Selected quad for the lemma: death_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
death_n	age_n	old_a	year_n	4,796	5	5.3056	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A66526	Vindiciæ vindiciarum, or, A vindication of a late treatise, entituled, Infant-baptism asserted and vindicated by Scripture and antiquity in answer to Mr. Hen. D'Anvers his reply : to which is annexed, the Right Reverend Dr. Barlow (now Bishop-elect of Lincoln) his apologetical-letter : also An appeal to the Baptists (so called) against Mr. Danvers, for his strange forgeries, and misrepresentations of divers councils and authors, both antient and modern / by Obed Wills.	Wills, Obed.; Barlow, Thomas, 1607-1691. Appeal to the Baptists against Henry D'Anvers, Esq.	1675 (1675)	Wing W2868; ESTC R38662	92,093	163

are to be esteemed fit subjects for Baptism Neither will this Evasion serve Mr. Danvers turn to put by this our Testimony and I wonder he should labour thus to darken Truth and delude the Reader for 't is true those words before-mentioned were spoken of Circumcision but he knows it was by way of introduction to the Baptism of Infants and therefore that he may not impose upon the Reader I will give the whole Sentence of Ambrose from the Magdiburgs Cent. 4. C. 5. p. 240. The Law commands the Males to be circumcised when newly born and as soon as they begin to cry because as Circumcision was from Infancy so was the disease Sin no time ought to be void of a Remedy because no time is void of Sin Neither the old man that is a Proselyte nor the new-born Infant is excepted then comes in those words Because every age is subject to Sin every age is fit for the Sacrament and the very next words are these eadem ratione Baptismum asserit Pervulorum lib. 10. Epistolarum Epistola 84. that is by the same reason he asserts Infants-Baptism in the eighty fourth of his 10th Book of Epistles Whether now Mr. Danvers hath not weakly opposed and dealt sophistically with this Quotation of Ambrose and whether it be not a pitiful shift in him to say the being fit for the Sacrament of which Ambrose speaks must be supposed to be meant of those only who are capable to confess Faith is submitted to the judgment of the impartial Reader As for what he objects that if every age be fit for the Sacrament in regard every age is obnoxious to sin then Infidels are fit subjects of Baptism I answer that the foregoing words of Ambrose viz. Neither the Old man that is a profelyte nor the New-born Infant is excepted shew that he speaks of those who are within the Church The last man that we bring for Infants-Baptism and excepted against by Mr. Danvers is Nazianzen and 't is observable that he confesseth what we urge from him hath most in it It seems then I was mistaken for I thought what we bring from Chrysostom and Ambrose had altogether as much in it as what is re-urg'd from Nazianzen The words quoted from this Father are out of his 40 oration viz. Hast thou a Child let it be early consecrated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from its Infancy To which he replyes that I impose a fallacy upon the Reader for translating the greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Infants thereby concluding him absolutely for Infants-Baptism and that because saith he the word signifies a State of Childhood as 2 Tim. 3. 15. And therefore Nazianzen must be understood by his early consecration to mean not in the Cradle but as he explains himself so soon as they are able to understand Mysteries except in case of death and when I pray according to Nazianzen were they capacitated for the understanding Mysteries the Magdiburgs inform us from his 3d Oration it was about the age of three years Extra periculum triennium aut eo plus minusve expectandum esse censet Cent. 4. C. 6. p. 416. that is if there be no danger of Death his judgment was they should stay till they are about 3 years old or something less and so be baptized nevertheless say they in some other place of that Oration Nazianzen declares omni aetati Baptisma convenire That Baptism is fit for every age comporting herein with Ambrose as before But whether I or Mr. Danvers do impose a fallacy let the Reader judg by what follows 1. Nazianzen was for baptizing Children in case of danger though as young as the Children of the Jews that were circumcised the 8th day as appears by the reason which he gives for their Baptism viz. It is better to be Sanctified by which he means baptized without knowledg than to die without it for saith he it happened to the circumcised Babes of Israel upon which Vossius hath this note in his Thesis of Baptism Non igitur Nazianzenus c. Nazianzen was not against Infants-Baptism and his judgment will be taken as soon as most mens 2. Though 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should be taken for a state of Childhood yet in that place of Nazianzen we mention it is not to be taken so largely that is Children of some understanding as Mr. Danvers doth suggest because of the instance of Circumcision given by the Father 3. Nazianzen being a Greek-Father intends the word according to its proper signification and as it is generally taken in the New-Testament as well as in prophane Authors and that is a state of Infancy for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies an Infant saith Mr. Leigh Crit. Sac. and is properly spoken de partu recens edito of a Child newly born quoting Beza on Luke 18. 15. who saith the word properly is taken for Infantes teneri nimirum adhuc ab uberibus pendentes parvuli i. e. Sucking Babes such as are carried in arms The same word is given to Christ when the Wise-men found him in swadling-clouts Luke 2. 12. And we have it again for a new-born Babe 1. Pet. 2. 2. As new-borne Babes desire the sincere Milk of the word c. But Mr. Danvers hath not done with Nazianzen yet and therefore frames an Objection for us and answers it himself thus It is not manifest that in case of death he would have an Infant baptized To which he answers It is true but that was not quà Infant but as a dying person We see by this acute distinction that our Antagonist is not only a Critick but that he hath some Logick too in which he saith he owneth little skill but that little I suppose is in that part which they call Sophistry or the abuse of Logick But that the weakness of this distinction may appear consider 1. That it is true Nazianzen would not have an Infant baptized quà Infant 2. It is untrue that Nazianzen would have an Infant baptized quà a dying person for if they were to be baptized under either of these Considerations then had he been for the baptizing all Infants and dying persons promiscuously 3. But Nazianzens judgment was to have them baptized because they were the Children of Christians in iminent danger of death They were such as were capacitated for that Ordinance on the account of God's Covenant else why doth he speak of circumcising Children in the very place which is now under debate Melius est enim nondum rationis compotes sanctificari quam non Signatos et initiatos vitâ excedere Nazianz. Orat. 40. It is better saith he they should be consecrated without their knowledg than to die without the Seal and not be initiated idque nobis designat octavum diem circumcisio illa itaque fuit figurale signaculum ac propter irrationales introducta For so it happened to the circumcised Babes of Israel But let the account be what it will upon which Nazianzen would have Children