Selected quad for the lemma: england_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
england_n	act_n	lord_n	parliament_n	4,338	5	6.4183	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A41334	A sober reply to the sober answer of Reverend Mr. Cawdrey, to A serious question propounded viz. whether the ministers of England are bound by the word of God to baptise the children of all such parents, which say they believe in Jesus Christ, but are grosly ignorant, scandalous in their conversations, scoffers at godliness, and refuse to submit to church dicipline ... : also, the question of Reverend Mr. Hooker concerning the baptisme of infants : with a post-script to Reverend Mr. Blake / by G.I. Firmin ...	Firmin, Giles, 1614-1697.; Hooker, Thomas, 1586-1647. Covenant of grace opened.	1653 (1653)	Wing F966; ESTC R16401	67,656	64

I am the stronger for if there be no Excommunication I am not tyed to baptise till they be excommunicated which you urge so much You aske me agains would I have such suddainly ejected why Sir is there no Church-Discipline but Excommunication we use unlesse offences he very notorius and we have enough such first to admonish persons seriously to bring persons to repentance if that will not doe we suspend if that will not doe So some conceive non-Communion to be an Act of Church-Discipline then excommunicate I said before the times we now are cast in are to be considered as the ●eyden Profossours speake in the same case but because you cannot excommunicate you will doe nothing and when you have excommunicated it is all one with you so that you doe but delude us I doe not absolutely deny any Baptisme but conditionally if they will not come to be instructed and give us some better testimony of their conversation but before they will be catchised by me and give any better testimony they will fling away Now say you all his argumet 〈◊〉 will be casily dissolved Page 20. it s well What you have spoken to in this page 20. I have answered before onely whereas you say I have often confessed that persons tolerated ought not to bro excluded the Lords Supper Sir I will keepe to the title of my Booke it shall be A Sober Reply and I say I have not once said any such thing But then you call to Ministers to examine whether they have done well in excluding halfe it may bee of their Parish from the Supper by their owns power alone And page 26.28 you seeme to condemne this practise ô brave Reformation in the Bishops time a Minister alone made no question to doe this and now every Minister is a Bishop as I am sure you will grant that a Bishop and Presbyter is all one yet now Ministers must not doe it but let all come to the Supper till a Glassis be set up Here you tell us we cry out againe and call people to separate from you because you want an Ordinance Page 21. then adde The Lord judge betweene us in this matter this sentence you use also in your other book but I pray apply it to those who so call for separation from you my conscience cleares me from any such thing therefore Sir doe you not use such a sentence vainely Then you come to answer the weak Argument Such as the question mentions dejure ought and de facto pre excluded from the Lords supper Ergo ought also to be excluded from their Infants Baptisme This you say you deny with all the proofes of is the Proofe is as weake as the consequence viz. Because Baptisme seales to the same Govenan● as the Lords Supper doth Ergo if excluded from one Seale then from the other The proof againe is like to the formar viz. Because such persons appeare peare not to be those to whom the Seal of the Lords Supper doth belong having no right in those priviledges therefore Baptisme signifying and fealing as great priviledges as the Lords Supper they cannot convey a title unto that Seale for their children but ought to be excluded All is weake that Mr. Cawdrey opposes there are in Logick those wayes of answering which Logicians call Solutiones apparcutes one of them is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this you are well acquainted with to slight the Arguments brought against you tell your Reader they are weak and that 's halfe and answer at least All are not of your minde concerning this Argument His Vindication of free Admiss to L. Sup. p. 24. Mr. Humphries saith those who have gone about to answer this bad better happily said nothing for our free course of baptisme and a deny all of this is such a Seam-rent as will never be hansomly drawns up though stitchs together For his judgment in Admission of all to Lords Supper I leave it But let us see how weak you shew it your answer is this The Argument ought to procced of the same persons viz. such as ought to be excluded from the Lords Supper ought if now they were to be baptised also to be excluded from Baptisme for themselves but this doth not reach the children for they being borne Christians of Christians have right to Baptisme What Sir have you catched me in that fallacy I have taken you so often in I hope not I have spoken before to this the title of the parents and the children is but one and the same 1. I doubt not but Master Cawdrey conceives there are thousands in England that dejure ought to be excluded the Lords Supper else be must condemne the Assembly for injudicious men that should trouble the Parliament for an Act c. 2. These Mr. Caws yeilds were they now to be baptised ought not to be baptised the argument proceeds cleare against them 3. Yet the children of such parents being bo●ne Christians of such Christians as ought not to be baptised themselves if they were not baptised these may which is strange to me that children which have their title because borne of such parents they may be baptised but the parents themselves who give the title must not Therefore I reply if the argument proceeds so strongly against the parents themselves then much more against the children for If may selfe who must have title first for my selfe and then for my child ought to be denyed it then much more my child whose title is mine and depends wholly upon me for it for this I conceive to be a sound truth if a person have ten or twenty children and these be baptised because Christians born of such a parent then I doe twenty times justifie that the parent from whom these children proceed have right and title to Baptisme So that which you say is not a sound assertion p. 24. which how it came under the third argument I know not for it belongs to the first viz. If I can give the child one Seale of the Covenant by vertue of the parent I will give the parent the other I think is a very sound assertion it never troubled me as yet But what makes it so say you I may see reason to deny the parent the Lords Supper and yet baptise his child because more is required of the one then the other For the child I require nothing of it but looke to the parent from whom it derives its tith if you require any thing of me saith the child goe to my parent from whom I descended why then doe you say you require more of the one then the other neither 2. doe I see what more you are to require of a person to admit him to the Lords Supper then his child to baptisme If a person doe visibly appeare to have the condition of the Covenant he being a Church-member how you can deny him the Lords Supper I know not so for baptisme If there were two