defences when he can find no other For may not Children before they come to the use of Reason be justified and Saved by the Righteousness of Christ imputed unto them and by consequence others before the use of reason stand guilty of Adams sin imputed to them which is the Conclusion he fain would evite Moreover he may as well say that Adams Sin doth not at all hurt any of his posterity untill they having the use of reason actually joyn with it which yet he no where sayeth but granteth the contrary in several places of this Section 3ly Omne simile claudicat this parallel ought not necessarily to be stretched to every particular mode and circumstance but only to the particular which is intended here viz. the Imputation of what the two common representatives did or suffered unto the parties represented by them but the Quakers have Learned Bellarmin's Art who by racking of this Parallel thought to overthrow our Doctrine of Justification by faith 2. The Sin of Adam is such that if this Text have any sense at all by this Sin of his all have sinned and by it Death without exception is brought upon all Mankind 3. It is such a sin of which they are guilty who have not sinned after the similitude of Adam seeing death reigned over them for death can reign over none but Guilty persons but Infants are subject to Death tho they have not sinned after the similitude of Adam i. e. by actual transgression Ergo Infants are guilty of Adams sin 4. This Offence of Adams was of such a nature that the Guilt of it or judgement flowing therefrom came upon all the partie represented by him to the condemnation thereof i. e. if it be any thing so that this party stood really condemned thereby v. 18. But all Mankind were represented by Adam Ergo all Men are condemned by the sin of Adam imputed to them To this Robert Barclay answereth Vind. pag 101. That Iudgment or Guilt is not expressed in the Original which is true but while he sayeth it ought not to be supplied one would expect that he should give a better answer which I looked for but all that he giveth is an individuum vagum Something which supplement denudeth the Text offense making a Welshmans hose thereof therefore certainly there can be no other thing understood but either Iudgement as our Translation hath it or Condemnation as the version of Tremellius out of the Syriak or Guilt as Beza Seeing the effect thereof was the condemnation of the whole party represented by Adam as the Text clearlie sheweth But to declare his Harmonie with Rome he followeth the Versio Vulgata which in this place hath non-sense supplying nothing From all that is said I argue thus that sin which is described to us by the Apostle that he saith brought death upon all Men that men Sinned by it and were made Sinners even they who could not as yet actually sin that they all became Guilty of Death and condemnation that Sin by imputation is the sin of the whole Nature included in Adam and rendreth the whole nature obnoxious to death and condemnation but the first Sin of Adam is thus described to us by the Apostles c. Ergo that sin is the sin of Nature c. Robert Barclay denyeth the Major of this argument and that to the admiration of all Logicians seeing no connexion can be clearer in the World as might easily appear to any that consider it for who can deny not to mention other Members of this Argument that if these who had not actually sinned are made sinners by this Transgression of Adam then this is the Sin of the whole Nature or imputed to it which is our Doctrine of Original Sin who I say will deny this Seeing there is no other thing in the consequence then in the antecedent except a variation of words and Phrases holding forth the same thing which yet cannot be

the begetting of many to a lively hope for which generations to come shall call thee blessed whose beeing and habitation is in the power of the highest in which thou rules and Governs in Righteousness and thy Kingdom is Established in peace and the increase thereof without end Date 21. day of the 12 Moneth 1658. See Tyr detected pag 19. CHAP. VI. Of Perfection ALthough we have already given several instances of the damnable Doctrine of the Quakers together with their miserable defence thereof We shall notwithstanding for the more abundant evicting hereof trace the Footsteps of one of their cheif Authors Robert Barclay in his Vindication of one or two of their cheif principles The first of which shall be that of Perfection The Doctrine of the Quakers in this point is In whom this pure holy birth is fully brought forth the Body of death and sin cometh to be crucified and removed and their hearts united and subjected to the truth so as not to obey any Suggestions or Temptations of the evil one to be free from actual sinning and Transgressing of the Law of God and in that respect perfect Yet doth this perfection still admit of a growth And there remaineth alwayes in some part a possibility of sinning where the mind doeth not most diligently and watchfully attend unto the Lord. These are the words of his eight These And afterward he sayeth that there may be a State in this Life in which a Man cannot sin it is so natural unto him to do Righteousness Let us in the next place consider how he vindicateth this Doctrine which is our main purpose Having vind Sect 9. Spent a while in accusing his Adversarie as guilty of railing and in rejecting his own Brethrens books such as Sauls errand to Damascus In which they maintain themselves to be equal with God. Which is also asserted by Hubberthorn against Sherl pag 30. I say rejecting these or denying that they have said them for he still insinuateth that Hicks only said these things although it be evinced by particular citation of book and page where they are In the next place he giveth away the cause wholly by saying that he pleadeth for no more than Mr. Brown sayeth N 6. viz. That by perfection in this life is understood a change in the whole man so that he yieldeth impartial obedience to all the Commands of God though in a small degree yet that he may seem to say somewhat he enquireth How this Doctrine is reconciled with that of dayly breaking the Commands in thought word deed In answer to which question it is enough to enquire how he evinceth them to be contradictory Seing he may know if he will that the Law of the Lord requireth a perfection of degrees as well as parts and that it is a disconformity to the Law of God and consequently a sin to be deficient in the one as well as in the other And whereas he enquireth if to break Gods Commands dayly in thought word and deed be the way to grow in grace To put off the Old Man and on the New. He but only useth his old Custom viz. maliciously to calumniate For who said such a thing Or from what point of our Doctrine will he prove this We shall attend his proofs of it Which untill we hear we cannot but in reason Judge that he delighteth in malicious lies For though we say according to the Scripture that even the regenerate carrie about a body of death with them until death which defileth all their actions Yet where did any of the reformed teach that to endeavour to break Gods Commands is the way to grow in grace as this Man insinuateth they do What kind of light is this he has that teacheth him such a facultie of lying He goeth on saying but he addeth that this perfection rendereth gospel commands useless but are the Commands useless if men obey them But certainly He that is above the breach of the Law as the Quakers say many may be has no more use of the Law or need of it to learn any thing from it in order to the obedience thereof And where is his vain subter●uge now But that he may yet further contradict himself and his Brethren He sayeth He has shewn in his Apology that all have need to repent and pray for forgiveness For if some be equal with God above the breach of the Commands want a bodie of death The most that they have to do is to give thanks and not to pray or repent For I think he will not say that they pray or repent which are in heaven These duties presupponing sorrow of which they are incapable And far lesse Horresco referens these that are equals with God. In opposition to his Adversary shewing that this Doctrine tendeth to the fomenting of pride and security he sayeth but where freedom from sin is where can Pride and Security have place Ans. This answer had been as fit to the Apostles Question Rom. 3 27 as to this Argument For he inferred that boasting might follow upon Justification by works It might then have been as well replyed If a man be perfectly Just and so without sin how can he incur the fault of boasting 2. How will he shew but this Doctrine of his doth bring many under a mistake as if they were secure from sinning when indeed they are not Whereas he sayeth that according to our Doctrine denying the perfection of degrees in this Life the wicked Villains do lesse make uselesse Gods Commands than others because they afford more matter to exercise Repentance and prayer for forgiveness of God We only refer him to Rom 3.8 where he may have the like Objection with a fit Answer And here he promiseth alwayes to cry down the Ordinances of Christ Jesus And why Because sayes he they must be made useful in breaking the Commands in thought word and deed His reason is a Calumnie if it have sense at all What Ordinance teacheth which we maintain that it is ones duty daylie to break the Commands of God that the Ordinances may be the more use●●l to us If this be not of the same nature with Cavil wiped off by the Apostle Rom 3. then certainly two and three are not five But such malice the Church must resolve to be the Butt of so long as she is militant He goeth on to remove this Absurdity from their Doctrine of Perfection viz. that then none that are regenerat could sin at all but would be beyond the possibility of it Which inference is very clear for the ground which they give for their Doctrine is Ioh. 3.9 He that is born of God doeth not commit sin Which place they abuse taking it without restriction not attending to the context speaking of a Tread and Custom of sin and of a commission of it from Malice like the devil and the wicked his Children Which absurdity that he may evite He assureth that a man is not regene rat