Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	child_n	father_n	lord_n	1,414	5	3.7128	3	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A52051	A sermon of the baptizing of infants preached in the Abbey-Church at Westminster at the morning lecture, appointed by the honorable House of Commons / by Stephen Marshall ...	Marshall, Stephen, 1594?-1655.	1644 (1644)	Wing M774; ESTC R876	44,378	66

this can have no place of an Argument in any case where one of the Parents is not an Infidell but this was not the case among the Jews Hagar and Thamar and the Concubines however sinfull in those acts yet themselves were beleevers belonging to the Covenant of God and that barre lay not against their children as did in the unbeleeving wife indeed if a beleeving man or woman should adulterously beget a childe upon a Pagan a Heathen or Unbeleever there this objection deserves to bee further weighed but here it comes not within the compasse of the Apostles Argument Before I passe from this second conclusion let me further shew you why the Lord will have the children of beleeving Parents reckoned even in their Infancy to belong to him First his own beneplacitum his free grace and favour which moves him to shew mercy to whom he will is a sufficient answer to all But secondly he will have it for his owne glory It is the honour of other Princes that all who are born in their kingdome should be accounted borne their Subjects and the honour of great Masters that the children of their servants born in their houses should be born their servants Solomon counts it a peece of his glory that he had servants born in his house And on the other side it is a dis-honour to a King not to be able legally to lay claime to those born in his kingdome but that another King yea an enemy might legally challenge them to be his Subjects So is it with the Lord he having left all the rest of the world to be visibly the devils kingdome will not for his owne glories sake permit the devill to come and lay visible claime to the sonnes and daughters begotten by those who are the children of the most High And thirdly he doth it both for the comfort and duty of those who are in Covenant with him partly I say for their comfort and priviledge while they may see their children visibly to be provided for by a better Father under a Covenant of Grace to whose care and under whose wing they may leave them when themselves shall faile and partly to be an obligation to bring them up for God not to themselves much lesse to the devill but ever to look upon themselves in the education of their children to be but nursing Fathers and Mothers to train them up in the nurture and feare of the Lord unto whose kingdome family and Covenant they thus belong I have been the larger upon these two first Conclusions because indeed the proving of these gains the whole cause if the Covenant be the same and children belong to it then they are to be owned as Covenanters and to be admitted to the distinguishing or discriminating sign betwixt Gods people and the devils and this the most learned of the Anabaptists doe professe that if they knew a childe to be holy they would baptize it In the other Conclusions I shall be more briefe The Lord hath appointed and ordained a Sacrament or seale of initiation to be administred unto them who enter into Covenant with him Circumcision for the time of that administration which was before Christs incarnation Baptisme since the time of his incarnation both of them the same Sacrament for the sp●rituall part though differing in the outward Elements both appointed to be distinguishing signes betwixt Gods people and the devils people both of them the way and means of solemne entrance and admission into the Church both of them to be administred but once and none might be received into the Communion of the Church of the Jewes untill they were circumcised nor into the Communion of the Church of the Christians untill they be Baptized none but the circumcised might eat of the Paschall Lamb none may but those who are baptized be admitted to eat the Lords Supper which succeeds in the room of the Passeover and this our Lord himselfe taught us by his own example who was circumcised as a professed Member of the Church of the Jews and when he set up the new Christian Church he would be initiated into it by the Sacrament of Baptisme Of this Conclusion there is no great doubt but because some of the Anabaptists doe deny the Sacrament of Baptisme to succeed in the roome place and use of Circumcision be pleased to observe how plaine the Apostle makes it Coloss. 2.8 9 10 11 12. where the Apostles scope is to disswade the beleeving Christians from the rudiments of the world and Jewish Ceremonies and observations upon this ground that we are compleate in Christ and that in him as in the head the Church hath all perfections and because he would take them wholly off from Circumcision the use wherof ingaged them to the use of the rest of Jewish Ceremonies he tels them that in Christ we are circumcised with a Circumcision made without hands a better Circumcision then the Jewes was in putting off the body of the sinnes of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ And whereas the Jewish teachers would be ready to object that the receiving of the inward grace of Circumcision did not make them so compleate as Abraham and his seed was because they also had an outward sensible signe whereby they might be farther perswaded comforted and confirmed to this he answers ver. 12. That neither is this priviledge wanting to Christians who have as excellent and expresse a Sacrament of it being buried with Christ in Baptisme the effect whereof he there sets downe and therefore they needed not Circumcision as their false Teachers insinuated thereby directly teaching that our Baptisme is in stead of their Circumcision And the Analogy lies betweene two Sacramentall types of the same substance regeneration to both Jews and Gentiles And in truth had not Baptisme come in the roome of it the Apostle could not have pitched upon a worse instance then that of Circumcision which was so much valued by them and was so great and usefull a priviledge unto them Nor had there been any reason to have here named Baptisme but that he meant to shew Baptism to Christians was now in the roome of Circumcision to the Jews That by Gods owne expresse order infants as well as growne men were in the time of the Jewes to be initiated and sealed with the signe of Circumcision Whether Jewes by nature or Proselytes of the Gentiles one Law was for them al if they receive the Covenant they and their children receive Circumcision and although as I touched before this signe was actually applyed onely to the Males yet the females were virtually circumcised in them as is apparent both because the whole Church of the Jewes were called the Circumcision and because by Gods expresse order no uncircumcised person might eate of the Passeover which we are sure the women did as well as the men And whereas some who see which way the strength of this Conclusion bendeth doe

be a Disciple of Christ or to beare the name of Christ is all one and that such Infants do belong to Christ and beare the name of Christ I have sufficiently proved already And I desire it may be seriously weighed whether that expression Act. 10.15 Now therefore why tempt ye God to put a yoke upon the necks of the Disciples do not necessitate us to give the name of Disciples to Infants as well as to grown men for I reason thus All they upon whose necks those false Teachers would have put the yoke of circumcision are called Disciples and to be called Disciples but they would have put the yoke of circumcision upon Infants as well as grown men therefore Infants as well as grown men are called Disciples and to be called so The major is undenyable the minor I prove thus They who pressed circumcision to be in force according to the manner of Moses Law and would put it upon their necks after the manner of Moses his Law they would put it upon Infants of those who were in Covenant with God as well as upon the necks of those who were grown men for so Moses Law required but these fals teachers pressed circumcision to be so in force as is apparent Act. 15.1 Another command by good consequence for the baptizing of Infants you shall find in that forementioned place where the Apostle exhorted them to repent be baptized c. Because the promise was made to them and to their children which as I shewed you clearely proves that the Children of such who beleeve and are baptized are taken into Covenant and therefore by good consequence they also are to receive the seale of the Covenant The Text not onely shewing that they are within the Covenant but also that a right to Baptisme is a consequence of being within the Covenant Thus for Commands for Examples though there should be none there is no great argument in it when the rule is so plain yet we have examples enough by good consequence for you shall finde the Gospell took place just as the old administration by bringing in whole families together when Abraham was taken in his whole Family was taken in with him when any of the Gentiles turned Proselytes ordinarily their Families came in with them so in this new Administration usually if the Master of the House turned Christian his whole Family came in and were baptized with him The whole household of Cornelius the first converted Gentile Act. 11.14 the household of Stephanus the household of Aristobulus the household of Narcissus the household of Lydia the household of the Gaoler these are examples not to be contemned And whereas some object against this Argument taken from whole Families that the argument is at least as strong to prove that the Jewish Infants did eat the Passeover because not only severall Families might but did and that by Gods appointment eat the Passeover I Answer by denying the consequence the argument is not so strong for the one as for the other because no other Scripture shews that the Passeover doth belong to Infants but we have other plaine Scriptures proving that Baptisme is in the room of Circumcision which belongs therefore to Infants as well as grown men If any can instance of any families of Gentiles who were circumcised the consequence were good Therefore Infants were if there were any Infants because other Scriptures shew that circumcision belongs to Infants as well as grown men but in this case the argument is not good So much for my first and main Argument they are foederati and therefore must be signati they are under the Covenant of Grace and therefore are to be signed with the seale of admittance into the Covenant The second Argument To whom the inward grace of Baptism doth belong to them belongs the outward sign they ought to have the signe who have the thing signifyed the earthly part of the Sacrament must be granted to them who have the heavenly part but the Infants of beleevers even while they are Infants are made partakers of the inward grace of Baptisme of the heavenly and spirituall part as well as grown men therefore they may and ought to receive the outward sign of Baptism The major Proposition that they who are made partakers of the inward grace may not bee debarred of the outward signe is undeniable it is Peters argument Act. 10. Can any man forbid water that these should not bee baptized who have rece●ved the Holy Ghost as well as wee and againe Act. 11. For as much as God gave them the like gift as hee did unto us what was I that I could withstand God And this is so cleare that the most learned of the Anabaptists do readily grant that if they knew any Infants to have received the inward grace they durst not deny them the outward signe and that the particular Infants whom Christ took up in his Armes and blessed might have been baptized And for the assumption or m●nor That the Infants of Beleevers even while they are Infants do receive the inward grace as well as grown men is as plaine not onely by that speech of the Apostle who saith they are holy but our Saviour saith expressely Mark 10. That to such belongs the kingdom of God as well as to grown men And whereas some would evade it by saying that the Text saith not to them belongs the Kingdome of God but of such is the kingdome of Heaven {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} of such like that is such as are graced with such like qualities who are humble and meek as children are and that Luk. 18. is parallell to this in the meaning of it Whosoever doth not receive the kingdome of Heaven as a little childe hee shall not enter therein But I answer though it be true that in other places this is one use that Christ makes of an Infants age and condition to shew that such as receive the Kingdome of Heaven must be qualifyed with humility c. like unto children yet here it cannot be his meaning because his argument is suffer them to come to mee and forbid them not because of such is the Kingdome of God that is my Church and Kingdom is made up of these as well as of others This was the very cause why the Disciples rebuked those who brought the children to Christ because they were little not fit to bee instructed and therefore not fit that Christ should be troubled about them this Christ rebukes in them and tels them that the littlenesse of children is no argument why they should be kept from him Suffer them said he to come and forbid them not for of such is the Kingdome of God and what kind of argument had this been if the Text should be interpreted as these men would have it Suffer little children to come unto me that I may touch them take them up in mine armes put my