Selected quad for the lemma: end_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
end_n confirmation_n oath_n strife_n 1,765 5 10.7719 5 true
View all documents for the selected quad

Text snippets containing the quad

ID Title Author Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) STC Words Pages
A27442 The Church of England evidently proved the holy catholick church by Peter Berault ... Berault, Peter. 1682 (1682) Wing B1948A; ESTC R22975 53,217 264

There is 1 snippet containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

Children were circumcised now since Baptism is in the place of Circumcision weare to baptize young Children since they were circumcised and seeing Circumcision which was a Ceremony and divine Institution did neither require Doctrine nor Repentance in young Children though it were necessary in adult Persons as it appears in Abraham and in all others who turned Jews even so Baptism which is a Ceremony and a divine Institution doth neither require Faith nor Repentance in young Children although it doth in adult Persons Which is confirmed by the words of St. Matthew where it is said that They brought unto Jesus Christ little Children that he should put his hands on them and pray and that the Disciples rebuking them Jesus said suffer little Children and forbid them not to come unto me for of such is the Kingdom of God From whence I argue thus To whom do belong the things signified unto them belong the Signs also as the Crown which is the Sign and Mark of Royalty belongs to him to whom the Kingdom belongs but unto little Children belongs the Kingdom of God as it is written in St. Matthew 19. 13. Therefore unto them belongs Baptism which is the Sign of the entring into that Kingdom For except a man be born of water and of the Spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God Therefore young Children born with original sin as it appears in several places of the holy Scripture but especially by these words of St. Paul to the Romans By the Offencof one Ju dgment came upon all men to Condemnation are not to be deprived of Baptism lest they should not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven which is the Reason that St. Cyprian and Austin have so often declared the Baptism of little Children to be necessary Moreover if they brought unto Jesus Christ young Children and he put his hands on them and prayed for them why shall they not bring unto him little Children in the Church Why shall not the Minister pray for them And why shall he not confer unto them the Ceremony or the Institution of Baptism as Jesus Christ gave unto little Children the Ceremony or Institution of Imposition of hands I ask this Question whether the Ceremony of Imposition of hands was in vain or whether they received by it some particular Grace from Christ Ye will not say that it was in vain because then Jesus Christ in whom were hid all the Treasures of Wisdom and Knowledg would not have used it if they received by it some special Grace notwithstanding their want of Repentance and Faith which they were not then capable of why shall not young Children now receive the Ceremony of Baptism and thereby all Graces annexed unto it though they be not capable of Faith and Repentance When a Father or Mother were baptized all those of the Houshold were baptized also as it appears in the Acts where it is said that Lydia a seller of Purple of the City of Thyatira was baptized and her Houshold and that the Keeper of the Prison was baptized he and all his And in the first Chapter of the first Epistle to the Corinthians St. Paul saith that he hath baptized the Houshold of Stephanus but it is probable though not convincing that in so many Families there were Children And since our Fathers and their Children were baptized in the Cloud and in the Sea and they being the Figures of our Baptism as is evident by St. Paul that that which is by them figured may be accomplished the Children now ought to be baptized in the Baptism of Jesus Christ Object It is forbidden in several places of the holy Scriptures to Swear or to take an Oath Ye have heard that it hath been said to them of old time thou shalt not forswear thy self but I say unto you Swear not at all neither by Heaven c. But let your Communication be yea yea and nay nay for whatsoever is more than these cometh o evil and in the Epistle of St. James Above all things my Brethren swear not lest ye fall into Condemnation But the Church of England is not against swearing or taking an Oath yea she uses and maintains it lawful therefore she believes and practises an Article forbidden in the holy Scripture therefore she is not the holy Catholick Church Before I give an Answer it is necessary to know that an Oath is an Invocation to God or an Appeal to him as a Witness of the Truth of what we say so that in case that that we swear be not true we if not expresly at least virtually invoke God as a Judge and Avenger There are two sorts of Oaths one Assertory and the other Promissory an assertory Oath is when we promise by Oath something that is Future and if our promise be made directly and immediately to God 't is called a Vow if to men an Oath That being supposed I Answer That an Oath is not only lawful but also is sometimes necessary as when mens Estates are concern'd and no Evidence can be had to decide and clear the matter but what is assured by Oath Then it is necessary to make an end of and decide the Controversie as it appears by these words of St. Paul An Oath for Confirmations is to them an end of strife And its lawfulness appears by several Texts of the holy Scripture wherein God who is truth it self and cannot lie and consequently might be believed of men upon his bare word and without necessity of making an Oath yet to confirm his promises is willing to take it For when God made the Promise to Abraham because he could not swear by a greater he sware by himself And verse 17. God willing more abundantly to shew unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his Counsel confirmed it by an Oath Therefore if God himself swears and takes an Oath why shall it not be lawful to men to take an Oath in dubious matters and of great Concern and when no Evidence can be had to decide and clear them Was not Mephibosheth spared because of the Lord's Oath that was between them between David and Jonathan the Son of Saul Did not the Law of Moses in many cases require them Doth not St. Paul use them oftentimes as when he saith God is my witness I call God for a Record upon my Soul Before God I lie not Which Oaths St. Paul who was to teach the Precepts of Christ to others should not have used if they had been unlawful and forbidden in the holy Scriptures And Christ himself as ye may read Mat. 26. 63 64. did not refuse it when the High-Priest asked him to answer upon his Oath whether he was the Son of God I adjure thee saith the High-Priest by the living God that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ the Son of God and Jesus said unto him thou hast said Therefore seeing Jesus Christ himself doth answer when he is