Selected quad for the lemma: love_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
love_n	let_v	lord_n	sin_n	4,896	5	4.6771	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A93868	Vindiciæ fundamenti: or A threefold defence of the doctrine of original sin: together with some other fundamentals of salvation the first against the exceptions of Mr. Robert Everard in his book entituled, The creation and the fall of man. The second against the examiners of the late assemblies confession of faith. The third against the allegations of Dr. Jeremy Taylor, in his Unum necessarium, and two letter treatises of his. By Nathaniel Stephens minister of Fenny-Drayton in Leicestershire.	Stephens, Nathaniel, 1606?-1678.	1658 (1658)	Wing S5452; Thomason E940_1; ESTC R207546	207,183	256

in the Prophetical Scriptures But the scope of the text is plainly to be taken for a literal ordinary day as we have formerly proved And strange it is that the Lord in the denunciation of judgment should go to the typical and parabolicall expressions used in Daniel and the Revelation and Peters Epistle After this you come to enquire whether Christ by his suffering did not prevent the falling of death upon Adam And you resolve it in the negative For say you either Adam must suffer or the Word of God seeing God had once declared the sentence thou shalt surely dye In case then he should give his Son to prevent the death of Adam there had been a clear contradiction page 119. In the commination there are some things which I do acknowledge to be infallible as the Laws of the Medes and Persians which alter not and therefore to make good the sentence all that are now born into the world after the course of natural generation are borne in the state of spiritual death subject to the miseries of nature and shall inevitably be brought to temporal death at last All these things do hold by vertue of the first sentence yet you must take heed that you go no further because the second man hath all fulnesse of grace to repair the losses brought in by the first By his intervening patience and long-suffering is extended to all the sonnes of men And therefore whatsoever you suggest to the contrary there is indeed and in truth no contradiction between the sentence in the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt dye the death and the delay thereof in a qualified sense In some particulars long-suffering may be extended and yet in others there may be a speedy execution of the sentence But you go on seeing God would not have Adam to come near the tree of life therefore he would not have him to be free from death that way page 119. Neither do we maintain that it was the purpose of God to free Adam in that manner that he should not taste of a temporal death He came under the dominion of that death the same day he sinned and the most holy Saints that are must all dye before they can be raised again to set forth the truth and certainty of the Lords commination Yet for all this at present the stroke was stayed by the Mediators blood and long-suffering was extended to men that salvation might be had by the Covenant of grace As for the tree of life it is most true that God did forbid Adam accesse to that tree not absolutely because he would not have him to recover life but because he had provided another way for the restoring of man by Christ the promised seed He would not come to the most extream and final execution of the sentence because his purpose was to have a posterity upon the earth and a seminary for the Church Further you argue there was a necessity for Adam to dye otherwise Christ could not make him alive page 119. Here you mistake the state of the question we agree that Christ did not dye simply to free man that he should not fall into the dust but only to raise him from the dust again It was necessary to fulfill the truth of the commination that Adam should return to dust but it was not necessary that he should return to dust the very same day It was necessary that he should fall under the reign of death and under a necessity of dying the same day he sinned and this to continue to the resurrection of the just Then this mortal shall put on immortality and this corruptible shall put on incorruption 1 Cor. 15.53 The Apostle also saith when he shall change these vile bodies that they may be made like his glorious body Phil. 3.21 All the bodies of the Saints shall be made like the body of Christ as now it is in glory But how did the bodies of the Saints begin to be vile bodies By vile bodies he doth mean these corruptible tabernacles of the soul lyable to diseases and to all the miseries of nature But when did this vilenesse and misery begin seeing they were not made vile by creation They began to be vile bodies the same day that Adam did sin they have been so ever since and they must continue such unto the resurrection and then the bodies of the Saints shall be made conformable to the bodie of Christ in glory Philip. 3 Vlt. CHAP. XIV Whether Adam did dye a spiritual death yea or no IN the discovery of this point you observe this method First you shew what spiritual life is Secondly you resolve upon the question For your description of spiritual life though you miserably confound the Scriptures we will take it in the best sense for such a life as hath the Spirit for the cause Gal. 4.19 John 6.63 Col. 33. But you erre in your application when you use such an expression as this that Adam had not such a cup of water in all his foure Rivers You say also that he could not savour the voice of the resurrection from the dead for the goodnesse of a Saviour must be resented by those that are lost but Adam knew no such need page 122. Your argument is fallacious because Adam had not spiritual life in the same way as the Saints now have therefore he had no spiritual life at all He might have ability to love Christ as Lord Creator Further you say that the voice of forgivenesse of sinne was a stranger to him Well let this be admitted it doth not prove the point neither Sicknesse it self was a stranger to Adam before his fall will you inferre then that there were no herbs for medicine and that the Lord did not create the herb of the field with a medicinal vertue So in the like case what if remission of sinne and the way of pardon of sinne by Christs blood was a thing hidden from Adam as being not compatible with his condition will you inforce from hence a want of capacity in him to understand the mystery of salvation by Christ or will you affirme from hence that he was a meere carnal man before his fall Take heed that by these and such like positions you do not reflect upon God himself The Apostle saith the carnal mind is enmity against God for it is not subject to the Law of God neither indeed can be Rom. 8. ver 6 7. If you go to the Original of this enmity or non-subjection and say it did proceed from the fall of Adam you do agree with us But if you go higher and stand upon it that Adam was a meere natural man by the condition of his creation then you will lay the blame upon God that set him in such a state of enmity and whither will you go in the issue if you maintain such positions as these But to make good your assertion you argue The first man is of the earth earthy the

powers they cannot without a new grace and favour go to heaven But then it cannot presently be inferred that therefore they go to hell but this ought to be inferred which indeed was the real consequent of it therefore it is necessary that Gods grace should supply this defect if God intends heaven to them at all and because nature cannot God sent a Saviour by whom it was effected so far he pag. 15. Now I leave it to any man to judge whither the same mutatis mutandis may not be said of our opinion though infants are borne in Original sin and are by nature the children of wrath yet they may be saved by grace By all this it is evident that we are as faire for the salvation of infants as he is and by the same doore as he goes out we will go out at the same And for the sayings of our writers I have three things to answer First some speak more mildly in the point rather inclining to the salvation than the damnation of infants Junius in his collation de naturâ gratiâ hath these words Nemo nostrum it a fuerit aut furere compertus est c. There is none of ours that is so mad or was ever found so void of reason who would simply affirme infants to be damned They which teach otherwise let themselves look to it by what right they moy do it and by what authority it may be done For although in respect of their own selves and that common nature of ours they may be in a state lyable to damnation it follows not that we should passe the sentence of damnation upon them c. In the processe of his discourse he giveth sundry reasons First the promise of God to believers and their natural seed Secondly his mercy to thousands and that through many descents where the Ancestors have sometimes belonged to the Covenant Thirdly The judgement of charity seeing it is the Lords pleasure to take them away in their infancy we may presume that by that fatherly act of his he intends to receive them to mercy Other testimonies may be brought of such that have gone in the milder way but these shall suffice A second sort of our Expositiors there are that do pitch more hard They say that some infants may go to hell yet they moderate their sentence as Chamier Non abhorret a verisimilitudine paenas eorum esse mitissimas It is very probable their punishments are most mild A third sort leave the matter wholly in suspence they think it sufficient to believe that all infants are borne in a state lyable to damnation they have in them the seeds of all evil yet for all this they conceive that God may shew mercy in and through Christ specially to the infants of such that do belong to the Covenant specially where conscience is made to enter them into the outward visible Church by baptisme And this is all that we will say of this question Leaving this businesse of the state of infants and reserving to God the secrets of election or non-election we will come to the point that is more useful and more easie to be understood And here he questions whether Adam did debauch our nature and corrupt our will and manner by his fall And if he did it he further enquires after the manner how it was done First whether it was done by a natural or physical efficiency of sin it selfe Secondly whether was it because we are all in the loynes of Adam or Thirdly whether was the sentence and the decree of God the cause thereof he hath foure arguments against a physical efficiency which we have in part handled already and shall have occasion to speak afterwards And therefore to avoid repetition we will come to the second branch whether Adam did debauch our nature because we are all in his loynes Against this he hath sundry reasons that follow in order By the same reason saith he we are guilty of all the sins that he committed while we were in his loynes there being no imaginable reason why the first should be propagated and not the rest Answ As I have formerly shewed so I declare againe the pollution of nature can only be propagated from the first sin because in that only Adam did act as a publick man in which sence the Apostle calls him the figure of him that is to come But of this I have spoken already Secondly upon this account saith he all the sins of all our progenitours will be imputed to us because we were in their loynes when they sinn'd them Answ Not so neither for though we were in their loynes when they sinned yet in a strict sence they are only vehicula so many conduit pipes of the conveyances of the nature from the first root To speak properly there are only two roots of the nature Adam the root of corruption to all his branches Christ the root of grace and spiritual life to all his branches If any question be made of the truth of this there is every where in the doctrine of St. Paul an antithesis between the flesh and the spirit between the old man and the new betwixt generation and regeneration betwixt Adam and Christ Between these two there is a plaine opposition in three things in point of justification Secondly in point of sanctification Thirdly in point of the resurrection from the dead And therefore whereas the first man by his act brings us under the guilt of sin the second washes away the guilt of sin by his blood and whereas the first man pollutes our nature and is the root of the corruption of nature the second man sanctifies our nature and is the root of a new nature to all his branches And whereas the first man did bring in death and all the miseries of nature upon our bodies that lead to death the second man frees us from all these by the resurrection from the dead But he further alledgeth Thirdly Sin saith he is seated in the will it is an action and so transient and when it dwels or abides it abides no where but in the will by approbation and love to which is naturally consequent a readinesse in the inferiour faculties to obey and act accordingly and therefore sin doth not infect our meer natural faculties but the will only and not that in the natural capacity but in its moral only Answ Though it be true that sin is principally seated in the will yet we shall finde all along that the Scriptures do lay great weight upon the blindnesse and the perversity of the judgement and as in the old creation so it is in the new The first work that is done is the creation of light Besides the Christ-like disposition is begun and carried on by degrees and all this by the renovation of light The understanding is first enlightned and then the will comes to choose the things of God Further let it be supposed that sin is only seated in the will

every man is free in the committing of this or that particular sin though it be true in the General an evil tree cannot bring forth good fruit It is possible that an healthy man by disorder may fall into great sicknesses but a man of frail and infirme constitution is wholly enclined to sicknesses and diseases As great nay a farre greater difference was between that liberty that Adam had before his fall and what we now have He had a freedome to choose the good and to refuse the evil so have not we now But to take away the force of this answer he further argueth That we can choose the good and as naturally love good as evil and in some instances more A man cannot naturally hate God if he knowes any thing of him a man naturally loves his parents he naturally hateth some sorts of uncleannesse Repl. We do not deny but by the general concurrence and assistance of God man since the fall hath some ability to choose and love the good But what kind of good that which is ethical and moral but not that which is spiritual In the very best actions that a natural man doth when he gives alms when he observes promises when he doth performe any good he sins in the manner because his actions do not proceed from sincere love neither are they directed to a right end The end of the commandment is love out of a pure heart a good conscience and faith unfaigned 1 Tim. 1.5 Because a natural man wants these principles his best actions are stained with sinne As strange as this doctrine seemes to be there is none of us all but may finde a truth of it in our own experience For let us heare reade pray meditate give alms dispute for the truth reforme errours and abuses and do much good for the Church yet we can have no comfort if our conscience once tell us that we do not these things for God but for our selves This is the very case of every natural man besides the sinisterity of ends his actions do not proceed from right principles And whereas he argueth that a man cannot naturally hate God if he knowes any thing of him If he speak of the excellency of God and his holinesse In such a sense if men did know him they could not hate him For that they love him fear him obey him trust in him do all for him leave all for his sake this is grounded upon the right knowledge of that excellency and goodnesse that is in himself And therefore since the fall the blindnesse of minde is the cause of a great part of the mischief The will is perverse in her choice the affections are out of order because the judgment is not rightly informed In a lower sense we do acknowledge that men may know some things of God and their knowledge may be the ground of their hatred of God It may be with some wicked men as with the Devils they beleeve there is one God and tremble But as to the choice of spiritual good he further saith Neither was Adams case better than ours in this particular For that his nature could not carry him to heaven or indeed to please God in order to it seems to be confessed by them who have therefore affirmed him to have a supernatural righteousnesse Repl. If the collation be between state and state Adam had a power to understand that good which is spiritual tolove choose it more than we now have since the fall The wise man saith God made man upright but they have sought out many inventions Eccles 7. ult He must needs speak of a spiritual uprightnesse contrary to the deceits that are to be found amongst thousands of men and women And whereas he saith that Adams nature could not carry him to heaven If this be so God provided worse for him than for the rest of the creatures The rest of the creatures were made with such natures sutable to their ends If therefore God did not make Adam in a state someway fit for heaven why did he create him with an immortal soule This state plainly sheweth that had he stood or eaten of the tree of life he should have lived for ever But falling he did runne the hazard of the losse of that life that might have been had Lastly if Adam coald not have gone to heaven in that nature that God had made him the falling short of eternal life could not have been any fault of his own and the blame would have laid on the creation Were it rational for God to require Adam to go to heaven and yet no way to make him sutable or fit for such a condition This were to require the whole tale of bricks and to give no straw And for that Tenet of the Romish Doctors I wonder that he should stand upon it that Adam was endued with supernatural righteousnesse in that sense at least as they understand it for look what righteousnesse Adam had it was by creation The had stood he had propagated it to posterity The reliques of the image of God do plainly shew in what state he was made in the beginning In the creation of man it is said he made all things very good Hearbs Trees Birds Beasts Fishes all these may be good in their kinde though they were not made in a state fit to go to heaven But it is impossible that Adam could be made in a state very good but he must be some way fit for union with God in which all spiritual and eternal good doth consist Now he comes to the main objection and here he tells us that it is certain there is not only one but many common principles from which sin derives it self into the manners of all men This he undertakes to prove in opposition to our assertion who hold that the pravity and corruption of nature doth flow from the disobedience of the first man But let us heare him speak in his own words The first great cause saith he of an universal implety is that at first God had made no promises of heaven he had not propounded any glorious rewards to be as an argument to support the superiour faculty against the inferiour that is to make the will to choose the best to leave the worst and to be as a reward for suffring contradiction And going on he further addeth this to be the reason of the general corruption of the old world Because saith he there was no such thing in that period of the world therefore almost all flesh corrupted themselves excepting Abel Seth Enos and Enoch we finde not one good man from Adam to Noah and therefore the Apostle calls that world 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the world of the ungodly It was not so much wonder that when Adam had no promises made to enable him to contest his natural concupiscence he should strive to make his conditions by the Devils Promises Reply It is true the Apostle calleth the old world