Selected quad for the lemma: book_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
book_n	day_n	lord_n	sabbath_n	2,881	5	9.6080	5	true

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

Males in his house that very day in which the Lord made a Covenant with him and the practise of Israel who did the like by all the male-children and infants which they bought with their money Whence I say that Custome should come except from this president I see not That they did so is evident by the story of their Acts and being done by them we doubt not of the lawfulnes No Revelation had they for it that is recorded This Ground of Conformity to the Pattern of the Old Testament we find in others and therfore conclude this also Now them The issue of all returns to this text Why this Rule should hold in so many particulars and only fail in this point of Baptising Infants I leav for them to give a reason who know what difference ther is betwixt reason and absurdity Especially since it is plain enough by the Testimony of the Ancients who lived in the next Ages after the Apostles That this also was a Custome establisht by the Apostles In Pam●lius notes on Cyprian Epla 59. you may find the names of the Ancients who referr it to an Apostolicall Tradition So also doth Augusti● lib. 4. De Baptismo c●ntra Donatist cap. 23. And in his Epl. 28. Ad Hyeronimum speaking of the 59 epistle of Cyprian the Title wher-of is Ad Fidum de Infantibus Baptisandis he saith Beatus Cyprianus non aliquod dec●etum condens novum ●ed Ecclesi●e fidem firmissimam se●●ans ad corrigendum cos qui putabant ante octavum d●●m nitivitatis non esse parvulum baptisandum mox natum rite baptisari cum suis quibussdam coepissopis censuit The Breviat of all this discours is this Every Commandement of Christ is to be observed Mat. 28. Infants-Baptism is the Commandement of Christ Every Apostolicall Institution is the Commandement of Christ Infants Baptism is an Apostolicall Institution therfore The Major is proved Cor. 11.25 and 14.37 and must be acknowledged except we would suspect them of fals and faithless dealing The Minor is acknowledged by the Ancients And ther is great reason for it because it doth as do the rest of the Rules for Order and Discipline delivered to the Church carry in its face and fore-head the stamp of Christs Ordinances viz. Conformity to the Pattern of the Church of Israel So then To them who think they may triumph in that Argument produced against Infants Baptism That it being presupposed that the Testament of Christ is so perfect and he so faithfull that nothing ought to be practised of Christians which is not therein warranted either by Precept or Pattern And it being assumed that ther is neither Precept nor Pattern for this Custome Therfore it may not be practised To them I say we see what Answer may be returned 1. To the Major Flourished with that text of Heb. 3.2.6 as Moses So Christ was faithfull Nay more Moses only as a servant but Christ as a Sonn And therfore his Testament as perfect nay more perfect than that of Moses True indeed But know we not that the faithfulness of a man in his office is to be measured according to the intent and scope of his Office imposed In which if he fail and faulter then is he unfaithfull if not then is he not unfaithfull tho he look not to other things ex gr The Minister may be faithfull tho he meddle not with the Sword of Justice The Magistrate tho he fight not with the sword of the Spirit So then what was the office of Moses and what of Christ The Office of Moses was to settle the Common-wealth and the Nationall Church of Israel The Office of Christ was to make Reconciliation betwixt God and man to work out the Redemption of Mankind It was fitt that Moses should sett down particular laws for the Common-wealth and Ordinances for the Church Neither of these did pertain to the Office of Christ yet by his Apostles and their successors in severall Ages doth he provide whatsoever is necessary for the welfare and good order of the Church of the New Testament But in his own person and by himself he established the Covenant of Grace ordained the Seals ther-of sett up a Ministery gave to them the word of life and salvation and pointed to them a pattern for good Order and Government and so was faithfull in his house as a Sonn and worthy of more honour than Moses This for the Major 2. To the Minor We grant That neither Precept nor Pattern formall and explicite is to be found in the books of the New Testament for Infants baptising i. e. There is no Precept that saith Go and baptise Infants no more is ther any Precept to baptise Women nor to observ the Lords day as a Christian Sabbath Ther is no text that saith The Children and Infants of this or that man were baptised Nor is ther any text that saith Such a woman was admitted to the Table of the Lord. But we say that both Precept and Pattern virtuall and implicit may be found to warrant it The which if found is not to be neglected Precept Virtuall and implicit Here we pitch upon the continuation of the Custome in Israel to present their Infants to the Sacrament of initiation and we frame the Argument thus What was instituted in the Old Testament and not repealed in the New nor is any way incompatible with the state of the Church in the New Testament that is understood to be continued and commended to the practise of the Christian Church But that Infants should be initiated and admitted into the Covenant of Grace by a Sacrament was commanded in the Old Testament neither is it repealed in the New nor incompatible with the state of the New Testament therfore That it is not repealed is thence confirmed Because in the Substitution of that new Sacrament of Initiation ther is no particular exception taken against Infants as before was noted in the first Argument That it is not incompatible with the state of the Church in the New Testament is thus further confirmed 1. The Infants of Christians are as capable of present incorporation into Christ and of admission into the Covenant of Grace as were the infants of the Jews And if so who shall barr them whom God hath not barred from the Seal of the Covenant 2. The Infants of Christians have as much need of the Communion and Participation in the Covenant of Grace as had the Infants of the Jews And their Parents as much need of a Ground of comfort as touching the Remedy of that which maketh them stand in need of the Covenant of Grace and the Benefits therof as the Parents of Jewish Infants If so who shall think that God hath not provided for them so well as for the other If he hath not how hath Grace abounded in the New Testament when in this particular it is much restreined both to Beleevers and to their Infants But if he hath who shall forbid them