Selected quad for the lemma: book_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
book_n father_n holy_a scripture_n 3,195 5 5.4075 4 true
View all documents for the selected quad

Text snippets containing the quad

ID Title Author Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) STC Words Pages
A93239 Infant-baptism and church-membership proved: and also the mode of baptism to be by sprinkling &c. In answer to Mr. Benjamin Dennie's book. By Giles Shute of Limehouse. Shute, Giles, b. 1650 or 51. 1695 (1695) Wing S3708; ESTC R231568 45,328 72

There is 1 snippet containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

submit to the discipline of Baptism Thus I have proved Infant-baptism and Church-membership to be of divine Institution and therefore have a right to the Ordinance of Baptism by vertue of Christs command and the Apostles argumentative mandatory Exhortation and also their covenant interest 1. Therefore I challenge all our Opponents to prove that ever the children of believing parent were once denied the Ordinance of Baptism is our Saviours time or his Apostles 2. I also challenge them to prove by any one Text of Scripture that none but adult believer● were to be baptized 3. Let them give us but one single Instance among all those Housholds which were baptized that any one child was exempted 4. And lastly Let them prove that Infant-baptism is any where forbid in the holy Scripture But if they can do neither of these as I am sure they cannot where then is divine Right which they so highly boast of and so confidently la● claim unto Why it appears clearly to be on our side and not on theirs and the Reason for it is undeniable For nothing can be of divine Right that is repugnant to the holy Scriptures But to deny the Infant-seed of Believers to have an Interest in the Covenant or Promise of God which intitles them to Baptism is repugnant to the holy Scriptures and therefore cannot be of divine Right as is clear from Acts 2.38 39. 1 Cor. 7.14 and Gen. 17.7 5. Some of those that are against Infant-baptism have publickly and confidently asserted in print that the children of Turks and Heathens have as much priviledge as the children of believing Christians but Mr. D. seems to be of another mind if he had but held tightly to it for saith he in page 2. Many of those you call the outward priviledges of the covenant of Grace our children have as well as yours Pray note by the way Mr. D. saith we call these Priviledges so he doth not own them to be really so and yet at the same time he saith their children have them This is a contradiction in it self for it is to have and enjoy that which they hold is not in being 6. I will prove that the children of believers have a far greater priviledge than the children of Turks and Heathens 1. First of all when the ungodly World was drowned and all destroyed all those children whose parents were not in the covenant were destroyed with their parents not so much as one of them escaped Pray take notice I do not judge nor meddle with their future estate But holy Noah and all his Houshold were saved Heb. 11.7 not one of his children perished in the Flood because they were all in the Covenant of Grace 2. When Sodom and Gomorah were destroyed by Fire from Heaven all those children whose wicked parents were not in the covenant perished with them in that conflagration but righteous Lot who was in the Covenant of Grace was saved and all his own children 3. Where is the chapter or verse to be found in all the Book of God that doth declare that the children of Turks or Heathens are holy children as it doth the children of either believing father or mother in 1 Cor. 7.14 4. And lastly Where is it said in Scripture to Turks and Heathens while such that The promise is unto you and to your children as in Acts. 2.39 Thus you see I have proved That the children of Christian believers have a far greater priviledge than the children of Turks and Heathens by which I have utterly destroyed that carnal ignorant presumptious Assertion of theirs 6. Saith our Opponents What benefit is it for a child to be baptized To which I Answer thus So might proud carnal Reason and natural Affection much more have queried in the time of the Mosaick Law What good doth this smarting Ordinance do to our children Or what benefit is it for them to be circumcised at eight days old which the Apostles themselves counted to be an intolerable yoke which they were not able to bea● Acts 15.10 and yet in Rom. 3. he counts it a very great priviledge and advantage for saith he What advantage then hath the Jew or wh●● benefit is there in circumcision Much every way chiefly because that unto them were committed the oracles of God Here you see the Apostles Answer is very compatible to this Query but saith he farther For what if some did not believe shall their 〈◊〉 belief make the faith of God without effect Here you see those eight-day disciples were capable of receiving the Oracles of God or else they would not have been committed unto them 6. Saith Mr. D. in p. 3. The primitive Fathers for six hundred years after Christ had a far different Medium to prove Infant-baptism by viz. The necessity of it to salvation Your notion of covenant-right from Abraham and habitual faith is not to be found in their Writings To which I Answer We are not bound to sail by their Compass if the Fathers were mistaken must we be so too I can produce some that were mistaken in a paraelel case long before their time and some of Mr. D's own Opinion that have been mistaken also in this Point in our Time 1. Some of those Jews that were converted to the Christian Faith in the Apostles time who were Teachers of others Acts 15. And certain men which came down from Judea taught the brethren and said Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses ye cannot be saved Here those men laid a very great stress upon the very manner of circumcision it must not be after the manner of Abraham but Moses 2. I have heard of some even in our Time that are against Infant-baptism that have held the same thing in effect for say they No baptism no salvation and they hold That there is no Baptism but that of dipping which is to reprobate all those who are not for dipping in baptism and all their own children also that die before they are dipped which is to place an Ordinance in the room of Christ's Righteousness But my good Friend It is safer relying upon Thus saith the Lord than upon Thus say the Fathers 2. I shall in the second place prove that the mode of baptism is by sprinkling or pouring water on the subjects in baptism and this I shall do partly to satisfie my much esteemed friend Mr. B. D. who gave me a strict charge on the Royal Exchange so to do though I have been very large already on this subject in my Replication to Mr. B. K's Book 1. I shall begin and make some Observations from Acts 2. where we find a great number that were baptized at one time but we do not find that the Apostles did lay any Injunction upon them to change their Rayment to be baptized in 1. They did not command the men to strip themselves and put on other Garments proper for the Ordinance and then come and be baptized neither did they say unto the women and