Selected quad for the lemma: blood_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
blood_n	eat_v	flesh_n	soul_n	6,923	5	5.6839	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A76816	A moderate ansvver to these two questions 1. Whether ther [sic] be sufficient ground in Scripture to warrant the conscience of a Christian to present his infants to the sacrament of baptism. 2. Whether it be not sinfull for a Christian to receiv [sic] the sacrament in a mixt assembly. Prepared for the resolution of a friend, and now presented to the publick view of all, for the satisfaction of them who desire to walk in the ancient and long-approved way of truth and holiness. By T.B. B.D.	Blake, Thomas, 1597?-1657.	1644 (1644)	Wing B3148; Thomason E19_6; ESTC R12103	35,052	36

Teachers and Officers in the Church They must indeed put a difference betwixt things holy and profane they must separate the precious from the vile pronouncing mercy to the one denouncing judgement to the other admitting the one to the Holy things keeping of the other This must they do and if not they deserve a just reproof But what is this to the cause in hand Doth this countenance the course of such who condemn those that do not put themselves from the Holy things of Gods because those be admitted which ought not Is not this rather to make sad the Heart of the righteous That of Esay 65.11 Yee are they that forsake the Lord that prepare a Table for the Troup and furnish a drink-offering for the number This I say hath been alledged to tax the negligence of them who admit the promiscuous multitude to the Table of the Lord As if the Prophet had blamed Israel for the like carelesness in their Passover and Peace-offering wheras the text doth blame their Idolatry not their profaness Idolatry in sacrificing to Jupiter and Mercury to the Host of Heaven But admit it as a tax of negligence and profaness yet must it not fall upon every particular person Apply it to the Church officers and spare not but blame not them who because the promiscuous multitude are not turn'd away do not turn away themselves from the Table of the Lord. And so much for the first Argument c. The second Argument NO man may neglect either the Duty that he oweth to God or the Benefit which God reacheth forth to Him upon pretence that another man doth not perform his Duty or is not fitted to receive the Benefit with Him Shall not the Husband pray or Hear and Receiv because the wife of his Bosome is passionate and irreconciliable Shall not Lot make hast out of Sodome because his son-in-laws do not prepare to go with him That it is a Duty to receiv the Sacrament is plain enough by that precept Do this in Remembrance of mee That ther is a Benefit reached forth to us in it is as evident by that word of our Saviour This is my Body This is my Blood He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath everlasting life Nay more This Benefit cannot be had without this duty Except yee eat the flesh of the Son of man and drinke his blood yee have no life in you Joh. 6.53 You will perhaps reply That Duties must be performed in a right manner otherwise we may provoke God Israel must eat the Passover yet not in their uncleanness nor with the unclean say the same of Christians I grant the Proposition for sound and good The instance of Israel doth not reach home to the point in hand It doth not appear by any text of Scripture That if the Master of the familie did neglect to exclude such as were unclean that therupon the children or servants did or might lawfully forbear the Passover Add this also To bring home the Argument more particularly to the cause in hand where a prepared Heart may comply with the principall end of Receiving the Sacrament ther ought he not to absent himself for want of the secondary Reason giveth it That wher ther is a Duty to be done a Benefit to be expected If ther be divers Ends of doing that duty some more some less principall No reason to neglect that by which the Principall end may be obtained because we cannot obtain th● s●condary Now then As God hath appointed and ordained this Sacrament 1. To hold forth the Benefit of Christs death to the worthy Receiver that by partaking of Christs flesh and blood the Christian may be more neerly united to Christ himself in the first place and then to the members of Christ 2. To call for and cause in the Society of the faithfull a publick Testification of their mutuall love and charity one to another as members of the same mysticall body So the principall end of Receiving is to continue the Union and Communion with Christ and all good Christians the living members of Christ which was begun in Baptism And the secondary is to make profession of it by joining with this and that Assembly of Christians Now then since the primary end of Receiving is our Union with Christ and our union with Christians is but the secondary For we are not united to Christ by being received into the Congregation but indeed received into the Congregation because first united to Christ Nay since the primary end is Union and our Profession or Testification therof is but the second or third end of Receiving Therfore where the Primary end may be obteined why should the want of the second or perhaps the third be accounted any just barr to keep us off Now howsoever the mixture of bad with the good or the scandalous courses of over-many in the Assembly might seem a just barr to our Profession of Communion and Fellowship with this or that Congregation yet since it cannot hinder us in obtaining our desire of Union with Christ and his mysticall Body why should this mixture be any barr to the Duty enjoined In very deed if that Profession of our selves to be of the Number of them who hold of Christ and his Church if this I say were the principall end of Receiving the Sacrament Then were there some shew of Reason to forbear joining with a mixt Assembly But now it is otherwise It were indeed to be wished that the whole Congregation were such as that we might affectionatly desire to continue in Communion and Fellowship with them But if it fall out otherwise through the fault of other men Can that be a sufficient reason to hinder us from the Sacrament The prime fruit and Benefit wher-of we may partake of even in the mixt Assembly Add this also That it is charitably supposed ther be some Saints in the Congregation and in our address to the Sacrament we do profess our desire of Union and Communion with them if others intrude themselves we came not thither to meet with them Now the Question is whether we may neglect the good and godly Christians and that Duty which we ow to God in respect of them because of the bad and wicked whom finding ther we have not power to remove The third Argument TThat Opinion which in the best Ages of the Church hath been condemned of errour And that which necessarily casteth Christians upon inextricable difficulty's and discomforts is in all probability erroneous and therfore not to be embraced Such is the opinion of them who hold it sinfull for a Christian tho well-prepared for the holy Sacrament by self-examination according to the Doctrine of the Apostle to draw neer to the Table of the Lord in the company of them that are unjustly permitted to come to that holy Ordinance That it hath been condemned as erroneous in the best ages of the Church is evident by the story of the Novatians first and the

none of these texts are so easie to be understood Consequently it is more than probable that even this Custome of Baptising Infants was instituted and ordained in the Churches by th'Apostles and that according to the commandement of Christ Add unto all that hath been sayd that of St. Ambrose Sicut nunc in ecclesià manet Constitutio salvatoris dicentis Nisi quis renatus sucrit Ita sacratissimè in lege suerat praecautum ut natus puer nisi die circumcideretur octavo exterminaretur anima ejas de populo suo Ambros Epist 33. Ad Demetriadem p. 132. who setts these two as paralell the law of God touching Circumcision The soul who is not circumcised shall be cut off from his people and the Sanction of our Saviour Except a man bee born again of water and of the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdome of God That this text is to be understood of Baptism as a mean and cause of Regeneration Not so principall as the Spirit yet so instrumentall to the Spirit that wher it may be had wee have no ground of Faith to beleev that the Spirit will work without it This is I say the constant and consentient judgement of all the Ancients and most of our modern Divines Some few only excepted who to avoid the Popish Tenet touching the absolute necessity of B●ptism did fly to a Metaphor And it may be confirmed for Truth out of the Text it self if we note well To whom and upon what occasion the words were spoken viz. To Nicodemus upon occasion of his timerousnes A Disciple of Christ he was willing to be but loth to prosess it openly by being baptised To him is the commination directed and therfore the words must be understood of Baptism Now then consider well whether ther be any ground sufficient to keep of Infants from this Ordinance Any ground I say which may secure the conscience of not having sinned against the souls of our Infants if by our default they dy without this seal of the Covenant and so loos the Benefit ther-of Have not Infants need of Christ and the Application of his Blood for the washing their souls from sinn Is ther any Hope of Salvation without Christ Is ther any other way revealed by which any may have part in Christ but by his Ordinances Is ther any other Ordinance by which Infants may be made partakers of Christ and the Covenant of Grace except Baptism Is ther any text of Scripture that hath peremptorily barred their Admittance Or is ther any thing required of them that must be baptised the want wher-of may be a barr to Infants Thou doubtest because ther is no text that mentioneth either Precept or Pattern and with-out a text thou darest not venture 'T is well But when ther is such a fearfull sentence that runns in such generall terms as doth comprehend Infants also and the Danger of Omission is so great Why art thou not more cautelous on the safer side Why dost thou not as well call for a direct text to barr them or a direct Reason from Scripture which may be equivalent Is ther any text that saith None may be baptised that do not Beleev or that saith Infants for want of Actuall faith may not be baptised Doest thou not see Infants Circumcised yea by commandment Doest thou not hear the text that saith Children are Holy And are ther so many Probabilities that by th'Apostles themselves Infants were baptised And wilt thou rather hazard the soul of thy child than lay hold upon the Covenant for thy seed nay for thy self and that only upon a fear and a doubt of unlawfulnes yea such a doubt that hath no surer ground either in Scripture or Reason to countenance it than the contrary resolution Here is then the Case if these Grounds formerly mentioned prove good as ther is great probability Then thou presenting thine Infant to Baptism building upon these grounds thou hast saved thy self and thine Infant but forbearing and keeping him of thou sinnest against thine own soul and his also Again if those grounds should not prove good yet hast thou not wronged thine Infant nor thine own self Because upon such probabilities as are next door to an Evident Demonstration thou hast done that which is intended for the Glory of God and the Good of the Infant Thou hast not transgressed against any Precept no nor any light of Reason which might justly with-hold thee from seeking the Good of thine Infant at the Hands of Christ in this Ordinance I conclude therfore That ther is sufficient Ground in Scripture to warrant the Conscience of a Christian to bring his Infants to this Sacrament of Baptism with a confident expectation to receiv Benefit by the same Nay more Ther is Ground enough to warrant the Accusation of Him that upon such uncertain Reasons shall forbear to present his Infant to this Sacrament of Initiation the Accusation I say of Him as one that sinneth against the Ordinance of God and trespasseth against the Soul of his Infant yea of Himself So much for the first Question THE SECOND QVESTION Quest Whether it be not sinfull for a Christian to receiv the Sacrament in a mixt Assembly A Mixt Assembly is that wherein good and badd are mingled together and make up one Congregation when the precious are not severed from the vile nor any difference put between the Holy and Prophane Now these good and badd these precious and vile are not to be reckoned in respect of their spirituall estate toward God i. e. as they are Elect or Reprobate Sincere or Hypocriticall but in respect of their Ecclesiasticall state in the ey and judgement of Men as they are in their courses and conversations in their Calling and Profession holy or profane These bad and vile are again to be considered A parte ante or A parte post viz. Either such as yet profess not themselves in Covenant with God by joining themselves to the Assembly of his servants Or such who having formerly had a standing in the Church do afterward run out into exorbitant courses to the scandall of Religion and so deserv to be separated from the Society of the Saints and by the Sentence of Excommunication cut of from the Assembly So that the Question is Whether if either of these be found in the Congregation and company of them that draw neer to the Table of the Lord to partake of those holy Mysteries either those who as yet have not been admitted or those that by the laws of Christ ought to be shutt out and sequestred whether their presence do make it unlawfull in point of conscience for a Christian to receiv the Sacrament among them so that if he do he is eo nomine therby desiled and become partaker of their sinn Where also for the better understanding of the Answer to this Question we are to note what is granted and what is questioned and demanded Things granted are these 1. Some are not to