Selected quad for the lemma: lord_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
lord_n blood_n bread_n cup_n 12,142 5 9.7026 5 false
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
A75550 Arguments Pro and Con about the Right of baptizing; viz. Whether it ought to be by putting the whole body under water, or only Sprinkling a little water thereon. 1675 (1675) Wing A3647; ESTC R225438 8,839 6

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

Children in this Country and which hath been the practice in some places formerly but especially the known constant practice of the Baptists in Holland Germany and England both Winter and Summer without the least detriment or inconveniency A brief Corrollary containing some necessary Quaeries upon the whole Quaer 1. WHether is it not demonstrably evident by this Six-fold Argument confirmed by so great Testimony both Divine and Humane that Dipping not Sprinkling was the instituted Rite of this great Ordinance of Baptism Quaer 2. Whether this of Dipping having been Christs positive Appointment from all those holy ends and spiritual Reasons inforcing it as well as his own and all the primitive Saints express practise it will not appear to be very dangerous and savour of too much Presumption and Arrogancy upon such gross mistakes and upon nothing but Human Institution to alter and change the same to a clear other Rite inverting thereby so solemn a piece of Gods holy Worship and introducing instead thereof so groundless a Tradition and Invention of man and doth not justly fall under the Reproofs and Threatnings of the following Scriptures Matth. 15.9 In vain they do worship me teaching for Doctrines the Commandments of men Mark 7.7 For laying aside the Commandment of God ye hold the Traditions of men rejecting and frustrating the Commandments of God to keep your own Traditions Isa 24.5 They have transgressed the Law changed the Ordinances therefore c. And no less then a Violation of the First and Second Commandment intrenching upon God's Prerogative-Royal wherein he is so jealous the Presumption whereof cost Israel so dear Quaer 3. Whether sprinkling only a few drops of water upon the face instead of dipping the whole person doth not as much spoil the Symbol and vacate the instituted significant ends of the Ordinance as to eat only the Wafer and reject the Cup spoils the Ordinance of breaking of Bread and drinking of Wine in remembrance of the broken Body and Blood of our Lord Or as some of old when God commanded the foreskin to be circumcised should have satisfied themselves to circumcise their nails if they did but keep the name and ends of the Ordinance And whether one is not as provoking to the Lord as the other Quaer 4. Whether to conform hereto is not to yield obedience to the Institution and Injunction of Antichrist for though 't is granted it was in use before it was imposed by the Popes as Infant-Baptism was yet was it by them especially enjoyned as the other was as confest by so many of their own And whether in so doing there is not as great indignity offered to the Authority of Christ and contempt to his Wisdom as there is a declared subjection to and owning and honouring such a gross Usurpation Quaer 5. Whether it may not rationally be supposed that one great end of the Popes enjoyning theeeof was not with more Pomp and Solemnity to establish and confirm Infant-Baptism so much the Pillar and Foundation of his Church And whether it doth not appear he did upon as good ground change the Rite as so alter the subject And that he doth as warrantably and by as good Scripture-Authority sprinkle Bells and Church Walls and Standards and call it Baptism as the other Quaer 6. Whether for any to sprinkle an Infant and to say they Baptize it in the Name of the Father Son and Spirit is not as much to tell a lye in the Name of the Lord and to prophane a holy Ordinance of his as they do who use the same Form in Baptizing of Bells c. Quaer Whether Learned and good men may not from the consideration of their mistake in the Rite have cause to conclude they have mistaken the subject also And that being neither right in the matter or manner of the Ordinance it is a mear nullity and therefore should engage them to the right performance in both as they would approve themselves Christ's Disciples and Followers and not err in so great a foundation of the Christian Religion LONDON Printed for Francis Smith at the Elephant and Castle in Cornhil near the Royal Exchange 1675.