Selected quad for the lemma: death_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
death_n	lord_n	show_v	supper_n	4,170	5	9.3436	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A46336	A sermon preached in the year of our Lord 1650, January 9, at the baptizing of Theophilus (then Lord Hastings) now Earl of Huntington by John Joynes.	Joynes, John.	1668 (1668)	Wing J1161; ESTC R28958	24,411	60

this we Answer At that time when Christ spake these words none could be baptized that did not actually believe or at least actually profess himself a Believer But distinguenda sunt Tempora At that time there was no such thing as Children of Believers to baptize for there were no Believers except only some few in Iudea The Apostle at the 15. Verse had a Commission given to go forth into all the world and to Preach the Gospel to every creature and as many as they could convert those they were to baptize and no other Nothing so certain as that they neither would nor ought to baptize any before they were fully converted and made a profession not only of their faith but of their desire to be baptized Act. 8.96 as we find the Eunuch did But afterwards the case was otherwise when Nations came to be converted Churches setled and Christianity propagated from the Father to the Son Then Act. 2.39 1 Cor. 7.14 the promise being made to them and their Children And the Children themselves being holy as born of believing Parents and within the Covenant they are certainly not less capable of being admitted into the Christian Church as Members thereof by the right of baptism which St. Paul calls the circumcision of Christ then the Israelitish Infants were of being admitted into the Jewish Church Col. 2.11.12 by the right of circumcision He then that duely considers this passage togegether with the circumstances that ought to be considered of the time when and reason why it was spoke will I think be as inclinable to conclude any thing therefrom as that it was intended as a prohibition of Baptism to the Children of believing parents or that any such thing can concludingly be inferr'd from it A third Argument they bring against Infant-baptism grounded upon this Reason Arg. 3 There is no plain and express Precept in all the Scripture for the doing of it nor no example so manifest as to evince it was ever done therefore the doing of it is unlawful Answer To this I answer That this Proposition Whatsoever is not commanded in Gods word may not be done is not true My reason is because the contrary unto it is so whatsoever is not forbidden in the Word of God may be done for where there is no Law Ro. 4.15 there is no Transgression So then whereas they say there is no precept nor example for it in Scripture Admitting that to be true it is a sufficient Answer to that Objection to say there is neither against it And if the difference between them and us concerning this matter come to be weighed in this Ballance it would he found to stand thus They have the practice of the whole Church against them and no Scripture for them We have the practice of the whole Church for us and no Scripture against us These scales you see give it for us against them cleerly And thus having given a tast of their Objections to let you see they are answerable I shall now say something by way of positive Assertion of the Churches Doctrine and practice in this Particular Briefly then I shall endeavor to assert Assertion not only the lawfulness but the necessity of Infant-baptism by Scripture by Reason and by Universal practice and first By Scripture I do not say that there is any Scripture that does totidem verbis or in express words say That Infants are to be baptized but there is a Text that not only justifies the lawfulness of doing it but by consequence proves the unlawfulness of leaving it undone and that is Io. 3. at the 5. verse Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God Whence it follows that if the want of Baptism endanger the salvation of any it must be the fault of them that deny or or keep them from it I am not the first that has urged this Text for the necessity of Infant-baptism See Land against Fisher Object 1. but to evade the force of this Argument they give two Answers First that the Text it self is to be understood of persons of mature age and therefore it is said Except a man not except a child be born again c. To this I answer that Answer This is a mistake arising from the ignorance of the original and therefore the Reply is easie It is not there Except a man as we Translate it but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is an Indefinite equivalent to an Universal so that the sence is without exception of Man Woman or Child Except a person or except one be born again of water c. A second exception to the Argument drawn from this Text is this That according to the Rule of this exposition there is a necessity of communicating Children as well as of baptizing them of giving them the Sacrament of the Eucharist as well as that of Baptism for it is said Io. 6.53 Except ye eat the flesh of the son of man and drink his Blood ye have no life in you To this I answer that one Scripture is to be expounded so as not to contradict another and places that are obscure must receive light from those that are plain Now the places that speak of the Sacrament of the Lords Supper do plainly show that it is to be received only by such as have the use of reason and have understanding As oft as ye eat this bread and drink this cup ye do shew forth or shew ye forth the Lords death till he come And in the next verse Let a man examine himself 1 Cor. 11.26 27. and so let him eat of that bread and drink of that cup c. Self-examination and commemoration of Christs death are the essential and indispensible duties of those that come to that Sacrament neither of which children are capable of performing and consequently cannot be included in the latter of these Texts but must be so in the former unless some Scripture can be shown to the contrary which hitherto I presume has not been done But if they shall still persist and say that this place is not express and plain enough for them who make Scripture their Rule and go no further then they have express warrant from thence then I desire that they would please to show any authority out of Scripture for the communicating of women or the observation of the Lords Day so strong and full as this is for the baptizing of Infants My second Argument for Infant-baptism is from Reason Infants stand in need of this Sacrament and this Sacrament is effectual as to what they need and therefore in all reason they ought to be admitted to it and it is a sin to deny it them They stand in need of it in regard of the pollution of their natures by Original sin being conceived in sin and born in iniquity Psal 51.5 Now that Baptism does take away Original sin as to the guilt