Selected quad for the lemma: lord_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
lord_n	drink_v	eat_v	let_v	15,915	5	5.9494	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A74992	An ansvver to Mr. J.G. his XL. queries, touching the lawfulness, or unlawfulness of holding church-communion, between such who have been baptized after their beleeving, and others who have not otherwise been baptized, then in their infancie. As likewise touching infant, and after baptism. In which answer, the undueness of such mixt communion is declared, the unlawfulness of infant-baptism, and the necessity of after baptism is asserted. By W.A.	Allen, William, d. 1686.	1653 (1653)	Wing A1054A; Thomason E713_17; ESTC R207237	74,298	97

understanding as rendred him capable of beleeving and it was such a Child as came upon the call of Jesus or else 2. That the little ones ver 6. which are said to believe are not the same with that little Child mentioned ver 2. And there are these two reasons why they should not be thought the same 1. Because ver 2. speakes of one Child onely in the singular number but ver 6. speakes of little ones in the plurall number and that too not under the appellation of Child or Children as before but of little ones 2. If we compare this passage with the other Evangelists as Mark. 9.42 Luke 17.2 It will bee evident as it is rendred by them that little ones were not little Babes or little Children properly so called but the D●sciples of Christ whom he frequently calls little ones and sometimes little Children John 13.33 2. But that which is further added by the Querist why Infants can upon no tollerable account be excluded when it is said of whole Housholds or Families that they were dipped though it should be supposed they were in no sence capable of believing is I confesse to mee seasonable and it is because they were as capable and in some respects more capable of being dipt then Men as if their being capable de facto to be dipped must needs argue them capable de jure of the Ordinance of Baptisme as well as Men Such a capac●ty not onely Infants but other Creatures also have as well as Men and if this had been all the capacity requisite no doubt but Children had been as capable as any yea and other Creatures too 3. Is that a good reason why we should thinke Children were Bapt●z●d with the housholds before mentioned because wee ought not to contend with God or reject any part of his Counsell or Will because onely somewhat sparingly and with some scantinesse of evidence discovered in his word Nay rather since the Will of God is herein manifest that persons professing the Faith were the subject of his Baptisme all the while the Scriptures and the H●story of things then were in composing let no man contend with God because he hath not framed the Scripture to his mind or opinion nor goe about to force the Scripture to speake that they have no minde to speake or suppose when God hath delivered his Mind plainly That yet he hath thoughts and counsells of another nature more comporting with his minde as Baalam sometime thought in another case 4. The Q●erist supposes severall other Tenents to be imbraced upon weaker and lesse lightsome grounds then such as are given for Infant-Baptisme but that hee should mention the admission of women to the Lords Table for one of these tenents is I confesse matter of wonder to me for there is both precept and example upon which this tenent is grounded but neither the one nor the other for the baptising of Infants and therefore how the ground for this should be more lightsome then for the other is that which passes my reason to comprehend For matter of precept for admitting women to the Table of the Lord we have it in these words Let a man examine himselfe and so let him eat of that Bread and drink of that Cup 1 Cor. 11.28 For I doubt not but the Querist well knowes that Man in this place is the common gender signifi●s the kind and not the sex and therefore women to be every whit as much concerned therein as men For example we have it Acts 2.42 compared with Acts 1.14 and 2.16.18 For in the former place we finde the three thousand that were added together with those to whom they were added continued in fellowship and breaking of bread In the other places we finde that among those Disciples to whom the three thousand were added there were Women and Hand-maids of the Lord and therefore it is every whit as plaine from this place that women did break bread as that men did And when it 's said Acts 20.7 That the Disciples came together to break Bread upon the first day of the weeke why should it be understood of men any more then women in as much as women are Disciples as well as men unlesse haply it be said there is particular mention made of Paul and Eutychus And now let the Q●erist produce us more lightsome grounds then precept and example for his sprinkling of Infants or else forbeare this comparison XXV Querie answered If a baptismall sprinkling of an Infant as the Querist's expression is which is as much as to say a sprinkling by dipping b● no more the Ordinance of Baptisme then another common action is as I verily presume it is not till it be proved to be of a d●vine appointment then the baptismall sprinkling the Querist speakes of varies the case of baptising one after this sprinkling no more then the baptising of one after the doing of any Ordinarie and common action and therefore it might with as bapti-reason in my opinion have been demanded whether the much sing of one who hath been so and so nursed so and so attended so and so attired in his infancy be any where countenanced in Scripture by particularity or expressenesse of precept or example as whether the submitting to a baptismall dipping after a baptismall sprinkling be so countenanced But as touching particularity of precept or example in such cases I have answered more largely to querie 1.7.8.22 And whereas the Querist further demands Whether they doe not presume as much or rather more upon their owne judgements and understandings in making Infant-Baptisme a meere nullity the Scripture giving no such sentence against it as they do who make it an Ordinance of God or a meer and necessary administration of an Ordinance I answer No they doe not Because they doe not proceed upon their owne judgement onely but upon Scripture-ground who rej●ct every administration which is obtruded as necessary which hath no footing in the Word of God For every Plant which the heavenly Father hath not planted is to be plucked up Mat. 15.13 though every such Plant which men have or shall plant upon their owne judgements onely as Infant-Baptisme crosse in B●ptisme Surplice upon the Priests back and many others be not particularly mentioned in Scripture yet it is sufficient that we have that generall warrant to reject a●l that is not of Gods planting But now they that shall pract●se Infant-sprinkling as an Ordinance or as a necessary Administration of an Ordinance of God without warrant from God they plant and not God which plant is to be rooted up and rejected by those that will side with God against the corruptions and superstitions of men And therefore whereas the Querist makes that a reason of the practise of Infant-Baptisme viz. because as he sayes Infants at least of Believers are no where excluded by God from part and fellowship in that administration it is nothing but what hath been and with as good a shew of

audaciousnes in any man once to imagine If so then what is more plain then that the Commission of Christ to them was to teach and baptise first and to admit into Church fellowship thereupon and not otherwise as is visible in that prime example of theirs Acts 2.41.42 Then they that gladly received his Word were Baptized and the same day there was added unto them about three thousand souls And they continued stedfastly in the Apostles Doctrine and fellowship and in breaking of bread and in Prayers Where you see they were first taught by Preaching secondly did gladly receive the Word by which they were taught thirdly were baptized fourthly were added unto them viz. the Church ver 47. fifthly continued stedfastly in the Apstles Doctrine and fellowship c. Addition to the Church then and fellowship in it did follow baptism and not go before it according to the actuated commission of Christ Jesus And why should any servants of his then desire to vary from it unless they presume themselves wiser then he and hope to finde a greater good in their own way then in his 3. Baptism must needs precede the enjoyment of Church priviledge in Church fellowship in the Apostles dayes because it was then as it ought still to be a means of planting men into Christ or into the body of Christ the Church Hence they were said to be Baptized into Christ Galathians 3. vers 27. and to be baptized into his death Romans 6. v. 3. and to be planted together into the likeness of his death upon that accompt ver 5. of the same chapter And what does a planting and a planting together import but the first puting together of Christians in order to their growing together in Christ and yet all this is done by Baptism And may you not therefore as well suppose trees to grow together before they are planted together as to suppose Christians to grow together before they are planted together and yet planted together they are by Baptism not into this or that particular Church but into that one Church of Christ which is distributed into severall parts and particular Societies Hereupon it is that Baptism is called one of the Principles or begining Doctrines of Christ and likewise part of the Foundation Heb. 6.1 2. And what house stands without its Principles or is built without a foundation Nay the Apostle 1 Cor. 12 13. doth plainly declare Baptism to be of so constant and universall a use as to the inchurching of persons of all sorts ranks and degrees that were incorporated at all in his time as that none came into the Church but through this door For he sayes they were all Baptized into one body i. e. Church body whether Jew● or Gentils bond or free And if any man can name any persons that were neither Jews nor Gentiles neither Bond nor Free then I will confess those possibly might be brought into the Church without Baptism But otherwise though they were Jews and had been formerly entred in their Church by circumcision yet when they became of the Gospel Church it was not without Baptism Or if Gentles a people sometimes a far off yet by Baptism upon their beleeving were brought into capacity of the same enjoyments with the Jews If free as Masters yet not admited without Baptism if bound as servants yet made equally capable of the same Church priviledges by Baptism For so he sayes again Gal. 3.27 28. As many of you as have been Baptized into Christ have put on Christ there is neither Jew nor Gentle bond nor free male nor female for ye are all one in Christ Jesus i. e. all having thus put on Christ are become all one in him Some indeed seem somewhat to doubt whether the Apostle speaks of water Baptism when he sayes That by one Spirit we are all Baptised into one body or whether he does not rather speak of the Baptism of the Spirit without water Though these indeed are the doubtfull thoughs of some contrary to the generally received opinion of men upon the place yet I must do my honored Querist that right as to quit him from fellowship in that opinion and to acknowledge that he not long since in a discourse upon the same words did teach the Auditory to understand by being Baptized by one Spirit into one Body and by being made to drink into one Spirit as is exprest in the latter part of the verse that the Communion which Beleevers have with the holy Spirit in the two Ordinances Baptism and the Supper of the Lord is intended by the Apostle and this he did without doubt to me according to the truth For what else can be intended by drinking into one Spirit but the Saints communion in Spirit in and by the Supper drinking by a Synecdoche being put both for eating and drinking If so why should we not as wel understand the fi●st Ordinance Baptism in its proper sence for water Baptism in the former part as the latter Ordinance the Supper in its proper sence in the latter part of the verse Neither can we reasonably unde●stand the same thing to be intended by being Baptised by one Spirit and by drinking into one Spirit which yet we must do if a being indued with the Spirit were all that is here meant for they are said to be Baptized into one body but to drink into one Spirit and surely Baptizing and drinking here are no more the same then the Body and the Spirit are the same into which they are said respectively to be Baptized and to drink But cleerly the Apostle seems hereby to intend to minde these Corinthians how that by means of the same spirit working upon all their hearts they became members of the same body through Baptism and that being of the Body they came to have communion in Spirit or with the Spirit in the supper And that which will yet further serve to evince that it is not a Baptism with the spirit but a Baptism with water that is here meant is this because the spirit is here set forth by the Apostle as the Agent or working cause and Baptism as the effect and it is ridiculous to make both cause and effect the same thing It is true indeed the scripture doth speak of a being Baptized with the spirit but when ever it does so it still declares either Jesus Christ or God the Father as the Agent Baptizing with the spirit but never as making the spirit both the subject matter wherewith and also the Agent whereby men are Baptized in the same Baptism See for this Mat. 3.11 Mark 1.8 Luke 3.16 Act. 1.4 5. with Luke 24.49 Acts 11.16 The premises therefore considered I hope it will sufficiently appear and that to the satisfaction of any indifferent man that in the primitive times none were admited to Church-communion without Baptism and if so have we in these dayes reason to do any other wise Ought not that which was a reason to them not to admit

reason may be pleaded by the Papists for many of their superstitious customes and traditions for neither are they by name excluded the parts of Gods worship But we say that Infant-Baptisme and what ever else is obtruded as necessary in the Worship and Ordinances of God which he hath not made so by some word of his or other is by vertue of that generall rule which warrants the plucking up every Plant that is not planted by God to be rejected by men as will-worship and the serving of God according to the precepts of men Col. 2.18.23 Isa 29.13 XXVI Querie answered 1. I might here observe the discordancy and incongruity of this Q●erie with severall that have gone before it For whereas this renders the neglect of Baptisme so dangerous as that the heavy hand of God may well be feared as the punishment of such a sinne yet severall other precedent queries have rendered it so veniall a sinne as that it would be unreasonable for the sake thereof to barre any from Church-communion 2. But to answer directly I suppose it will not be denyed by the Baptists queried but that Baptisme is as necessary and of as high esteeme with God under the Gospell as Circumcision was under the Law and that they who neglect it whose duty it is to submit to it the Q●erist I mean and other Believerrs have cause to feare the displeasure of God as well as those who neglected Circumcision under the Law But where there is no Law there is no transgression and where no transgression no feare of wrath if then there is no command from God to baptise Infants as there was to circumcise them or if there be the Pedobaptists were never yet so kinde as to shew it us then there is no cause to feare the like danger for the forbearing of the one as there was for neglecting of the other 3. But though there be no cause to feare the displeasure of God for forbearing to baptise Infants yet if there be the same cause for us to feare the displeasure of God for doing that which he hath not commanded as there was for his people under the Law in like case then there is just cause for those to feare the displeasure of God in one kinde or other who though they do not offer strange fire which God commanded not as did N●dab and Abihu whom the Lord slew L●vit 10.1 2. not transgresse the Order of God as Vzza did who dyed before God 1 Chron. 13.10 with chap. 15.13 yet doe as truly and really doe that as a service to him in sprinkling their children which he hath not commanded as they did the other XXVII Querie answered Whether the Israelites were blamelesse under the omission of Circumcision for fourty yeares together upon account of that bodily inconvenience or danger the Querist speakes of I know not I leave it to him to determine But that a being dipped over head and eares in water in obedience to a command of Jesus Christ should be a tempting of the providence of God as to the endangering of either life or health I cannot believe because more then frequent even constant experience teacheth the contrary Nor do I believe there is the like danger or difficulty attends this dipping as did the circumcising of those Israelites Josh 5. after they had omitted it forty yeares and yet the danger and difficulty notwithstanding God would have it done What ever the danger might be for a man to be dipt upon his owne account I shall not speak but I am very confident God hath not made a snare of Baptisme and unlesse we will conceive that God takes lesse care to preserve his people now in the times of the Gospel from such inconveniences as these feared in the way of serving and obeying him then he did to preserve his people from those hazards they exposed themselves to in obeying him under the Law Exod. 34.24 there will be no cause for any man to feare the miscarriage of his life or health in the hand of Jesus Christ and in the way of obeying him he that rebuked the Windes and the Seas for his servants sakes can rebuke the feared cold and though ease slayeth the foolish yet whoso harkeneth unto me saith God Prov. 1.32 33. shall dwell safely and shall be free from the feare of evill And how can he trust God with the keeping of his soule in well doing 1 Pet. 4.19 that cannot trust him with the keeping of his body in well doing Little does he think who ever is turned aside by this Lyon in the way what peace and satisfaction a mans experience of the uprightnesse and cordialnesse of his heart to God will produce him when notwithstanding the danger which fl●sh and bloud will suggest in the case he can in love and obedience to his Lord and Master Jesus Christ throw health and life and all into the hands of God XXVIII Querie answered 1. If the Querist will suppose that those Scriptures which require faith or the profession of faith in those that are to be admitted to Baptisme are to be understood onely of men and women who are capable of making such a profession and that they are no more exclusive of Infants then the Apostles Injunction 2 Thes 3.10 If any will not worke let him not eat is exclusive of Infants in the point of eating wherein he intends men onely and not children then I desire him to shew us what Scriptures those are that doe speak of the baptising of infants and not of men and women professing the faith if those doe not for if such Scriptures as require faith in those that will be baptised doe no more intend children then the foresaid Injunction of the Apostle doth then there must be some other Scriptures that do intend Infants when they speak of baptising or else there are no Scriptures at all that doe speake of Childrens Baptisme if there be any other why are they not produced if there be not why is the world troubled with these disputes as if there were 2. Why does not or may not the Querist as well suppose that those words of the Apostle 1 Cor. 11.28 Let a man therefore examine himselfe and so let him eat of that Bread and drinke of that Cup are no more exclusive of Children then those are He that will not worke let him net eat or then those are which require a profession of faith before Baptisme For may not any man that will give himselfe liberty and scope to puzzle mens understandings without plaine Scriptures as well deny that children are debarred Communion at the Table of the Lord by this Text which requires a man to examine himselfe in order to his approach thereto as to deny that children are debarred Baptisme by those Scriptures that require faith in men and women to render them capable of Baptisme if there be any difference let us understand it or if children be not here excluded the Supper then shew us by what

which men have formerly devised to make the way of the Gospel more easie and plausible as to the fl●sh then Christ hath made it and these blots are so essentiall to Communion as that we know not how to eat of your Sacrifice and not be partakers of your Altar i.e. to hold Church-communion with you and not make our selves guilty of that which we condemne in the way of your Communion 2. As for the crime laid to the charge of this humour as out friend is pleased to call it of the Baptists viz. the breaking the Bonds of Vnity Love and Peace by which they were bound up with other Churches before it is nothing but what the Protestant Bishops underwent from the Pap●sts when they went off from them and the P●esbyterians from the Prelates and the Independents from the Presbyterians when they separated themselves from them and therefore I hope no wise man will be much startled with such scare-crowes as these in his eying a worke of Reformation or think the worse of the baptismall way because it carryes men yet a little further in reforming upon which account they are constrained to leave their friends behind that will not go with them as they themselves also have done those from whom they have departed 3. But as for estimating Christianity it selfe and acceptance with God by this despised way of Baptisme surely if any doe estimate Christianity by this onely for otherwise I hope it may beare its part and signifie its numb●r in the r ckoning as well as other Christian duties they are much to b●ame but that the Querist did ever know or hath ground to believe that any the men he speaks of much lesse all have or do make such an estimation I cannot easily conceive sure I am such a thing is far from their frequent Declaration of themselves as to this particular and therefore how duly or unduly the Querist hath coupled these poore Baptists with men of such unworthy straines and tempers as those are represented to be with whom they are compared and into whose company he hath put them for what cause he best knowes we must leave to God and sober men to judge XXXIX Querie answered 1. That Mr. Philpot spake or wrote as he thought in affirming Auxentius an Arrian to be the first and Pelagius the second that nyed the Baptisme of Children I will not deny but that he had any good ground so to think or so to say is that which I do deny for as Mr. Philpot did not speak this of his own knowledge so neither could any Author whom he must credit herein be able to affirme any such thing unlesse he had been more then a man and had knowne what and when every man in the world that discoursed these things had affirmed or denyed concerning them Besides were not Authors of Bookes in former times at least some of them men of like infirmity with severall in these times who have written and affirmed things of the Independents themselves not so much out of knowledge and judgement as out of disaffection if so are not or may not they be abused or misguided in their apprehensions that take all historicall relations and representations concerning the Anabaptists falsly so called for truth as well as they are and are like to be who accordingly do or sh●ll credit all that is written of the Independents by men disaffected to their way Besides what credit can be given to ancient Authors hereabout when many ancient Bookes are acknowledged to be spurious and others to be corrupted by the Papists who have put in and put out in their long reign of darknesse what would best serve their interest And that which is yet more considerable is that if it should appeare by unquestionable History which for ought I could ever learne does not but the contrary that the baptising of Children had been practised in the next age after the Apostles yet unlesse it could be made appeare that it was practised by approbation of the Apostles in the Apostles times or that by some injunction it ought so to have been it would not at all be any ground to warrant such a practise now because as the mystery of iniquity did begin to work in the Apostles dayes so there was a departing in part from the purity and simplicity of the Gospel and an introducing of the inventions of men whilest it was yet but early I know saith Paul that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you not sparing the flocke also of your owne selves shall men arise speaking perverse things to draw away Disciples after them Act. 20.29 30. But 2. If the Querist thinks Mr. Philpot is worthy of credit in his foresaid report though he produce no Authors may not the Authors of a Book entituled A very plaine and well grounded Treatise concerning Baptisme be rather credited in their allegation of Authors that assert the contrary to Mr. Philpot Amongst very many Authors which they produce on this account I shall instance in some few In pag. 19. of the said Book thus Tertullian in Libro de Baptismo That Infants or young Children should not be so speedily baptised and upon the saying of the Lord Suffer little Children to come unto me and forbid them not he speaketh thus Let them come when they are growne and are able to be instructed when they can learne to know Christ then may they be Christians For if youth be not so hastily to be put in trust with earthly goods why with heavenly Let them therefore know first how to desire that which is for their good to the intent that it being desired it may be given them And now I doubt not but the Querist well knowes that Tertullian lived long before Auxentius and Pelagius had a being in world and therefore by this it will appeare that Mr. Philpot was not worthy of credit in reporting them to be the first that denyed the baptising of Chi●dren Page 28. Erasmus in annotationibus supra 5. cap. ad Rom. Baptising of young Children was not as yet in use by S. Pauls time Roffensis contra cap. Babylon The first Rulars in their Church have used such manner of b●ptisme as Christ never used in his Church Dr. Eckius against the new Church orders in the upper Marquisdom and Territories of Noremburg writeth That the ordinances concerning the baptism of children is without Scripture and is found to be onely a custom of the Church Page 30. Bucerus in his book entituled the ground-work and cause c. In the Congregation of God confession of sins is alwayes the first the which in times past went before baptism for commonly children were baptized when they came to their understanding And again in the beginning of the Chu ch no man was bapt●z●d received into the congregation but those that through h●aring the word wholly gave ov●r and submitted themselves to Christ And again in annotationibus super 4. Iohn So much as in