Selected quad for the lemma: death_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
death_n	world_n	write_n	year_n	30	3	4.0099	3	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A63924	A vindication of infant baptism from the four chief objections brought against it ... : in a letter to Mr. **** / by John Turner ...	Turner, John, b. 1649 or 50.	1699 (1699)	Wing T3321; ESTC R1870	31,861	38

determine their Conscience For seeing it was but St. Paul's Order and not God's Command it could not determine the Good or Evil of the Thing Had therefore the Question been what Mr. A supposes it St. Paul must have determined it by God's Autority and not by his own only so that the very Manner of the Expression plainly proves that the Question was only about the Danger of Cohabiting with an Infidel and an Idolater And if this be the Case Mr. A 's Interpretation of Holiness by Legitimacy cannot be good For Divorce in this Case can never bastardize the Children that is only done by the Original Illegitimacy of the Marriage-Contract And so far is St. Paul from asserting what Mr. A affirms that Divorce would be unlawful that he if the Unbeliever will not cohabit leaves the Christian at liberty to separate which he would rather have dissuaded if a Separation had been against the Law of Christ and made their Children Bastards As to the Autority of some Commentators Melancthon Camerarius and Musculus who are alledged to Countenance this Construction What does it signifie when it appears thus plainly to be contrary to the Use of the Phrase and the Coherence of the Place And that it does so will be more plain if we observe 3. That Mr. A 's Interpretation destroys the Force of St. Paul's Argument which our Notion of Holiness cofirms Mr. A says St. Paul proves their Marriage good by Two Arguments First Because the Unbeliever 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath been sanctified to or unto the Believer i. e. joyned in holy Matrimony If he means that because Matrimony is an holy State therefore their Cohabitation is lawful notwithstanding the one Party is not Christian I can go along with him But when he makes St. Paul to argue Secondly Ab absurdo that if their Marriage and Cohabitation be lawful therefore a Divorce would be contrary to the Law of Christ and bastardizes their Children Here I doubt he perverts St. Paul's Sense in many respects for as I have hinted above 1. St. Paul does not say in this Case that a Separation would be contrary to the Law of Christ. So far from it that he does not determine it by God's Law but by his own Opinion V. 12. But to the rest speak I but not the Lord If any Brother hath a Wife that believeth not c. 2. He is so far from declaring their Seperation to be a Sin and such a Sin as Bastardizes the Children that he only gives his Advice in case both Parties agree to Cohabit If she be pleased to dwell with him V. 12. and if he be pleased to dwell with her let her not leave him V. 13. But if they disagree about Religion they may part If the Vnbelieving depart let him depart A Brother or Sister is not in Bondage in such Cases V. 15. 3. As I have prov'd that the Question was not about the Validity of Marriage but of the Lawfulness and Expedience of their Cohabitation So Mr. A 's Legitimacy puts such a Consequence on St. Paul's Assertion as does by no means follow for it is only the Invalidity of Marriage that Bastardizes the Children but Divorce alone does not In a Word Mr. A 's Sense of St. Paul's Words makes St. Paul to contradict himself for it makes him to declare such a Seperation contrary to God's Law and injurious to the Children in the 14th Verse which it is plain that in the 15th he consents to and which in the 12th he says he did not determine by the Autority of God's Laws but only by his own Autority But taking the Holiness of Children in our Sense for admitting them to Baptism it makes the Apostle's Argument strong and clear For the Holiness of Children born in such a State is a very good Proof that their Cohabitation was Lawful and Innocent 'T is as much as if St. Paul had said As to the Case of those married to Vnblievers the Practice of the Church in the Admission of the Children of such to Baptism as well as the Children of those Parents who are both Christians show what our Opinion is of their Cohabitation The Vnbeliever is Sanctified in this respect by the Believer else were the Children of such common and unclean like the Children of Infidels but now are they holy or in Malachi's Phrase an holy Seed and admitted into the Covenant of God in Christ by Baptism as well as the Children of those Parents who are both Believers I profess with Sincerity that I cannot find out any other Sense of the Place that will agree with the Apostle's Scope and Design And when it thus appears that after Mens Sedulous Endeavours to evade the Testimony of this Place their Objections are of no Force nor can any other Construction be devised that will well agree with the Scripture-Phrase and be consistent with the Scope and Design of St. Paul's Determination in this Case Methinks it adds very great Autority to my Argument makes the Force of it much more considerable and must be admitted as a good Proof that Infants were baptized in St. Paul's Time But the Thing now in Debate being whether it was the Apostles Practice to baptize Infants I think it will be very proper to show what early Discoveries we have of it in the Writings of the Primitive Fathers For let Men that are Conscious of the Testimony of Antiquity against them never so much decry the Autority of the Fathers and the Primitive Church and tell us that the Mystery of Iniquity began to work in it very early nothing of that should derogate from their just Esteem The Mystery of Iniquity began to work in St. Paul's Time and yet I hope that does not lessen his Autority So neither do all the Heresies and Haeterodox Opinions of the first Ages derogate from the Autority of the Fathers in that they proceeded from Men out of the Communion of the Church and were opposed by the Fathers with that Vigor Constancy and Zeal which makes their Testimony both in Doctrines and Practice highly to be valued For this Reason I say it is remarkable how early we find plain and undeniable Evidence of the Baptism of Infants From the Death of St. John for some Years we have no Christian Writings extant except a few short Epistles In which we can no more expect a particular Account of all Apostolical Practices than as I said before we can hope for a particular History of the first Ages of the World in the first Five Chapters of Genesis But one of the first of the Fathers that wrote in any considerable Bulk was Irenaeus and his Evidence is very express in this Case For he has these Words Omnes enim venit viz. Christus per semet ipsum salvare Omnes inquam qui per eum renascuntur in Deum Infantes Parvulos Pueros Juvenes Seniores Ideo per omnem venit aetatem Infantibus factus Infans sanctificans

Infantes in Parvulis Parvulus Sanctificans hanc ipsam habentes aetatem Adv. Haer. lib. 2. c. 39. The Design of the Father in this Place was to lay open the Fantastic Conceits of the Valentinians who pretended that their Aeons were prefigured by the Years of Christ's Life before his Baptism and that what they dreamt of the Passion of the Twelfth Aeon was signified by Christ's Suffering the Twelfth Month to support which Notion they asserted that Christ Preached but one Year after his Baptism These were the Heretic's Fantastic Dreams to confute which Irenaeus first shows that Christ was at Jerusalem Three several Passovers after his Baptism and consequently must have Preach'd above one Year in that he begun it upon his Baptism and continued it to his Death Then he shows that Christ passed thro' the several Stages of Humane Life Omnem aetatem sanctificans per illam quae ad ipsam erat similitudinem that he might sanctifie every Age by his own Likeness thereto For says he he came to save all by himself all I mean that are regenerated by him to God Infants Little Ones Children Young Men and Old For this Reason he pass'd thro' every Age and to the Infants he became an Infant sanctifying the Infants and to the Little Ones a Little One that he might sanctifie those of that Age. Which Words were purposely designed to declare that the Salvation purchased by Christ belongs to all Ages or Years whatever whether Infants or Old Men who are Members of Christ's Church Omnes qui per eum renascuntur in Deum all that are Regenerate or born again to God by him Which is the very Expression that St. Paul and the Ancients after Tit. 3. 5. See Just Mart. Apol. 2. p. 94. Edit Par. him use for Baptism And it appears here to be added to put a Limitation to the Assertion that what he says he means peculiarly of Christians that have been by Baptism admitted into the Covenant All that are born again unto God by him Infants Babes Children c. nor are Infants capable of being born again unto God by Christ any other way that I know of but by Baptism So that I do not see how it can be evaded but that this single Evidence must be acknowledg'd a sufficient Proof that the baptizing Infants was a Thing in Practice when Irenaeus wrote this Book For otherwise this Assertion could be neither pertinent nor proper It may not therefore be amiss to show how early this was and how very improbable it is that such a Custom should so soon prevail unless it had been received by a certain Tradition from the Apostles themselves Irenaeus wrote this Book about A. D. CLXXX which was but about Fourscore Years from the Death of Bishop Pearson Op. Posthuma Dis 2. c. 14. St. John who died in the Third Year of Trajan i. e. about A. D. 100. And Irenaeus was so far Cotemporary with Polycarp who was a Disciple of the Apostles and convers'd with Iren. l. 3. c. 3. many of those who had seen Christ and by them was made Bishop of Smyrna in Asia That he says he had seen him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when he himself was but a young Man He must write this Book then in the very next Age after one that had been Contemporary with the Apostles And this I think is very early It can hardly be supposed that any corrupt Practice should be introduc'd but Polycarp who was Instructed by the Apostles and taught what he had learnt of the Apostles and what the Church had delivered to him and what alone was true as Irenaeus Lib. 3. Cap. 3. speaks of him Would zealously have opposed it and have had Autority to reject it There is no Probability that any great Innovation should be introduc'd while a Cotemporary and Disciple of the Apostles was yet alive There is then only from the Death of Polycarp to Irenaeus's writing this Book for the introducing this Practice if it was introduced And that at most is but about Thirty Two or Thirty Three Years For Bishop Pearson who places the Martyrdom of Polycarp earlier than other Men Opera Posthuma Dis 2. c. 20. asserts that it was A. D. CXLVII And can it be thought that any great Innovation should be made in Irenaeus's own Time and he either not know it or not reprove it Can those who think the baptizing Infants such a Corruption such a Violation of Christ's Institution as they conceit to destroy the true Being of a Church to deprive the Ministers of God of all just Power of Ministring in holy Things and to make Communion with us in our Sacraments unlawful Can they I say imagine that those Fathers whose Glory it was to do all Things according to the Instructions of the Apostles should suffer such an heinous Innovation to come in among them and be received and never make any Complaint nor any Opposition to it Would not Polycarp who was Instructed of the Apostles themselves have opposed it had it been in his Time And would not Irenaeus who says that only those Things are true which the Church from the Apostles delivered would not he I say zealously have oppos'd it had it been in his Time When therefore we find him speaking of it as a known Practice I appeal to all impartial Men whether it is not Rational to believe that the Fathers and the Primitive Church receiv'd it from the Apostles themselves You ought then Sir to be very tender in Charging all Christians from the Apostles Times for Fifteen Hundred Years together with not being a lawful Church nor such with whom one may Lawfully hold Communion in the Sacraments This should not be done without very good Proof Other Errors and Corruptions that have been found fault with and wanted Reformation we know when and how they were introduced And before this is so Positively affirmed to be a corrupt Innovation you ought to show us about what Time and by what Means it came to prevail rather than decry the Autority of the Fathers that bear Witness to this as an Apostolical Practice I might confirm this from the Testimony of others and particularly of Tertullian in the next Place who altho' he seems not I confess to approve it as he was in many Things particular in his Judgment yet even in his Dislike he undeniably attests that it was then in Use But the Testimony of Antiquity has been sufficiently insisted on by others I shall therefore add no more but leave it to your self to consider and to the World to judge whether your separating from our Communion upon the Account of a Practice so agreeable to Christ's Institution and the Ancient Usage of the Church be not more owing to the Prejudice of Education than to the Force of Reason or the just Merits of the Cause I am SIR your Humble Servant FINIS ERRATA PAg. 2. l. 30. read enjoys p. 6. l. 19. r. Capacity l. 34. dele first p. 13. l. 28. r. really p. 15. l. 1. r. assert p. 16. l. 26. r. at all p. 17. l. 15. dele p. 24. l. 10. after Wife add i. e. the Sanctimony of the Conjugal State is attested ADVERTISEMENT A DISCOURSE of FORNICATION Shewing the Greatness of that Sin and Examining the Excuses pleaded for it from the Examples of Ancient Times To which is added an Appendix concerning Concubinage As also a Remark on Mr. Butler's Explication of Heb. 13. 4. in his late Book on that Subject By John Turner M. A. Printed for John Wyat at the Rose in St. Paul's Church-yard