Selected quad for the lemma: lord_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
lord_n believe_v faith_n jesus_n 17,223 5 6.3565 4 false
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
A31095 A brief and plain discovery of the falseness and unscripturalness of anabaptism as the same is now practised by those of that perswasion, w[here]in are plainly proved from God's word the five particulars here handled, that God's covenant with Abraham, Gen. 17.7. is the Covenant of grace whereby all God's elect are saved ... / by Ja. Barry, an unworthy minister of the Gospel. Barry, James, fl. 1650-1702. 1699 (1699) Wing B968; ESTC R34200 57,378 134

There are 4 snippets containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

be Justified by God's Word should they Judiciously acknowledge that Abraham's Covenant is the Covenant of Grace and that Circumcision was the Seal thereof and that Water Baptism is now come in the room thereof 2. In that some have reflected on that Covenant calling it a carnal Covenant of Works and the Church which was to Observe and Practice Circumcision the Seal thereof a carnal Church all I need to say by way of Reply is to bewail the carnallity of their Uncircumcised Hearts and Lips who have no better or higher Apprehensions of God's Holy Covenant the Grace whereof must bring them to Heaven if ever they come thither and of his so highly Honoured Friends Abraham Isaac and Jacob with all the rest of the Holy Patriarchs Prophets and Godly Believers of that Day than to call it a carnal Covenant and them a carnal Church 3. If Abraham's Covenant was a Covenant of Works to him and his Children then it must needs he so to us Gentile Believers and to our Children now And if so let the Adversary Demonstrate if he can how Abraham or any of that carnal Church as they falsely term it can be supposed to be now in a Saved State Or what ground of hope we Gentile Believers and our Children have that we or any of ours shall go to Heaven when we Die seeing that we are still under the very same Covenant with Abraham which Covenant if it be a Covenant of Works and not of Grace no Salvation can be expected and if the Believers under that dark Dispensation were Carnal and not Spiritual how comes the unerring Wisdom of God to Propound them to Believers under the Gospel for Examples and Patterns of Faith Patience c. Heb. 11. Heb. 12.1 Ja. 5.10 Let it be farther considered that Albeit the Seal of Circumcision Sealed no saving Blessings to the Non-Elect it doth not hence follow that it Sealed no other than Temporal Blessings to the Elect seeing that to them the Heavenly were Typically included in the Earthly As touching the Earthly Blessings which Circumcision Sealed to the Non-Elect they were greater and better than God was any way obliged to give them I am sure than they savingly improved Object We utterly deny that Water-Baptism did succeed and come in the room of Circumcision Answ For confirmation of the Affirmative let the three Arguments already laid down under this Head be seriously and without prejudice considered To which I will only add the Explication of Colos 2.11 12. whereon I have grounded a fourth Argument to prove that Water-Baptism succeeded and came in the room of Circumcision In the place above quoted the Apostle plainly sets forth to the believing Colossians and in them to all believing Gentiles to the Worlds end two things necessary to be known and believed by all true Believers First That they who by a true lively Faith have Embrac'd the Lord Jesus Christ as held forth in the Gospel evidencing their Faith by the Truth of Gospel-Sanctification They and none else who are Adult are made actual Partakers of the true and saving Circumcision effected in the Soul by the Spirit of Christ And which was Externally signified by the outward Circumcision These Believers having now obtained the Spiritual Circumcision are not at all to be Concerned or Troubled that they are not outwardly Circumcised with the Circumcision made with Man's Hands Forasmuch as that which was Externally Signified and Sea●ed to the believing Jews by the outward Circumcision is now Internally and Powerfully wrought in their Hearts by the Spirit of the Lord Jesus Christ Secondly The Apostle sets forth in this place that Water-Baptism is Instituted and Appointed by Christ under the Gospel Dispensation to be to believing Gentiles the same that Circumcision was to the Jews viz. A Visible Sign and Seal of Abraham's Covenant to all his Ecclesiastical Church-Seed among the Gentiles viz. All of that Race who on God's calling them Believe in and Obey the Lord Jesus Christ To these and their Infant-Seed and none else among the Gentiles Baptism doth now under the Gospel Signify and Seal the very same Spiritual Blessings and Church-Priviledges which Circumcision of old did Signify and Seal to the believing Jews and their Infant-Seed This I take to be the Sense and Meaning of the Apostle in that so much controverted place In this Sense I hope I shall Die satisfied And herein I humbly conceive none of the Orthodox will differ from me which Sense being granted it is beyond the reach of all Scriptural contradiction that Water-Baptism was Instituted and Appointed by Christ on purpose to succeed in the room of Circumcision CHAP. IV. Shewing and proving that the Infants of Believing Gentiles now under the Gospel have as real a Right to the Covenant of Grace and to Baptism the now Visible Sign and Seal thereof as had the Children of Abraham according to the Flesh to it and to Circumcision the then Seal of the Covenant of Grace And that they are as capable of the Grace and outward Seal of the Covenant as are the most Adult grown Believers I shall lay down Four Arguments to evince and make good against all Opposition what I now assert Arg. 1. THE first Argument is thus fram'd If God himself did by absolute Soveraign Grace comprehend Abraham's Church-Seed in the Covenant of Grace he made with believing Abraham their Stipulating and Covenanting Father and never since Repeal'd that Gracious Act of his Then the Infants of Abraham's Church-Seed are still Interested in the Covenant of Grace and have as great Right to and are as capable of the Grace and Seal of that Covenant as ever But God himself did by absolute Soveraign Grace comprehend Abraham's Church-Seed in the Covenant of Grace he made with believing Abraham their Stipulating and Covenanting Father which Gracious Act of his was never since Repealed Therefore the Infants of Abraham's Church-Seed are still Interessed in the Covenant of Grace and have as great a Right to and are as capable of the Grace and Seal of that Covenant as ever I cannot see how this Argument can possibly be overthrown but by proving that God did alter and change that Covenant he made with Abraham his Friend for himself and for his Church-Seed The which when the Adversary doth by Evidence of Scripture not abused and perverted I shall then yield the Cause and bewail my Mistake But two things cause in me an unshaken Confidence that this can never be done First The Immutability and Unchangableness of God on which very account he is styled a Covenant-keeping God who never yet cast off any poor Sinner until that Sinner did first actually cast God off the which I think the Adversary dares not deny Secondly The Impossibility of poor Infants actually casting God off and that because of their Incapacity in respect of Age. Arg. 2. If Infants be at all Saved they are Saved by the Grace of God's Covenant made with Abraham which Covenant and the External
tender thing which is to be informed not violently impell'd or forced I hope you have the same Charity for me as to believe that what I do act in Baptizing the Infant-Seed of encovenanted Parents and Pleading for such I do the same from my Conscience being fully perswaded that what I do herein is according to the Word of God But though I do not take on me to force or Lord it over your Conscience I hope you will without offence give me leave to use the freedom of a Pastor with you in doing two things in order to recover you The first is to reprove you for going out of the way of Duty in exposing your Conscience to those Soul deluding entanglements which hath occasioned your present disturbance and unsettledness in your Principles by deluding entanglements I mean your going out of the way of your Calling to stare and gaze out of curiosity at the plunging of Persons under the Water which albeit you and others may think may be done without either offence to your Brethren or any kind of danger to your self hath in it an infatuating charming Energie to allure and draw into a liking of it Your frequent discoursing with Men of that Principle who you very well know glory not a little in Proselyting People to that way And your so much delighting to Read their Books being not able to grapple with such subtle Enemies the Deceipt of whose Arguments lyes covered under a false Vizzard By these your Practises you have filled the Eyes of your Conscience so full of that dust and smoak which is always raised by doubtful Disputations that for want of your Monitor your Conscience I mean you are now at an apparent stand in those ways of Truth wherein you ought to run swiftly and well it were if you had been at a stand before you had so far advanced in these unscriptural Tenents But however seeing you are not ascended so high in these Errors as to be Seated in the Scorners-Chair to laugh at and deride Baby-sprinkling as a piece of Will-worship and meer Popery as the Anabaptists are well known to term and account Infant-Baptism Not for want of ignorance and prejudice the Lord knows I shall now in the second place endeavour to help you out of this Quagmire into which your own incautelousness and sinful curiosity hath by the Art of a subtle Adversary involved you in order then to a speedy helping you herein I desire you will reduce those things wherein you desire to be satisfied about Infant-Baptism to as few Heads and in as plain a method as you possibly can and then I shall endeavour to Answer your Objections wherein I faithfully promise you I shall most freely refer my self to the Word of God and to the Writings of those Divines now in Glory At whose Writings the Wisest of Anabaptists are glad to light their Candle though in the point of Baptism they are accounted neither able nor worthy to teach them And when you and I are come to Conclusion You in Objecting and I in Answering it will then appear whether Infant-Baptism be any part of Will-worship or meer Popery as it is represented by its Adversarys Church Memb. Sir I like your Proposal very well and in complyance with your reasonable Request as also in order to my own satisfaction I shall reduce those particulars wherein I desire to be satisfied to 3 General Heads under each of which I hope you will give me liberty to Propose by way of Objection what I think convenient and fit to start Minist I like very well to hear you name but 3 General Heads I hope you will observe Order and Method in what you intend to Object under those 3 Heads Church Memb. I will observe Order and Method as well as I can and shall I hope with becoming Candor weigh in the Ballance of an impartial and unprejudicate consideration and judgment what strength appears to be in your Answer and in case I find my Conscience satisfied by the strength of your Answer I shall readily own it and give Glory to God Minist I desire you to name the 3 General Heads for fear we should forget them when we come to be earnest in our Dispute Church Memb. The 3 General Heads which I propose to be satisfied in are as follows 1. The Covenant which God made with Abraham mentioned in Gen. 17.7 2. The Seal of that Covenant And 3. The Subjects who have a visible Right to that Covenant and the Seal thereof Under these 3 Heads I suppose may be brought in all that I need to say Minist As touching your first General Head viz. The Covenant which God made with Abraham What would you be at about it Church Memb. I would pray you to clear it up from the Word of God that that Covenant is a Covenant of Grace and not a Covenant of Works for the apprehension I always had till of late that that Covenant was the Covenant of Grace was the foundation whereon my former Principle viz. Infant-Baptism was founded but being informed and taught otherwise both by Mens Preaching and also by their Books I am much in doubt as touching the lawfulness of Infant-Baptism Minist I perceive then you apprehend that Infant-Baptism is like to stand or fall as the Covenant of God with Abraham is proved to be either a Covenant of Grace or otherwise what if it be made good from the Word of God that the Covenant of God with Abraham is a Covenant of meer Grace Church Memb. Truly to be plain and ingenious I cannot see how Infant-Baptism can stand if that Covenant be a Covenant of Works as I am sensible the Baptists hold and teach it is and which I am inclined under my present light to judge it must be as they say But in case it be proved otherwise I plainly see the Anabaptists are like to suffer a miserable Shipwrack for their holding and teaching that Gods Covenant with Abraham is a Covenant of Works is the principal Pillar on which almost all their Arguments against Infant-Baptism lean If that Pillar then be shaken and overthrown by Scriptural Arguments the whole structure will tumble of course Minist I am very glad that You and I do in any measure agree in our Sentiments about this matter To let you see then how Sandy a foundation the Anabaptists Build on I shall bgin to lay down some Scriptural Arguments to prove them most heterodox and unsound in this point of Abraham's Covenant wherein they do most evidently rase the very foundation of Life and Salvation to Abraham himself and all his Seed CHAP. I. Of God's Covenant with Abraham wherein is plainly proved that that Covenant in Gen. 17.7 is the Covenant of Grace THat God's Covenant with Abraham in Gen. 17.7 was and still is the Covenant of Grace dispensed in a Church way None of the Orthodox ever did or do deny that I can find That the taking that Covenant in this Sense is the Foundation
all the Male-Seed of the Believer and that without any regard to the Election which is a Secret known only to God about which he would not have us to trouble our Spirits any farther than to give all becoming diligence to make our own Pe sonal Election sure to our s●lves As touchi●g the Infants of Church Memb●rs about whom all the Dispute is We are not ●nxiously to be concerned about them whether they be in the Election of God yea or no. It is ground sufficient for us to Bless and thank God for his dealing so Graciously with our Infants in that they with us are taken into the same Covenant and Sealed with the Seal thereof for by Gods dealing thus with Believers Infant-Seed Believers have a good foundation laid whereon to bottom their Hope and Comfort with reference to thei● Dying or Deceased Infants and also of wrestling with God in Prayer for their Conversion and Eternal Welfare the which the Enemies to Infant-Baptism do by denying that Infants belong to the Coven●nt or have any right to the Promis●s thereof till they themselves B●lieve deprive and insensibly s●oil themselves of This is most evidently true as will appear if it be s●riously consi●ered tha● all right Prayer is a Pl●●●i●g the Promises of Gods Covenant in the Name and Merit of Christ his own So● in and through whom the said Promis●s are intail'd on all the Children of Promise Now if my Infant be Sick or Ailing If he be going on in Sin c. how can I by the Anabaptist Principle put up a Prayer to God for him seeing there is no promise of Gods Covenant belongs to him Or how can I comfort my sorrowful Spirit with reference to my Deceased Children if I must look on my dear Babes as Strangers and Enemies to God the which they are by Nature and must remain so for ever in case they be not Partakers of the Grace of Gods Covenant Secondly If none but the Elect have right to Baptism this Objection will fall like a Mill-stone on them who Baptize whole droves of Men and Women of whose Election to Eternal Life neither Baptizer nor Baptized know any more than they know how many Stars in the Firmament so that by thus arguing against poor Tongue-ty'd Infants they may see how they deny Salvation to their own as w●ll as others Infants and render themselves uncapable of discharging a good Conscience to their poor Children in putting up daily Petitions to God for them Object 6. We have an open Profession from those we Baptize and that warrants our Baptizing such as offer themselves to join to the Churches You have not the like from Infants Answ I Answer hereto in three particulars First it were well for both Baptizers and Baptized if both the one and the other were better acquainted with the Nature of right Conversion than they are and that they were better grounded in the sound and experimental knowledge of the Covenant of Grace the which if they were I dare boldly say they would not be so precipitant and rash in condemning and despising those poor Infants who are set forth by the Wisdom of God as Patterns and Examples by which grown Persons are to be moulded and sitted for Heaven Neither would they be so forward to offer themselves to Baptism on such slight and evanid Motions as falls short in too many of common Convictions Secondly poor Infants never yet broke or transgressed the Moral Law Personally and that is one great reason why an actual confession of Faith and Repentance is not required of them to qualifie them for Baptism As the Sin of Infants lyes in the imputation of Adams Disobedience and the Pollution of Nature derived by fleshly Generation so their help and remedy lyes in the imputation of Christs Spotless Righteousness to their Persons and his Spirits renewing their inward Faculties in Regenerating them And this twofold work of the Spirit in Justifying and Sanctifying the Elect Infant is plainly signifi●d and Sealed in that Ordinance of Baptism to the Infant as well as to a grown ●eliever Thirdly albeit Infants be not able to spe●k for themselves and to claim that right to the Seal of Gods Covenant which the Covenant it self hath entail'd on them as they are the Church Seed of Believing Parents yet there is one who speaks for them whose Judgment and Testimony of them is more sure and infallible than all other Testimonies of Men and Angels the Lord Jesus I mean who with his Father and God the Holy Ghost contrived and made the Covenant of Grace wherein they are comprehended I will lay down in six Particulars what is the Judgment of Christ concerning Infants as they are concerned in the Covenant First he propounds them as Patterns by which grown Persons must be moulded and fitted for Heaven Mat. 18.3 Secondly declares their right to the Kingdom of God Mar 10.14 For of such is the Kingdom of God Thirdly rebukes most severely his Disciples for hindering Infants being brought to him Mar. 10.14 But when Jesus saw it he was much displeased c. In the Greek it is Eganaktese which signifies to have the Bowels inwardly moved or affected with Grief to be filled with Indignation as Beza renders it Indignatus est to be Stomackt at a Person or a thing which is greatly or highly displeasing A Word which judicious Sydenham observes was never used by Christ in any case or on any occasion besides this of poor Infants to instruct and teach Men No doubt how greatly he was concerned for helpless Infants and how displeased he was at the hardness of his Disciples Hearts against them Oh! that the consideration of this might melt the hard Hearts of such into a Christ like tenderness towards poor Infants Fourthly commands Infants to be brought to him Mar. 10.14 Suffer little Children to come unto me c. Fifthly pronounces them Holy Rom. 11.16 1. Cor. 7.14 Sixthly Blesseth them Mar. 10.16 And he took them up in his Arms laid his Hands upon them and Blessed them These six Particulars laid together and weighed in the Ballance of Gods Sanctuary I leave it to any Man of Sense in Spiritual matters to judge whether is safer to credit this infallible Testimony of the Son of God concerning Infants than to rely on the bare Testimony of a meer Man concerning himself who may in all he pretends to be but a Painted Sepulchre Object 7. If Infants must needs have a right to Baptism because it is a Seal of the Covenant then of necessity they must have a right to the Lords Supper also for that is a Seal of the Covenant of Grace as well as Baptism The Wine in the Supper might as well be poured down the Infants mouth with a Spoon as to sprinkle Water on his face Answ This Objection better becomes a Superannuated Man who borders on perfect Dotage than one who pretends to be a Teacher of ignorant and misguided Souls and not only so but who
their Heterodox and Soul deluding Doctrines I find that when the Holy Ghost would express the Act of Dipping or Plunging into he doth it only by the Primitive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 never by the Derivative 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that I can find For Proof whereof let those Scriptures Quoted by the Dr. himself in Page 11. be without prejudice lookt into and seriously weighed Rev. 19.13 He had his Vesture dipt in Blood Mat. 26.23 He that dippeth his hand with me in the Dish Luke 16.24 That he may dip the tip of his finger in Water And in John 13.26 it is saith the Dr. twice used 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dipped 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and when he had Dipped Here in these places the Holy Ghost expresseth the A●t Dip or Plunge into by the Primitive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but never by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Baptizo the Derivative Secondly again on the contrary when the Holy Ghost expresseth Baptism by washing he doth it by the Derivative 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but never by the Primitive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bapto For Proof hereof let the places of Scripture already quoted out of Leigh's Critica Sacra be consulted in all which places the Spirit speaks of Baptism but not a word of Dipping and that by the Derivative word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Baptizo never by the Primitive Bapto Seeing then it hath pleased the Holy Ghost to express Dipping or Plunging into by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but never by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Baptizo and that he hath expressed Baptism by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but never by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I think none but Fools or mad Men will blame me for resolving to believe the Holy Ghost in this matter before I believe Dr. Russel and all the human Testimonies he hath quoted to make good his Cause though he were able to quote a Million of Authors as Witty and Learned as his so much admired Servetus and Castellio The Premisses considered I hope the Dr. will not be displeased for making this fair and generous offer to him and all who espouse his Unscriptural Cause viz. that if he or they can shew such a solid and convincing reason as doth not contradict the Analogie of Faith why or wherefore the Holy Ghost should not in any of those Scriptures where he expresseth Dipping express Dipping by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Derivative but only by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Primitive and why he should not express Baptism in any of the places of Scripture above quoted by the Primitive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bapto but always by Baptizo in case both 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Primitive and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 its Derivative do signifie the very same thing viz. to Dip or Plunge under the Water And I do faithfully promise him to own my self mistaken and him to be herein in the right If he cannot I then hope his misguided Proselytes as well as himself will ingeniously own themselves mistaken and persist no longer in fighting against the truth of God From the difference between the two words in Letters Syllables and Sound as also from the Practice of the Holy Ghost in using both the words in the N. T I thus Argue Major If the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 do apparently differ in Letters Syllables and Sound and if the Holy Ghost do always express the Act of Dipping and Plunging by Bapto never by Baptizo and Baptism by Baptizo never by Bapto then the word Bapto must signifie to Dip and Plunge but never to Baptize and the word Baptizo must signifie to Baptize but never to Dip or Plunge under Water Assump But the words Bapto and Baptizo do apparently differ in Le●ters Syllables and Sound and the Holy Ghost doth always express the Act of Dipping or Plunging by Bapto never by Baptizo and Baptism by Baptizo never by Bapto Conclusion Ergo the word Bapto must signifie to Dip or Plunge but never to Baptize and the word Baptizo must signifie to Baptize but never to Dip or Plunge under Water Besides this Argument others shall be laid down to confirm this when I come to speak to his third viz. the Practice of the first Baptizers In the 2d place our Dr. will have Baptizing to be only by Dipping or Plunging the whole Body under Water The Proof he gives to make good his Assertion herein are those Metaphors used in Holy Scripture To represent it to our understanding he Instances in two in Page 8 viz Burial and Resurrection He tells his Reader there that our Lord Jesus hath not burdened us under the Gospel with a multitude of Ceremonies as it was in the Oeconomy of the Jews under the Legal Dispensation but only with some few and those very Significant this being a more Spiritual Dispensation Before I meddle in speaking to his Metaphors I ●ill take liberty to tell the World that al●eit Christ doth not burden us with a multitude of Ceremonies now as under the Oeconomy of the Jews under the Legal Dispensation yet this one Ceremonie of Baptism will prove a heavier Yoke to Believers now then Circumcision with all the whole Body of Ceremonies appertaining to that Legal Dispensation in case it must be Administred by Dipping and Plunging the whole Body under Water as Anabaptists say it must I come now to his Metaphors the first whereof he saith is that of a Burial For this he and all of his Perswasion quote Rom. 6.4 and Colos 2.12 Buried with him in Baptism unto Death From this Metaphor of a Burial the Dr. and all his Party do hold and teach for an infallible truth that the Scope and Design of the Apostle in the two places now quoted is to teach and set forth the mode and manner how Christ was Buried to the end Believers should in Baptism imitate the same This if I mistake them not as I am very confident I do not is the sense and meaning wherein he and all Anabap●ists take those Scriptures In Answer to whom I affirm that this their sense of those places is senseless and meerly forc't to serve their own turn in proving that Dipping and Plunging in Baptism is the only true and right Baptism Now to discover their Mistake and Error herein I shall offer but two things to consideration The first is to shew the Scope and Design of the Apostle in those places which is not as they fondly and injudiciously imagine to shew that Christ was Baptized by dipping or that Believers are to be so Baptized But the Scope and Design of the Apostle in those places is to set forth and prove that Suretyship Union which is between Christ the Mediatorial Head and all the Members of his Body Mystical there being no one Act of Obedience either Active or Passive which Christ the Mediator performed in the assumed Nature but all his Members