Selected quad for the lemma: lord_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
lord_n	damnation_n	drink_v	eat_v	10,899	5	8.2264	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A47605	The rector rectified and corrected, or, Infant-baptism unlawful being a sober answer to a late pamphlet entituled An argumentative and practical discourse of infant-baptism, published by Mr. William Burkit, rector of Mildin in Suffolk : wherein all his arguments for pedo-baptism are refuted and the necessity of immersion, i.e. dipping, is evidenced, and the people falsly called Anabaptists are cleared from those unjust reproaches and calumnies cast upon them : together with a reply to the Athenian gazette added to their 5th volume about infant-baptism : with some remarks upon Mr. John Flavel's last book in answer to Mr. Philip Cary / by Benjamin Keach.	Keach, Benjamin, 1640-1704.	1692 (1692)	Wing K84; ESTC R27451	144,738	231

Token of it but this he hath not done and 't is not in your Power to do it 1. But you say they have hereby Interest in all the Prayers put up in and by the Church Answ If you so pray for them viz. as Members of the visible Church what ground have you to believe God will hear you since he never made them Members thereof Besides the Church prays for all her Members and for the Children of them who are Members that they in due time may become Members and have equal Right in all the Blessings of God's Church if it be his Will to bring them in But what ground have you to deny any who are true Members of the Church the Eucharist or Lord's Supper or any other Priviledge whatsoerver 2. You say by virtue of this Admission they have an Interest in that special Providential Care which Christ exercises over his Church Answ No doubt but Christ exercises his Care over poor Infants but not the more assure your self for your baptizing them without his Authority 3. You say hereby the Church stands nearer to them than to the rest of Mankind c. mentioning that Text in Isa 54.13 Thy Children shall be all taught of God c. Answ You cannot bring Infants to stand nearer to God nor his People by any Act done by you without a Rule left by Christ Besides that Text in Isa 54.13 does not refer to Infants not to our Children as such but to those godly Christians who being born in Sion are indeed truly her Children 4. ' You say it is an Act of Dedication c. Answ Who commanded you this way to dedicate your Children to the Lord Will you teach him Wisdom or are you wiser than he doth he require you so to do 5. You say 't is greatly advantagious to them as 't is an Act of Restipulation that is say you a Child at Baptism enters into Covenant with God Answ Poor Babes 't is without their Knowledg or Consent or God's Appointment which is worst of all or being able to perform it then nor many of them ever after God never giving them his Grace so to do But wo to them if they do not perform this Covenant if you and Mr. Daniel Williams say true he says in his Catechism as followeth That those Children who perform not their Baptismal Covenant do 1. Reject Christ 2. They renounce the Blessings of Gospel 3. That 't is Rebellion against their Maker 4. That 't is Ingratitude and Perjury to their Redeemer 5. Gross Injustice to their Parents 6. That 't is self-killing Cruelty to their own Souls 7. He saith 't is a damning Sin nay it 's the damning Sin and Heart of all Sin Is this indeed the Love you Pedo-baptists have to your poor Infants What bring them into such a Covenant without their Knowledg or Consent or God's Appointment and then threaten them if they break it with Hell and Damnation and what not Do you know they are all Elect Persons and so such that God will in time call give Grace to and so change their evil and depraved Natures If not do you not heap up a Multitude of Evils upon them and hereby make their Condition worse or aggravate their Sin and Misery for ever I know not whether you be of this Pedo-Baptist's Mind or not but I think this Doctrine does not fit a Christian Catechism if God had required Infants to enter into such a Covenant some reason he might have thus to speak But since he nor you either can prove it this to me seems a daring boldness in a Minister of the Gospel to assert who I hope is a good Man God I grant expects that all true Believers should perform their Baptismal Covenant but then know they are required of God actually to enter into it they freely of their own choice enter into it they are such God hath given habitual Grace to perform it And he hath promised them also a further supply of Grace to enable them so to do but nothing of this you can prove in Infants covenanting in their Baptism but more of this by and by nor will their Sureties help the matter for if they cannot perform those things they promise for themselves how should they be able to do it for others besides 't is an humane Invention and not appointed of God as Mr. Perkins himself confesseth But truly Mr. Williams's Doctrin afflicts my Mind Strange is this Sin the damning Sin I thought the damning Sin by way of eminency had been the Sin of Unbelief Suppose your own Child should not believe he is bound by virtue of that baptismal Covenant you brought him into but when grown up disowns that you call Baptism c. not believing it is a Truth of Christ must he be damned But to proceed You having shewed the Advantages of Infant-Baptism without giving one Scripture-Text to prove what you say is true you in pag. 38. come to shew that Baptism is more useful and beneficial to a Child in Infancy than to omit it till riper Age Because no Infant-membership is capable of Hypocrisy which Persons grown up are Answ 1. Then give them the Lord's Supper also for doubtless if they receive it they will not eat and drink their own Damnation as may be some that have it given to them do I tremble at what you dare to say and write in which you seem to arraign the Wisdom of the ever-blessed Jesus Hath he appointed Believers or Adult Persons who are gracious to be baptized and none else and do you say the Ordinance better suits with ignorant Babes Should you dictate to your earthly Prince would he allow it much less to contradict and correct him as if your Wisdom was more than his 2. You say 'T is more advantagious to Infants than those of riper Years as it is a pre-engagement upon them to resist Temptations Answ You may after this rate bring them under an hundred Engagements and Covenants nay may be more plausible ones too may you not When they know what they do make them take a solemn Oath or enter into Bonds upon pain of severe Punishment that they shall not yield to Temptations and pretend 't is God's Law they should do so and if you can deceive their Judgments they will dread as much nay may be more the breaking those Oaths and Covenants than this you bring them into without any Authority from Jesus Christ 3. You say Baptism in Infancy is more advantagious than at riper Years as it is an early Remedy against the Malady of Original Sin Answ Speak Doth Baptism take away Original Sin or free them of that Malady or not You know some of the Ancient Fathers were carried away with such a Dream how comes it to pass then that that Contagion appears so soon and to be as strong in your Children as in ours who never were baptized at all But does not St. Peter tell you 1. Pet. 3.20 Baptism

signify that Moses his Law is abolished and the Doctrine of Christ established 4. Circumcision signified the Promise of the Land of Canaan but Baptism Eternal Life by Christ And indeed saith he if this Argument be not warily and restrainedly understood an Egg is laid out of which manifest Judaism may be hatched but if it be taken restrainedly 〈◊〉 no more follows thence but that Baptism and Circumcision in some things hold forth the same which is more plainly said of 〈◊〉 Ark 1 Pet. 3.21 and of the Red Sea and Cloud 1 Cor. 10.2 And yet we say not that Baptism succeeded into their place much less do we infer any Rite to be instituted in their stead respecting the same Persons yea verily it is to be seriously thought on 1. That by such Arguments drawn from Analogies not conceived by the Holy Ghost but drawn out of our Wit a new kind of instituting Rites to wit from Analogies is brought in besides our Lord's Precepts and the Apostles Examples 2. This being once said by a like parity of Reason and Arguing it will be lawful to bring into the Christian Church under other Names and Forms the whole Burden of Jewish Rites yea almost out of what you will to conclude what you will For who shall put a Bound to Mens feigning Analogies when they go beyond the Lord's Precepts and the Apostles Examples It is well known that the Divine Appointment of Tythes to be paid and many other things in the Writings of Divines are asserted by this kind of Argument besides the Rule of the Lord's Precept and the Apostles Example 3. Hereby will the Opinion of the Papists be confirmed who affirm from 1 Cor. 10.11 the Sacraments of the Jews to be Types of the Sacraments of Christians which is rejected by Divines that dispute against Bellarmine 4. This manner of arguing will countenance the Arguments of the Papists for an Vniversal Bishop because the Jews had such and justify a Linen Garment at Mass because there was such among the Jews and for Holy Water Purification of Women Easter Pentecost and many more such Ceremonies for which the Papists do in like manner argue as appears out of Durandus's Rationals and other Interpreters of Rituals among the Papists Yea what hindereth but we may give Children the Lord's Supper if we argue this way since Samuel Jesus Christ under Age were partakers of the Passeover And of right all the Males were thrice in the Year to appear before the Lord and therefore it is certain they did eat the Passeover and it shall be afterwards shewed that the place 1 Cor. 11.28 will not avoid this Inconvenience if the Text Mat. 28.19 may be shifted off as Pedo-Baptists use to do Lest any Man take this for a light Suggestion I will add that grave godly and learned Men have often warned that we are to take heed that we do not rashly frame Arguments from Analogy among others in their late Writings in the English Tongue John Paget in his Defence of Church-Government Part 1. Chap. 3. Pag. 8 and elsewhere John Ball in his Reply to the Answer of the New-England Elders unto the Nine Positions Posit 2. p. 14. Lastly It is to be considered again and again how by these Argumentations the Consciences of Men may be freed from the danger of Will-Worship and polluting so remarkable an Ordinance of Christ as Baptism is especially this Care lies on them who by Prayer Sermons Writings Covenants and Oaths do deter Christians from Humane Inventions in God's Worship diligently and it is to be hoped sincerely Thus far that Reverend Divine who though I knew not what he had said till after I had wrote as before in answer to you yet finding him so fully to strengthen what I have said I thought good to add his Excellent Lines In the close of your 4 th Page you recite an Objection brought by us viz. That there was an express Command in so many Words for Circumcision but there is no such Command for Infant-Baptism Gen. 17.9 requires Infants to be Circumcised shew us but such a Text in all the New Testament that says 〈◊〉 Infants be Baptized Thus you have stated our Objection to which you give a threefold Answer I acknowledg say you that in the New-Testament though it be not wholly silent yet it speaks very little touching the Case of Infant-Baptism and that for two Reasons 1. Because the Old-Testament speaks so much in their Case therefore the New-Testament speaks so little The Old-Testament plainly informs us that Children in their Infancy were admitted Members of the Visible Church Now what need is there that the same thing be repeated over again in the New-Testament for it is not the Old-Testament alone nor the New-Testament alone but both together that contain the Rule of Faith and Practice c. Answ 1. You speak an Untruth for the New-Testament speaks nothing at all touching Infant-Baptism if a Man read it over a thousand times he shall not find one Word or the least Hint given of it therefore the New-Testament contrary to what you boldly affirm is wholly silent in the Case of Infant-Baptism and Church-Membership 'T is a shame for a Man who calls himself a Minister to speak falsly but much more to publish Falshoods to the World In this Mr. Rector you must be corrected If you fly to your pretended Consequences you shall find by and by God assisting that that Refuge will fail you in the Case for Consequences in many Cases drawn naturally from the Premises to which they refer we readily admit of though not in the Case of meer positive Precepts 2. As to your first Reason why the New-Testament speaks no more in the Case of Infants which is as you conceive because the Old-Testament speaks so much that the Infant-Seed of Believers should be owned as Covenant Servants as Deut. 29.10 12. and were admitted Members of that Visible Church I must tell you Sir by way of Answer this will do you no good for the Reasons following 1. Because Baptism is as I have told you already a meer positive Precept and the Rite thereof as well as Circumcision cannot be known but by the express Declaration or Manifestation of the Will and Mind 〈◊〉 God in his written Word Abraham knew not that it was his Duty he ought to Circumcise his Children till God gave him his positive and express Command to do it and then also it was none but his Male Children and God gave Directions to him when and wherefore he should Circumcise them And therefore there is the same parity of Reason why the Great God should give us under the Gospel the like positive Law for baptizing our Children under the Gospel together with the Time when and the Reason wherefore as he did to them in the case of Circumcision had it been his Pleasure we should Baptize our Children but since he hath not required any thing of this Nature of us under the Gospel his requiring

Men who will not work which all know doth no ways refer to Children so that the Dispute might well here end By your own concession Infants are not concerned in the Commission 2. You say the Adult are here intended we say so too Whither then will you go for your Infants Right to Baptism We can prove from many Texts Infants ought to eat though they cannot work But how will you prove Infants ought to be baptized by any other Scriptures if not from the Commission though they do not believe or have not actual Faith 3. May you not as well argue thus viz. If Children have mortal Bodies they must be fed at their Parents Table and eat Bread though they cannot work So because they have immortal Souls therefore they must be fed at the Lord's Table and eat the Lord's Supper though they can't believe nor discern the Lord's Body by Faith The Apostle saith Let a Man examine himself and so let him eat but this is only required of Adult Persons and 't is such St. Paul means But Infants who are capable to receive spiritual Benefit by Christ's Death they must have the Medicine also may you not argue thus as well Pray Reader observe what a kind of Doctrine this Man asserts I demand say you Whether according to the Mind of God gathered from the words of the Commission the Remedy prescribed should be administred only to grown Persons because they only are capable of understanding and believing the Virtue and Efficacy of it Sure every rational Man among you would conclude his Child capable of the Remedy as well as himself altho ignorant of the Virtue that is in it and only passive in the Administration of it and that it would be Cruelty yea Murder in the Parent to deny the Application of it to all his Children Reply I stand amazed at your Ignorance and Folly Does it follow because Children are capable to receive a Medicine against the Plague or bodily Distemper are they therefore capable of Baptism and the Lord's Supper If capable of one say I of the other also for as a Man is required to examine himself and to discern the Lord's Body in the Lord's Supper so he is required to repent and to believe in Christ that comes to Baptism 4. I would know how you prove Baptism to be the Medicine appointed to cure the Soul of the Plague of Sin Is not this to blind the Eyes of poor People and make them think that an external Ordinance saves the Soul If not thus how can it be Cruelty yea Murder in Parents to deny the Application of Baptism to their Children The Ancient Fathers from that in John 6.53 Vnless a Man eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood he hath no Life in him gave Infants the Lord's Supper thinking our Saviour like as the Papists do meant that Sacrament when indeed he meant only of 〈◊〉 by Faith on Christ crucified But however their Argument for giving Infants one Sacrament was as good as yours for giving them the other But when they are as capable to repent and believe and are helped so to do as they are and do eat Bread let them have both Baptism and the Lord's Supper and till then if God's Word be the Rule of our Faith and Practice and not our own Fancies they ought to have neither yet the Remedy or Medicine which is Christ's Blood we deny not but dying Infants may be capable of 5. Sir You seem to be no true Son of the Church of England for they it seems positively affirm Repentance whereby a Person forsakes Sin and Faith whereby he stedfastly believes the Promise of God made to him in that Sacrament is required of those who are to be baptized nay and of little Babes too therefore the Sureties answer for them that they do believe and repent or forsake the Devil and all his Works c. the Child answers by Proxy Your Church baptizes no Child but as a Believer and a true penitent Person What is this your Argument good for even nothing How now are you wiser than the Church no doubt she believes as we do All that are proper Subjects of Baptism are comprehended in the Commission and must be as such whether Adult or Infants who profess Faith and Repentance But you it may be foresaw the Snake in the Grass viz. that God-fathers and God-mothers is a Tradition and none of God's Appointment nor are they able to perform those things for the Child which they promise for him and in his Name And therefore make use of another Argument and would have them baptized without Faith or upon their Parents Faith of which your Church speaks nothing As to your Comparison 't is not worth mentioning Baptism as I have told you doth not cure the Soul of Sin but 't is the Blood of Christ applied by Faith And now do we say no Child can have the Benefit of that Sovereign Remedy because not capable to believe by reason Men and Women must receive it by Faith or perish God as Dr. Taylor observes may have many ways to magnify his Grace through Jesus Christ to them which we know not of who die in their Infancy yet have we no Authority to baptize them any more than to give them the Lord's Supper 6. Sir You talk at a strange rate as if you regarded not what you say or affirm while you bring Similitudes to teach People to believe Baptism is the Balm to cure the Contagion of Sin and as if the application of it saved a little Babe from Hell and they guilty of murdering the Souls of their Children who deny to baptize them I had thought you would not have lain greater stress upon Childrens Baptism than on Childrens Circumcision since you would fain have them run parallel-wise Pray what became of the Jews Female Infants were they damned And what became of their Male Infants who died before eight days old for they broke God's Law if they Circumcumcised them though sick and like to die if they were not full eight days old Blush for the sake of your precious Soul and take more care for time to come to what you Preach and Write But to proceed In pag. 19. you say Tho Children have not actual Faith yet they have habitual Faith Faith in Semine and so are potentially Believers As for Instance Infants have not Reason yet because they have a Principle we call them reasonable Creatures Thus Infants whilst such have not the Use and Exercise of Faith but have it in the Root and so may be called Believers initially Ans 1. Dr. Taylor clearly confutes this Conceit of yours Some there be saith he who argue stiffly for Infants having habitual Faith but saith he is there any Precedent Concomitant or Consequent to this pretended Habit This strange Invention is absolutely without Art without Scripture Reason or Authority Answ 2. Why may not the Infants of Unbelievers have the same