Selected quad for the lemma: death_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
death_n	lord_n	show_v	supper_n	4,170	5	9.3436	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A37484	Truth defended. or, A triple answer to the late triumvirates opposition in their three pamphlets viz. Mr. Baxter's review, Mr. Wills his censure, Mr. Whiston's postscript to his essay, &c. With Mr. Hutchinson's letter to Mr. Baxter a little before his death. And a postscript in answer to Mr. William Walker's modest plea for infants baptism. By Tho. DeLaune.	De Laune, Thomas, d. 1685.	1677 (1677)	Wing D897; ESTC R213236	99,906	139

in unbelief that have a Zacheus to believe for them Surely this is none of Christs Gospel Rom 1.17 and 3.28 Joh. 3.5 c. 3ly Act. 2.38 39. Yields as little proof for this assertion as the other And he that can find this Consequence there deserves to be stiled Magnus Apollo The promise to the Children was not as they were the seed of Believers For their Parents were not then Believers Nor to them nor any other but as called by the Lord which calling made them Christs and capable of Baptism The whole as the context shews is an incouragement against despair by reason of their Crucifying Christ and wishing his blood upon them and their Children Mat. 27.25 For which very sin the Apostle tells them they may have Remission Christ being raised for their Salvation and their Childrens viz. their posterity and all God should call though a far off if they did Repent and were Baptised into the name of Christ Of our mind herein is Dr. Hamond a great pleader for Infant Baptism who sayes in his Resolutio●s concerning Infant Baptism Sect. 81. If any have made use of that unconcludent Argument viz. Act 2 39. I have nothing to say in defence of them the word children there is really the posterity of the Jews not particularly their Infant Children And Dr. Taylor lib. Proph p. 233. Sayes that by Children is meant the posterity of the Jews adding that he that when ever the word children is used in Scripture shall by Children understand Infants must needs believe that in all Israel there were no men but all Infants and if that had been true it bad been the greater wonder that they should overcome the Anakins and beat the King of Moab and March so far and discourse so well for they were all called the Children of Israel 4ly Act. 16. ●1 proves not his Conclusion for the Scripture Records that the Jaylors family had the Word of the Lord spoke to them as well as himself ver 32. Yea that they believed ver 34. 1 Cor. 7.14 Proves not the Salvation of a believers house to assert it is to run into a desperate error viz. That the unbelieving wife is saved by the husbands faith and è contrà Which I suppose no sober Protestant durst affirm And Mr. Whiston will do well to recal that expression p. 108. That the Master of the family believing his house shall be saved upon Condition of his believing it being so grossly contrary to the tenor of the Gospel let him peruse Rom. 1.17 and 3.28 Heb. 11.6 Mar. 16.16 John 3.5 c. Mr. Whiston I observe all along his Book in defence of Infants Baptism borrows his most formidable Artillery from the Old Testament Yet tells us be argues not from Analogy with Circumcision But if he can make me believe that he has a notable faculty of perswading For alas how does he invita minerva squeeze Arguments from Gen. 17.7 to prove Infant Baptism And I appeal to all Readers whether that place and Circumcision be not the Alpha and Omega of his proofs What a tedious talk does he make to prove that there is an Idendity betwixt the Old and New Covenant how learnedly does he labour to prove that the Covenant entred with Abraham respected his natural seed Whereas if He means the Covenant of Circumcision as 't is called Act. 7.8 who denys it But if he means the Covenant in the first notion laid down before we absolutely deny i● and he can never prove it the contrary is largely evinced This exploit fills up almost his whole Book and what a considerable range of words does he muster up to shew the agreement betwixt Circumcision and Baptism p. 226. and so to p. 148 Does he not lay p. 222 That the will of God concerning Circumcision shews us what his will is concerning Baptism and that as the one so the other should be applyed to Infants and what 's this but Analogy His talk p. 240. c That Baptism is the sign or token of the Covenant vow is vain and his Inference that as Circumcision of old so Baptism is now the token of the Covenant is groundless But suppose that were granted which yet there is no ground for his definition of a sign produced from Austi● p. ●16 viz. id quod se ipsum sensui preter se aliquid animo repraesentat or his later Author Signum est quod se ipsum sensibus id cujus signum est intellectai aufert or another Author I can help him to viz. Scheibler Metaphys lib. 1. cap 26. Signum est quod potentiae cognoscenti aliquid representat viz. That a sign or token is that which represents something signed to the mind or understanding will do him more hurt then good For Baptism according to these definitions cannot be a sign or token of the Covenant of Grace to any Infants for it doth not represent the Covenant either to their sense or understanding Learned men divide signs into Natural and Arbitrary Natural have a natural connexion with the thing signified as Smoke to Fire Arbitrary signs signifie only by Ordination or Institution Now Baptism is no natural sign to the Covenant of Grace nor do learned men so account it And those that affirm it to be an Instituted sign would do well to produce the Institution if they know where to find it in Scripture Further Signs are divided into Rememorative Demonstrative and Prognostick The first shews what 's past as the Lords Supper shews Christs Death The second something present The third something to come as Physitians Prognosticate the event of Diseases by the Symptoms Now Baptism is in neither of these acceptations a sign to Infants For it neither Remembers them of the Covenant nor Demonstrates it to them nor Prognostcates that they shall ever be in it Therefore it is not a sign or token to Infants to the Covenant of Grace any way that I know of Mr. Whiston comes at length to improve the Instances of Baptized Housholds for his service And insists much on Lydia's p. 273. But that this will do him no good is apparent in my answer to Mr. Baxter His Criticism upon the phrase Act. 16.34 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rending it he rejoyced with all his house he believing in God is vain For by this Interpretation his whole family was capable of rejoycing Therefore no Infants there they being uncapable of such impressions The word was spoke to them all and its evident they all believed the adverb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with his whole family in the propriety of the phrase having an immediate relation and connexion to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 believing And therefore I fee no reason to reced from the vulgar translation and lean upon such an extorted Criticism as contradicts the plain meaning and scope of the text He labours to fasten an absurd sense also upon that text Mat. 28.19 viz. That the persons to be baptized are the Nations in gross But

Of answering a man before he hears his Arguments Or if Mr. Whiston would have no Answers made him till he publishes all he has to say It will be found an Imposition of two Majestical an Aspect And in my opinion it had been more Consonant to the general Reformation he bespeaks not only from us but from those Paedobaptists that hold up that practice upon grounds different from his to have published his labours in an intire Tract then thus by parcels But since he is in the humour of Writing as we know not when it will be over so he must give us leave without staying for what 's behind to ataque his forces already mustered and incounter the rest if worth any opposition as they come on Yet from me who am by the last Commands of Mr. Hutchinson now with the Lord oblidged to give Mr. Whiston this Return to his Postscript which Mr. Hutchinson saw a little before his Death I think fit to let him know that I have more value for my time then hereafter to consume it upon the refutation of his Dictates already sufficiently defeated And though in Mr. Hutchinsons Animadversions p. 54. he was earnestly called upon that if he thought himself concern'd to appear further in this Contest he would lay down his Thesis distinctly and set down his Arguments Syllogistically Yet how little notice he hath taken thereof and how like a Dictator be appears in his Essay is left to consideration And since he over passes the Arguments opposed against their practice insinuating as if Mr. Hutchinson had mistaken the right ground thereof since he does but a●d Dictates to Dictates And his Essay is but a 〈…〉 built upon a foundation already overture 〈◊〉 since be takes those 3 prepositions for granted p. 3. b● by and upon that suppesition feigns those high priviledges of the seed of Believers those glo●●●● benents and advantages which he tells us p. 244. have been assigned to them as in Covenant and having the token thereof he means Baptism applyed to them since I say these tedious branches of his Dis●●●se sprang from an unsound Root or meer figment viz. A supposing that the Covenant of Grace is made with Believers and their natural seed in their generations and so have a right to Baptism We might spare the labour of confuting such fancyes afresh Therefore the method I shall use in this Return shall ●e 1. To Refor the Reader for an answer to the Argumentative part of Mr. Whistons Books to such places where they are soundly confuted already by the late Writers of our way 2. I shall wholly wave his impertinent fictions in his Essay concluding that in the overthrow of those points he takes for granted p. 3. Those glorious priviledges he dreams of will vanish into guilded Chyme●●'s or the meer apparitions of a beguiled 〈◊〉 3. With same Rest●●ions upon his Poliscript a Cant way of consuting Books by the Argument used against Belamine I shall leave all at the Tribunal ●f the Reader A Brief Survey and Confutation of Mr. Whistons Books c. I Shall begin with his large Preface of about 46 pages Wherein he sayes page 7. That if he errs it is cum ratione To which I say that errour is too often disguised under the plausible shew and semblance of truth and some man have the art so to paint it But instead of making it therefore reasonable it is rendered the more pernicions in as much as 't is so much the more likely to insnare and deceive And Satan is never more capable to do mischief then when he is transformed into an Angel of Light Therefore Mr. Whiston had need be wary lest what he goes about to establish be found in the great day to be no part of the Doctrine once delivered to the Saints For then an erravi cum rations will scarce be sufficient to answer that Question Who hath required this at your hands Preface p. 14. Mr Whiston assigns 6 causes of our Rejecting Infant Baptism the substance of which are 1. Want of tender affections towards Relations 2. Confounding either some supposed or real irregularities in the administration with the practice 3 Not considering the true Reason of primitive Christians Baptisme at Age. 4. Our comparing the little good and small advantage accruing to believers seed with the variety of inconveniences and ill consequences of Paedo-baptist Doctrine 5. Placing too much of our Religion in an external way and mode 6. By preposterous enquiries after the will of Christ as not taking our rise from the Covenant made with Abraham To the first I say that as Mr. Whiston only speaks his thoughts without proof so little more needs be said in disproof of it save to tell him that it is not so We have as much natural love to our Children as any I presume that oppose us and we look upon that as no instance of affection to them to cross our Lords Institutions which should be more dear to us then that Imaginary fondness he talks of in Communicating an Ordinance to them that 's not appointed for them 2. VVe have produced our Arguments even such as we find unanswerable against the Pedo baptists mode of administration and the subjects they apply Baptism to and therefore the 2 d particular is frivolous 3. We make the New Testament Scripture our warrant in the practice of New Testament Duties and Ordinances and the primitive Christian 's exact conformity is the best explication and comment upon the precepts there and ought to be our pattern VVe find neither express nor Consequential warrant for Baptizing Infants there For A necessary consequence is that which proves the matter concluded certainly so to be Yea certe ita esse nec aliter se habere passe There must be tam necessarius nexus indissolubilis aependentia such an infallible dependance between the subject and predicate that the conclusion must be universally and perpetually true And every necessary consequence demonstrates à priori For Demonstratio est ex prioribus notioribus causis A posteriori only the discovery of habits is made Now we never yet could find a Medium in Scripture that proves Infant Baptism nor that they have any qualification that Intitles them to it by any consequence in the true logical and direct notion of it 1. No acts of faith or repentance can be seen in them 2. Nor any discovery of gracious habits 2. Nor yet can it be demonstrated that they have in foro Ecclesiae any interest in the Covenant of Grace till at years and capable to profess and act faith Though for ought we know they may in foro Dei be invisible members of the mystical body of Christ and in a capacity of salvation through the presentment of that satisfaction made by Christ the free gift coming upon all Rom. 5 18. Yet that being uncertain of any Individual can be no ground for Baptism And how can we without incurring a most dreadful breach of