Selected quad for the lemma: christian_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
christian_n	baptize_v	child_n	infant_n	1,168	5	9.1746	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A49801	Theo-politica, or, A body of divinity containing the rules of the special government of God, according to which, he orders the immortal and intellectual creatures, angels, and men, to their final and eternal estate : being a method of those saving truths, which are contained in the Canon of the Holy Scripture, and abridged in those words of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which were the ground and foundation of those apostolical creeds and forms of confessions, related by the ancients, and, in particular, by Irenæus, and Tertullian / by George Lawson ...	Lawson, George, d. 1678.	1659 (1659)	Wing L712; ESTC R17886	441,775	362

is here Virtually and Really present by his Spirit in this Sacrament as in all other his Ordinances and in a speciall manner and the same powerfull and comfortable to the worthy receiver The Papists have put a difference between the Sacrifice of the Masse § XVII and the Sacrament of the Eucharist and for the former Service they have their direction from the Missal for the Later from the Rituall Yet Christ did but institute a Sacrament and not a Sacrifice and in the same the bread and wine is commanded to be used in blessing the giving and receiving of both and not the offering of the body and blood of Christ for that offering was once made never to be made again And whereas they do affirm that the Sacrifice of the Masse is properly a Sacrifice Propitiatory for the Sins of the living and the dead and the same with that Sacrifice which Christ offered upon the Crosse it cannot be true neither can it be credible to any rationall unprejudiced person For a Sacrifice properly so taken especially ilasticall or propitiatory is essentially bloody as wherein the thing Sacrificed is first slain then offered But the Sacrifice of the Crosse as they themselves confesse is INCRUENTUM unbloody and therein is no death of the thing Sacrificed Neither can it be the same with that which Christ offered upon the Crosse For to that it was essential that Christ's body should be broken and the blood shed and offered unto God without spot by the eternall Spirit and without this Death and offering it could not have bin this Sacrifice at all and this Sacrifice was but offered once and once offered was never to be offered again For once in the end of the World hath he appeared to put away sin by the Sacrifice of himself Heb. 10. 14. So that we have here but one Sacrifice and the same once offered yet of eternall vertue If this Sacrifice of the Masse were the same which they affirm with the Sacrifice upon the Crosse it must needs be granted that it is propitiatory But they confesse 1. That it is incruentum 2. That it is not Expiatorium Redemptorium 3. That it 's only Commemoratorium Applicatorium By the First they grant that it 's not essentially the same By the Second that it 's not effectively the same By the Third that it 's only a Commemoration and a meanes of the Application of the same And if they would lay aside the Sacrifice of the Masse and acknowledge the Sacrifice of the Crosse and celebrate the Sacrament as it was instituted by Christ We should easily grant that therein there is a Commemoration of Christ's death and Sacrifice once offered and that this Sacrament is a meanes whereby that Sacrifice is applied Before I conclude this Doctrine of the Sacraments § XVIII I will examine 1. Who have power and right to administer them 2. To whom they may lawfully be administred 3. Whether they are to be administred according to humane judgment which is fallible or divine judgment which is infallible For the first of these Who have power to administer That 's easily and briefly determined For they who are trusted with the word and have Commmission to preach the Gospel they have power to administer these Sacraments This in respect of Baptism appears in the mission of the Apostles into all Nations For by that Commission they who must teach must baptize And we never read of any Commission given to any others either to baptize or administer the Lords supper And the constant practice of the universall Church so far as known to us hath bin conformable to this Commission What may be done in case of necessity which God not man hath brought us unto is another thing For in such cases God dispenseth with many things required in his own Institution As for the second question § XIX To whom may they be administred The answer in generall is 1. They may be administred to such as have a right unto them who are Christ's disciples and may be judged fit to be members of the Church visible and in the number of Christians 2. We must distinguish between the subjects who have a right to the actuall participation of Baptism and such as have aright to the actual participation of the Lords supper 3. Of such as may be subjects capable of Baptism some are Adulti and these if they be disciples and manifest themselves to be such they no doubt may be baptized But all the controversy in our unhappy dayes is Whether Infants of Christians and believing Parents may be baptized or no In this controversy I shall deliver my knowledge and judgment as briefly as may be 1. Infants as Infants and Children of Turks Pagans unbelieving Jews are not capable of Baptism neither as Infants nor Infants of such Parents 2. Infants as Infants and considered Physically as distinct persons from their Parents are not capable of or have any right to Baptism 3. The Infants of Christian Parents so considered as distinct persons from their Christian Parents as Christians have no right unto it 4. The Infants of Christian and believ●ng Parents considered as one person with them as Christians and believers have right to Baptism For if they be one person with them as Christians they must needs have some kind of right to Baptism as their Parents have 5. They have not this right from them by Nature nor humane Laws for so they only receive their humane nature from them as their Parents have humane nature and this naturally and if their Parents be free or noble by humane Laws they derive freedom or nobility 6. That they derive this right from their Parents as Christians it 's from Gods free mercy and gracious ordination which includes the Children in Covenant with the Parents 7. Children are one person with their parents both by the Law of God and the Laws of Men and that in many things and especially in Obligations in Priviledges in rewards and punishments By the Laws of men in civill matters we know that SUI HEREDES as the Civilians call them derive a right unto their Parents estate though there be no Testament or if a Testament and the same they be excluded because the Law grounded upon nature considers them as one person with their Parents or next kindred deceased If the Father be a subject of a free State and so bound to subjection unto the Laws the Son born of him as a subject of that State is bound to the Lawes and derives that obligation from his Father as one person with him nei●her is it materiall whether the Father was a subject naturall or naturaliz'd If the Father dye indebted and the Heir enter upon the estate by vertue of that Will He by the civill Law falls under the same obligation as one with the Father and is bound to discharge the debts Paul was born a Roman Act. 22. 28. and all the Priviledges of a Roman he had by birth

benefit another if the Faith of a Father could obtain the deliverance of the Child Mark 9. 23. And the Faith of a Mother the freedome of the Daughter from the power of the Devil Mark 7. 29 30. and the faith of those that carryed the sick and Paralytical wretch obtained the remission of his sins and recovery Mark 2. 5. To shew § XXI 1. What it is morally or politically to be one person with another or Persona conjuncta as the Civilians speak 2. How many wayes severall persons physically distinct may be one 3. For how many ends or causes it may be so 4. To reduce the places of Scripture which teach us how God doth take not onely parents and Children but many others as one into order would take up a large discourse and it might be very usefull and profitable and give great light to many places But for the present I intend it not it would be too great a digression Onely in matters of religion Parents and Children Prince and People Husband and Wife Master and Servants and such relations in severall societies are onely so far one as God would have them to be and Children are so far one with their Parents as to derive by divine ordination something from them whereof they are capable Otherwise we might argue that because their Parents have actual faith immediate right to the actual participation of the Eucharist are justified and sanctified c therefore the Children are so have faith and a right unto the actual participation of the Lords Supper And this is the next thing to be considered who they are who may be admitted to the actual participation of the Lords Supper Infants baptized have a remote right unto that Sacrament and so also have Christians of age formerly baptized a nearer right But the question is not of a remote right but of an immediate right according to divine institution to the actual participation of this Sacrament Justine Martyr informs us of the practise of the Church and the rules observed in those times The summe and substance of his words is this That they baptized persons at age who professed the Christian faith and promised to live accordingly And the qualification of Communicants at the Lords Table was this 1. They must be baptized persons 2. Continue in the profession of the Christian faith for so he must be understood 3. Live according to the Commandements of Christ. Those that desire to know his mind in this particular may read his words in his second Apology And here it 's to be noted 1. That this very qualification is required in the words of the Institution of this Sacrament and the Apostles doctrin thereupon 1 Cor. 11. 23 24 25. unto the 33. verse For in that place the Apostle doth imply 1. That the communicant should have the use of reason which infants have not 2. That he must be a Disciple or Christian Baptized 3. That he have the knowledge of the mystery of Redemption and a belief of the same 4. That this knowledge must be and ought to be practicall How else can he celebrate and receive the Sacrament in remembrance of his Saviours death passion sacrifice so as not to be guilty of the body and blood of Christ And hence it follows 1. That an ignorant person who hath no competent knowledge of the mystery of Redemption and that Sacrament or professeth not the Christian saith or i● guilty of scandal certainly known can have no right unto the immediate receiving of the Eucharist if known to be such 2. That there is required more in a communicant at this blessed Table then in a person at age to be baptized For unto the one is required onely a profession of his faith and a promise of a new life but in the other not onely profession and a promise but baptism antecedent and a performance of the promise in living according to Christs Commandements And whereas some tell us that this Sacrament is a converting ordinance I must tell such that as it presupposeth Baptism which is the laver of regeneration so it presupposeth conversion if we will speak in the Dialect of the Spirit which is safest and not according to our own fancies which is no wayes tolerable The third § XXII and last question is whether this Sacrament is to be administred according to mens knowledge and judgment which is fallible or according to Gods knowledge which is infallible For satisfaction herein 1. It 's certain that both the Sacraments are to be administred and that by Gods command by man as by the Minister who is trusted with the dispensation of the word and Sacraments 2. That mans knowledge is but fallible and he cannot search the heart and reines 3. That though the Minister as in Baptism so in the administration of the Lords Supper must keep close to his commission yet by reason of the imperfection of his knowledge he may administer unto persons unworthy and in many cases is bound so to do 4. That though man may administer to the unworthy yet God doth alwayes either suspend or excommunicate them and denyes the spiritual benefit unto them and this perfect judgment he hath reserved to himself Yet this doth no wayes warrant man to give the Eucharist to any man whom he certainly knows to be unworthy And in denying it to such he need not plead jurisdiction in Foro exteriori or power of suspension and excommunication in himself as a Minister of the Gospel but onely alledg that by his commission from Christ he hath no power to give it to such a person and he must not do that which he hath no power to do Neither doth he in refusing to admit such a person whom he certainly knows unfit either for ignorance or scandall signify that the party hath no right at all any wayes unto the Sacrament but onely signifies that according to the rules of Christ for that time and whilst he is such he cannot have any actual possession or enjoyment of that right As the Leper had right unto his rent or house but could not possesse and enjoy it till he was clean●ed Yet one thing seems strange that such as grant unto the Minister or Presbyter the power of absolution in Foro interiori as they call it yet should deny him the power of suspension of that party whom he certainly knows to be scandalous Why may he not positively declare him to be unworthy and according to his certain knowledge so judge him according to the laws of Christ Yet if he do thus this act is far different from the acts of judgment exercised in Foro exteriori where a Discipline is established We need not here debate what kind or degree of Faith in such as are at age do give them right to Baptism For it s not the Faith but the profession of the Faith and promise of New life we must look at in this particular For if they professe the true faith and promise a

or unbelieving Jewes are The distance from God and Salvation of the one is not such or so great as the distance of the other The Apostle puts the Ephesians in mind That before their conversion they were Gentiles in the slesh who were called uncircumcision by that which was called circumcision in the slesh made by hands That at that time they were without Christ being aliens from the Common-wealth of Israel and strangers from the Covenant of promise having no hope without God in the world Ephes. 2. 11 12. It 's not to be understood that they were without God as Creatour or Preserver but without God promising to save them For God did not promise to save them or their Children upon any terms They were excommunicate and banished out of his Kingdome and were denyed the very meanes of conversion Therefore they must needs be without Christ and without hope For where there is no Christ nor promise in Christ there could be no hope But after their conversion they were Subjects of Gods Kingdome fellow-Citizens with the Saints and of the houshold of God and if the Parents being the root were holy then their Children the branches were holy and within the Verges of Gods spiritual Kingdom And as the promise in Christ to come was to the Jews and their Children so the promise in Christ already come is to Christians and their Children For the Covenant made to Abraham and his seed is essentially though not accidentally the same with the promise of the Gospel and must necessarily include the Children with the Parents as that did except any man can produce a clause of exclusion which no man to this day ever could When Peter said The promise is to you and to your Children and to all that are afar off even as many as the Lord our God should call Acts 2. 3. He spake not to the Jews merely as Jews but as Christians believing in Christ already come and the promise was not personal to them alone excluding their Children but to them as such and their Children For their conversion did no wayes limit or straiten the promise made to Abraham but continued it in the same extent it was before And the words imply that if he called the Gentiles who were afar off both they and their Children as he did call them afterward even they should enjoy the promise in the same extent so as to include the Children with the Parents To understand it otherwise is to offer violence to the Text. For the Gentiles once called must enjoy the priviledges for them and theirs in as large and ample manner as the Jew did this onely was the proper and special priviledge of the Jew he must first be called Yet this we must know that Children are in the lowest form of Christs Kingdom whilst they are Children and after they are at age by their actual disobedience may loose the benefit and by Apostacy they may forfeit all their priviledges and their hope These priviledges which these Children enjoy are not ordinarily immediate conversion or justification and the Spirit of Adoption and regeneration and the actuall enjoyment of those blessings but that which they have immediate right unto is the meanes of conversion which he denyes to such as are not of the Church For this was the priviledge which the Jew enjoyed though he did not believe he was trusted with the Oracles of God wherein were precepts of duty promises for mercy and also of power to keep the precepts and the outward confirmation both of precepts and promises This was the Childrens bread which was not given to doggs of the Gentiles and such as were strangers to the Common-wealth of Israel These Children born in the Church and of believing Parents who are Christians are members of the Church subjects of Christs Kingdome and have a special relation to God to Christ to the Church and the same such as no Infants in the world born of Parents out of the Church have or as such can have The summe of this discourse is That as all Children are part of their parents make but one person by the Laws of God and men so Christian Infants are one person with their Christian parents and make but one body with them as the root and branches are but one Tree and this by divine ordination and especially in obligations to dutyes and right unto favours and priviledges spiritual so far as they are capable So that the question so much vexed in our dayes rightly stated is this Whether Christian infants as part of their parents and one person with them have right to Baptism or are subjects immediately capable of baptism according to Divine ordination To this thus stated the Antipaedo-baptists have said nothing to this hour And whereas they alleage that there is no example or precept in the Gospel for Infant-baptism it hath been answered that there is no expresse precept or example for women to receive the Lords Supper and yet they themselves administer it to women But this is but very little if not the least that may be said for infant-baptism For so many precepts and examples as they can find in the New-Testament for the Baptism of such as are at age so many precepts and examples they give us for Baptizing Infants For if the parents or one of the parents may be baptized then the Infant may be baptized For they are one person in respect of Baptism and therefore what right the one hath the other must have Neither can it be upon any sufficient ground alledged that Children are uncapable of Baptism either as it is a Sacrament or as a Sacrament of initiation or as a seale of the righteousnesse by faith For circumcision was 1. A Sacrament 2. A Sacrament of initiation 3. A Seal of the righteousnesse by faith Yet this was administred to Infants and that by Gods Institution which never would have been done by Divine Warrant if they had been uncapable The difference between Baptism and Circumcision was 1. That the signes are different 2. That there was a different modification in the object of faith required in both The signe of the former was the cutting off the foreskin of the ●lesh in the second washing with water in the name of the Father Son and Holy-Ghost The different modification of the object of faith was Christ to come and Christ already come The spirituall thing sealed and signified in both was the same that is righteousnesse by faith in Christ. And as there is no place of Scripture alleaged so I think there can be no reason sufficient given why the covenant being essentially the same the Children included then should be excluded now If the faith profession and promise of the Parents then was sufficient to obtain the sealing of the covenant by the initiating Sacrament why should they not be now For Children are as much one person now with their parents as they were then Neither should any wonder that the Faith of one may