Selected quad for the lemma: lord_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
lord_n	christian_a	day_n	sabbath_n	12,184	5	9.9778	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A45681	Infant baptism God's ordinance, or, Clear proof that all the children of believing parents are in the covenant of grace and have as much a right to baptism the now seal of the covenant, as the infant seed of the Jewes had to circumcision, the then seal of the covenant / by Michael Harrison ...	Harrison, Michael, Minister at Potters-Pury.	1694 (1694)	Wing H905; ESTC R9581	26,416	65

25.1 2 3 4. This is the ground of Baptism we do not baptize persons as the Elect of God or Infants as the Infants of the Elect but as making a visible and credible profession of Religion so the Apostles did presently baptize such as did profess repentance towards God and faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ Act. 2.41 Simon Magus in barely professing to believe in Christ was baptised Thus all those who visibly profess Christianity and are baptised in the name of Christ and do not scandalous Sins notoriously contradict their Profession are to be accounted Believers in Covenant and their Children to be baptised Ezek. 16.20 21. 3. That all Infants of such believing Parents are in the Covenant of Grace and have as much a right to Baptism the now Seal of the Covenant as the Infants of the Jews had to Circumcision the then Seal of the Covenant This is the principal thing designed from this Text. There are you know a sort of restless people amongst us who are perpetually letting fly and with great indignation spurning at Infant Baptism telling you your Infants have no right to the Seal of the Covenant and thereby tempt you to be cruel to the Children of your own Bowels setting them among Pagans and Infidels Therefore I hope it will be an acceptable service to plead the Cause of your poor Infants who cannot yet speak a word for themselves to assert and prove their right to the Covenant and the initiating Seal thereof which is Baptism I hope to find very few amongst you who will join with the Enemy of Infants but rather put to a helping hand to restore them those Priviledges God allows them In speaking to this I shall 1. Lay down some Conclusions to clear the Doctrine of Infant Baptism 2. Prove the Doctrine by several Arguments 3. Shew the dangerous Consequence of denying Infant Baptism 4. Answer Objections 5. Prove that Dipping over head in baptizing in these cold Countreys is no Ordinance of God but a grievous Sin CHAP. I. Containing five Introductory Considerations very needful for the right understanding the Controversy of Infant Baptism 1. COnsider that a Doctrine or Practice may be proved to be of God two ways 1. By the express words of Scripture as the Resurrection of the dead may be proved from such a Text as cannot be denied by any that own the Scripture to be God's Word as John 5.28 All that are in the grave shall come forth 2. Or from Evident Consequences drawn from Scripture then have we the mind of Christ when we have the right meaning of Scripture thus Christ proves the Resurrection to the Sadduces Luke 20.37 38. Now that the dead are raised even Moses shewed at the bush when he calleth the Lord The God of Abraham the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob God is not the God of the dead but of the living Now this Scripture doth not prove the Resurrection in direct terms but remotely and by consequence How little satisfaction would this Text have given our Modern Anabaptists if they had been present at the Dispute between Christ and the Sadduces would they not have reprov'd Christ for his Impertinence We will not believe the dead will rise unless we have a plain Text would not these men have reported abroad that Christ could could not prove the Resurrection Thus they deal with us at this day We challenge you say they to prove Infant Baptism to be God's Ordinance bring us a plain Text and we will believe Now if we prove Infant Baptism as plainly as Christ proved the Resurrection then it is certainly God's Ordinance and we are bound to own it Most we believe nothing but what we have totidem verbis in just so many words in Scripture then how shall we prove the first day of the Week to be the Christian Sabbath That a Woman may come to the Lord's Table That a Christian may be a Magistrate 2. Observe That a mind prepossessed with Error and Prejudice that is not seeking Truth but only something to defend their present Embraced Opinions will not be satisfied let the Text be never so clear or the Argument never so firmly built upon Scripture but will still be inventing some shift or other to ward off the force of any Text or Argument This is evident in the Example of the Sadduces beforementioned we find indeed Christ silenced them but we do not find so much as one of them convinced and brought off to a sound mind Men are generally so fond of their Errors that when they are beaten out of one hold they fly to another 3. Those Doctrines which were clearly revealed and fully confirmed in the Old Testament though little or nothing be said of them in the New Testament and were never repealed are yet to be owned received and believed as if much had been said of them in the New Testament the whole Scripture is God's Word and what need of proving the same thing twice unless the Authority of the Old Testament were questioned this is evident in the lawfulness of a Christian Magistracy in an Oath before a Magistrate and making war upon a just occasion There is so little said of these things in the New Testament many of the Anabaptists have denied them yet these being fully setled and confirmed by God in the Old Testament are to be owned though little be said of them in the New Now this is the case of Infant Baptism The Question is not by what Sign but at what Age persons are to be admitted into the visible Church Now this was fully determined in the Old Testament That Infants at eight days old were to be admitted Members of the Visible Church and suppose little be said of it in the New Testament it is because there was no need of it this truth having been once setled in the Old Testament and never repealed 4. Those Doctrines which were once throughly setled in the Old Testament and never called in question by any in the New there was no occasion given to speak of them again We find that what was but darkly hinted in the Old Testament and much questioned in the New is fully cleared and much is said of it as that glorious Doctrine of Justification by the imputation of the Righteousness of Christ This was very darkly hinted in the Old Testament and very much opposed by Legal Preachers in the New Testament therefore much is said in the New Testament to clear it But Infants right to the Covenant or to Church-membership there was much said of it in the Old Testament and it was neve● denied or called in question by any in the Apostles days they were setled and had had peaceable possession of their Priviledges ever since Abraham's time Had any in the Apostles days scrupled in Infants Right very much would have been said of it for the Jews who tenaciously adhered to their old Priviledges would never so silently have suffered their Children to be cast