Selected quad for the lemma: spirit_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
spirit_n	flesh_n	lust_n	sin_n	7,244	5	5.0237	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A36522	Klētoi tetērēmēnoi, or, The Saints perseverance asserted in its positive grounds and vindicated from all material exceptions against it occasioned by a late immodest account of two conferences upon that point, between Tho. Danson and Mr. Jer. Ives, published by the said Mr. Ives, which account is also herein rectified, and its falshood detected to the just shame of the publisher / by Tho. Danson.	Danson, Thomas, d. 1694.	1672 (1672)	Wing D214; ESTC R24868	39,229	95

just man as they interpret it the Greek being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and they charge Beza and others that wrote in Latine and our English Translations with unfaithfulness Answ 1. In some of our English Bibles the words any man are put into a small Letter to note they are not in the Text. In the Translation before King James now in use the word any without man is put in a smaller Letter as in an Edition in Quarto printed by Barker A. D. 1603. And Piscater puts quis in a Distinguishing Character Edit Herb. Nass 1613. And so does Beza in all the Editions of his Versions that I have met with which shews plainly they intended not to deceive Calvin renders it to their mind Si subductus fuerit If he shall be withdrawn or drawn back though he understands the meaning of the Apostle otherwise then the Arminians do 2. There must be a supply of quis or any man For 1. How can the just draw back if he lives by Faith I am sure Christ sayes That he that eats him which surely every Believer does shall live for ever John 6.51 58. 2. If it be meant of the same person then we may understand it of a partial and temporary drawing back which displeases God as 't is said of Davids Murther and Adultery 2 Sam. 11. ult 3. The Apostles confidence of the not drawing back and salvation of some that believe verse last Though it was grounded but upon Charity as to particular Persons yet it plainly intimates a difference between Faith and Faith or otherwise he had no ground for his confidence of any Believer at all We now proceed to the Instances which the Arminians give us of those Persons that did fall away totally or finally one or both from true Grace Their first instance is of David Arg. True Believers when they commit Adultery Murther against the light of Conscience with deliberation and continue therein without Repentance cease to be true Believers But so did David Ergo he ceased to be a true Believer Answ There is an ambiguity in the terms of the major which therefore must first be removed and as 't is phrased we deny it and answer to the minor with distinction 1. For committing those Sins against the light of Conscience we distinguish of an habitual and actual light of Conscience 'T is a Rule in moral Philosophy Omnis incontinens peccat ignorans i. e. Every incontinent person sins ignorantly because that general knowledge he hath of evil he cannot apply to the present resistance of temptation inward Lusts like a Cloud or Mist darkning his understanding for the present Thus we grant the former but deny the latter of David 2. As to smning with deliberation we distinguish between a Calm and perfect or a disturbed and imperfect deliberation The former we deny but the latter we grant of David For we have proved before under the first Argument against Believers Apostacy that no Believer sins with full consent of will and therefore not with a calm and perfect deliberation for the former presupposes this latter And we may retort the Arminians own concession upon them which is That the holy Spirit is not lost till after the Commission of heinous Sins Now where the holy Spirit is it lusts against the Flesh Gal. 5.17 And consequently the true Believer cannot sin with full consent whilst the holy Spirit is in him that is whilst he is a true Believer 3. As to the continuance in sin without Repentance we distinguish between an habitual and actual Repentance and again between the want of actual Repentance for a time and for ever after the Fact committed Whilst David wanted an actual Repentance it appears not that he wanted an habitual Repentance David might have such a disposition of Soul at that time which at other times he words after this manner Cleanse thou me from secret faults Psal 19.12 Let them that deny it make proof of their denial but to save them the trouble I will evince the Affirmative by and by Again it is not evident from Scripture that actual Repentance must immediately follow the sin committed or for default thereof Grace totally lost I understand not why the Believer as well as the man may not suffer a deliquium or failure of the more ordinary sensible operations of life and yet retain the principle of life There are also two Arguments drawn from the nature of the sins David was guilty of for the proof of his total Apostacy 1. For his Adultery David by his Adultery was made a member of an Harlot Ergo he was no longer a Member of Christ The Antecedent is proved from 1 Cor. 6.15 16. Answ We deny the Connexion For as in the Conjugal state Adultery does make void the Marriage-Covenant de jure or merito not de facto but the injured Party may continue the band without guilt of Adultery So though Christ might justifie a Divorce yet it appears not that he will sue out one against any Believer that is guilty of bodily Adultery 2. Another Argument of the Arminians is drawn from Davids Murther No Murtherer hath eternal life abiding in him David was a Murtherer Ergo he had not eternal life abiding in him The major proved by the words of the Apostle 1 John 3.15 The minor they take for granted Answ We deny the minor David was not a Murtherer that denomination could not be given him from a single Act and afterwards repented of any more then the denomination of a wicked man to a true Believer because of the Sins he is guilty of Another Argument of the Arminians against Davids perseverance is drawn from his Prayer Create in me a clean heart O God and renew a right spirit within me Psal 51.10 Whence they infer That he had lost a clean Heart and right Spirit totally Answ This as generally what the Arminians urge on the Point before us is a pittyfull fallacy which every freshman in the School is acquainted with à Dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter They might as well infer from the Evangelists phrase For the Holy Ghost was not yet given John 7.39 That therefore David never had him at all All know that in nature that species of motion call'd Alteratio which is a change made in a Subject as to quality may be either quoad speciem or gradum As water quite cold may become lukewarm or seething hot And here David might well express himself so emphatically because of the late extraordinary defilement he had contracted and the quick sence he had of it at this time To close up the Discourse of this instance I shall offer two Arguments to prove that David did not wholly fall from Grace One from Psalm 51. Take not the holy Spirit from me verse 11. His deprecation of the taking away the holy Spirit does plainly imply a gradual presence of it For that could not be taken from him which he had not The other from Psalm