Selected quad for the lemma: book_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
book_n	answer_v	scripture_n	word_n	1,678	5	4.1153	3	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A58206	Anabaptism routed: or, a survey of the controverted points: Concerning [brace] 1. Infant-Baptisme. 2. Pretended necessity of dipping. 3. The dangerous practise of re-baptising. Together, with a particular answer to all that is alledged in favour of the Anabaptists, by Dr. Jer. Taylor, in his book, called, the liberty of Prophesying. / By John Reading, B.D. and sometimes student of Magdalen-Hall in Oxford.	Reading, John, 1588-1667.	1655 (1655)	Wing R443; ESTC R207312	185,080	220

man to have instituted that Sacrament but though Christ say nowhere baptize children at seven dayes six months seven years or though he say nowhere Baptize women yet neither of these are Will-worship because the substance and institution of Baptism is grounded on his express command age and sexe are accidents Lastly If the major proposition be particular the rule is well known Of meer particulars nothing is concluded 2 There was an express command for the sealing of Abrahams sons in their generations in their infancie Gen. 17. 7. c. and Believers are expresly the sons or children of Abraham Gal. 3. 7. that is his spiritual seed who have no less priviledge in things belonging to salvation then his carnal seed And the Apostles who were Jews and brought up amongst them who were sealed in their infancie did not that we read of so much as ask Christ any question what they were to do with Infants and Christ giving them no prohibition concerning them he did thereby sufficiently intimate that he having not repealed the law of sealing Infants into his covenant would have them proceed according to the Analogie of the first seal of his covenant The greater doubt might possibly have been concerning baptizing of females who were not formerly sealed the doubt concerning the Gentiles sealing being removed by an express precept Baptize all Nations Mat. 28. 19. 3 On this very ground on which Anabaptists deny Infant-baptism the old Sadduces denyed the resurrection of the dead because they found it not expresly written in the books of Moses which only they received See what hath been answered to the Pleader near the end 4 Although we read not in terminis and so many words and syllables in holy Scripture Baptize Infants yet we read it in most firm and evident consequence if we but hold these three certain conclusions 1 That Children are conceived and born in sin the children of wrath 2 That God would not have them perish but rather be brought into the holy communion of Christ and his Church that they may be saved 3 That he hath appointed no other external ordinary means to us known for Infants regeneration but baptism 5 If the matter must be put upon express words of Scripture let our Antagonists shew us where they are expresly forbidden to baptize Infants where is there any syllable express or probable for re-baptizing any where have they any express precept for dipping over head and ears where have they any express precept for their long prayers for baptizing women or administring the communion to them shew us any express precept for the change of the Sabbath That which we read not expresly mentioned in Scripture that the Apostles did that we may not do but we read not in express words in Scripture that the Apostles ever baptized Infants therefore we may not baptize them We answer 1 If your principle were true it might thence be concluded that the Lords Supper may not be administred to women for we no where read in express words that the Apostles ever administred it unto them 2 Express words in Scripture are not alwayes necessary to prove a thing which necessary consequence doth conclude we have no express words in Scripture naming an holy Unitie in Trinitie and Trinitie in Unitie most undeniable consequence we have Mat. 28. 19 1 Joh. 5. 7. Again we have no express word that the Apostles were baptized for Christ himself baptized none Joh. 4. 1. c. and we read not where or when John Baptist baptized them yet certainly they were baptized we read not expresly that the Apostles in baptizing mentioned the Father the Son and the holy Ghost but most certain consequence concludeth it because Christ so appointed it and it was of the essence of the Sacrament and why should we more tie the baptism of Infants to express words then any of these fundamental things are tyed and on the like consequential grounds why should we doubt whether the Apostles did indeed usually baptize Infants of Christians because it is not expresly written seeing that many other words matters and actions of the Apostles and Christ himself were not written 3 Christ expresly commanded to baptize all Nations in no one syllable title or word therein excepting Infants who are and ever were a great and numerous part thereof and that which concerneth all alike concerneth every part thereof When Peter was asked what was needful to be done for the Jews prickt at heart Act. 2. 37 38. he said Repent and be baptized but Infants can neither actually repent nor contribute any thing towards their baptism therefore they ought not to be baptized And again Mat. 3. they confessed their sins and were baptized which Infants cannot do We answer 1 Forasmuch as Infants cannot actually as such repent or confess it concludeth that these things for the present concern not Infants for no impossibilitie is reasonably enjoined any but belong to persons of years or those who were not yet sealed into the communion of Christs Church and it is apparent that unto such Peter spake as far as his words concerned Infants is also express be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins for the promise is to you and to your children What promise why that Gen. 17. 7. To what children was that promise made what to those who had been children but were now of years to be taught believe and repent No but to those first who were to be sealed the eighth day after they were born who certainly could then no more actually believe or repent then can our Infants now therefore 't is plain to those who will understand that persons of years to be taught must first repent c. but Infants to whom the promise covenant or seal thereof jointly belongeth must besealed as joint-covenanters with their Parents before they can actually believe or repent for why else after this exhortation to repentance and baptism doth he mention their children were they no wayes liable to this double precept repent and be baptized every one of you who they only who can actually for the present repent nay but Peter knew well that children of whom he spake could not do that by reason of their present want of the use of reason yet he knew they had need of remission of sins by Christ and that the promise of God was made to them without which 't were but vain for men to seal and as firmly concerned them as their enchurched parents and therefore he mentioned them There appears neither act nor habit of regeneration in Infant-baptism until they be taught the Word neither any more promptitude to learn it then is in unbaptized children coming to years therefore their baptism is effectless and consequently unlawful We answer 1 The Kingdom of God cometh not with observation Luk. 17. 20. and the internal acts of the Spirit are secret for what man knoweth the