Selected quad for the lemma: death_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
death_n	eternal_a	life_n	lord_n	11,091	5	3.8914	3	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A80793	The refuter refuted. Or Doctor Hammond's Ektenesteron defended, against the impertinent cavils of Mr. Henry Jeanes, minister of Gods Word at Chedzoy in Somerset-shire. By William Creed B.D. and rector of East-Codford in Wiltshire.	Creed, William, 1614 or 15-1663.	1659 (1659)	Wing C6875; Thomason E1009_1; ESTC R207939	554,570	699

sed quod potest adjutus divino Spiritu Quo autem major nunc datur aut offertur spiritus copia eo praeceptum quoque istud vberius praestandum est H. Grot. in annot ad Matth c. 22. vers 37. p. 375. § 48. † Daille l. 1. de Jejuniis cap. 7. apud D. Hammond in his Account of the Triplex Diatribe p. 144 Scalig. Elench Trehaeres c. 22. in the treatise of Will worship sect 28. Vide Bp. Downeham of the Covenant of Grace c. 10. throughout Monsieur Daillé and Joseph Scaliger both Protestants sufficient and in Treatises particularly opposed against Bellarmine and Serrarius the Jesuite have been quoted by the Doctor to this very purpose and others might be added to the Number But these are sufficient to acquit the Doctor from the suspicion of Popery in this his Doctrine and let our Refuter know that all Protestants are not even of the learned Chamier's opinion in this point And now that the Doctor and those of his Judgement are in the right I undertake to defend and shall make it good in * Vide infra sect 32. §. 20 21 22 23 24 c. 32. sect 26 27 29 31. due place § 49. Indeed the assertion of Chamier is so notoriously false that it carries its own confutation in its forehead even to the most ordinary observer and I wonder by what misfortune and inadvertence it dropped from his Pen. What Omnes gradns comprehendimus amoris qui obtineri possunt vel in hac vita vel in altera si quid sit minus id peccato deputamus Let our Refuter himself in his most Protestant Ruff construe it and tell us how he can make it good Can he ever be able to prove that it is my sin that I see not God face to face while I am in the body and walk by Faith not by sight If it be my sin that I be not a Comprehensor in Heaven while I am in the state of a Viator upon earth that I be not present with the Lord while I am absent from him that I enjoy not Heaven happinesse and the sight of God whilst I am in the flesh in which state no man can see him and live then God with all humble Reverence be it spoken must be the Author of it For God has planted us all in that Condition where we can only see him by Faith and Revelation as through a glass darkly and not face to face Even Adam in innocence had only this advantage to see God by 1 Cor. 13. 12. Faith and clearer Revelation but not at all by Sight And now if our Love of necessity must bear proportion to our Knowledge Impossible it is I should love God at that height whilst I am in the flesh as I can do and shall by Gods Grace I firmly hope when I see him face to face and shall know as I am known Even the souls of Adam and all just men now made perfect do far more intensely more fervently love God whom they now see and enjoy in Heaven then ever Adam did or could if he had continued still in Innocence They love him now Naturally Uninterruptedly Constantly and Immutably but Adam in Paradise Habitually and not alwaies Actually for of necessity the Acts of his Love must be interrupted at least whilst he slept and Freely and therefore Mutably as his fall does too sadly evidence Nay the very Angels that fell not but kept their first station do now more fervently love God since their Confirmation in Grace because they now Immutably love him and have had since the fall of Lucifer an Experiment of his Favour to them which the others had not § 50. With what colour of truth then can it be maintained that it must be deputed and reckoned my sin if I love not God to as high a degree in this life as is possible to be attained in the next For does not that height and perfection of Love depend purely upon the sight and enjoyment of God and the participation of Heaven happiness And is not this height and intensenesse of Love an effect at least of the happiness of the Spirits of just men made perfect And does not this wholly and absolutely depend upon Gods bounty For though the wages of sin be death yet the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. Rom. 6. 23. And shall it be my sin that Gods gifts are not at my Command or within my power to purchase them Or must we say with Bellarmine that it is our sin and will be our punishment if we do not even ex condigno merit Heaven For so of necessity it must be said before it can be maintained that it must be our sin and transgression of this first and great Commandement if we love not God to that height and degree that the blessed Saints and Angels do love him in Heaven with that precise utmost height which is possible to be attained not only in this life but also in the next Add to this that the Saints and Angels now confirmed in grace do love God Naturally and Necessarily to that height that they love him and they can as well cease to see God and know God as not so to love him This is not now their election and choice but their happinesse and Crown their reward nay their Nature not their Labour and Endeavour How then can the want of that Fervour be my sin which is not within the compass of my Will and power to arrive at * Vide Davenant de Justit habit Act. c. ●1 p. 470. arg 1. He should as well have said it is our fault that now we be not immortal and glorified whilest we are in the flesh And let me tell our Refuter that he also should have said we are obliged to see God face to face whilest we are in this body as well as to have told us that the first and greatest Commandement enjoyneth us a love of God with as high a degree as is possible Jeanes hic p. 31. unto the humane Nature For I hope he will not say but that is possible to the humane Nature which Enoch and Elias not to speak of our Blessed Saviour at the right hand of God and the Spirits of just men made perfect have now attained to § 51. Indeed this assertion of Chamier is so extremly crude and absurd in that sense which the words at first view do seem to import that I had rather strain them to the meaning and purpose of Grotius and Doctor Hammond then any such monstrous Paradox should be affixed to so Judicious and learned a man Howsoever if Mr. Cawdrey and our Refuter will needs otherwise understand him as they seem in this assertion of theirs to have done which I conceive was to them the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Stone of stumbling and Rock of offence I shall leave them to defend and make it good For