Selected quad for the lemma: body_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
body_n	dead_a	soul_n	spirit_n	13,984	5	5.8732	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A86599	An antidote against Hen. Haggar's poysonous pamphlet, entitled, The foundation of the font discovered: or, A reply wherein his audaciousness in perverting holy scriptures and humane writings is discovered, his sophistry in arguing against infant-baptism, discipleship, church membership &c. is detected, his contradictions demonstrated; his cavils agains M. Cook, M. Baxter, and M. Hall answered, his raylings rebuked, and his folly manifested. By Aylmar Houghton minister of the gospel of Jesus Christ, and teacher to the congregation of Prees, in the county of Salop.	Houghton, Aylmer.	1658 (1658)	Wing H2917; Thomason E961_1; ESTC R207689	240,876	351

H. H. p. 47. But though Mr. Baxter confesseth that Christ knew the best reasoning yet he is not content with his reason but adds to it these words If God be the God of Abraham then Abraham in soul is living 2. That God is not the God of the Dead but the Living 3. If Abraham's soul be living then his body must be raised 4. If Abraham's body shall rise then there is a Resurrection c. To which I Answer 1. Mr. Baxter in all these Consequences that he hath drawn hath but darkned the counsel of God spoken by the mouth of Christ Reply 1. The clear light of Mr. Baxter's Consequences hath so dazled your eies that you cannot it seems see the truth 2. How can you without blushing say that Mr. B. hath drawn all these Consequences when Christ q) Mat 22.32 Luk. 20.38 who as you confess knew a good Argument and the right way of Disputing drew and took in the second expresly 3. Because of your former concession and confession and practice too arguing in a Syllogistical way p. 63 c. Christ's Argument bein● put into form lies thus Abraham's body shall rise Therefore the dead shall rise The Antecedent is thus proved Abraham's soul is living therefore his body shall rise That Antecedent is proved thus God is not the God of the dead but of the living Therefore Abraham's soul is living But how is this Antecedent proved Thus God is the God of Abraham therefore his soul is living and by consequent the dead shall arise Now if this Antecedent were denied then the plain words of Scripture were denied For these words in Exod. 3.6 were spoken by the Lord long after Abraham's death and the s●me Lord saith not I WAS nor I WILL BE but I AM the God of Abraham c. So that now you see these are Christ's Consequences and not Mr. Baxter's onely SECT 44. H. H. 2ly The Resurrection is more plainly proved by the words of Christ without all Mr. Baxter's Consequences as appeareth by the words of the text Luk. 20.35 36 37. Thus Christ himself inplain terms hath proved the Resurrection already speaking plainly of the happiness of those who shall obtain the Resurrection from the dead and then when he had done he concludes That the Resurrection of the dead is so plain that even Moses shewed it at the Bush c. Reply 1. Why do you equivocate and juggle There is no question but to us that place in Luke is a plain proof of the Resurrection but what is this to the Sadduces whom Christ would confute as to their erroneous opinion who held r) Mat. 22.23 There is no Resurrection And without question Christ might have brought plain texts out of the Old Testament to have proved the Resurrection but you know the Sadduces onely acknowledg the five books of Moses to be Canonical Scriptures therefore out of them Christ brings his proof 2. You here lay down the Wasters or else I have lost my understanding and sences For in saying The Resurrection of the dead is so plain that even Moses shewed it at the Bush c. you grant 1. That Christ proved to the Sadduces the Resurrection of the dead by Consequence out of Exod. 3.6 2. That such a kind of proof is plain for you confess even now that Christ knew a good Argument and the right way of Disputing and 3. That somthing is plain in Scripture which is not exprest in so many words and syllables in Scripture For I pray where is the Resurrection of the Dead written in so many words in Exod. 3.6 SECT 45. H. H. 3ly Let Mr. Baxter prove if he can that Christ did draw any Consequences from his own words but left them barely as he spake them as sufficient proof without any of Mr. Baxter's Consequences Reply 1. Yes Christ drew Consequences from his own words The whole Scripture is called the word of Christ (ſ) Totum Verbum Dei est sermo Christi Davenant in loc Col. 3.16 not onely in regard of the matter but Author also and 2 Tim. 3.16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God Now if Exod. 3.6 be a part of the Scripture and of the word of Christ as certainly it is then Christ did draw some Consequences from his own words SECT 46. H. H. 4ly If Christ had never so many Consequences to prove any thing yet his words were all Scripture and infallibly true So true that whosoever of men or Angells should add to or take from it they are accursed But Mr. Baxter's are none such therefore we weigh them not Reply 1. Are Mr. Baxter's none such What! accursed I believe his words are not accursed whatsoever you proudly say or censure Or do you mean they are not Scripture because you say you weigh them not If Scripture be written as you say p. 45. so they are But I suppose you mean s) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 holy Scripture so indeed they are not and yet notwithstanding those Consequences of his are infallibly true because they are Christs you may do well therefore to weigh them 2. If you mean that Christ's words were all Scripture v.z. which are left upon Record who denies it And all the words that Christ spake on earth were infallibly true for he could not lie or sin in the least but all his words are not written for surely his words were more in number then his deeds all which are not written Joh. 20.30 with 21.21 SECT 47. H. H. 5ly p. 48. Whereas Mr. Baxter saith If we had stood by we would have said to Christ Give us a Scripture that saith the Dead shall rise Answ So Christ did give them two Scriptures though Mr. Baxter is so blind he cannot see them for he tells us Ver. 35. of the world to come and the Resurrection of the Dead in plain terms and ver 37. That the dead are raised Reply 1. A ridiculous shift of him who is or would be counted the Metropolitan Dipper and great Patriarch of the Anabaptists for were these words in vers 35 and 37. written when Christ spake them 2. These are plain proofs to us that the Dead shall rise as you intimate p. 50. but were they to the Sadduces as Mr. Baxter saith which words you very cunningly left out for your own end 3. Christ if he pleased could have brought express texts out of the Old Testament but on the former account he brings his proof against the Sadduces onely out of Exod. fore-named saying in Mat. 22.31 Have ye not read which you take no notice of referring them to read what was written by Moses not to what was then spoken by him to the Sadduces clearly implying that those men stood bound in conscience to have believed the Resurrection of the Dead on the account of those words in Exod. chap. 3. vers 6. 4. Mr. Baxter now is not so blind but he can see your folly made manifest SECT 48. H. H.

they fall from false grace if you go out of one false way must you need go into the true way the by-paths are many the true way but one Nay some fall from a false and c) Luk. 8.18 John 15.2 seeming apprehension of the graces and blessings of the Covenant to anapparent rejection loss thereof being not onely stript of common gifts and graces as they are called whereby they are kept from shameful practices and rewarded with common blessings as Ahab's d) 1 King 21.29 humiliation was but also of common Church-privileges as C ham enjoied while he was in the Ark with Noah and which is worse are deprived of possibility of conversion and salvation being cut off from the visible Church by total Apostacy which thousands who were at first but external Church-members onely obtained by being outwardly in Covenant and so were brought through the outward court into the holy place yea Holy of Holies SECT 9. H. H. But to make the folly of these wise men manifest consider with me 1. What the New Covenant is 2. Then judge whether Infants can be in it or no. Heb. 8.8 9 10 11. This is the New Covenant of Grace Reply 1. Seeing Mr. C. made no mention of false grace fals justification c. but of falling from the outward dispensation of the Covenant from what they Seemed to have I fear you will be found in the number of those e) Rom. 1.22 who professing themselvs wise c. 2. You do not prove that this text is to be understood of the covenant as outwardly administred concerning which our question is If of the inward efficacy of the covenant the seals thereof must not be administred till we certainly know who are interessed in this covenant I suppose you will not maintain all your Church-members are such The covenant of God consists of many branches and yet the name of Covenant given sometimes to one and sometimes to another yet not exclusively to the rest e. gr 1. To the commands Deut. 4.13 2. To the command and curse or threatning Deut. 29.1.12 to 22. Jerem. 11.3 4. 3. To the promises Jerem. 31.33 34 32 40. 4. To the seals Gen. 17.9.10 11 13. Luk. 22.20 and 1 Cor. 11.25 Where the Cup is called the New Testament Though the word f) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is usually translated Covenant else where 3. This Covenant belongs not only to us Christians but did also to the Jews the house of Israell and Judah and in some sort made good to some of them upon their return from the Babilonian Captivity g) Jer. 31 31 32 43 34 38 39 40. Now if this Covenant should exclude Christians children it would have excluded the Jews children But it 's certain their children continued the outward dispensation of the Covenant till the whole body of the Jews was cast off by unbelief Or if it may be understood of their last conversion in the end of the World They shall have interest in the Covenant for their children as well as the old Jews had and so have we For our conversion from Gentilisme is call'd h) Rom. 11.17 19 23. a graffing into that Stock as theirs is a re-ingraffing 4. There are diverse expressions here which bear a favourable aspect to the being of Infants in this Covenant 1. It 's said I will put my laws into their mind and write them in their hearts Cannot God do so in the hearts and minds of Infants by the spirit of Regeneration 2. I will be to them a God and they shall be to me a people Did you never read i) Deut. 29.10 11 12 13. that God would be a God to Infants or little ones or is it impossible for them to be Gods people because they are such 3. All shall know me from the least to the greatest Who then dare den● infants to be included who are the least as k) p. 59 65. you imply are they not of all others most incapable of being taught by their neighbours and therefore likeliest to be the subject of this promise as it lies before us or because men cannot teach them until the souls Organs be ripened will it follow that God cannot Are they not rational souls whilst Infants capable of knowledg and is not God able to Supply the defect of Organs and instrument● as outward sences c. Christ of water could make true Wine immediately without husbandry as plantine Vine● c. Though wee are tyed to means when afforded for attaining the end yet God is not l) 1 Cor. 2.9 10 11 14. As all means without the spirit cannot work saving knowledg so the spirit can work it c. without m) Joh. 3.8 means where he pleaseth 5. To your close No one place of Scripture calls it the Covenat of grace n) Ball of the covenant p. 9. expresly in so many words and syllables and I deny not but it may be so called Comparatively in respect of the plenty of grace now vouchsafed For surely the faithfull under the old Covenant were not simply and absolutely without grace Act. 15.11 But let us hear your Reasons SECT 10. H. H. pag. 58.1 Because Infants have not the laws of God in their minds nor written in their hearts as not being in a capacity to know the mind and law of God as is plain Isai 7.14 15 16. Nay Christ when he was an Infant was not capable of discerning between things that differ Luk. 2.40 52. Much less do other children understand Gods law Therefore not in Covenant Reply 1. The writing of the law in the heart c. o) see Dr. Prest of the covena Is nothing else but an holy disposition to conformity with the Law or all one with that circumcision Deut. 30.6 or Regeneration of which children are capable or else they cannot be saved John 3.3 Now you make no question of the salvation of all Infants dying in their infancy p. 60 61. 2. If Infants incapacity to know c. be so plain then by your grant some consequences from Scripture are plain Scripture proof which justifies Mr. B. and Mr. Cook 3. Your Argument from Sensitive Rationall and naturall knowledge which is understood by knowing good and evill c. to supernaturall infused and spirituall knowledg i● plainly na●ght many have the former who want the latter and no reason can be given why many may not have the latter who want the former Sith it depends not on the ●enses as the other The reasonable so●l hath no Infan●●y nor decrepit age no more then other intellectuall spirits as Angells but is capable of immediate imp●●ssions from God Doth it not reason when senses are bound up And when it 's disrobed of the body the unde●standing is more perfect then while in the body Heb. 12 23 the spirit of just men made p●rfect 4. You are g●●sly mistaken not to say im●udent with the Scripture and with our glorious Lord Christ