Selected quad for the lemma: lord_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
lord_n	command_v	day_n	sabbath_n	10,415	5	9.9260	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A77753	A iustification of two points now in controversie with the Anabaptists concerning baptisme: the first is, that infants of Christians ought to be baptized, with grounds to prove it, and their objections answered. With a briefe answer to Master Tombes twelve doubtfull arguments against it in his exercitation about infants baptisme. Also a briefe answer to Captaine Hobsons five arguments in his falacy of infants baptisme, being (as he saith) that which should have beene disputed by him, and Mr. Knowles, and some others; against Mr. Calamy and Mr. Cranford. The second point is, that the sprinckling the baptized more agreeth with the minde of Christ then dipping or plunging in or under the water: with grounds to prove it, and a briefe auswer [sic] to what they have to say against it. / By T.B.	Bakewell, Thomas, b. 1618 or 19.	1646 (1646)	Wing B534; Thomason E316_23; ESTC R5282	32,062	32

confession but saith Paul of those children that they were uncleane then but now saith he they are holy because one of the Parents is become a christian now those children are not heathens but christians so then if the same children which before were uncleane and now are holy by the conversion of one of the Parents it must needs be such a holinesse to distinguish them from Infidels to be of the true christian Church then he that denies this truth must needes draw this conclusion that the same children which before Paul came there were bastards but now one of the Parents is converted to the christian Religion those children that were bastards and uncleane are now holy and no bastards Againe shall we be such fools as to think because the husband is a Christian that his christianity will so sanctifie his wife that shee cannot have a bastard or will her being a christian so sanctifie her husband that he cannot have a bastard if this were true then how comes it to passe that we have so many bastards in Engl. when both the husband the wife professe themselves to be christians and yet sometimes both of them are so prophane as to have bastards then I say that holinesse spoken of by Paul is that mark of distinction to be knowne from Turks and Infidels to be of the visible Church of Christ and therefore have a true right to baptisme and so to all other Ordinances and priviledges of the christian Church although infancy or sicknesse may hinder them from some of them yet it cannot from baptisme being onely passive the work is done upon them and no action required of them therefore they may and ought to be baptized Ninthly they object against my fifth ground saying that command of God ceased which did command to set the token of the Covenant upon Jewish Infants when Christ came and changed that token of circumcision into baptisme But I say the command remaines although the token be changed as for instance God commanded the children of Israel to keepe holy the seventh day for it was the Sabbath of the Lord their God but this command remaines although by Christ the day was changed and so for other commands to Israel thou shalt have no other gods but me thou shalt not make to thy selfe any graven image nor bow downe unto it nor take the name of the Lord thy God in vaine but although the Church of the Jewes be cut off and the christian Church grafted in we may not say these commands were repeald when the Church was changed and so conclude that Christians may have other gods and bow downe to them and worship them and take the name of Israels God in vaine because the command was not made to us but to them nor keep no Sabbath because the command was made to them and not to us nor set the token of the Covenant on our children because it was to them and not to us because our Church and Sabbath and token of the Covenant was all changed then unlesse you be minded to cast off God the Sabbath the Sacraments the true Religion let your children be baptized Tenthly they object saying those that have a right to one of the Sacraments have a right to both but Infants have no right to the Lords Supper because they cannot examine themselves nor remember the death of Christ nor discerne his body in the Sacrament then Infants may not be baptized I answ Those impediments that hinder them from receiving the Lords Supper are no impediments to hinder them from Baptisme because nothing is required in the baptized Infants they are meerly passive the work is done upon them when as the Lords supper requires many actions as to take eat doe this in men of age and understanding Againe I doubt not but Infants have a right to both Sacraments and all other Ordinances although by naturall infirmities they are for the present disabled from some of them as by sicknesse or infancy yet this hinders not nor disables any from Baptisme therefore Infants ought to be baptized although baptisme is not of absolute necessity where it cannot be had yet this contempt of it is damnable but in times of persecution or in a journey it may be deferred as Israel did in the Wildernesse forty yeers Josh 5.5 but they might not doe so in Canaan for if they doe it may be their children when they come to age would despise that Ordinance and then they are to be cut off from Israel because they have broken the Covenant Gen. 17.14 and how doe these men know but their children will despise the covenant when they come to age Nay I dare say it is the onely way to make them despise it when they come to age for it is said all the people that heard Christ and the Publicans justified God being baptized with the baptisme of John that is with water Mat. 3.11 but the Pharises and Lawyers rejected the Councell of God being not baptized of John Luke 7.29.30 And it were a just judgement of God upon such Parents that will not set that marke of distinction to sever their children from Turks by baptisme that they should never be severed from corrupted nature to the state of grace then to avoid this let them be baptized Eleventhly they object that if Christ who saith learne of me was not baptized till he was 30 yeers old then Infants must not be baptized Luke 3.23 But the first is true ergo so is the second I answ It is true that Christ bad us learne of him to be humble and meek Mat. 11.28 but he did not bid us learne of him to be 30 yeers old before that we be baptized and if we learne that we must neither be more nor lesse but just of his age Againe he was both circumcized and baptized but he did not bid us learne both Againe at thirty yeeres old he put an end to the Jewish Religion and could not be baptized before neither could he set up Christian Religion till he had put downe the Jewish Religion But I would not have the Anabaptists to tarry till they be thirty yeers old before they become Christians and say they learned to doe so of Christ Againe at the same time others were baptized at severall ages some more some lesse then the age of Christ then the matter lay in this whether they were converted from false Religions to the true Religion although they were not converted from the state of corrupted nature to the state of grace they baptized them we read of none that ever were denied to be baptized but the Pharises and Sadduces who came to John to be baptized but he refused to baptize them because they would not leave their sects and scismes they would be Pharises and Sadduces still therefore he cals them A generation of Vipers Mat. 3.7 because such would eat out the bowels of the christian Church this might be an item to all the sects and scismes amongst

other and that they onely had the true visible Church of God and so baptisme is one mark of the christian Church whereby it is known from Turks and Infidels Thirdly he faith circumcision signified that Moses Law was to be observed from Gal. 5.3 But how can that be when it was not given till four hundred yeers after fourthly he faith circumcision did signe the promise of the Land of Canaan to them and baptisme signes eternall life by Christ But I say they both signifie and signe the promise of that everlasting covenant made with Christ for the elect yet not to all that have it but to Gods people that are amongst us and for Canaan I say it was but an overplus of those promises which we enjoy as well as the Jewes when as spirituall and eternall mercies were the principall things intended in that everlasting covenant and whereas he said if baptisme succeed circumcision then none but males must be baptized I have answered the command by Christ is now enlarged to all Nations and to females if this man be not faithlesse but faithfull I suppose this may satisfie the doubt from this Scripture why christian infants may not be baptized Thirdly his examination of other Scriptures to encrease his doubtings are these Acts 16.15 32 33.18.8 1 Cor. 1.16 he saith the words to the Jaylor were spoke to all in his house and he rejoyced beleeving God with all his houshold and Crispus beleeved God with all his house and was baptized hence he concludes that the name of the whole house is to be understood that those which beleeved in it onely were baptized But I have answered already that if but one of the Parents become a christian the children are holy which cannot be denied by any Scripture or sound reason And againe he hath said nothing of Liddiahs houshold and besides although the Jaylor had servants which beleeved by hearing and seing the Apostles carriage in the prison yet Liddia was a stranger going to heare Paul preach was converted and he came and baptized her whole houshold immediately and it may be never saw them before neither was it materiall whether children was of age or not it may suffice that they baptized whole housholds of which Infants was a part and I say againe although they were uncleane before if but one of the Parents beleeved and was baptized yet now they are holy and if both Parents professe themselves christians which is our case in England the matter is out of doubt there Infants ought to be baptized Againe when God gave the token of the covenant to Abraham he commanded that the token should be set on all the males in his house and he accordingly obeyed and did so Gen. 17.12.27 and saith the Lord I know that Abraham will teach his children and his houshold after him to keep the way of the Lord Gen. 18.10 and saith Joshua as for me and my houshold we will serve the Lord Josh 24.15 Now I have said and proved before that Christ came not to take away the token of the covenant but to change it and to enlarge it but the covenant and the command are both the same and remaine still see my answer to the ninth Objection then it is cleare that if housholds were circumcised and baptized then our Infants may and ought to be baptized I shall answer two Questions Suppose where heathens and christians live in a land together yet at some distance and the heathen should take away a christians Infant before it be baptized and resolve to keep it by violence from them only they will give the christian leave to come with a Minister and baptize it but they will not part with the child now may this man goe and baptize it and engage himselfe to bring it up in the christian Religion I answ No it were sin and folly to promise that which he cannot performe the child being kept out of his hands by Infidels yea it were as bad and sinfull to doe as those did under the Prelats government who did engage themselves that the child should forsake the devill and all his works and all the lusts of the flesh and beleeve the Articles of the christian faith and keepe all Gods Commandements therefore it ought not to be done The second Question is this suppose a child of heathenish Infidels should by some providence of God lawfully come under the government of christians ought the child to be baptized I answ Yes because they have power to bring it up in the christian Religion therefore Abraham was commanded to circumcise al the males in his house some of them being children of Infidels because the Lord knew that Abraham would command his houshold to doe that which is right in the sight of the Lord Gen. 18.19 and christians have the same power to bring up those under their government in the christian Religion and this also may answer Master Tombes when he saith Infants baptisme may be a meanes to baptize them of uncertaine progeny But I say if christians have power to bring them up in the christian Religion and they can bring them up in no other because the whole Kingdome hath embraced it neither need they now to have any sureties to engage themselves to bring them up in it seeing the whole Kingdome hath embraced it and doe professe it Fourthly Master Tombes saith Baptisme is doubtfull because it cannot be proved that it was in use in the next age after the Apostles Fifthly Master Tombes saith Infants baptisme is doubtfull because in the succeeding age afterwards it was held to be a written tradition I answ If it be proved that it was in the Apostles times and that by the command of Christ then the Apostacy of the times cannot make it unlawfull but the first is proved sufficiently yet more shall be said to it in answer to Captaine Hobson's third argument then this doth not justly hinder christians Infants from baptisme Sixthly Master Tombes saith Infants baptisme hath occasioned many humane inventions to underprop it First sureties in baptisme secondly episcopall confirmation thirdly the reformed union by examination before the Communion fourthly the Church-covenant as it is in New-England I answ these are all meere scandals cast upon the Presbyteriall government which doth utterly suppresse them all Seventhly Master Tombes saith Infants baptisme hath occasioned or hath been as the birth to foster many errours first that baptisme conferres grace by the work done secondly baptisme is regeneration thirdly that Infants dying are saved by the faith of the Parents fourthly that some regenerate may fall from grace I answ The abuse of Infants baptisme doth not nullifie it neither can it be truly said to be the ground of these errours for we hold that it may be done upon reprobates as well as circumcision was neither is it a personall benefit to those that have it but it is onely given as a benefit to the godly who live amongst them and so the