Selected quad for the lemma: death_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
death_n	bread_n	cup_n	lord_n	7,751	5	4.8519	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A58207	An antidote against Anabaptism, in a reply to the plea for Anabaptists: or Animadversions on that part of the libertie of prophesying which sect. 18. p. 223. beareth this title: A particular consideration of the opinion of the Anabaptists. Together with a survey of the controverted points concerning 1. Infant baptism. 2. Pretended necessitie of dipping. 3. The dangerous practice of rebaptizing. By Jo. Reading, B.D. and sometimes student of Magdalen Hall in Oxford.	Reading, John, 1588-1667.	1654 (1654)	Wing R444; ESTC R214734	183,679	229

a City of Asia Rev. 1● 11. therefore he baptized them not and so here was no rebaptizing 4. These words When they heard this do not at all relate to the speech of Paul there historified but unto the preaching of Iohn B. for if otherwise it would follow which the Papists affirm that Iohns baptism was not the same with the Baptism of Christ and consequently that Christ whom Iohn baptized and we baptized by the successors of Christs Disciples are not baptized with one and the same baptism whereas Christ bare the same circumcision which the Jews and for substance the same baptism with us Gentiles that he might declare himself the Saviour both of Jews and Gentiles The Lords Supper doth no less signifie the blood of Christ for our Salvation then doth the water of Baptism nor less represent his death then doth baptism in which we are implanted into the similitude of his death and resurrection But the Lords Supper is often to be administred and received and therefore so is Baptism We answer 1. There is in Scripture express command for often administring and receiving of the Lords Supper 1 Cor. 11. 24. This do in remembrance of me As often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup ye do shew the Lords death till he come shew us any one such warrant for rebaptizing and this controversie is at an end 2. The Lords Supper proposeth not any new Covenant with God but confirmeth that to us which he made with us in our baptism But baptism is the Initiatory Seal of our entring into Covenant with God as it was in circumcision which Covenant is but one 3. The vertue and efficacy of baptism in the elect extendeth it self to the whole life of the regenerate and is as it were a fountain of living waters perpetually running to cleanse away the pollutions of sin so that there need not new or more baptisms but a daily renewing of our repentance to which we were in our covenanting with God at first baptized As Ambrose saith after baptism there remaineth no remedy but true repentance Cyprian and the Councel of Carthage held that those who were baptized by hereticks upon their return to the Church ought to be rebaptized We answer 1. The question being proposed in the first Councel of Carthage Whether those who were once baptized might be rebaptized all the Bishops answered God forbid God forbid we resolve and determine that all re-baptizings are unlawful and far from sincere faith and catholick discipline The business which troubled the Churches in Cyprians time was Whether baptism administred according to the lawful form of the Catholick Church that is with water in the name of the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost though by an Heretical Minister were invalid and therefore to be iterated Cyprian with other Eastern Bishops affirmed that there is but one Baptism which is not to be found out of the Catholick Church The other orthodox Bishops determined that baptism which an heretical Minister administred according to the form prescribed by Christ and practised by the Church was valid and not to be iterated So that indeed neither Cyprian nor the rest of that Councel did maintain rebaptizing but held that there could be no true or valid baptism out of the Catholick Church or that it was not baptism which Hereticks administred Against rebaptizing Cyprian speaks clearly L. 1. Ep. 12. on that Iohn 4. 14 applying it to baptism Which saith he is once received and not again iterated And in the Caxons of the Apostles there is a severe caution against rebaptizing If any Bishop or Elder sh●ll again baptize him who had truly received baptism let him be deposed 2. We must distinguish between Hereticks as hath been said whereof some are such as that though they err in some fundamental point or points yet they hold the true form of baptism Some so erre concerning the holy Trinity as that in such errour they cannot have with them the true form and essence of baptism Now there may be true baptism administred by the first sort and such as are baptized by them returning to the true Church must repent but not to be rebaptized But those who were pretended to be baptized by the second sort as Arians denying the Deity of Christ or those Pneumatomachi Eunomius and others blasphemous against the holy Ghost in case they came to the true Church they were to be baptized because there can be no true baptism where the essentials thereof are wanting as the element and the word constituting the Sacrament to wit In the Name of the Father the Son and the holy Ghost Baptizing such as have not so been baptized is no rebaptizing seeing the first pretended was truly none Otherwise the ancient Church did not rebaptize a repenting Apostate though he had fallen into the errours of Arrians Eunomians or the like after that he had been baptized by the true Church and the reason thereof was that which Chemnitius well observed as on Gods part the Covenant which he made with the circumcised Israelites remained firm and ratified unto which after their falling into sin they returned by repentance so the Corinthians and Galathians having fallen were recalled by S. Paul and remitted to the promise and consolation of their baptism formerly received Therefore as Circumcision was not so ought not baptism to be iterated CHAP. VII Protestants arguments against the dangerous practice of Rebaptizing 1. BAptism is the Sacrament of Regeneration by our implantation into Christ. But we cannot be twice regenerate for regeneration presupposeth a precedent natural birth which can be but one nor can we be more often regenerate or born a new then born naturally therefore we ought not to be twice baptized The major is evident Tit. 3. 5. The minor is also evident in reason Add hereto that whereas we are by nature children of wrath Ephes. 2. 3. enemies to God Rom 5. 10. and so without a new birth aliens from the Kingdom of God John 3. 5. but being implanted into Christ by baptism we become 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a new creature 2 Cor. 5. 1. Gal 6. 15. Now as one and the same creature can be but once created except that either the created essence of a man is destroyed by sin which the sin of the Devil cannot do or that a man may have pluralities of essences by several creations of one and the same person which no reason can suppose so neither can we have any more then one regeneration Therefore we ought to be but once baptized 2. Gods faithfulness in his Covenant sealed cannot become void by mans infidelity neither is his Covenant of peace momentany but perpetual which is sealed in baptism so that still we may return unto it by true repentance See Isa. 54. 10. and so they who sinned after baptism though notoriously and scandalous● were not rebaptized by the ancient Church but upon their

so they agree 1 In the end Rom. 4. 11. Tit. 3. 5. 2 In signification Col. 2. 11 12. Deut. 30. 6. Ier. 4. 4. Rom. 2. 29. Mark 1. 4. Rom. 6. 3. 3 In the effect In circumstance they differ as hath been formerly shewed Though Christ took little children into his arms and blessed them yet he baptized them not therefore though we may pray for our Infants yet we may not baptize them We answer 1 If you speak of Christs baptizing personally he baptized none Ioh. 4. 2. but it followeth not that therefore none ought to be baptized 2 It cannot appear that Christ commanded not some of his Disciples to baptize those Infants neither that ever he commanded them not to baptize Infants 3 If it could appear that these Infants were not now baptized there might be some obstruction and let which we know not as possibly their parents were not yet baptized c. 4 These children were not brought to Christ that he should baptize them but that he should touch them and that he did for he layed his hands upon them and blessed them and his blessing them was as effectual to their salvation as if he had christned them for Christs grace dependeth not upon the vertue of the Sacrament but contrarily the vertue of the Sacrament upon his grace and blessing And that which Christ did to them is more then the ministrie of all the men in the world could or can do in baptizing or blessing them for Christs blessing maketh men truly and really blessed See what hath been said Reply num 14. ●ine Infants circumcised were inserted into the Covenant and Church priviledges by an express command but we have no such express command for baptizing Infants therefore we may not on that ground baptize them To that which hath been said we further add for answer because they were expressly commanded to put the seal of the same righteousness of faith on Infants therefore neither that faith nor the object thereof being changed in the change of the seal there needed not a particular or express command concerning the subject or persons to be sealed seeing the commission was so much enlarged as the whole World and the Nations thereof were greater then the land of Canaan and Abrahams carnal children therein planted Add hereto that which hath been noted those whom Christ sent to baptise were sealed in their infancie and daily used to Infant-sealing so that they needed no express command or other Information concerning Infants then that which they had sufficiently learned in Christs blessing Infants blessing and embracing them as it were with special affection to them and in that they could not be ignorant that baptism succeeded circumcision in all the substance thereof and that the same cause still remaineth for Infants reception of the seal to wit Baptism for the remission of sins Christ appointed the Sacraments for a remembrance of his death and blood-shedding for our redemption But Infants who have no acts of understanding cannot remember Therefore they ought not to be baptized We answer This Argument would conclude that Infants as such may not receive the Lords Supper because they cannot do it in remembrance of Christ nor shew his death thereby therefore we do not administer it unto them But Baptism is the Laver of Regeneration which they have present need of and whereof they are passively capable because their Parents are within the Covenant which is to them and their children and the Seal thereof is a part and condition of the same to their children as well as to themselves Neither was the Covenant on Abrahams part fulfilled any more then to halves before he had sealed his children and by proportion neither do we fulfil our Covenant with God in Baptism if we refuse to baptize our Infants who have as indefeasible a right to the same as we the same promise for the main being to us and our children Acts 2. 39. In the Old Testament it was not lawful to offer sheep or goats so soon as they were cast but at a certain age and maturity of their perfection This figured Infants not presently to be offered to God or Sealed We answer 1. By the same Argument if it were good neither ought the Jews to have circumcised their Infants on the eighth day 2. Allegorical Arguments when they are well applyed illustrate rather then prove And if you will plead thus tell us why every first-born of man or beast so soon as it came into the world that is every male was sacred to the Lord and the first-born of the unclean beast was to be redeemed or destroyed and why seek ye further omitting the type of Circumcision Christ saith He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved Mark 16. 16. without believing there is no salvation nor saving effect of Baptism But Infants cannot believe Therefore their Baptism is effectless and vain We answer 1. That wholly concerns those who are of years who when the Church was to be collected and setled were first and generally such persons as were first to be instructed in the faith of Christ and then to be baptized it concerned not Infants 2. That which immediately follows But he that believeth not shall be damned manifesteth that it concerned not Infants who though they cannot actually believe yet shall not all be damned though dying Infants 3. If those words were to be presidential to all Churches and times as a rule what persons we are to baptize and what not that is that we ought to baptize none but such and so qualified as are there described then it would follow that you must baptize none but those who appear to have a justifying faith for such there Christ speaks of and only such relating to their salvation And how few have this and how can you who baptize discern this Secondly They must be such as can cast out Devils speak unstudied Languages take up Serpents and if they drink any deadly thing it shall not hurt them such as can cure the sick For Christ there thus marked out Believers of those times 4. He saith not He that believeth not shall not be baptized for that indeed might have concerned Infants Baptism But he saith He that believeth not shall be damned which cannot concern Infants except you will say they have faith and so you must grant them a capacity of Baptism or pretend that they all are damned who dye in Infancy which is a damnable fancy Lastly We must distinguish between an interest in and the effects of Baptism Many thousands born within the Covenant have therefore a just interest in the Covenant of Grace and the Seal thereof who neither believing nor obeying have no effects thereof nor grace of the Covenant So some put on Christ only sacramentally and others to sanctification and salvation also It is absurd and to no purpose to baptize any unto