A47350:190
A sober discourse of right to church-communion
A sober discourse of right to church-communion wherein is proved by Scripture, the example of the primitive times, and the practice of all that have professed the Christian religion, that no unbaptized person may be regularly admitted to the Lords Supper / by W. Kiffin ...A sober discourse of right to church-communion wherein is proved by Scripture, the example of the primitive times, and the practice of all that have prosessed the Christian religion, that no unbaptized person may be regularly admitted to the Lords Supper / by W. Kiffin ...
London: printed by Geo. Larkin for Enoch Prosser, 1681
Chapter 5: Wherein the Objections against this Position viz. That none may be Regularly admitted t…
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
Again, suppose the Child of a Baptized Person of sufficient Age, that was brought up in a Godly manner, is Converted and become a Believer, yet was never Baptized at all, should propose for Communion with the Church, would they admit him without Baptism, if he desires Communion so? (not being satisfied, that it is a necessary Duty,) If they would, then ⟨p. 129⟩it is evident, that they quite Exclude Baptism out of the Rank of Ordinances; If they do not admit him, then they place a sufficiency in Infant Baptism, because they grant a Privilege to him that had it, and deny the same to him that had it not, (whom we do suppose to be as much a Believer, and as holy as the other) which is expressly against their own Principle, viz. to esteem Infant Baptism as no Baptism; and therefore if they hold to it, should place him that was so in infancy baptized, and him that was never baptized, in the same rank, with respect to the Privilege of Church Communion.
Again, suppose the Child of a Baptized Person of sufficient Age, that was brought up in a Godly manner, is Converted and become a Believer, yet was never Baptized at all, should propose for Communion with the Church, would they admit him without Baptism, if he desires Communion so? (not being satisfied, that it is a necessary Duty,) If they would, then ⟨p. 129⟩it is evident, that they quite Exclude Baptism out of the Rank of Ordinances; If they do not admit him, then they place a sufficiency in Infant Baptism, because they grant a Priviledge to him that had it, and deny the same to him that had it not, (whom we do suppose to be as much a Believer, and as holy as the other) which is expresly against their own Principle, viz. to esteem Infant Baptism as no Baptism; and therefore if they hold to it, should place him that was so in infancy baptized, and him that was never baptized, in the same rank, with respect to the Priviledge of Church Communion.