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
A46640	Verus Patroclus, or, The weapons of Quakerism, the weakness of Quakerism being a discourse, wherein the choicest arguments for their chief tenets are enervat, and their best defences annihilat : several abominations, not heretofore so directly discovered, unmasked : with a digression explicative of the doctrine anent the necessity of the spirits operation, and an appendix, vindicating, Rom. 9. from the depravations of an Arminian / by William Jamison.	Jameson, William, fl. 1689-1720.	1689 (1689)	Wing J445; ESTC R2476	154,054	299

Scripture applyed to Men Therefore it is not safe without verie solid reasons to expone it so here Again all that they understand by this Spiritual Baptism is sufficiently expressed in the context Er. There is no necessity to flee to this strange exposition Lastly This exposition is the product of the brain of Diabolick Socinus as its first Author which I think will make it be suspected and seing it wants all ground abhorred of all the Lovers of Christ Jesus seing this arch-enemy of his invented all the shifts and sophistry the Devil and he could to destroy both the God-head of Christ and all his Ordinances His following words are answered above Next as for what he sayeth in opposition to the 17. Numb of this chap. in his 168 pag. it is so miserable that I only desire the Reader to compare these two places together Whereas he insinuateth in this page that Peter Commanded expresly the Gentiles to be circumcised which he buildeth upon Gal. 2 12. is most false For the reason why Paul reproved him was his dissimulation mentioned in that chapter and no expresse Command if he will give us Leave to expone Scripture by Scripture He sayeth as if Mr. Brown had denyed it that Iosephus writ before the 200 Year of Christ. Whereas he sayeth that the first which wrot the Jewish Alcoran or Misanioth with a tendencie to destroy Christianitie was Rabi Iehuda Hakkadosh about the 200 year of Christ. As now the Quakers do SECTION II. Concerning the Lords Supper IT is most notour that as the Quakers deny Baptism so they deny the Lords Supper See his 13 proposition with his Apology annexed thereto where he maketh this only to be a Legal Institution It will be needless for me to take Notice of what he sayeth pag 170. viz. That his Adversary pag 489 maketh a Preaching to the Devil whereas he only inferreth from their Doctrine of Universal Salvation to every Creature that they may preach to the Devil according to their own Principles Hence we may learn how impudent these men are Just as if because Robert Barclay had challenged a man of murder he that is challenged should conclude that Robert Barclay called himself a Murderer As false though not so ridiculous is that of which he challengeth one Preaching near Lawther viz. that he prayed to the Devil But he dare not name the man who did it neither these who heard it Therefore let him bear the just censure of a Calumniator to say no more until he name the man and prove it When he cometh to the matter it self he is as weak as before he was wicked For in stead of pressing his Argument against the Lords Supper viz. That if there were a relation between the Body and Blood of Christ and the Bread and Wine in the Sacrament then it would either flow from the nature of the thing or the Command And while his Adversary denyeth that an institution and promise is all one with a Command All his probation is his meer assertion that they are in all respects one neglecting the reason that his Adversary gave for his denyal But why should I take notice of such a shameful Vindication wanting the very shew and appearance of reason To the rest of his 11 paragraph in which by many weighty Arguments this duty is proved from 1 Cor. 11. he sayeth only that he speaketh not to the purpose without so much as attempting to wipe off his reasons He cometh to answer his 12 number and first sayeth that the Blessing and Eating spoken of Mat 14 19. will as much prove a Sacrament as these places of the Gospel and the Epistle to the Corinthians ordinarily brought can do it But this Adversary never inferred any thing of this kind from simple blessing But from other things consi●ered with blessing such as This is my Body This is my Blood and the unrepealed Command and In●titution 1 Cor. 11 and the like In Opposition to which he scarcely giveth so much as a shift and far less any solid reason But we must excuse him seing he doth as well as he can His next words are a meer Compend of what he said against our meaning of 1 Cor 11. in his Apology without so much as attempting to answer his Adversaries 14. Num to which I referr the Reader He sayeth indeed which is as good as nothing that the Institution of the Sacrament 1 Cor. 11. was a Permission and therefore the practise thereof was not will-worship But upon the same account he may elude any Command in Scripture For that there was a Command for this practice he granteth and that the Apostle correcteth the abuse of this practice he granteth also without so much as mentioning its indifferency Neither can he shew in all the Scripture where this Command was abrogat or the practice prohibited as other things indifferent were What Titanian boldness must this then be to say this was by meer Permission In Opposition to his 16 Num where his Adversary sheweth the disparity between Christs teaching his Apostles Humility by his Example of washing their feet and his Command and Institution of this Ordinance he sayeth meer nothing but calleth him a Pope In Opposition to Num 17. he sayeth he should prove from Scripture how they are safe in practising the one part ridiculously calling the whole Duty one part and not the other meaning the occasional Circumstances of time and place and the number of twelve and the like which he as foolishly calleth another part of the Institution But his Adversary sheweth from many places of Scripture in the forecited Num such as Act 26 7. 1 Cor. 11 18. and 20. That these Circumstances are not to be observed but left indifferent But this man still intendeth to cheat his Reader by passing over the Marrow of what his Adversary sayeth What he sayeth in Opposition to N 18 Is a meer denyal that Act 2 42 is meaned of the Lords Supper without so much as the least attempt to answer his reasons or to Vindicat what he himself said in his Apology in opposition to our meaning of this place Neither is he more happy in answering his 19 Num where he proved that in Act. 20.7 Is understood publick and Sacramental Eating For he according to his Custom slighteth his reason as the Comparer may see what he sayeth in opposition to the follwing number is of the same Nature viz. meer Assertions false Suppositions such as that the Corinthians were superstitious in that they at all practised this Duty of the Lords Supper Yet one thing I will take notice of viz. how he vindicateth his Answer given to that argument drawn from 1 Cor. 11 26. Ye shew forth the Lords death till he come Which is That by Christs coming is understood his inward Spiritual coming Which answer his Adversary so happily impugneth that he on the matter sayeth nothing except ye will call this something viz. That Babes in Christ may have these