Selected quad for the lemma: lord_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
lord_n	commandment_n	day_n	sabbath_n	21,308	5	10.2371	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A66525	Infant=baptism asserted & vindicated by Scripture and antiquity in answer to a treatise of baptism lately published by Mr. Henry Danvers : together with a full detection of his misrepresentations of divers councils and authors both ancient and modern : with a just censur of his essay to palliate the horrid actings of the anabaptists in Germany : as also a perswasive to unity among all Christians, though of different judgments about baptism / by Obed Wills ...	Wills, Obed.	1674 (1674)	Wing W2867; ESTC R31819	255,968	543

34. 2. There needed no express Command in the New-Testament that Infants should be signed and sealed by Baptism when the Covenant is not abolished that took in the Seed with the Parent as there needs no express Command for the Lord 's Day or First-Day Sabbath in the New-Testament because the fourth Commandment for substance is still in force So there needs no new Command for Baptizing the Infant-seed of Believers because the Command for sealing such is for substance still in force It is also well noted by Mr. Gerce that there is a great difference between an Ordinance it self and some particular Circumstance or Subject to which that Ordinance is to be applied As for the Ordinance it self the setting up of Baptism as a Sacrament of the Gospel-Covenant renewed by Christ this requires express warrant in the Word of God but when we have such warrant for the Ordinance it self to whomsoever we find by grounds and principles in Scripture that it doth of right belong there we may apply it though we want express Command for it if we have none against it 3. We farther add what is well argued by some Divines That if the Children of Believers have a right to be Baptized by the word of Promise Mr. Stephens and Mr. Sydenham then they have a right to be Baptized by the word of Command but the Children of Believers have a right to be Baptized by the word of Promise therefore they have a right to be Baptized by the word of Command Now that Children have a right to be Baptized by the word of Promise appears from Act. 2.39 For the Promise is made to you and to your Children c. The exceptions which the Antipaedobaptists make against this Text shall be removed in its proper place Now for the other Branch there is no Example of Infants being baptized therefore it is no Ordinance of Christ The Consequence stands upon a lame Leg for as is before shewn a negative Argument in matters of Fact is not valid For Christ did many things that were not recorded and so did the Apostles whereof this was one for ought we know the Baptizing Infants and it is the more probable upon a twofold account First because we find such frequent mention of their Baptizing whole Families as Stephanus and his houshold Lydia and her houshold and divers others as soon as we read of the head of the Family to believe the whole houshold was baptized As when Abraham believed he and his whole Family were circumcised and so when the Head of a Family became a Proselyte ordinarily He and His were Circumcised Now in so many Families as were baptized it cannot rationally be supposed that there were no Children and if there were any they were baptized for they are a part of the Family or Houshold And secondly Because we never read in Scripture of any Children of Believing Parents who were Baptized afterwards Our Opposits will not believe the Apostles baptized Children because we can give no particular instances of it but this Negative Argument may be thus retorted against themselves The Children of Believing Parents were baptized in their Infancy for they cannot find in Scripture any of them that were baptized when they came to years of discretion and not before I urge not this as a concluding though probable Argument that in the Apostle's days Children were Baptized however I am certain that to say Infant-Baptism is no Ordinance of Christ because we have no examples in the Scripture of any that were Baptized is a pittiful Argument Next saith he That there is neither Precept nor Example for any such thing as Infant-Baptism in the Scripture we have the ingenuous Confession of the parties themselves The Magdeburgenses do say That concerning the Baptising the Adult both Jews and Gentiles we have sufficient proof but as to the Baptizing of Infants they can meet with no Example in the Scriptures Very good Sr. now you have learnt to set down things right but why did you say in the 56 page of your Treatise referring to the same place Cent. 1. L. 2. pag. 496. That the Magdeburgenses as to the Subjects of Baptism tell us that in this Age they only Baptized the Adult was that lapsus calami or mentis And do you not know that in the same place they tell us notwithstanding particular instances cannot be found as all the Paedobaptists confess yet 't is evident from the Writings of the Apostles that they did not exclude Infants from Baptism and then bring Arguments for the lawfulness of it as before For that of Luther in his Epistle of Anabaptism I have not the Book by me to Examine it yet I am sure by what the Author cites it hurts us not The Scriptures saith he do no where clearly and plainly with these or the like words say Baptize your Children for they believe and we must needs yield to those that drive us to the Letter This is still no more than what we all say we all acknowledg it is no-where written Children do believe as Lutherans hold they do and again we say as Luther did it is no-where written clearly and plainly with these words Baptize your Children for they Believe Nor have Antipaedobaptists any command in so many words Go and Baptize actual and visible Believers If they say such were Baptized we may reply with Mr. Sydenbam that is not to the purpose for it is a verbal command which they require to give warrant to an Ordinance and for ought we can learn from Christ's Commission Matt. 28.19 Whosoever are taught be the parties never so wicked they must be Baptized if they will for there is no mention made of their entertainment of the Gospel Next he Fathers that upon Erasmus which was never spoken by him in his Comment upon Rom. 6. Namely That Baptizing of infants was not in use in St. Paul's time There is no such word I assure thee Reader there Again in his 4th Book de Ratione Concionandi he saith That they are not to be condemned that doubt whether Childrens Baptism were Ordained by the Apostles But why Sir did you not speak out all You know Erasmus his words are these Probabile est tingere Infantes institutum fuisse ab Apostolis non damnaretur tamen qui de hoc dubitaret It is probable the Baptism of Infants was instituted by the Apostles nevertheless if one doubt thereof he should not be condemned In this Erasmus speaks like an honest moderat-Spirited man that would not have weak Christians Anathematized as the Papists use to do for their dissent in Circumstantial and Disputable points Calvin in his 4th Book of Institutes Chap. 16. confesseth that it is no-where expresly mentioned by the Evangelists that any one Child was by the Apostles Baptized to the same purpose are Staphilus Melancthon Zwinglius quoted to which I only say That whereas they all tell us there is no express Command or express Example an Implicite one is

pouring on Water or Sprinkling for if the Root signifies so then doth the Branch also And thus my Antagonist having shewn so much of his Acumen in the Greek he will also give us a tast of his skill in the Mystery of Huswifry I presume saith he you will account her but a S●lut and give her no thanks for her pains that having unclean Hands Vessels or Cloaths to Wash doth only Sprinkle or pour a little Water upon them as though that would serve 'T is a commendable thing to be cleanly and let all Maids take special notice of this item and as they would not willingly incur the brand of Sluts let them be mindful of this that when ever they set about that necessary work of Washing Dishes to look well to their business and let them be sure they dip them quite under water or they will never be clean and I question whether this will do without some rinsing and rubbing for I have observed your cleanly Huswifes to fetch off the filth that way and then they will shine like Chrystal if afterward they scoure them with Sand. But we must be more ferious in a business of this nature and I hope to be excused being tempted thus 10 Answer our Author in his own kind I will leave that word of Mr. Baxter to the consideration of the Judicious viz. It would be but folly for any to think Men must needs fill themselves full of Bread and Wine because it best signifies the fulness of Christ so it is no better to say that we must needs be washed all over because it best signifies the fulness of Christ Christ told Peter that the Washing of his Feet was enough to cleanse all Eight Argument against the Administration of Baptism by Dipping 1. BEcause we are not to presume to do that which is not written that is that is not founded upon Scripture-precept either Thetice in so many express words or Dianoetice by clear consequence They will not allow us the priviledg of deducting Consequences from Scripture although never so clear yet they presume to make use of Consequences and think they can demonstrate that which is impossible to be done from Scripture There is a positive saying in Mr. Leigh's Critica Sacra upon the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Christ nowhere requireth Dipping but only Baptizing and as for the manner and method how this should be done there is altum Silentium in the Scripture a deep silence and therefore 't is I very great boldness to say no worse for any to lay the whole essence of Baptism in Dipping 2. As there is no express Command for it so there is no President in the New-Testament they cannot instance in any one Person that ever was so severely dealt with as to be Plunged over Head and Ears Nor is there any convincing Circumstances to be collected thence that any was so served And is it not strange that upon search of all the Sacred Register from the time that John the Baptist began his Ministery to the time that John the Evangelist ended his which was above sixty years during which time thousands and ten thousands were Baptized that if Plunging over head and ears had been the way then no error ever should be committed no fainting or drowning of persons under water or some accident or another happen to demonstrate that Baptizing was after that manner Me thinks there should fall out something either of Omission or Commission that might argue the thing But we have not so much as one Circumstance of that nature 3. Because as the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies both to Plunge and to Wash so it is mostly used in Scripture for Washing It is a good Rule to be observed that when we find a word in Scripture of a double sence and it hangs as it were in Equilibrio so that we know not which to take our safest course is then to observe which way the Scale doth most incline that is we are to imbrace that sence which is most common in Scripture But in the matter before us I think we need not be much at a loss for we shall not easily find any explicite place in all the Bible where the Word Baptize is used positively for Plunging 4. Let it be granted that in Scripture the word can be found to signify Dipping yet for asmuch as it is also in Scripture used simply for Washing we are also to observe and follow another Theological Rule that where a word is of doubtful interpretation admitting a double sense that sense is to be taken for right which agrees best with the Mind of God in other places and the general Anatogy of Faith and Evangelical Doctrine Hence then we conclude that Baptizing is not Dipping because this Practice runs directly cross to a Vital Maxime of Religion which is self-preservation required not only in the Moral-Law but Charactered in us by Nature and under the Evangelical Dispensation we find our Lord Jesus so tender of Man's health and life that rather than it should be endangered even the Sabbath it self must be dispensed with and the Reason Christ gives is because Man was not made for the Sabbath but the Sabbath for Man so may it be said Man was not made for Baptism but Baptism Instituted for Man for his good not hurt and therefore Dipping which we know hath not been only to the damage of some Mens health but the loss of some lives is to be suspected to be none of Christ's Ordinances And for this Reason Mr Cradock a great Independent as they call them in his Treatise of Gospel-Liberty saith the Practice is to be restrained by the Magistrate for the preservation of the lives of his Subjects Let us a little dive into this Dipping-Principle and we shall see how inconsistent it may in some cases be to the Life of Man 1. We know the Command of Baptizing takes place immediatly upon Believing for this is certain every one that Believeth ought presently to be Baptized if he can have it for so it was without delay as appears by several Instances in the Acts of the Apostles If then only Dipping be Baptizing what shall become of them that are weak and sickly that have Catarrhs Consumptions Palsies These if they Believe although it be in Winter in frost and snow must to the work without any delay they must I say be covered all over with water and if so may not this hasten their end which may endanger the lives of the soundest Bodies Is this think you suitable to the mercy tender Bowels of Christ whose Yoke is easy and Burden light Certainly such a penance as this to some Persons and to those that live in extream cold Countries is more unsupportable than the burthen of the Ceremonial-Law and more dangerous than what ever the Ceremonial Law requited And what though our bodies may endure it better than theirs who live under a more severe Climat yet we must know Christ's