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
A65879	The principal controversies between the litteral presbyters of the Kirk of Scotland, and the illuminated members of the Church of Christ, called Quakers· Truly collected, stated and opened, in a particular reply (herein specified) for general information and undeceiving the deceived. By an earnest contender for the most holy faith, which was once delivered to the saints. G. W.	Whitehead, George, 1636?-1723.	1672 (1672)	Wing W1947; ESTC R217169	70,788	112

obey it be wicked Whereas the Apostle saith before That the doers shall be justified See how thou hast brought forth one error and falshood upon another Pr. Is not the Father distinct from the Son and the Spirit in the personal subsistance An. Where learnedst thou these words the Father distinct from the Son and Spirit in the personal subsistance these are not the words of Scripture or the words of Scripture clearly conferred together as thou sayest after but in contradiction after thou sayest although the Scripture doth not in so many words make mention of three Persons who are one God and three distinct Persons and that these cannot be three if they be not distinct for where there is no distinction there is perfect oneness c. What 's the consequence of this but that therefore there is not perfect oneness in the Deity or God-head because three distinct Persons or three distinct one from another in personal subsistance Is this good Doctrine Is not that oneness between the Father and the Son perfect And Did not Christ say I and my Father are one and prayed that his might be perfect in one as he and his Father were one And though thou hast said you disalow all Traditions or any written rule which is not Scripture and yet thou wilt use words and distinctions which are not Scripture according to thy own confession What confusion art thou ●n For whereas I answered thee that we own what the Scriptures of truth assert of the God-head Viz. That there are three that bear record in heaven the Father the Word and the Spirit and these three are one c. and thou thy self in the next Page sayest that both the Father the Son and the holy Ghost are a Spirit howbeit my honest answer in Scripture words would not satisfy thee but thou hast villifyed and abused me in this matter in several reproaches and slanders as with shameless rayling and deriding c. with grose evasion with not being able to answer thee with not owning what the Scriptures assert and with blaspheamous fancyes blaspheaming Jesus Christ c. All which accusations I utterly deny as thy malitious lies and slanders against me and thy bundle is stuffed with many more of like nature and if thou didst not propound any of those quarrels as not knowing the answer of them as thou sayest c. then Didest thou propound them to cavil and get some advantages to carp at For thou hast shewed thy self in prejudice against us and hast reckoned me or us as wanting Learning c how-be-it thou hast shewed such Learning as thou hast to confute me with broken School phrases and words with some few fragments and traditional distinctions patched up together which we can have no Scripture for but thy consequences which much might be said to shew the weakness and shallowness thereof Pr. Those who had Christ the living bread yet were partakers of the outward bread as the disciples were Were not the Corinthians Saints c. An. That the disciples had outward bread Who denies But that it was to continue alwayes of necessity as an Ordinance after Christ the Living Bread and Life was received in them which is the substance that 's not yet proved that the disciples were to shew forth the Lords death till he come in the observation of the Bread and Cup or supper I grant Now what and when that coming was is the matter in controversie Christ came after when he was arisen was apparent he also spiritualy came and was more fully revealed within the Saints and was their Living Bread and Life as thou grantest now when he was with the disciples at supper before he was Crucified he intended by his coming a third coming till which they were to do it which coming not being in their dayes nor is yet by your Doctrine this is no where proved in Scripture as we know Pr. Were not the Corinthians Saints called in Christ And yet the Apostle 1 Cor. 11. he gave them the Bread and Cup which Christ gave to his disciples the night he was betrayed Secondly And whereas ye say that Christs coming again was when he rose again how false is this and absurd c. An. That 's very strange Doctrine that the Apostles gave the Corinthians the Bread and Cup which Christ gave to his disciples the night he was betrayed Where was it kept in the mean time that they both should have the same Bread and Cup the one so many years after the other Where hast thou learned this amongst the Popish Traditions and Reliques But t is probable thou meanest other-wise then thy words import Secondly And Is it false and absurd to say that Christs coming again was when he rose again Did he not come again after he rose And must that be reckoned for no coming And a third coming which is not yet and Was that an outward coming till which the disciples and Corinthians were to continue the Bread and the Cup whereas that coming is not yet according to thy Doctrine The Apostle to the Corinthians told them what Christ did and spoke to the disciples in the case but we read not that he imposed it upon them to continue it all their time or till a supposed coming of Christ which is not yet come for he said to them The cup of blessing which we bless is it not the communion of the blood of Christ the bread which we break is it not the communion of the body of Christ And Was not this the substance Where then remained the necessity of the shadow or outward Representations or Mementoes as some calls them And When was the Church to shew forth the Life of Christ and by what if all their time they must needs and people still shew forth or represent his death and him as suffered as thou sayest by Bread and Wine Doth not the substance end the shadows And Where have you any example in Scripture for the manner of your administring Bread and Wine at certain times a year and calling it a Sacrament The Lords Supper c. Pr. The Apostle telleth that the Corinthians were to shew forth his death till he came again so it behoved to be such a coming again as was yet future and unaccomplished in the Corinthians time the Bread and Cup spoken of to the Corinthians behoved to be outward Bread as shewing forth his death Secondly Because it was the same that Christ took and devided and gave to his disciples An. What confusion's here Were they to use the outwa●d Bread and Cup after they were dead then If they were to observe it to a coming unaccomplished in their tim● And if it was the same that Christ devided and gave to his disciples Was that the outward bread so given to both Or Was there not more in Christs words then the outward observation What was his Body and his Blood and the Cup of the New Testament in his Blood and the f●uit of the

vine in the kingdom Was it not spiriritual a mystery which the outward Bread Cup and Passover were but as signs or shadowes of Pr. There is no such passage written that Christ appointed it to be taken away by his suffering An. As oft as they did it it was to shew the Lords death till he came What coming and when was it or is it to be he intended Wa' st a first or a second or a third And was it inward or outward Pr Neither is the Bread and Wine a shadow Secondly For he being present and it representing him as suffered it cannot be called a shadow as of things to come An. Is the Bread and Wine the substance Then this is popish thus to deny the ●read and Wine to be a shadow and worse then the Episcopals that tell us of their Sacraments being outward and visible signes of an inward and Spiritual Grace Secondly If Christs being present makes Bread and Wine no shadow or not figurative then by the same reason the Passover which the disciples prepared to answer that part of the Law was not a shadow nor Circumcission Offerings c. when done either for Christ or in his presence which to affirm and make that the reason were grose and absurd whereas the mystery substance or end was not so fully manifest when Christ was outwardly present before his being offered up as after when they were indued with power from on high received the promise of the Comforter came to eat his flesh and drink his blood which saying the disciples for a time when he was with them were troubled at and counted hard Pr. It concerneth all who own the Doctrine contained in the Scriptures though they be for baptizing with sprinkling to propound a query to men that do with sacrilegious boldness take away the Ordinances instituted by Christ unto believers An. Is it not then sacrilegious boldness for thee and the Priests to teach or impo●e sprinkling Infants which is neither a Doctrine contained in Scriptures nor a baptizing believers howbeit such a great stress hath been laid on the Scriptures before as being the rule and means for Faith and Salvation revealing the Mystery for receiving Life E●ernal in them Christ in them c. yet we find not sprinkling I●fants in the Scriptures neither by command nor practice though so much pleaded for by one here that tels us Pag. 35. they disallow all Traditions or any unwritten rule which is not Scripture but sprinkling Infants is not Scripture but onely a Tradition of men And one main plea for it is that Infants baptisme was approved and practised in the Orthodox Church of Christ c. which is just like the Papists and Jesuits plea to believe as the Church believes taking it for granted that the Church is pure as he saith Orthodox in all her Traditions whether they be Scripture yea or nay whereas before all Traditions or any unwritten rule which is not Scripture are disallowed but instead of Scripture for proof in this matter we have mention made of the Teachers and Guides of the Church as he calls them as Tertullian Cyprian who lived about 247. after Christ and Lactanctius that lived about the year 317. As also the latter sound Fathers as he calls them as Augustin Jerom Bassil Viz. their being for Infants baptisme but what proves all this from Scripture if it be as he sayes they did Must we take it up upon an implicite faith because such and such approved of it And yet at other times lay such a stress on the Scriptures as the perfect rule of obedience of faith c. How hath E. I. undervallued the Scriptures in this matter and spoyled his own cause touching them And Do not the Papists plead for their Traditions and Ceremonys against Protestants and others in like manner as he hath done in this cause And Would he be willing to accept their Arguments against Protestants when they are of the same nature and bear the same face with his in this point Pr. That the Covenant Abraham and his Seed was under was the same in substance with that which believers now and their Seed are under and therefore the Children of believers should be under the Initial Seal of the Covenant as Abrahams were An. Where provest thou by Scriptures that sprinkling Infants is the Initial Seal of the Covenant Or that ti 's so called thou herein doest but beg the question and takest it for granted that it is the Initial Seal of the Covenant of Grace which I deny and then from thence fallatiously drawes thy inference and conclusions for its being to Believers Seed as Abrahams Children to wit the males were Circumcised and that the Covenant Abraham and his Seed was under was the same in substance with that which believers now and their Seed are under But what of this if it be granted it was Gods Covenant or Promise Must they therefore be under mans tradition which sprinkling Infants is To plead for it from believers being baptized is to ground it upon that you Priests are out of the practice of so as to that it 's not pertinent to dispute with such about it who own it not in practice but onely talk of it for a cover to a popish tradition and thereby shew their hypocrisie the more and Must now sprinckling Infants stand for the substance or antitype instead of Circumcision Or Was Circumcision the type of Infants Baptizme so called Whereas sprinckling Infants hath neither the true form nor matter of Baptisme outward in it for in the next page it 's confessed that the word in the first Language signifying Baptisme is rendered washing Mar. 7.4 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 afterwards it 's said that being washed all over best signifies our inward renovation and burial with Christ and thus contradictions and confusions are heaped up in many places And to my saying that it s not commanded under the New Covenant to Baptize Infants thou replyest the Apostle Peter Act. 2.38 39. sayes That those to whom that promise that God would be their God and the God of their Seed should be baptized but to Believers and their Seed he saith that promise belongeth c. Now let the Reader but peruse that Scripture mentioned by thee and compare thy fallacious arguing from it for Peter said Ver. 38. Repent and be baptized every one of you c. Were they Infants such as the Priests sprinkle that he bid repent How grosly hast thou perverted Scripture And Ver. 39. The promise is to you and your Children and to all that are a far off even as many as the Lord our God shall call Now What can be inferred from hence for sprinkling Infants Were all they whom God should call Infants when called Or Did Peter intend they should all have their Children sprinkled before they were called But in contradiction afterward thou sayest though there be no express command yet it s of divine institution and warrant if it be drawn