Selected quad for the lemma: law_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
law_n	apostle_n	sin_n	transgression_n	5,988	5	10.4357	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
B20542	Believers-baptism from heaven, and of divine institution Infants-baptism from earth, and human invention. Proved from the commission of Christ, the great law-giver to the gospel-church. With a brief, yet sufficient answer to Thomas Wall's book, called, Baptism anatomized. Together with a brief answer to a part of Mr. Daniel William's catechism, in his book unto youth. By Hercules Collins, a servant of the servants of Christ.	Collins, Hercules, d. 1702.	1691 (1691)	Wing C5360; ESTC R224066	50,763	158

in the late Persecution the Churches of Christ some of them did find it very convenient to break Bread upon a Week-Day yet we alway think it best on the First when it may be And as for Baptism we do not find the Apostles tarried for the Revolution of the First Day but as occasion offered they did it upon any Day Page 69. he insists upon the order of words Mat. 3. I baptize to Repentance See this answered in my Book p. 54 55 56. That is a false Argument he so largely insisted on pag. 44. If Persons have a right to Remission of Sin they have a right to the Sign Baptism This Argument I have handled in p. 36. Infants are not called Disciples as he supposeth pag. 43. from Acts 15.10 and upon his Request we will shew him a Command and Example for Womens communicating at the Lord's Table p. 42 43. For answer to pag. 21. where it 's asserted That many of the 3000 whom the Apostles batized in Acts 2.39 were Children seing the Pardon of Sin was by the Apostle Peter applied to their Children O horrible perverter of the Word of God! these Children whom he speaks of were no more as yet baptized than the Gentiles which were afar off uncalled 2. Suppose some of their Children were baptized it must be believing Children not Infants my Child is my Child though thirty or forty Years old for you cannot think the Apostle would go beyond his Commission to baptize an ignorant Infant in the room of an understanding Believer O how sophistically doth this Man reason see pag. 29 30 31. of this Book Lastly I refer you to Mr. Cary's Solemn Call which clears up the Covenant made with Israel at Mount Sinai Exod. 19.20 and that in the Land of Moab Deut. 29. as also the Covenant of Circumcision made with Abraham Gen. 17. are plainly proved to be three several Editions of the Covenant of Works Though Mr. Wall will have it to be a Covenant of Grace in Christ And though he spends many Leaves of his Book about it 't is as far from being proved as Believers-Baptism is a Sign to the Infant of the Remission of Sins and being in the Covenant of Grace which yet is confest a few Years after he is neither in the Covenant of Grace nor yet one Sin pardoned These are some of this poor Man's Self-contradictions is he not Felo de se a Self-destroyer Whereas he saith pag. 117. Mr. Ainsworth's Book called A Censure upon a Dialogue of the Anabaptists was never answered That in Abraham 's Seed all Nations should be blessed This Grace Abraham 's Infant-Seed had this Grace Christ gave to little Children See your self and Mr. Ainsworth both answered in pag. 37 38. and p. 34 35. CHAP. XII A brief Answer to a part of Mr. Daniel Williams's Catechism in his Book of the Vanity of Childhood and Youth IN pag. 131. he propounds these Questions What if a Child will not agree but refuse to agree to the Covenant to which his Infant-Baptism engaged him Himself makes this astonishing Answer 1. It 's a rejecting Christ our Saviour and a renouncing the Blessings of the Gospel 2. It 's the Damning Sin 3. It 's the Heart of all Sin 4. It 's Rebellion continued against my Maker 5. It 's Ingratitude and Perjury to my Redeemer 6. It 's gross Injustice to my Parents 7. It 's an Affront to all the Godly 8. It 's self-killing Cruelty to my own Soul Here are hard and dreadful Words to make up the defect of weak Arguments for ●hen some Persons want Arguments 〈…〉 to perswade into an Error they do use some terrible Words and Ways to fright People thereinto Pray Sir shew your Hearers where you have Divine Authority for your Assertions or else there is no ground to be concerned at all about it though laid down in a formidable way Though I know 't is the Duty of Parents to pray for their Children give them moderate Correction good Education and good Examples yet God never made it the Duty of any Parent to dedicate their Child in Baptism nor the Duty of any Child to Engage and Covenant with God in their Infant-State being altogether uncapable therefore the not heeding it cannot be any Sin much less a damning Sin and if so be Persons do then ingage against the Custom of this World as you say they do then they must engage against Infant-Baptism being a worldly Custom I shall speak briefly to all these Particulars 1. Not to agree or to refuse to agree to the Covenant made in Infant-Baptism is no Sin because Where there is no Law saith the Apostle John there is no Transgression Now if this Gentleman can shew us any Law of God for Parents to dedicat● their Children in Baptism or Children to covenant with God in Baptism I will give him the Cause but if this cannot be done I think he can do no less than make a publick Recantation of his Assertions to undeceive those whom he in ignorant Zeal may have deceived 2. It 's no Rebellion against our Maker because Rebellion is interpreted in the holy Writ to be a wilful breach of God's Law and Command as you may see in Numb 20.24 Ye rebelled against my Word Chap. 27.14 Ye rebelled against the Command of the Lord so Deut. 1.26 Now then let this never be more called Rebellion except it can be proved to be against the Command of the Lord. 3. It can be no Ingratitude nor Perjury to my Redeemer 1. No Ingratitude because to own a thing he never appointed and is the ready way to thrust out his own Appointment will never be accounted by Christ Ingratitude 2. Neither can it be Perjury Mr. Pool on 1 Tim. 1. saith Perjury is a false Swearing or swearing to an untrue thing Now I suppose this is not Mr. Williams's meaning by Perjury for the Propositions were true if any which were promised in Infant-Baptism But I suppose he means the Covenant the Child made in Baptism against being governed by Satan and the Flesh taking up this World's Goods as my Portion and against the Customs of the Men of the World as my Guide when grown up and found walking in the Ways of the Devil the Flesh and the World contrary to God's Command and his own Vow This I supose he calls Perjury to the Redeemer But let it be considered a Man must first make a Vow or take an Oath before he can be said to break it and be perjur'd Now if the Child never made any Vow or Covenant in Baptism it being impossible how then can he be said to break Covenant and be guilty of Perjury to his Redeemer 4. It cannot be Injustice much less gross Injustice to my Parents because what is accounted Injustice to my Parents the Word of God makes it appear to be so some-where or other but the Word of God doth not any where call that Child an unjust Child that doth not own its dedicating

be baptized under that Consideration Or 2. Persons are in the Covenant of Grace Conditionally viz. in case they Believe and Repent Now under this Consideration the Children of Unbelievers have the same Interest in the Covenant and Sign of the Covenant And Children of Believers have a right no other way to the one or other the promise of Remission and Gift of the Holy Ghost is made as well to the Gentiles which are afar off as to the natural Seed of Abraham if they have the same Qualifications Acts 2.37 albeit Heathens by Nature and these are oft-times made the Subjects of Grace when Believers Children are left Hence a wicked Ahaz hath a good Hezekiah ungodly Abia a good Asa wicked Ammon a good Josiah idolatrous Jeroboam a good Abijah But were all the Children of Believers in the Covenant of Grace it follows not that therefore they ought to be baptized no more than they may come to the Lord's Supper because they want the Qualification required in that Duty And whereas it is further urged from the 2d of the Acts The word Children there is really the Posterity of the Jews and not particularly their Infant Children my Child is my Child tho 40 or 50 Years old the Promise is to you and your Children The scope of that place seems to be this When the Jews were pricked at their Heart for their Crucifying Christ upon Peter's Sermon they cry out Men and Brethren what shall we do The Apostle exhorts them what to do viz. Repent and be Baptized and for their Comfort subjoins that the Promise of Remission of Sins also of the Holy Ghost was like to be their Portion and their Childrens also if they did the same tho they once called for Christ's Blood upon their Heads and their Children yet now if you and your Children believe in that Christ you have Crucified those Promises are to the one and to the other yea to all afar off the poor Gentiles for since the partition Wall is broken down Jew Greek Col. 3.11 Barbarian Scythian Bond Free Male Female all one by Faith in Christ For we are all the Children of God by Faith in Christ Jesus Gal. 3. Object 3. Infant-Baptism neither hath Precept nor Example in God's Word is confess'd by Luther Erasmas Zwinglius Melancthon Bucer Calvin Chochler Stuphilus Rogers Mr. Baxter Dauvers on Baptism p. 90 91. The Infant-Seed of Abraham was Circumcised therefore the Infant-Seed of Believers may be Baptized I Answer Abraham had a plain Injunction and Command for the former Believers have none for the latter In Matters of Worship we must keep to the Institution as Moses did to the Pattern shew'd him in the Mount Tho Lot was a Believer his Children were not to have the sign of Circumcision because limited unto Abraham's Seed and Family also to such a Sex and such a Day So hath God limited Baptism to Penitent Believers Whoever practises an Institution otherwise than was appointed by the great Law-giver does not honour the Ordinance but an Idol of his own making therefore let us keep to the Institution and not be wise above what is written and take not up with a dark Consequence in the rejection of a plain Command being not so satisfying to the true Reason of a Man nor his Conscience Those that argue for their Infant-Seeds Baptism from Circumcision being entail'd unto Abraham's Seed may as well argue and say the Priesthood was by a Covenant entail'd on the Tribe of Levi and his Seed therefore the Ministry is entail'd upon Gospel-Preachers and their Seed As this cannot be warranted no more can the other Object 4. Whole Families were Baptized Ergo Infants I Answer It 's said indeed Acts 16.33 Whereas some say No doubt but the Jailor had Children It may be very much questioned seeing it hath been observed some Years ago that for very many Years together not one Child was born to the Jayl-keepers in all the County of Essex The Jaylor and all his were baptized well they might seeing they all believed vers 34. So Crispus the chief Ruler believed in God with all his House Act. 18.8 And many of the Corinthians hearing believed and were baptized And for Lydia and her Houshold those they Baptized those they comforted ver 40. But Infants could not take in that nor the comfort of that spiritual Appellation or Relation of Brethren as the Apostle calls them in Lydia's Houshold 2. The word all doth not always intend every Individual in a Family In 1 Sam. 1.21 't is said Elkanah and all his House went up to the yearly Sacrifice to Jerusalem Yet in the 22d it is said Hannah and the Child Samuel stay'd at Home So Augustus Cesar is said to Tax all the Word Luke 2.1 which was no more of the World than that little part where the Roman Empire stretched Should there be Infants in any of these Families To carry a poor ignorant Infant to the Ordinance of Baptism is as much as if you should carry it to hear a Sermon and no more significant than to instruct a Stock or Stone or shew some godly thing to a blind Man no charitable Person can think the Apostle would act contrary to his Commission to baptize ignorant Infants instead of understanding Believers Object 5. Circumcision was a Seal of the New Covenant to Believers and their Seed under the Law so is Baptism to the Seed of Christian Parents under the Gospel I Answer This Objection is grounded upon Rom. 4.11 where 't is said Abraham received the Sign of Circumcision Some unto whom the Covenant of Grace did not belong received the Sign of Circumcision as Ishmael God said the Covenant should not be established with him but Isaac So Esau and all the Strangers in Abraham's House or bought with Mony in Israel that were Circumcised of whom it may as well be doubted whether the New Covenant-Promise did belong to them therefore they mistake to say Circumcision was a Seal of the New-Covenant to Abraham's Seed seeing some of them had it that were out of the Covenant by the express Word of God Gen. 4.19 20 21 25. Gal. 4.29 a Seal of the Righteousness of his Faith First Consider it 's not said Circumcision was a Seal of the New Covenant to Abraham and his Seed that is begg'd in the Objection the Text saith It was a Token of the Righteousness of Abraham 's Faith But it could not be a Seal of Faith to an Infant which had none The scope of the Apostle in this Chapter is to shew that Abraham himself was not justified by Works no not by Circumcision but by Faith which he had long before he was Circumcised The reason of his Circumcision was to be a Seal and Confirmation to him that he by his Faith should be a Father of many Nations and that the poor Gentiles should be accepted of God by Faith without the Works of the Law though not circumcised seeing Abraham's Faith

Christians 'T is most likely those who baptize Infants baptize Heathens for we are all the Children of Wrath by Nature Eph. 2.3 It is you plead for Baptizing Heathens we plead for Baptizing Believers and Christians Object 11. There is no express Command for Womens receiving the Lord's Supper yet there may be good Consequences to prove it lawful so of Infant-Baptism I Answer Who will say there 's no Command for Women's communicating so long as that stands upon Record 1 Cor. 11.28 But let a Man examine himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Common Gender and so let him eat The Learned do know the original word signifieth Man or Woman The Apostle saith There 's one Mediator between God and Man 1 Tim. 2.5 the word signifieth Man or Woman Gal. 3.28 Male or Female all one in Christ it is the same word with the former in the Original Moreover we read of Women who believed and were Baptized Acts 8.12 so are fitly qualified for the Lord's Table We have also an Example of Women's communicating in Act. 1.13 14. we read Mary and other Women with the rest of the Disciples were altogether And in Act. 2.44 it 's said all that believed were together and in ver 42. these continued stedfastly in the Apostles Doctrine and in Fellowship and in breaking of Bread and in Prayer So that here is a Command and an Example for Womens communicating tho none for Infants Baptism therefore the Objection is false and weak Object 12. Infants are Disciples therefore they may be Baptized I Answer This Objection being grounded on Act. 15.10 11. we shall shew the Occasion and Scope of it and see whether it can prove Infants Disciples or that they ought to be Baptized Some having asserted who came from Judea Vnless a Man was Circumcised he could not be saved Then the Church of Antioch determined that Paul and Barnabas with certain of the Church should go to Jerusalem to the Apostles and Elders concerning this Question which when they came together to consider this Matter Peter rose up and said Why tempt you God to put a Yoke upon the Necks of the Disciples Acts 15.10 This proves not Infants Disciples neither that they ought to be baptized which neither our Fathers nor we were able to bear The Meaning of the Apostle is Why should we impose the Yoke of Circumcision upon the Necks of the Disciples viz. Believing Gentiles which are by no Law obliged unto it this is to bring us unto that Bondage God hath delivered us from Now how this doth prove Infants Disciples and so ought to be Baptized I leave to all judicious Considerers Object 13. Circumcision nor Vncircumcision avails any thing but a New Creature We fear Persons lay too much stress upon Circumstantials not minding the Power of Godliness I Answer Those who lay too much stress upon Circumstantials 't is doubtless their Evil But can any lay more stress upon it than our Saviour who though unspotted yet would not live without it Tho Circumcision be nothing which is abolished is Baptism nothing which is called Righteousness and the Counsel of God and calls it Righteousness The laying the stress of our Happiness upon Christ should not hinder but further Obedience and always doth where the Faith is of the right Kind And whereas the Apostle saith Circumcision avails not any thing it did avail something when God threatned Moses with Death for not circumcising his Son Exod. 4. And when God said Whoever was not Circumcised should be cut off from among the People Gen. 17.14 The Apostle never intended to undermine Gospel-Commands by saying Circumcision nor Vncircumcision avails any thing for in 1 Cor. 7.19 he adds but the keeping the Commands of God What tho Circumcision is nothing because abolished is Believers Baptism nothing which is a standing Ordinance What tho some Jews might lay more stress upon Circumcision than upon the Lord Jesus for Salvation which might be the principal Cause of the Apostle's thus speaking I hope Persons have more charity than to conclude we lay more stress upon Baptism than our Lord's Merits Object 14. If Children may not be Baptized under the Gospel their Priviledg is less than under the Law I Answer The Priviledg under the Law and under the Gospel is the same to Infants as to the Covenant of Grace and as for Circumcision it was indeed a Priviledg to the Jews in comparison of the Heathens but called a Yoke in comparison of them under the Gospel We grant Why should this be esteemed the loss of a Priviledg more than not enjoying literally a holy Land a holy City Temple or Succession of a High Priest and Priesthood by Generation it 's a great Mercy for Children to have Godly Parents having the advantage of a good Education Prayer and good Examples But what benefit can Infants have from Baptism when God never appointed it for them nor made any Promise to them in it but most glorious ones are made to such as believe and are baptized namely Remission of Sins the Gift of the Holy Ghost and Eternal Salvation Mark 16.16 Object 15. The Children of Believers are Holy therefore they ought to be Baptized I Answer By explaining the Scripture upon which the Objection is grounded 1 Cor. 7.14 The Apostle is here giving an answer to a Case of Conscience that is Whether it were lawful for the believing Husband or Wife to leave or depart from the unbelieving Wife or Husband The Apostle in the Negative answers By no means for these Reasons First Now your Children are Holy viz. lawfully begotten in Wedlock but if the Husband leaves the Wife The Greek Preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is well translated to by the Geneva or Wife the Husband every one will count your Children unclean that is Bastards therefore don't part but live together because the unbelieving Husband is sanctified or set apart by God's Ordinance to the use of the Wife and the Wife to the use of the Husband in a matrimonial way 1 Cor. 7.14 This is not an inherent spiritual nor a federal Holiness as some would beg and therefore argue for Baptism this Holiness is a legitimate Holiness And there can be no more concluded because these Children are said to be Holy therefore to be baptized than the Baptizing Zacharias's Bells or Pots in the Lord's House because they are said to be Holy Zach. 14.20 Object 16. All Nations are to be Baptized Infants are a part of the Nation Ergo Infants may be baptized I Answer The Lord Jesus Christ saith Mat. 28.19 20. Go ye therefore and teach all Nations 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Disciple all Nations but that must be first by Preaching and Instructing them in the Principles of the Christian Faith And addeth I cannot be of their mind who think that Persons may be baptized before taught Pool's Synopsis on Mat. 28. Baptizing them c. Never intending any should be baptized but what

were first taught 'T is as if a King should give a Commission to an Herauld to proclaim throughout his Dominions whoever in the Nation Male or Female would go to School and learn the Greek Tongue should have a Wedg of Gold Doth this follow that every one in the Nation should have a Wedg of Gold because a part of the Nation No not unless they do learn the Greek Tongue So in like manner A dreadful piece of Infant-Baptism appeared when the Heads of 6000 Infants were found murdered and buried in a Warren near a Monastry no more in the Nations are to be baptized than what are first taught and learn Christ Christ did no more intend that every one in the Nation should be baptized than the Prophet Haggai did So superstitiously zealous were some in the 7th Century for Infant-Baptism that a dead Child was taken from the Grave and Christened its Father's Name given unto it that every individual in the Nations of the World would desire our Lord's coming because he saith the Desire of all Nations should come Hag. 2.7 which is only the Believers in all Nations God did not intend Infants had robbed him when he said Ye have robbed me even this whole Nation they being not capable of it No more are Infants of Baptism tho a part of the Nation being not first taught and made Disciples according to the Commission Object 17. Men of Years were first Circumcised afterwards Infants So in the Gospel Baptism was first administred unto Men and Women but afterwards Infants were Baptized I Answer You say well Men and Women were baptized first Infants were never baptized by virtue of a Commission from Christ tho Believers were and it was about three hundred Years after Christ before any Infant was Sprinkled Danvers on Baptism p. 204. Christ's Commission was to baptize Believers now unless any can show where this was abrogated and a new Commission for Baptizing Infants given this remains and will to the end of the World Indeed Abraham was Circumcised when he was old as a Seal of the Righteousness of his Faith to assure him he should be a Father of many Nations a Spiritual Father unto Believers Jews and Gentiles And after this God commanded him to Circumcise his natural Seed and when any can shew us as plain a Command for Believers to Baptize their Infant-Seed as Abraham had to Circumcise his the Controversy shall end Object 18. Infant-Baptism is an Apostolical Tradition Tho this Tradition be not written in any Apostolical Book yet it is of no less Authority with us than the Scripture Bellarmine and though the Scripture be silent in the Case the uninterrupted Tradition and Vsage of the Church makes up that Defect I Answer Tradition ought to be proved by more than one Evidence viz. Origen whom all other Ages have condemned of Errors Dr. Taylor And whose Works are so spurious that he that reads them knows not whether he reads Origen or Ruffinus Erasm With Dr. Taylor Tradition saith he must by all means supply the place of Scripture and there is pretended a Tradition Apostolical that Infants were Baptized But at this saith he we are not much moved for we who rely upon the written Word of God as sufficient to establish all true Religion do not value the Allegation of Tradition The pretended Proof for Infant-Baptism being an Apostolical Tradition from Dionysius the Areopagite Justin Martyr's Responses Origen's Homilies Cyprian in an Epistle to one Fidas a Priest have been examined refuted and found fabulous and forged Danvers on Baptism pag. 133 to 150. It is very improbable that Infant-Baptism should be an Apostolical Tradition when decreed by several Councils in the 4th Century the Council of Carthage of Neocesarea and Laodicea c. they did hold forth the necessity of Confession and Profession before Baptism In short It is against the Reason of a Man to conclude this an Apostolical Tradition because this were to make the Apostles act beyond their Commission which were to Baptize only Believers Object 19. Infants were once Church-Members and that Law was never abrogated neither do we find they were cut off I Answer John the Baptist abrogated this sufficiently when he told the Pharisees and Sadduces it was a vain Plea to say Abraham was their Father that was a good Argument for Infant-Church-membership under the Law by Circumcision but signified nothing to Church-membership under the Gospel by Baptism now the Dispensation is alter'd If any bring not forth good Fruit in his own Person the Ax being laid to the Root of the Tree it is to be hewn down and cast into Eternal Fire The Apostle Paul in Rom. 11.20 ends this Controversy plain enough where he asserts the natural Branches were broken off by Unbelief and if they come to believe they may be grafted in again Who can shew any Instance where Infants were accounted Members of the Church under the Gospel but until then they remain broken off and that Law of Infant-Church-membership is as plainly abrogated under the Gospel as the Passover and Circumcision c. which all grant is void tho not so formally done as once commanded there being no need the Substance being come necessarily Shadows cease Object 20. In Mat. 3.11 John Baptist said I Baptize you with Water unto Repentance And in the 6th Verse Were Baptized of John in Jordan confessing their Sins Here say some is Baptism before Confession or Repentance in the order of words therefore we being Baptized in our Infancy if we repent and confess our Sins afterward 't is sufficient and we need not be Baptized again I Answer 1. If you were only sprinkled in Infancy you were never yet Baptized 2. 'T is said they were Baptized in Jordan confessing their Sins but I never heard of an Infant confess Sin in the Act of Baptism as these did I will gladly Baptize any Souls that shall truly confess themselves Sinners in the very Act and Administration of that Ordinance to the Glory of the Messiah who came to save Sinners 3. Tho the Text says I Baptize you unto Repentance none dare say that John Baptized them before they did manifest Repentance because when many of the Pharisees and Sadduces came unto John's Baptism he said O Generation of Vipers John's Baptism is called The Baptism of Repentance for Remission of Sins because Christ preached Remission of Sins to the Penitent Believer Piscator on Mark 1.4 bring forth Fruit meet for Repentance and think not to say you have Abraham to your Father 4. John's Baptism is called the Baptism of Repentance Mark 1.4 Can any other be the meaning than this that John was appointed of God to demand Repentance from dead Works of all that were Baptized and Faith also in him that was to come Acts 19. and upon this John did preach unto them the Remission of Sin I think it never did enter into any Man's Heart that John did first Baptize