Selected quad for the lemma: death_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
death_n	life_n	sin_n	spirit_n	19,754	5	5.4357	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A78132	A defence of the lavvfulnesse of baptizing infants. As also of the present baptisme, as it hath continued in the severall ages of the world, from John Baptist the first beginner thereof. In way of answer to something written by Iohn Spilsberie against the same.	Barbon, Praisegod, 1596?-1679.	1645 (1645)	Wing B749; Thomason E270_12; ESTC R212355	60,304	74

by matters fundamentall and how the receipt of the Ordinance can be a matter fundamentall when the person may not onely be matter but part of a Church without it as he holdeth Fourthly I would know how the word of man stands in the place of the Word of God and what he meaneth by the bare word of man in this matter of fact Lastly I would know what he meaneth by truly receiving this holy Ordinance and whither he hold there be a false receiving this Ordinance and yet the Ordinance holy and true to them that receive it This Reason as it is set down I take to be something like a spell The summe of it in other words I take to be this Infants are not to be baptized for that they cannot be assured when they come to yeers that they were baptized but by the witnesse of man and if that fail then there is no way of satisfying of themselves that they were at all baptized To which I answer first that I would not much strive with a person in such a case If that were the cause that the probablenesse of his not being at all Baptized were the cause that moved him to desire to be Baptized especially if it did appeare to them by whom he should seek to be Baptized that he had not been Baptized at all But surely this is far from the case in question wherein men get themselves baptized not that they thinke they were not baptized at all but that they judge it was not the Baptisme of Christ because of the corruptions in the subject instrument or the manner of their being baptized which made the matter null and void Secondly I would have it minded how a person circumcised in youth could be assured when he came to yeers especially if his Circumcision were gathered and grown so as he could not see the print in the flesh For this Reason if it hath any force in it it hath the same against Circumcision in Infancy as against Baptisme for such so circumcised could be no otherwise assured then such a way as will come within the compasse of humane testimony If it be said They might satisfie themselves by the sight of the print of the flesh I answer that might be gathered and grown so as not to be seen And again if it were not that fight is not the Word of God and beside they might be mistaken or be circumcised unlawfully Thirdly that others were circumcised of old or are baptized now especially those to be joyned with in publike Ordinances and speciall communion Now how could the Israelites know of old or how can it be known now in particular how will I. S. to put the case to himselfe how will he I say know and be assured that such and such as he holdeth communion withall are baptized but by humane testimony instead of the Word of God as he saith he must take their own word in their own case whether it be not humane I leave it to him to judge And I demand further whether upon this his ground any can in faith joyn in fellowship and speciall communion or could of old with any they did not see or have not seen circumcised of old Ephes 44. 9. or Baptized now in this dispensation of the Gospell for suppose they were Baptized in Holland or in some part of this Kingdom nay in this City and I not see it done where am I then by his ground I must beleeve the bare word of man in stead of the Word of God in a matter alike fundamentall according to his account Fourthly in matter of fact I judge Faith of such a nature as we have now in hand is to goe upon humane testimony if I. S. will have it so called and that such testimony is of divine authority and every way satisfactory to be rested in for at the mouth of two or three witnesses every truth stands ratified In matter of fact I Matth. 18. 16. make it appear thus That such a people are Christs Church a Church being a fundamentall thing mens witnesses must carry it and give satisfaction especially in regard of the first beginning of a Church which some much stand upon Again that such a person is the lawfull Minister of Christ and his Church lawfully chosen and ordained what way is there of satisfaction but the word of man to any but onely to those that were at the acting of it Excommunication is an ordinance alike fundamentall with Baptisme it is to be done in faith the practike part of it is to be built upon the testimony of men at the mouth of two or three witnesses so as here expresly the word the bare word of man carrieth the same So as I conclude as this reason is a foolish fancy so it premiseth wholly upon untruth and raiseth unprofitable doubts and hath the same force against other Ordinances of Christ as it hath against Baptisme of Infants that it can by no means reach so high as to hinder Infants Baptisme all which I leave to the judgement of the Reader Reason 7 To baptize Infants makes the Ordinance of God a lying signe because none of those things can be expected in an Infant which the said Ordinance holds forth or signifieth in the administration of it which is the parties regeneration and spirituall new birth a dying and buriall with Christ in respect of sin and rising with him in a new life to God and a confirmation of faith in the death and resurection of Christ and free remission of sins by the same as Rom. 6. 3 4. none of all which can be expected in an Infant Answ This is a lying accusation of a malignant spirit against a holy practise of an Ordinance of Gods own appointment for might not any one as truly have said thus of Circumcision of Infants of old aswell as of the Baptisme of Infants now for what could be expected of an Infant then that cannot be now Did not Circumcision call for and lead unto then as much as Baptisme doth now did not Circumcision call for Circumcision of heart Circumcision Rom. 2. 29. being as the Apostle speaketh of the heart not of the letter the praise whereof is of God not of men did it not also call for regeneration and newnesse of life were not the Infants of it spirituall above the reach of the creature especially children yet it was then no lying signe as I. S. in the case of Baptisme lyingly affirmeth Secondly I say our Lord was baptized and this Ordinance was no lying signe as it was acted on him yet those things were not in him nor could be which I. S. saith the Ordinance holdeth forth or signifieth namely Regeneration a spirituall new life dying to sin burying with Christ rising with him in newnesse of life confirmation of faith and free remission of sins by the same What will J. S. say now will he say it was a living signe or will he confesse his lying accusation to