Selected quad for the lemma: lord_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
lord_n	church_n	day_n	sabbath_n	20,024	5	9.8526	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A34433	The font uncover'd for infant-baptisme, or, An answer to the challenges of the Anabaptists of Stafford, never yet reply'd unto, though long since promised wherein the baptisme of all church-members infants is by plain Scripture-proof maintained to be the will of Jesus Christ, and many points about churches and their constitutions are occasionally handled / by William Cook, late minister of the Gospel at Ashby-Delazouch.	Cook, William, Minister of the gospel at Ashby-Delazouch.	1651 (1651)	Wing C6042; ESTC R1614	62,529	56

are so sacred that they cannot without high offence to his Majesty Deut. 4.1 great wrong to Gods people and extream danger to their own souls be denied by any to those to whom they belong God no lesse forbidding detracting from then adding to his word and so much the more dangerous is diminution in this case as it tends to darken the glorious grace of God in the times of the Gospel which times he hath reserved for the more full illustration thereof above former times 2. That those main priviledges which God granted ordinarily to persons in Covenant before Christ as That their children should be in Covenant and admitted to the seal of entrance thereinto should cease in the time of the Gospel is so unagreeable unto the wisdom and goodnesse of God which reserves his greatest and choicest blessings for the last times to be bestowed on his people so contrary to the nature of the Covenant of grace which under Evangelical dispensation is far more glorious and comfortable to the faithfull then under legall so contrary to the end of Christs coming which was to multiply increase and ratifie not cut off diminish or abolish blessings and priviledges to his Church and so contrary to the promises and prophecies concerning the glory of the Church in the times of the Gospel that he deserves to be abhorred of all that know God and Christ and his Covenant that should tell us of a great fall and diminution of priviledges in Evangelicall times compared with legall and yet can bring no pregnant and pertinent Scripture to prove a repeal of those priviledges 3. I grant that where God hath repealed priviledges of the Old Testament which whiles they continued unrepealed were priviledges yet cease to be so when greater answerable thereto yet more sutable to the Gospel-dispensation are vouchsafed in their place in the New Testament they in respect of that old administration are not to be accounted priviledges neither are priviledges in this case properly revoked but altered and inlarged when the old administration indeed is abrogated but the same spiritual blessing is given in a more comfortable manner under a new dispensation As when Christians 1 In stead of the Old Testament Scriptures in the Jews mother tongue which was the Jews priviledge have both Old and New Testament Scriptures translated into a known tongue 2 In stead of the Jews seventh-day-Sabbath Ioh. 19.36 2 Cor. 5.7 have the first day or Lords-day-Sabbath 3 In stead of the Passeover which to the Jews was a Type of Christ to come have Christ exhibited and now represented in the blessed Communion And 4 in stead of Circumcision have Baptism And 5 generally when Christians in stead of the old Legal dispensation of the Covenant of grace which the Jews had have the new Evangelical dispensation of the Covenant Here the same priviledges are continued with inlargement under a new and different garb or dresse 4. It 's granted also that when men have wilfully rejected priviledges and therefore God hath cast them off neither they nor theirs lying under that obstinacy may lay claim to obstinatly rejected priviledges as in the case of the body of the Jews and their seed at this day To the Minor 1. Gen 17.7 Exod 12.48 Ezek. 16.10 21. Mat. 2.15 Act. 3.25 It 's plain that from Abrahams time and so forward to the last of the Prophets yea to the time of our Saviour Christ unto which time Circumcision of children was in force the faithfull had interest in this priviledge that their children were in Covenant and had the seal of admission 2. It 's plain also Gen. 17 10 11 12 13. Rom. 4.11 Rom 3.1 2. Phil. 3.5 that this was a great priviledge or prerogative to the people of God and their children that they were in Covenant and had Circumcision which is called the sign of the Covenant yea the Covenant and the seal of the righteousnesse of faith As to be an Hebrew and Israelite was a great priviledge before Christs coming so to be circumcised 3. That God hath not recalled this grant of Beleevers children having right to the Covenant and seal of entrance it is evident for neither the Scriptures of Old or New Testament speak any such thing but rather the contrary heightning the priviledges of the Gospel above those of the Law but never depressing them Obj. But Circumcision is repealed and abrogated Ans 1. True Ob. in regard of the outward ceremony Ans 1 so the former dispensation of the Covenant of grace in regard of the Legal manner of administration Doth the Covenant it self therefore and duties and priviledges therefore which are essential and perpetual cease Womens going up to Jerusalem to the sacrifices and Passeover ceaseth Must not they therefore come to and partake of the Lords Supper The Church of the Jews which understood the Scriptures of the Old Testament without translation is cast off Must not Gods people now have the Scriptures in their mother language by translation because there is no direct expresse Scripture for that purpose The Jews Sabbath being the seventh day of the week with us called Saturday is abolished Must we not therefore have a Christian Sabbath or Lords day Nay rather we may well gather from the Jewish-beleeving womens priviledge to partake of the Passeover and sacrifices in the Old Testament the priviledge of Christian women to come to the Lords Table and from Jewish Beleevers liberty to have the Scriptures in a known tongue we may gather against the Papists the priviledge of Christian common people of the like nature though in a different way they by the Originall writing we by Translation and from the Jews Sabbath of the seventh day that being appointed by the moral Law we may gather our Christian Sabbath and so from the Jewish infants priviledge to have the seal of initiation into the Covenant and Church we may gather the like priviledge to belong to Christians Infants though in a different ceremony if we compare those priviledges of the Jews in the Old Testament with what is spoken in the New Testament concerning Gospel-priviledges that are analogicall and succedaneous to these legal priviledges and lay together other common grounds warranting unto them these priviledges though there be no expresse immediate particular command for womens partaking at the Lords Table nor for the common peoples enjoying vernaculous translations of the Scripture nor for the Christian Sabbath nor for the baptizing of Infants 2. I answer to this objection If it had been the pleasure of God and Christ that children should in the time of the Gospel lose their former interest in the Covenant and seal thereof and their priviledge of Church-membership as well as he would have Circumcision abolished he would have no lesse revealed that in the Scripture then this But he hath no where revealed either expressely or to be gathered by consequence that whereas untill Christs time Infants of Beleevers were in Covenant Gods children Church-members

practice in point of Religion It is sufficient sometimes and in some cases that by good consequence we deduce them from Scripture 1. Mat 22.32 33 This was very usuall with our Saviour and the Apostles Thus our Saviour proves the doctrine of the Resurrection against the Sadduces by consequence from that Scripture I am the God of Abraham the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob laid together with another principle God is not the God of the dead but of the living Which doctrine also the Apostle Paul proves by many Arguments and consequences 1 Cor. 15.13 to 33. 1 Cor. 15. from vers 13. to 33. So our Lord Christ argues for the lawfulnesse of his disciples pulling ears of corn and eating them on the Sabbath day Mat. 12.3 4 5 6 7. by consequence 1. From Davids eating of the Shew-bread 2. From the Priests sacrificing on the Sabbath and 3. From that sentence in Hosea I will have mercy and not sacrifice H●● 6. ● Which Scripture-examples and testimony do not expressely and immediatly say It is lawfull for the disciples being hungry to pluck ears of corn on the Sabbath day and eat them But by good consequence each of these Scriptures much more all jointly prove it So whereas it is said Luke 24.27 44. Luk. 24.27 44. That Christ expounded the Scriptures of all the Prophets shewing that they were fulfilled in him It is not to be understood that those things which were written of Christ in Moses the Prophets and Psalmes did expressely immediatly plainly and positively say that Jesus the son of Mary was the Messias and must suffer all those things and then rise again and enter into glory But by Christs expounding them and arguing from them the two disciples were brought to see the truth So Act. 2.25 26 c. the Apostle Peter sheweth to prove the resurrection of Christ from Scripture that what was contained in Psal 16.9 10. was spoken of Christ It doth not appear immediatly and expressely but by consequence thus It was to be understood of David himself or of Christ the seed of David No of David for he had seen corruption and his Sepulchre was yet extant as Act. 2.29 Therefore it must be meant of Christ Davids seed vers 30.31 32. So the other Apostles in the Acts and the Epistles and the Prophets before them usually deduce conclusions by way of reasoning or syllogizing either from Scriptures or other known principles or both laid together as is evident to any that with understanding and care reade the Scriptures so that further to prove this were to light a candle at noonday and sure he is miserably blinde that cannot see it 2. If you deny the use of consequence you have no warrant or proof for the reading of Scripture in an English translation Printed and so you must cast away your English Bibles as well as Infant-baptism or else fall into Will-worship and Idolatry Nor for womens receiving the Communion nor for the Christian-Sabbath Overthrow these and overthrow all Christian Religion Yea I may confidently say there is no Ordinance of God or religious act can be externally observed which you can perform but at least in respect of some accidentals or circumstantials thereof you must be beholden to consequence from Scripture or else must want warrant for the using of them and so either forbear them all and cast off all religious exercise and become visible Atheists or run into that which is Will-worship and Idolatry in your conceit and act against conscience and not in faith which to do is sin 3. Whereas all Scriptures were written for our learning Rom. 15.4 2 Tim. 3.16 that we may have patience comfort and hope and are profitable for doctrine reproof correction and instruction All or most of this benefit will be lost unto us if we reject the use of consequences The Scripture doth not positively and plainly make particular application to several men that live amongst us by name this must be done either by publike Ministry or private brotherly instruction and conference or by our own conscience which must by reasoning shew that the Scripture applied is pertinent and sutable to us or else we shall get no good by it 4. For what use should the Ministry of the word or preaching and teaching by others serve Pro. 2 2 3 4. or what use is there of studying and diligently searching the Scriptures as for gold silver and hid treasures if all things therein were so plain and particular to us in them that there were no need of drawing particulars from generals gathering obscurer truths from plainer Scriptures and applying them according to exigency Yea what use should there be of reason it self if we might not exercise it in this case which so much concerns Gods glory and our own and others edification and salvation I study shortnesse else it might be easily made to appear that they who deny and abhorre syllogisms and consequences in matters of Religion do not only deny the principall use of the most excellent gift of reason which God hath given to men for the finding out of the truth Rom. 2.15 Rom. 12.1 but also must cast off all right use of Conscience Scripture and Religion if they stick to that irrationall and irreligious conceit Taking it therefore for granted that no man who hath the use of reason and the heart of a Christian will deny us the liberty of reason in drawing out the truth from Scriptures by consequence I will lay down several Arguments grounded on Scripture whereof some were touched in the Answer to the former Paper what I shall here omit which there I touched the Reader may fetch thence for the baptizing of Infants Arg. Arg. 1 1. Such persons as have had by Gods gracious grant right to the Covenant of grace and seal of entrance thereinto in the time of the Old Testament and from whom this grant was never repealed by God nor cast off by themselves are not to be debarred by any man from the priviledges of Gods Covenant and the seal of entrance thereinto whiles the Covenant of grace and a seal of entrance is dispensed to the Church But the children of beleeving parents have by Gods gracious grant had interest in the Covenant of grace and the seal of entrance thereinto at least from Abrahams time to Christs which grant God did never repeal neither did the children of Beleevers cast it off but God hath continued in his Church the Covenant of grace and seal of entrance thereinto though in a different manner yet far more comfortable and glorious Therefore the children of beleeving parents are not to be debarred from the Covenant or seal of entrance thereinto which now in the time of the Gospel is Baptism For the clearing of the Proposition let these things be noted 1. Gods gracious grants of priviledges to his people wherein are also implied ingagements to thankfulnesse and obedience laid on them

nor diping is essential to the constitution of a true Church Seventhly You say or imply This baptizing or dipping is that whereby they became and were truly called Christians Ans This is false that men cannot be right Christians without your dipping Yea though we understand it of true Baptism for faith or interest in Christ properly maketh Christians Being interested in Christ though we should be hindered by death or other providence from Baptisme yet we are true Christians as the thief on the Crosse Those three thousand mentioned in the Acts when they had beleeved Act. 2 19 40. were Christians even before they were baptized so Philip before he came to the water Baptism is rather an effect or consequent then a cause or antecedent of our Christianity People are rightly baptized because Christians not Christians because baptized 2. Neither were men hence at first called Christians because baptized for many thousands had been baptized a long time before they were called Christians For whereas great multitudes had been baptized by John the Baptist Mat. 3.5 6. Ioh 4 5 6. See Act 2. 3. to the 7 chap. and more by the Disciples of Christ before his death and many thousands also after his ascension at Jerusalem Samaria and elsewhere Beleevers were not called Christians untill a good time after the Persecution and dispersion at Jerusalem For the faithfull were first called Christians at Antioch Act. 11. ●6 where Paul and Barnabas had taught an whole year and the number of Disciples was mightily increased there is not the least intimation that Baptism or dipping gave them the name of Christians but rather their famous profession of Christ Thus much for particulars observable in the main proposition Eightly From the whole proposition in respect of the matter let it be noted that besides your implicit fastning on us some things which we own not and asserting as your own some things which you neither have nor can prove The whole state of the Question is mistaken by you You speak of Baptism which is for the constitution of Churches whereas the Question is What Baptism is to be used amongst us who are a Church or Churches constituted already We grant that to the first constituting of Churches amongst Jews or Infidels which were never a Christian people a Profession of repentance faith or obedience must be made by men upon the preaching of the Gospel that they and their children may be accepted into Covenant and baptized As Abraham professed his faith before that he and his family were circumcised but after that his children were circumcised without requiring of actual faith and repentance from them as precedaneous to Circumcision They that will constitute new Churches amongst Infidels ought as we judge first to require actual faith and repentance of that people before they admit them and their seed as members of the Church But whatsoever you think of us we Christians in England know that we were through Gods grace a Church constituted long ago whose defects and corruptions though many yet have not been inconsistent with the being of a Church neither such hath been the indulgence of our Lord Jesus Christ the head and King of the Church were we ever unchurched If you will go and preach among Jews Turks and infidels and make it appear that you have a commission for it we will not gainsay your constituting of Churches amongst them and baptizing Professors of faith But in the mean space let me advise you to take heed lest whiles you talk of constituting Churches amongst Gods people Act. 1● 3 2 Tim. 3.6 Tit 1. 11. Satan use you as his instrument to overthrow Churches by subverting souls and whole houses through speaking things you ought not for filthy lucre sake as he did those noted in the margin Ninthly Let it be also observed in the form of your propounding the whole state of the Question that you which would be accounted great disputers and discussers of the truth laying down a negative Proposition as is evident to any that can discern a negation from an affirmation in propounding it say we affirm when indeed you deny Will not these so grosse mistakes in the parts and the whole the matter and manner of this main question stated by you give just cause to judge that you are such men as those of whom the Apostle speaks in these words 1 Tim 1.5 6 7. Now the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart a good conscience and faith unfeined from which some having swerved have turned aside to vain jangling desiring to be teachers of the law understanding neither what they say nor whereof they affirm Whereas you say H. H J.B. If it be we desire you to prove it by plain Scriptures Ans We have nothing to do to prove that which we never affirmed but you falsly father upon us as it may seem that you may fight with your own shadow But we shall by Gods assistance prove upon solid Scripture grounds That the Infants of Christians which are members of a constituted Church or Churches have right to the Covenant of grace and so to Baptism the seal of entrance into the Covenant and that it is agreeable to Gods word that constituted Churches should be continued by baptizing of children that are members thereof But first let us hear what you say for your way You proceed thus That the Baptisme of beleeving men and women by us practised H.H. J.B. is the Baptism of Christ we prove by these Scriptures Ans For the answering of your Scripture-proofs taken from Christs command and the Apostles practice I will first propound some things in general to be considered secondly make answer to the several Scriptures 1. I answer therefore That neither any nor all these Scriptures do prove plainly positively immediatly and directly without consequence or syllogism which I take to be your meaning when you call for plain and positive Scripture which I have heard that some of your way abhor and protest against that the Baptism practised by you is the Baptism of Jesus Christ In none of these Scriptures it is expressely said The dipping of beleeving men and women practised by Henry Huggar and James Brown is the Baptism of Jesus Christ Nor do we reade in the Evangelists Go Henry Huggar and Ja. Brown teach all Nations and baptize c. Nor do we reade that Christ gave a command to you two to preach the Gospel to every creature Nor do we finde in the Acts of the Apostles that H.H. and J.B. said to the Jews Repent and be baptized or that the Samaritans heard you two preaching or that the Eunuch went down with you to the water or that the Jaylour or Crispus the Ruler of the Synagogue were baptized by you or either of you If you have any plain positive Scriptures mentioning your selves you may produce them Neither have you cause to take it ill to be urged thus Seeing

is born into the world doth it follow hence that the new-born childe is a full-grown man 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 No sure the word notes the species or kinde of man distinct from other creatures without difference of age or sex So then you cannot from the names of men and women conclude the ripenesse and perfection of years 2. If you object But they beleeved Remember what is said on Mar. 16.15 16. and Act. 2.39 and you may gather thence That when parents become Beleevers God accepts their Infant children as Beleevers and giveth them right to the Covenant and promise 3. But howsoever enough hath been said in the general considerations to shew how little help you can have from this or any other Scripture for your purpose The following proof is in Act. 8.36.37 The Eunuch saith Loe here is water what doth hinder me to be baptized And Philip said If thou beleevest with all thy heart thou maist Ans We grant that they which never lived in a Christian Church nor were born of Christian parents nor have interest in the Covenant by their parents faith which was the case of the Eunuch are to be baptized when they beleeve and not before But what makes this for your purpose 2. But what would you gather hence that none are to be baptized but they which beleeve with their whole heart If so I answer 1. Then you will condemn not only us Act. 8.12 13.21 but also the same Philip for baptizing Simon whose heart was not right in the sight of God and therefore he beleeved not with his whole heart you must condemn many of your own dippings for doubtlesse many come to you to be dipped for base ends You cannot promise to your selves more dexterity then was in the Apostles and Evangelists to baptize none but upright-hearted ones 3. If so you must not baptize any untill you see into their hearts 1 King 8.9 that they beleeve sincerely and then you must lay down your new trade of dipping for none but God leeth mens hearts whether they be upright or no. Your next Scripture is Act. 10.47 Then answered Peter Can any forbid water that these should not be baptized which have received the holy Ghost as we and he commanded them to be baptized in the Name of Jesus Christ Ans 1. It is plain that the Apostle gives this as a reason why they should be baptized because they had received the gift of the holy Ghost Act. 10.44 45. and 11.15 Now you can hence gather immediatly no warrant for your baptizing untill you can procure by your preaching the effusion of the holy Ghost in a visible and miraculous manner as it is evident that that in the text was 2. But if you say Indeed these visible and miraculous gifts of the holy Ghost cease with the Primitive times But God now pours his Spirit of sanctification ordinarily and invisibly on people and such as have received that may be baptized I grant it and assume The gift of the holy Ghost is promised to and bestowed on Infants in the Church not only extraordinarily as in the example of John the Baptist but ordinarily according to Gods promise Act. 2.38 39. Isa 44.3 4 5. Your following example is ●ct 16.32 33 34. And they spake unto him the word of the Lord and to all that were in his house And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes and was baptized he and all his straitway And when he had brought them into his house he set meat before them and rejoiced that he and all his beleeved in God Ans To this I answer The last words are mis-cited And rejoiced that he and all his beleeved in God Our Translators render it And rejoiced beleeving in God with ●ll his house Which if the Parenthesis had been observed and in stead of beleeving they had read having beleeved or after he had beleeved had very fully and fitly set forth the emphasis of the Original which is thus word for word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He exceedingly rejoiced or exulted with in o● through his whole house after that he had beleeved in God or he having beleeved in God rejoiced in his whole house Here it is not said that the whole house beleeved in God but the words shew that the Jaylor when he had beleeved in God and he and all his were baptized he made a feast and shewed his exceeding joy through his whole house or with his whole house 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Syriack Translation reades it thus And he exulted and all the children of his house even all of them in the faith of God Now consider in this History these things 1. How that when the poor affrighted Jaylour saith What shall I do that I may besaved Paul and Silas answer Beleeve in the Lord Jesus and thou shalt be saved and all thine house They require faith of the Jaylour that he and his family might be admitted into a saving estate They said not that every one of his family must of necessity actually beleeve and professe that so his houshold might be saved with him but they tell him If he beleeve both he and his houshold should be saved Gen. 17.5 Luk. 19.9 As Abraham beleeved and all his family even Infants were taken into Covenant of salvation And when Zacheus beleeved salvation came to his house he being made a son of Abraham So God shews here by his servants that he would deal with the Taylour not standing for the present on strict terms of actual faith of all in his house If the Governour beleeve it is enough to put the whole family into a saving estate inchoatively at least in respect of admission into Covenant neither are any to be excluded but such as by stubborn refusal of the Gospel offered deprive themselves of that priviledge 2. It is said indeed that they spake to him and all in his house vers 32. the word of the Lord but whether it be meant of the prisoners in the Prison-house with Paul and Silas or of those of his houshold is not expressed the former seems very probable rather then the later 1. Those to whom they spake the word are said to be All that were in his house v. 32. Those that were baptized with him are said to be all his Now prisoners and strangers might be in his house but those only of his own family were his 2. Ver. 32. It is said they spake to all in the house and yet afterwards it is said ver 34. that he brought them into his house as if they had not been in his dwelling house before 3. If it be meant of his family to which they spake the word that proves not that there were no Infants in the family or that the Infants were not taken into Covenant and baptized with their parents any more then the exhortation of Moses to that great assembly of the Israelites mentioned Deut.