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
A50248	A defence of the answer and arguments of the synod met at Boston in the year 1662 concerning the subject of Baptism and consociation of churches against the reply made thereto, by the Reverend Mr. John Davenport, pastor of the church at New-Haven, in his treatise entituled Another essay for investigation of the truth &c. : together with an answer to the apologetical preface set before that essay, by some of the elders who were members of the Synod above-mentioned.	Mather, Richard, 1596-1669.	1664 (1664)	Wing M1271; ESTC W19818	155,430	150

pag. 17. Now it 's evident that even in the Apostles times sundry were baptized that had not so received the holy Ghost Acts 8 15 16 17. 19 2 6. But there are sundry further Evidences at hand were there room here to insort them which show that in those first Ages of the Church there were many within the Church 〈◊〉 were debarred from the Lords Supper wh● yet had their Children baptized In after 〈◊〉 how large Baptism was may easily be gathered But that there was though t●o much l●xness some more restraint in the Lords Supper appears by the Canonists old Verse Ebrius infami● erroneus atque Furentes Cum pueris Domin non debent sumere corpus As for the times since the Reformation it is most evident that Godly Reforming Divines have in their Doctrine unanimously taught and in their Practice many 〈◊〉 then endeavoured a strict Selection of those that should be admitted to the Lords Supper when yet they have been 〈◊〉 large in poi●● of Baptism and they still ●o upon this Principle that Not all Christians nor a● baptized and genera●●y-professing Christians but onely such as are able or may be reputed able and careful to examine themselves and discern the Lords Body are to be admitted to the Lords Supper But they reckon that All Christians a● that are in their account within the visible Church are to have their Children baptized Be it that in Practice they were many of them too lax and large in both the Sacraments chiefly through want of a due and effectual use of Discipline by defect whereof many were sinfully tolerated in the Church who should have been cast out and cut off and many suffered to come to the Lords Table who should have been debarred and suspended of which themselves do 〈◊〉 sadly complain Yet it shews thus much which is that we aim at that they held a different Latitude of the two Sacraments as to the Subjects thereof even in the very sense of our Question denying the Lords Supper to many Parents whose Children yet they scrupled not to baptize This goes for currant among all our great Divines as a granted Principle whereof many large and full Testimonies might easily be produced Calvin in his Geneva-cate●hism to that Question Whether Pasters may give the Sacraments to all Answers ●uod ad Baptis●um pertinet quia non nisi Insantibus 〈◊〉 confertur d●scre●●o ●●cu●●non habet in Can●●ero tavere dehet Minister ne cui ipsam porrigat quem indignum esse palàm constet If Calvin would Baptize all Children born among them without difference looking upon them as born within the visible Church and yet not give the Lords Supper to all then he would Baptize some Children whose Parents he would not ad●it to the Lords Supper Lu●o● Cr●●ius describing the Subjects of Baptism saith Infantes verò omnes c. All such ●nfants as are either born of Christian Parents or brought into the society of Christians are to be Baptized But of the Lords ●upper S●lt quidem Christians c. Onely Christians are to be admitted to the Holy Supper yet not promis●u●usty all Christians but onely those who both can and will examine themselves rightly discern the Lords Body and celebrate this Sacrament unto a Commemoration of the Dea●h of Chirst but there are many in the Christian Church that either cannot or will not ●o those things and these are not to be admitted 〈◊〉 touching the Lords Supper saith Est Sacramentum c. It is a Sacrament appointed for such in the Christian Church as are already baptized and Adult and do examine themselves And in another place unto this Question To whom is the Lords Supper to be given He answers To all the Faithful Members of the Church who can examine themselves and are instructed in the Ministery of Faith and can 〈◊〉 forth the Lords Death For unto this Mystery there is required examination of ones self and Annunciation of the Lords Death And therefore it is not to be given to Vnbelievers not to Infants not to distracted persons not to those that are ignorant of the mysteries not to the impenitent not to those that are by the orderly judgement of the Church excommunicate not to such as are polluted either with ●anifest errours or with any notorious wickedness until they have first satisfied the Church and g●ve Testimony of their Repentance Compare herewith his Latitude for Baptism exoresly granti●g that so sundry of thos● sorts to whom he denies the Lords Supper ●ez● concerning the Question who are to be Baptized saith All that are comprehended within the Tables of the Covenant c. But to that Question Would you admit all sorts to the Lor●s Supper He An●wereth with great ze●l for 〈◊〉 and care therein and among other expre●●●ons Th●se saith he whose 〈◊〉 age sheweth them not to be of ability to examine themselves 〈…〉 not as unworthy but as not yet fit ●ut of the adult no one is to be 〈◊〉 except he have one may or other so given account of his Faith at that the Paster may probably gather not onely that he was born in the Church but also that he is indeed a Christian Pelanius touching the Subjects of the Lords Supper saith Vnto the Lords Supper maybe admitted onely Christians 〈◊〉 Baptized and adult and such as can examine their 〈◊〉 with thank 〈…〉 remember Christ and shew forth his death But of Baptism All that are in Covenant with God Infants born of Christian Parents are to be baptized Ge●k●r in his C●●mon Places a●●erts ●hat Soli Christiani c. Onely Christians i. e. such as embrace the Doctrine of Christ as have received the Sacrament of baptism and are implanted into the Christian Church yet not 〈◊〉 Christians are to be admi●●ed to the holy Supper but according to Paul●s Rule these onely 〈◊〉 examine themselves 〈◊〉 the Lor●s Body a●● shew ●●rib the Lords 〈◊〉 1 Cor 11.26 28 29. All 〈◊〉 therefore are excluded who either will not 〈…〉 examine themselves Bu● he extends Baptism to all Children born of one or both Christian Parents o● that come into the power of such The like may be observed in the Confessions of the Reformed Churches when as they declare for a special selection of those whom they admit to the Lords Supper● see the Confe●●●●● of Bohemia Harmony of confess Pag. 421. of Belgia Pag. 432. of Aus●●ge Pag. 438 440. or Saxony p. 447 44● ●nd the confession of Scotland in the end of that Harmony Pag. 24. comparing this with the deep silence of them ●ll touching any such Selectio● in point of Baptism● as to the Children that are born among them and it is kno●n to be their ordinary practice to Baptize many Children whose Parents they would not admit to the Lords Supper All which with many more Testimonies that might be alledged do abundantly shew it to have been the concurrent judgement of Protestant Divines that

by his generating him so also of his Church-membership by his confederating for him and this by Gods Institution And seeing the person of the Childe hath a membership of its own affixed to it as the foresaid grants import and that from God from Gods Covenant and Institution as well as the person of the Parent why should we say that the membership of the Childe doth after this depend upon the Membership or Covenant of the Parent and not rather upon Gods Covenant and Institution so as to live and dye according to the Order and appointment thereof and not otherwise hence the Membership wherewith the person of the Childe is clothed by Gods Institution dyes not till either the person of the Childe dye or till by some Institution and Appointment of God he be cut off from his Membership for his own sin Neither must it be yelded that the Excommunication of the Parent doth properly and formally cut off the Infant-childe that was born before such Excommunication We say properly and formally for Consequentially and Eventually it may bring the Childe to be cut off also as in case the Parent desperately go away from the Church among Hereticks and Infidels and bring up the Childe to serve other Gods But so it may be with a wife carried away by such an Husband yet that does not hinder her from having a personal distinct proper and immediate Membership nor make his cutting off to be hers also But suppose a Parent and Children that live and continue among us the Parent having a company of Children all in their minority is for his wickedness cast out and continuing impenitent dyes in that estate to say that all these Children who were Born and Baptized in the Church are cut off from Membership hereby is a strange Assertion For 1. This would make an Infant-childe to be a subject of Excommunication which was before and in regard of natural capacity and demerit rightly denied 2. If a Parent in Israel was for his sin cut off from his people were the Children that he left behind him therefore excluded from the Commonwealth of Israel to be sure in Crimes capitally punished of which cutting off from their People is sometimes plainly meant Exod. 31.14 15. Levit. 17.4 18.29 20.18 the Childe was not to dye for the Fathers sin Deut. 24.16 2 Chron. 25.4 Ier. 31.30 Ezek. 18.20 and is there not the like reason of other punishments whether Ecclesiastical or Civil yea that cutting off from their People appointed in the Law is conceived by judicious Interpreters to be in some places most properly meant of an Ecclesiastical Death or cutting off from the People and Church of God by Excommunication But however it held a proportion with Excommunication now under the Gospel The Childe may be barred from a Right or Privilegde that he ne●er had by the sin or condition of the Parent so H●athen Children are unclean and without because their Parents are so Hence Children born after the Parents Excommunication are not of the Church But to be deprived of a Right or Priviledge which ●e once ●ad and was possessed of which is the case of Children formerly born in the Church and owned as Members by the seal of Baptism this hath in it the nature of a proper formal Punishment or Censure and this is inflicted upon none but for his own sin A Parent Civilly or Naturally dead cannot after that bring forth Children to the Commonwealth nor can a Parent Ecclesiastically dead he so continuing bring forth Children to the Church But the Children that are already Members of the one Society or of the other are not to be cut off therefrom for their Parents sin 3. That If the Root be destroyed the Branches cannot live is a truth in nature of Branches growing on the same Tree But if these Branches be taken and set upon a St●ck and Root of their own though but as in a Nursery then they do not die when the old Tree dies or is cut up by the Roots And so is the Case in hand These Children are inserted and implanted into the Church the Body of Christ in their own persons as was but now granted when it was said The persons of these Infants do receive the Adjunct of of Church-membership and that their persons are ●rought under the Covenant and have so farre taken root therein as to receive not from their Parents but from the Church and from the Soil and Fa●ness thereof the Sap and Nourishment of Baptism which is also a Seal of the establishment or rooting of their Membership Branches included and contained in the Root as Children yet unborn or not born till after Excommunication are broken off or rather left without together with their Parents But not such Branches as are already severed from the Root and planted in the House of God in the Vineyard of the Lord of Hosts as through the grace of the Covenant our Children are Isa. 5.7 4. That Death does not put an end to the outward Covenant which Excommunication does is a Notion that we understand not We should have thought that outward Membership or Membership in the visible instituted Church as well as the use of all outward Ordinances or instituted Wor●hip had everlastingly ceased at Death The Ends Duties and Enjoyments of outward Membership do then cease and so the Membership it self The Lord knows how many may from outward Membership in the visible Church drop to Hell and does not their Death put an end to their Membership And if Death put an end to outward Membership it puts an end to outward Covenant in the sense of the Question i. e. as to the person that dies Indeed it does not hinder the continuance of the Covenant to others that are in Covenant and are surviving And neither does Excommunication so do But the person of the Parent loses his Membership in the visible Church when he dies as well as when he is Excommunicated And hence if the Membership of the Childe did live and die with the Membership of the Parent there would be a Cessation of it in the one case as well as in the other A Parents Faith Prayers and Covenant may live though hi● self be dead But how i. e. Virtually in the virtue and effect of them And how is that why the promise made by God to the Faith Prayers and Profession or Covenanting of a godly Parent that lives and abides and takes effect So then it is neither the Parent nor his Membership but Gods Covenant that lives taking in the Children that are begotten or born of Confederate Parents to be Members of his visible Church and so continuing them till by some Rule or Appointment of his they be cut off In like manner though the Parent by his sin and wickedness have deprived himself of a portion in Israel and be cut off by the Censure of Excommunication yet the Covenant of God lives and stands to the Children whom he had

the above mentioned practice of Antiquity in not so much as teaching the Catechumeni any thing about the Lords Supper till after they were baptized Indeed as the Darkness and Corruption of the times increased Baptism was not onely deferred till Easter as is here said but till death which is justly taxed as an abuse by Cartwright in his Catechism pag. 182. and we suppose will not be approved by any The Arausiacan Councils 19 Canon doth not concern the matter of Baptism as it is set down by the Magdeburg Centurists Cent. 5. pag. 907. But however it be it is of small moment The over-long holding off of adult Converts from Baptism that we sometimes reade of in the Fourth and Fifth Centuries was a manifest devi●tion from the Apostolical practice We finde also that in Austin's time and some ages after they gave the Lords Supper to Infants yet then we suppose they would give both Sacraments to some Infants whose Parents they debarred from the Lords Supper But if it was indeed a grievous errour to administer the Lords Supper to Infants as is here rightly said by our Brethren how then is Baptism of no greater Latitude as to the Subject thereof then the Lords Supper Yea let any man shew a reason why Baptism should be regularly extendible to Infants and not the Lords Supper if the very sa●e qualifications be absolutely requisite to the one as to the other we say absolutely requisite for no man doubts but that the better qualifications a person who receiveth Baptism for himself or for his Children is endued with the better and the more comfortable it is As for that of Iuel That Baptism is as much to be reverenced ●s the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ. And that which follows That former Ages have been farre from looking upon the Lords Supper as being of a more sacred nature then the other Ordinance of Baptism Answ. To assert that Scripture Rules make the Subject of Baptism larger then the Subject of the Lords Supper this doth not detract from the Reverence of Baptism nor render it an Ordinance of a less sacred nature as is here insinuated The Word and Prayer are Ordinances of a very sacred nature and to be highly reverenced and yet many may be admitted unto them that may not be admitted unto Sacraments The Sacredness of every Ordinance lies in the holy and religious application of it to its proper ends and uses by Divine Institution But the proper ends and uses of one Ordinance may by Divine Institution be such as may admit more to partake of it then of another and yet the sacred nature thereof be no whit impaired But the Preface addes Indeed of late there have been those who have made Baptism of a farre larger extent then the Lords Supper This hath been one Practical Difference between Congregational-men and Presbyterians Answ. Whether it have been onely a late or novell Notion to make Baptism larger then the Lords Supper let the Reader judge when he hath considered the Testimonies before alledged with many more that might have been added thereunto But we are so farre from looking upon a different Latitude of these two Sacraments to be a Presbyterian Principle or Anti-Congregational as that we perswade our selves the Congregational way cannot long stand without it For if we deny this and administer Baptism to none but those whose Parents do partake of the Lords Supper and so are in full Communion then we must either make full Communion very large which in the Congregational-way where Brethren have so great an interest in Church-transactions will soon ruine all or else make Baptism and consequently the Compass of the visible Church so strait as will never stand before Rational and Scriptural men yea we shall put multitudes out of the visible Church that are in a visible state of Salvation which is absurd for to deny persons Baptism for themselves or Children is to deny them to be within the Compass of the visible Church seeing Baptism ought to run parallel with Church-Membership But how shall we deny them a room in the visible Church who were once in and are by no Rule to be put out nay whom God as we may charitably hope taketh into Heaven when they die and that as a fruit of his Covenant-grace which is the case of many of our Children who are not yet come up to full Communion But so much for the second Reason of our Brethrens Dissent The third follows 3. The Parents of the Children in question are not Members of any Instituted Church according to Gospel rules ● because they were never under any explicite and personal Covenant Which is former proved Because if they be Members then they would be a true Church though all their Parents were dead and then they must have power of Voting in Church-affairs which is denied to them by the Synod Ans. .1 It seems by what is here said that our Children were never under any explicite and personal Covenant and that all that never were so are not members of any Instituted Church according to Gospel-rules If this be so then what is become of Childrens Membership which the Apologist before in Answer to Objection Second took it as an injury to be charged with the denial of It seems our Children neither are nor ever were Members of any instituted Church according to Gospel-rules because they were never under any explicite and personal Covenant Is it come to this that Children are not Members of any Instituted Church How then are they Members of the Catholick visible Church or are they no Members at all the former our Brethren fancy not as it seems by their Anti-Synodalia pag. 19. the latter then remains to be the conclusion Neither will it salve it to say they were Members in Minority though they be not Members now when they are Adult for if all those that were never under any explicite and personal Covenant be no Members of any Instituted Church and if Children were never under any explicite and personal Covenant both which are here said then no Children no not while in Minority are Members of any Instituted Church For our parts we doubt not to affirm with Dr. Ames in his Chapter de Ecclesia institutâ that Children are Members of an Instituted Church according to Gospel-rules and that they are under personal Covenant i. e. personally 〈◊〉 into Covenant by God according to his Gospel-rules though they have not performed the act of Covenanting in their own persons Yea under explicite Covenant also if the Parents Covenanting was explicite Deut. 29. So Ames They are partakers of the same Covenant and also of the same profession with their Parents Though we take it for a Principle granted by Congregational men with one consent that Implicite Covenant preserves the being of a true Church and so of true Church-membership 2. The Consequent of our assertion here urged as absurd viz. That then in ease all the pro-parents