Selected quad for the lemma: truth_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
truth_n	age_n	church_n	time_n	2,142	5	3.6322	3	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

the Gospel yet the present defect hereof doth not put the Parent out of the Church nor exclude his Children from Membership or from the Initiatory Seal of it no more then a-like defect did then We might also minde the case of one that hath been in full Communion but falling into Offence is under publick Admonition for it Is not he in a state of unfitness taking it for want of actual fitting qualifications for the Lords Supper yet this will not debarre his Childe from Baptism because he is not yet cut off from Membership Neither doth his having once been in full Communion alter the case or render him more in a state of fitness then the Parent in question is for the one is a Member as well and as truely as the other and to be declined and fallen off from Supper-qualifications and debarred from the Lords Table for open Offence is worse then for a young man simply not to have attained thereunto it is at least Ecclesiastical●y worse We speak not of what the inward state before God may be but that it is worse in foro Ecclesiae appears Because the Church hath had and seen cause to dispense a publick Censure in the one case but not in the other Now if a person may retain his Membership and so derive Baptism-right to his Children notwithstanding his personal unfitness for the Lords Supper in the former case why not as well nay much more in the latter But let it seriously be considered whether there be any warrant in all the Scripture to make the baptizing of the Childe to depend upon the Parents actual fitness for or admission to the Lords Supper What fitness for the Lords Supper had those that were baptized by Iohn Baptist and by Christs Disciples at his appointment in the beginning of his publick Ministry What fitness had the Iaylor when himself and all his were baptized after an hours Instinction wherein probably he had not so much as heard any thing of the Lords Supper The teaching of which followed after Discipling and Baptizing as is hinted by that order in Matth. 28.19 20 and by the ancient practice of not teaching the Catechumeni any thing about the Lords Supper till after they were baptized as is witnessed by Hanmer of Confirmation pag. 13 14. Albaspinans apud Baxter of Confirmation pag. 132. We constantly read in the story of the Acts that persons were Baptized immediately upon their first entrance into Membership but we never read that they did immediately upon their first Membership receive the Lords Supper which strongly argues that Membership and Baptism the Seal thereof is separable even in the adult from full Communion And that a man may have his Children baptized as the Iaylor and others had and yet not presently come but need further instruction and preparation before he come to the Lords Supper So farre is Baptism from being inseparable from immediate admission to the Lords Supper that we reade of no one no not of the ●dult in all the New Testament tha● was admitted to the Lords Supper immediately upon his Baptism from the first Baptism of Iohn to the end of the Acts of the Apostles There is but one place that sounds as if it were quickly after viz. Acts 2.41 42. which is here alledged by our Brethren But to that 1. There is no word about the Lords Supper in Peters Sermon the Heads whereof are in that Chapter set down though t●ere is somewhat of the other Sacrament of Baptism ver 38. and upon glad receiving 〈◊〉 is word they were baptized immediately ver 41. 2. Hence there must be some time afterward for instructing them in the doctrine and use of the Lords Supper as Paul nad some time for that a● Corinth 1 Cor. 11.23 with Acts 18.11 before their admission t●ereunto or participation thereof and so much is ●●●imated in the Text when it s said They after their being added and baptized continued in or gave sedulous attendance to the Apostles Doctrine fi●st and then Breaking of Bread There was some time of gaining further acquaintance with Christ and with his Wayes and Ordinances and with this in special by the Apostles Doctrine and Instruction between their baptizing and their participation of the Supper some time we say more or less and that that was attained in a very little time then under those plentiful pourings forth of the Spirit requires usually a much longer time now in ordinary Dispensation The Preface proceeds to strengthen their second Reason by Testimonies and the Assertion which they seem to intend the Proof of by these Testimonies is a very strange one viz. this Neither do we reade that in the Primitive times Baptism was of a greater Latitude as to the Subject thereof then the Lords Supper but the contrary These words as they are here set down do speak as if in the Primitive times Baptism was not extended unto Infants or at least no more nor sooner then the Lords Supper was given unto them which is here presently well acknowledged to have been a grievous Errour Well might the Anabaptist triumph if this could be proved which indeed never was nor can be But we are willing to believe that our Brethrens meaning is though it be not so expressed that the Subject of Baptism in Ancient times was not of a greater Latitude as to the Adult then the Lords Supper i. e. that no adult persons might have Baptism for themselves or for their Children but such as were also admitted to the Lords Supper But of this also we must say That we finde not any thing that proves it but much to the contrary And though we have not met with any that have purposely handled this Point touching the different extent of these two Sacraments yet we finde enough to shew us That the Churches of Christ in all especially in the best Ages and the choicest Lights therein both Ancient and Modern have concurred and met in this Principle as a granted and undoubted Truth that baptism is of larger extent then the Lords Supper so as that many that are within the visible Church may have Baptism for themselves or at least for their Chil●ren who yet ought not presently to partake of the Lords Supper or who do at present want actual fitness for it The Witnesses above cited tell us that in Ancient times they did not so much as impart any thing to the Ca●echumeni about the Lords Supper till after their Baptism And if Hanmer have rightly observed even the Adult after their Baptism must have Confirmation before they partaked of the Lords Supper Hanmer of Confirmation pag. 15 22. And vid. pag. 59. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Perfectus among the Ancients is as much as with us one in full Communion but none were by them rec●oned to be 〈◊〉 in the Rank of perfect Christians that had not received the holy Ghost either in extraordinary Gifts or in special confirming Grace See Hanmer of Confirmat

Baptism is of greater Latitude then the Lords Supper and that all that do bring their Children to partake of the former 〈◊〉 n●t therefore themselves presently partake of th● latter but that many may have their Ch●ldren Baptized and yet regularly be debarred from the Lords Supper We might also mention the Concurrence of Divines with us in particular Reasons Explications and Assertions relating to ●●is matter ●● That Baptism is annexed to the ●eing or beginning of Faith the Lords Supper to the special exercise of it That Baptism belongs to all Members but the Lords Supper to so●e onely that are so and so qualified that all visible Believers who in a latitude of Expression and Ecclesiastical reputation are such as are all that are within the Church are not to be admitted to the Lords Supper Vrsin and Pareus answering that Objection against the Baptism of Infants that Then they must be admitted to the Lords Supper have these words Magnum discrimen c. There is a great difference between Baptism and the Supper For 1. Baptism is a Sacrament of Entrance and R●ception into the Church But 〈◊〉 Supper is a Sacrament of Continuance in the Church 〈◊〉 Confirmation of the Reception 〈◊〉 made 2. Regeneration by 〈…〉 and not to them presently but after that they have held forth a confession of Faith and Repentance Also it may be minded that it is the currant and constant expression of our Divines that they call and count all that are within the compass of the visible Church whether Infants or adult Fideles V●cati Faithful called c. And they will tell you that they are for Baptizing no Infants but such as are Infantes fidelium the Infants of the Faithful or of Believers Infantes non omnes sed duntaxat fidelium i. e. Baptizatorum sunt Baptizandi Chamier Tom. 4. pag. 130. So Daneus Infantes ex fidelibus i. e. Baptiza●●s nati possunt Baptizari in Ecclesia Lib. 5. De Sacram. pag. 538. And yet they do not look at all these no not at all the adult that come under this denomination and whose Children they Baptize to be regularly admittable to the Lords Supper which plainly shews their judgement to be that all adult Persons who are in a Latitude of expression to be accounted visible Believers or in Ecclesiastical Reputation to be lookt at as Fideles are not therefore to partake of the Lords Supper Dr. Ames accounts that a person may be a Believer on Christ and yet be unfit for the Lords Supper being not sufficiently instructed thereunto Bellar. Enerv. Tom. 3. Lib. 4. Cap. 1. and he expresly saith that Church-children are to be numbred among the Faithful and reckons them to have the beginning of Faith yet not to be admitted to all Ordinances till increase of Faith appear Medul Lib. 1. Cap. 32. Thes. 12 13. Mr. Hooker takes it for granted as a clear case That one may be a Convert soundly brought home to Christ and yet through his weakness not able to discern the Lords Body aright nor fit to partake of the Supper Survey part 3. pag. 16. And in his Sermons on Gen. 17.23 Pag. 21. He hath these words Baptism is the entrance into Christs Family there is much more to be looked at to make a person capable of the Supper of the Lord a man must be able to Examine himself he must not onely have Grace but growth of Grace he must have so much perfection in Grace as to search his own heart and he must be able to discern the Lords Body or else he is guilty of the Body and blood of Christ so as there is more required in this for there must be a growth But Baptism is our entrance and the lowest degree of Grace will serve here in the judgement of Charity Worthy Hildersam on Psal. 51.5 pag. 257. saith The Infants of the Faithful are said to be Holy not because they are without sin but because in the judgement of the Church they are to be esteemed not Infidels as other Children of Pagans but Christians and Believers and holy and true Members of the Church of God And Hence 1. So soon as they are born they have title to the Seal of Gods Covenant and the Church may not deny it unto then And why may not the Church deny Baptism to any childe of a believing Parent surely because the Church is bound to esteem every such childe not an Infidel but rather a Believer and a true Christian. 2. When they dye we are in Christian Charity to judge that they dye in Gods favour and in the state of Salvation And all this because of the Covenant Gen. 17. as he there addes Yet the same Hildersam would not admit such as these who were born and grew up in the visible Church to the Lords Table without a strict Examination not onely of their Knowledge and Lives but of their Spiritual Estate Doct. of Lords Supper pag. 8 14. All which we produce not as if the Testimony and concurrence of Authors were the Basis that our judgement in this matter stands upon but because this Preface doth both in this place and in other parts of it insinuate to the Reader as if Authority of Writers were for the Dissenters and against the Doctrine of the Synod which is farre from being so the contrary being abundantly and undeniably evident And as we bottom our Faith in this point wholly and onely upon the Scriptures and do referre the decision of this and of all other Theological controversies to the Law and to the Testimony so we acknowledge it to be no small confirmation to us to finde that we have the Concurrence of the Godly-learned The substance of the Congregational-Way may be gathered from the Doctrine Principles of our best and ablest Reforming Divines which doth not a little confirm us in it and delivers it from the Imputation of Novelty or Singularity But should we limit Baptism to so narrow a scantling as our Brethren strive for we should therein go against the whole stream of Divines even of those that have been most eminent in their generations for Learning Holiness and Studiousness of Reformation yea of those from whom our Congregational Leaders have professed to receive their Principles as was abovesaid And we confess our selves conscious to so much of our own weakness that unless we have very clear Light and undeniable Argument constraining us we are slow and fearful to go alone or to go contrary to the concurrent Judgement of our best Divines who if we may use our Brethrens phrase have been Stars of the first Magnitude incomparable Champions for the Truth and have been raised up by Christ to light the Path of Reformation in these later Ages Now as for what is here alledged by our Brethren as favouring their Cause To say That the Catechumeni were not in the Primitive times to be baptized before they were fit for the Lords Supper Consider how it can consist with

minority are not expresly mentioned in the Text no more then Children when adult or grown up and if the Logicians rule be good which saith à quatenus ad omne valet conj●quenti● then if infants and children in minority must not be admitted to full communion because of their want of the ability spoken of it will follow if the like inability be found in the adult that these also must not be admitted and that for the like Reason And ●f that Text 1 Cor. 11. be sufficient to prove the one it is sufficient for proof of the other also and so this Argument of the Synod stands good The Exception he added is That yet it may not be granted that when they are grown up to years they are and continue Members regularly being through want of that ability not fit for Church-communion i. e. for full communion Ans. If it may not be granted that they continue Members why should not something be produced to prove the contrary Why should such a thing be barely affirmed and not proved It is sure they were once Members and as such were Baptized and it is clear that though now they be adult or grown up yet they were never in any way of God cut off or cast out from their Membership and therefore we think it more rational to say that they st●ll c●ntinue to be Members then to say that they do not and this without alledging any proof at all As for that which here followeth That if persons being unbaptized should desire to have the Covenant and their Church-membership sealed by Baptism they must hold f●rth faith in Christ wrought in their hearts before they may be baptized as Philip required the Eunuch Acts 8. So by parity of Reason f●om baptized in infancy being grown up to years desires to be joyned to the Church he must hold forth his personall faith in the Son 〈◊〉 God c The Answer is That there is not as is said parity of Reason between the cases alledged but great disparity for in the one case the persons spoken of are unbaptized in the other baptized already in the one case the persons desire to have the Covenant and their Church-membership sealed by Baptism and in the other case there is no such d●si●e the persons having had the Covenant and their Membership sealed by Bapt●sm already even in their infancy or minority long since in the one case the persons seem as yet to be Non-members though they do 〈◊〉 that Priviledge but in the other case the persons were Church-members long ago For as for that term that is used concerning these 〈◊〉 d●●ring to be joyned to the Church by their own personall 〈…〉 c●●ve this word of joyning to the Church if it be meant of their first joyning thereto is very improper because the●● persons are not now to be so joyned but were joyned to the Church long since Nor is the Church now to admit them to Church-membership for they were admitted thereto long since The second Argument of the Synod for proof of this fourth Proposition is From the Old Testament where though men did continue Members of the Church yet for ceremoniall uncleanness they were to be kept from full communion in the holy things yea and the Priests and Porters had speciall charge that men should not partake in all the holy things unless duely qualified for the same notwi●hstanding their Membership c. To this the Reverend Author Answereth 1. That the invalidity of Proofes from the Old Testament being applyed to Gospel-Ordinances and so this of Baptism under the New Testament in things whereof there is not the like reason hath been declared in the fourth sixth and eighth Positions with which this proof doth not agree Ans. To this we Answer 1. That there is validity and much weight in proofs from the Old Testament for confirming and clearing things under the New for even those Scriptures were written for our learning Rom. 15.4 and Christ himself bids us search them as those which did Testifie of Him Joh. 5.39 and brings many Proofs out of those Scriptures for confirming and clearing things under the Gospel Luk. 24.44 45 46. 16.29 31. and so do the Apostles likewise even in main fundamental matters Act. 17.2 3. 28.23 and so from the maintenance of the Ministry that was under the Old Testament to the maintenance of the Ministry now 1 Cor. 9.13 from their Sacraments to ours and from the danger of unworthy receiving those to the danger of unworthy receiving ours 1 Cor. 10.1 2. c. By which and much more that might be added it is plain that the Scriptures of the Old Testament have much validity in them for confirming and clearing Truths in New testament-Testament-times 2. The Reverend Author doth acknowledge as was noted before That the covenant of Abraham is the same for substance now under the Gospel as it was under the Law and that the Kingdome of God is the same to the Iews formerly and to the Gentiles now and that Baptisme of Infants under the New Testament may be rightly proved from the Circumcision of Inf●nts under the Old Which passages do sufficiently witness that in his judgement there is validity in Proofs from the Old Testament for things under the New 3. It is a great weakness and mistake in sundry of the Antipoedobaptists that they would limit the Proofs for Infant-Baptism and for the Covenant-interest of children unto the Scriptures of the New Testament as if the Covenant of Abraham and the Circumcision of Infants in the Old Testament were of no validity for the purpose mentioned And it is not comfortable that the Reverend Author should so often harp upon this string and so often mention this matter of the invalidity of Old Testament-Scriptures for proof of matters in Gospel times as if he did concur with them in their Tenet against ●oedobaptism which he frequently professeth against albeit in this his language seems but too like theirs which we could wish were otherwise 4. For that expression of Things whereof there is not the like reason being a limitation or explanation of the invalidity spoken of let this be applyed to the case in question and we conceive it will not weaken the Argument in hand nor shew any Invalidity therein but rather the contrary for if Ceremonial uncleanness did hinder men from full communion in the Ordinances in the Old Testament notwithstanding their Membership is there not the like reason or rather much more that Membership alone should not suffice for full communion in these dayes if Moral fitness and Spiritual qualifications be wanting It seems in this case there is the like reason or rather much more and therefore the Synods Argument in the present case and their proof from the Old Testament cannot be laid aside or refused for any invalidity therein through want of the like Reason 2. The Reverend Author saith If the Texts alledged by the Synod were applicable to Church-members in Gospel-times