Selected quad for the lemma: death_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
death_n	day_n	die_v	soul_n	6,945	5	5.0141	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A57955	A vindication of the baptized churches from the calumnies of Mr. Michael Harrison, of Potters Pury in Northampton-shire. Being an answer to his two books, intituled, Infant baptism God's ordinance. By William Russel, M.D. A lover of primitive Christianity.	Russel, William, d. 1702.	1697 (1697)	Wing R2360A; ESTC R218555	79,105	138

preaching to hear him tell them Beloved If your Children dye in their Infancy unless they are elected I can assure you they shall go to Hell and be punished there to all Eternity for that they could never help God hath so ordered it by his Secret Decree unknown to me and all the World Do you think God ever sent him of this Message Especially when he tells you in his Book he knows not who belongs to the Election of Grace Now Mr. H. might have been truly inform'd of this matter if he had minded what Mr. Collins told him in page 35. of his Book in answer to Mr. Mence and him That one of the first Arguments of the Church of Rome for Infant-Baptism is which I suppose is Mr. Harrison's also if he knows what he is talking of that it washes away Original Sin We can saith Mr. H. Collins tell you of a better way of washing away Original Sin namely by the imputation of Christ's Righteousness to Infants dying in Infancy Add to this what Mr. Claridge saith in his Epistle to the same Book And here I would inform all the Readers of Mr. Mence's Book that whereas he charges Mr. Collins for maintaining Infant-damning Doctrine it is altogether a mistake for Mr. Collins is rather inclined to think That all dying Infants are saved by the imputed Righteousness of Christ Notwithstanding all this and much more that hath been said before upon this Subject he still goes on in his confident way of writing and saith he will prove That all by Birth or Nature are by the sin of Adam liable to the condemnation of Hell by plain Scripture He is a bold man at asserting but he commonly fails in his Proof Let us now examine those Scriptures he alledges for probation of this confident assertion Gen. 2.17 In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely dye Now this was the threatning but in Gen. 3.17 18 19. we have the Sentence denounced against Adam by God himself which serves to explain the former threatning to be only the first Death with its Concomitants Cursed is the ground for thy sake in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy Life Thorns also and Thistles shall it bring forth to thee and thou shalt eat the Herb of the field In the sweat of thy Face shalt thou eat bread till thou return unto the ground for out of it wast thou taken for dust thou art and unto dust shalt thou return Here you see that what is called Death in the threatning is called returning to the Ground and unto Dust in the Sentence but not one word of punishment in Hell so much as intimated therein As for the other Texts he mentions they are no proofs of what he brings them for and therefore I shall pass them and proceed to his three Arguments Argu. 1. If Children need Regeneration and a Second Birth before they can go to Heaven then they are liable to Eternal as well as Temporal Death But Children do need Regeneration therefore c. John 3.3 5. Except a man be born again c. Now it 's plain Nicodemus understood our Saviour in this sence by his answer viz. not of Children newly born but of adult Persons for he saith How can a man be born when he is old But to answer directly to his Argument I deny his Minor and say they do not need Regeneration and a second Birth in the Sence there intended before they can go to Heaven and if they did they were in a bad Case indeed for they are not capable either of Repentance or Faith both which are comprehended in those words Except a Man be born again Thus you see when he should have brought a Text to have proved Infants must be born again this only proves that a Person of grown years a Man must be born again Let him not imagine that I feign an Interpretation of my own for Mr. Firmin a great Pedo-baptist saith They must be regenerate they must have Faith c. They who are regenerated have Faith and Repentance all saved Infants are regenerated therefore they have Faith and Repentance they must be born of Water and of the Spirit according to John 3.6 else there is no Heaven for them Now that God does cleanse dying Infants from all Impurity and fits them for Heaven I readily grant But this Regeneration they talk of from this Text and apply to Infants I positively deny And certain I am if he had read those Quotations upon that Argument given by Mr. Claridge he might have been sensible of this his Error before he had wrote this his 2d part Whether Infants have Faith or no is a Question saith Dr. Taylor to be disputed by Persons that care not how much they say and how little they prove which is the very case of Mr. Harrison when he hath denyed them to have either personal and actual or habitual Faith he concludes thus This strange Invention is absolutely without Art without Scripture Reason or Authority but the men are to be excused unless there were a better And again we desire saith he no more advantage in the World against such men than that they are constrained to answer without Revelation against Reason Common-sence and all the Experience in the World Dr. Taylor 's Liberty of Prophecy page 240 242. Mr. H's 2d Argum. is this If Infants are not liable to the damnation of Hell for Adam's sin then they may be saved without Christ by vertue of the Covenant of Works But c. This is a strange Assertion What can Infants be saved by Works that are wholly uncapable to Perform any this is meer trifling But I shall deny the Consequence of his Major For If Infants by virtue of Adam's sin must return to the dust and cannot raise themselves to life again but must have remained in that state for ever unless Christ had come in the flesh dyed and rose again and by vertue of his Resurrection raised them again by his mighty Power then it had been impossible for them to have been saved So that it 's a Non-sequitor for altho' they are not condemned to eternal Punishment in Hell yet there is a necessity for them to be saved by Christ if ever they get to Heaven But besides this they stand in need of Christ to purifie their Natures from Original Corruption as I have shewed above His 3d. Argu. is this Such as are by Nature Children of Wrath are liable to the Condemnation of Hell but all are so therefore Infants Eph. 2.1 2 3. Answ In this he hath dealt very unfairly and neither like a Gentleman nor a Scholar for his Argument is not in due form For 1. Infants are no where expressed but in the Conclusion 2. He hath put the word all into the Minor tho' he hath not told us what all he means And in the major it 's only such as are c. I suppose he would have framed a Categorical Syilogism if

he had known how and then it should have run thus All such as are by Nature Children of Wrath are liable to the Condemnation of Hell All Infants are by Nature Children of Wrath Ergo All Infants are liable to the Condemnation of Hell which is the thing I suppose he meant And then I deny his minor Proposition and let him prove it if he can As for his Text he brings for probation thereof I deny that Infants are either expressed or intended therein For the design of the Apostle in that place is to set before them what a miserable condition they had been in before Conversion by their own personal transgressions viz. Dead in trespasses and sins who in times past walked according to the course of this world according to the prince of the power of the Air the Spirit that now worketh in the Children of Disobedience Among whom also we all had our Conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh fulfiling the desires of the flesh and of the mind and were by nature i. e. by the corrupt and fleshly Inclinations that were within us Children of wrath even as others Meaning thereby other Gentiles who were still in an unregenerate Estate wallowing in their Iniquities So that as Infants are not here exprest neither can they be intended as being free from all personal transgressions and not capable to transact those Evils there spoken of I shall now offer some Reasons why I do not believe that any Infants dying in their Infancy shall be tormented for ever in Hell-fire 1. Because there is no such thing exprest either in the Threatning or Sentence Gen. 2.17 Gen. 3.17 18 19. as I have already shewed 2. Because God himself hath disclaimed such an Opinion as Erroneous and declared the contrary Ezek. 18.2 3 4 20. 1. Hear what the first Founder of your Sect from whence you have your denomination viz. John Calvin saith upon this Subject speaking of all others besides the Elect so many Nations of Men together with their Infants were involved without remedy in eternal punishment by the fall of Adam for no imaginable reason but that so it seemed good in the sight of God Calvin's Instit l. 3. cap. 23. Sect. 7. 2. Hear what God saith in the fore-mentioned place The soul that sinneth shall dye the Son shall not bear the iniquity of the Father this must intend eternal punishment for as to temporal punishment Children do often suffer for their Fathers faults and we all suffer for the fault of Adam both temporal Miseries and Death it self But whereas these People of Israel had such a blind Notion as that of Mr. H. That the Fathers had eaten sowre grapes and the Childrens Teeth were set on edge God tells them As I live saith the Lord God ye shall not have occasion any more to use this Proverb in Israel for the Son shall not bear the Fathers iniquity the soul that sinneth it shall dye 3. Because the Lord who best knew hath declared that Infants belong to the Kingdom of Heaven Mat. 19.14 4. I will add to these the Opinion of the Learned Poole that he would rather believe that all Infants dying in their Infancy were elected than conclude that any of them were damned and his reason was because as no man knew the contrary so they ought not to affirm what they did not know But I suppose Mr. Poole must be a blasphemous Heretick in Mr. H's Opinion as well as the poor Anabaptists But it 's our mercy he is not to be our Judge in the Great Day The 2d Heresie or Error this man of might charges us with is 2. That Christ dyed alike for all men and that all Persons in the World c. This doth necessarily divide it self into two General Parts 1. That Christ dyed alike for all men 2. That all Persons in the World are by the Death of Christ put into a Capacity of Salvation I shall answer to both of them distinctly 1. That Christ dyed for all men I do with the Pen-men of the Holy Scripture affirm and that it 's a great and fundamental Truth this appears from these following positive assertions 1 Tim. 2.6 He gave himself a ransom for all 2 Cor. 5.14 15. He dyed for all Heb. 2.9 He tasted death for every man 1 Tim. 4.10 Who is the Saviour of all men 1 John 2.2 He is a propitiation for our sins and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world So that to deny this is to deny the very express words of Scripture And therefore Mr. Harrison being aware of this hath owned it to be true in some sence but not content with this he puts in the word alike thinking to puzzle us with that and lays down some Arguments to prove he did not dye for all alike and thinks we are obliged to prove it I answer It 's an Unscriptural term a man of Straw of his own setting up for in all our Confessions of Faith that I remember to have been published there is not the word alike to be found in any of them As for that last he refers to printed 1691. the words are these Article 3. That Christ freely gave himself a ransom for all tasting death for every man a propitiation for our sins and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole World So that the word alike is not by them inserted And it being a term of Art of his own Coyning I return it to the mint from whence it came The Question therefore betwixt us is this not whether Christ dyed for all men for that he owns but whether all persons in the World are by the death of Christ put into a capacity of Salvation This he denyes and we affirm Article 4. Of the aforesaid Confession of the Baptists they have these express words No man shall eternally suffer in Hell that is the second death for want of Christ that dyed for them but as the Scripture saith for denying the Lord that bought them 2 Pet. 2.1 or because they believe not in the Name of the only begotten Son of God John 3.18 Unbelief therefore being the cause why the just and righteous God will condemn the Children of Men it follows against all contradiction that all men at one time or other are put into such a capacity as that through the Grace of God they may be eternally saved 1. The Scriptures of Truth do affirm this in as plain words as a matter of this kind can well be exprest John 3.14 15 16 17. here is set down the design of God in the Gift of Christ for the World 1. Negatively that they should not perish that God sent not his Son to condemn the World 2. Affirmatively That whosoever believeth in him should have eternal life and everlasting life and that the World through him might be saved And in 1 Tim. 2.4 speaking of God our Saviour he saith who will have all men to be

So that the main design of the Apostle among other Mercies of God bestowed upon that People is to commemorate that great and wonderful deliverance at the Red Sea and then to shew us what an ungrateful People they were thus to sin against him and to cause him for their sins to destroy them in the Wilderness And if this be the Scope of the place as I believe it is that so we might be warned by their fall to avoid falling into Apostacy against God as they did and had our translators so rendred the word as it imports in our English Tongue no Man would ever have dreamt of an Ordinance of Baptism from this Text. If notwithstanding all that I have said upon the Text Mr. H. will still insist upon it that it was a Baptism and that by sprinkling I shall oppose thereto the Dutch Translators to shew him their Opinion to the contrary who being Presbyterians their words may possibly have the greater force upon his Understanding They read it thus Ende alle in Mosen gedoopt Zin And they were all dipt unto Moses So that you may see the Learned Men in Holland of his own perswasion do directly contradict what he saith I will only offer one Consideration more and so pass it viz. That by the same Argument that in the word all their Infants were included their Cattle were included also for they all passed under the Cloud and thro' the Sea as well as their Little Ones for it is written Exod 10.26 Our Cattle also shall go with us there shall not a hoof be lest behind And altho' the Papists are for baptizing of Bells I hope Mr. H. will not be also for baptizing of Cattle even the Beasts of the field But let him avoid the consequence if he can in case it be not restrained to the Fathers as in the Text. The next thing Mr. H. insists upon is That there are three sorts of Baptism that of Water that of the Spirit and that of Afflictions to which I concede And whereas he saith it 's expressed by one Greek Word I do also agree but that those three as he saith are but one Baptism that I deny He is the first that I ever knew affirm it But pray Sir consider what you say Is Water the Spirit and Fire Is Affliction the Spirit or Water Affliction or Fire Water Take it which way you will I believe you will find it attended with difficulties Indeed Sir it 's one of the most intricate Metaphors that you have yet sported your self with in your whole Book and if you understand it no better than I do you might have forbore to acquaint the World with the conceited fineness of the thought But Sir I suppose I may have the same liberty to give you my thoughts as you had to impart yours The Text you have brought to prove that these three Baptisms are but one and exprest by one word is Eph. 4.5 One Lord one Faith one Baptism How this proves that those three Baptisms are but one Baptism I see not Sir you are very unhappy in one thing to lay down Assertions and when you come to prove it you urge such Texts that do not conclude the thing in Question but altho' this doth not prove three to be one and so afford us a new sort of Trinity I will not be so ungentile as not to give you my thoughts upon the Text before I pass it There is a threefold Baptism spoken of in the New Testament viz. That of Water that of Affliction and that of the Spirit and yet the Apostle here speaks after this manner one Baptism as there is one Lord one God c. Now my thoughts are these That it is Water-baptism only that is here intended And my Reason is this because to speak properly there is no other real baptism for the other two are figurative and metaphorical But besides The Apostle is there speaking of those Believers as incorporated into one body and as having been called into one hope of their calling having Christ for their one Lord and one Faith to unite them to this one Lord and one Baptism to make them visible Members of this one body the Church which Mr. H. owns to be an initiating Ordinance and God as their one common Father to supply all their wants and that these Persons that were members of this Church were baptized with water upon believing you may see Acts 19. beginning And this seems to me the most probable sense of those words One Baptism Now that it is a real Baptism is evident For as the word signifies to dip plunge or overwhelm them in the water and as it signifies the Burial and Resurrection of Christ so in respect of the thing done it 's a real act for that every person who is truly baptized as I have shewed above is plunged into the water and also raised up again out of the water the thing is really performed But that of Affliction is only metaphorical alluding to this of water as likewise also that of the Spirit and of Fire But perhaps Mr. H. may imagine that to be the Baptism of Affliction which is not and therefore let us hear what he saith about it As to the Baptism of Affliction saith he some soffer more some less some suffer lighter crosses as Mocks c. some loss of goods and liberty others Death when he hath said this he then delivers his Opinion about it in these words Now he that suffers least for Christ in a Christian manner doth as truly partake of the Baptism of Afflictions as he that suffers most Now suppose I deny this as I must how doth he prove it why he quotes no Text here but in the foregoing page Mark 10.39 Ye shall indeed drink of the cup that I drink of and with the baptism that I am baptized withall shall ye be baptized That this is the Baptism of Affliction I own We must now enquire what this hath a principal respect unto for there is something more than common intended in these words In Luke 12.50 our Saviour saith I have a Baptism to be baptized withall and how am I strained till it be accomplished Now this can be no other than that Death and bitter Agony he was to undergo for our sins that he might bring us to Glory And by his prediction to his Disciples in Mark 10.39 he foretold their deaths also for his sake Now as a Person that is baptized in water is overwhelmed therewith even so that bitter Agony our Lord endured in the Garden and upon the Cross when his Soul was exceeding sorrowful even unto death before wicked men had so much as laid their hands upon him it pleased the Lord so to bruise him and put him to grief that his sweat was as it were drops or clotters of blood falling down to the ground And when he was upon the Cross how did he cry out by reason of that sorrow that overwhelm'd his Soul