Selected quad for the lemma: lord_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
lord_n	day_n	holy_a	week_n	11,912	5	10.1247	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A76816	A moderate ansvver to these two questions 1. Whether ther [sic] be sufficient ground in Scripture to warrant the conscience of a Christian to present his infants to the sacrament of baptism. 2. Whether it be not sinfull for a Christian to receiv [sic] the sacrament in a mixt assembly. Prepared for the resolution of a friend, and now presented to the publick view of all, for the satisfaction of them who desire to walk in the ancient and long-approved way of truth and holiness. By T.B. B.D.	Blake, Thomas, 1597?-1657.	1644 (1644)	Wing B3148; Thomason E19_6; ESTC R12103	35,052	36

then the Customes of the Church ordained by the Apostles are a Ground of satisfaction Nor are they therfore in themselves less authenticall because they are not mentioned in the text of Scripture as prescribed by the Apostles if yet it may appear that from them they fetch their first Originall It is not the writing that giveth things their Authority See Hooker Ecclesiasticall Polity lib. 1 sect 14. pag 44. Field on the Church lib. 4.20 but the worth and credit of Him that delivereth them tho but by word and lively voice onely More certainty to us-ward things have by writing but not more Authority in themselves ex gr That saying of our Saviour not mentioned by the Evangelists yet now known to be his by the Allegation of St. Paul Act. 20.35 That Proph●cy of Enoch Jude 14. These in themselves were no● less authentick truths before than after those allegations So for Apostolicall Customes Those mentioned in the Scripture have a more unquestioned Certainty than Traditions but not greater Authority Neither is this to sett up Tradition as do the Papists to the prejudice of the Scripture Because we admit none for Apostolicall which either are contrary to the Scripture or which may not by good reason from some text of Scripture be confirmed for Apostolicall You see whither all this tendeth viz. To make way for this Assumption That if the Baptizing of Infants may reasonably be judged one of those Apostolicall Traditions one of these Church-Customs which were established in the Churches according to the commandement of Christ Then is ther sufficient Ground in Scripture to warrant the use and practise of it And tho ther be no mention of it in the text of Scripture yet if it may appear to have been ordained by th'Apostles and used by the Churches even from the dayes of the Apostles why should it not be acknowledged to be the commandement of Christ and so a Ground for Conscience to build upon Well But you will say how may it appear to have been a custome of the Churches ordained by the Apostles Here it may be worth our Observation That the pattern and president from whence most if not all of them was ●aken was the custome of Israel in the Old Testament It is the observation of Jerome Ut sciamus traditiones Apostolicas sumptas ex veteri Te●●amento Quod A●ron fi●● ejus atque Levit●e in Templo ●●crunt hoc sibi Episcopi Presbyteri atque Diaconi vend●●ant in Ecclia Hieron Epla 85. ad Evagrium And this may be one speciall reason why the Providence of God did not take so much care for the writing of every Custome and Ordinance for the Government of the Church-Assemblies in the New Testament Because as ther was not so much danger of Corruption in them as in points of Doctrine So the President from whence they were take being at hand if any aberration did creep in it might easily be amended by reducing it to the pattern Yea and who can tell whether the wisdom of God did not hereby provide to uphold the credit of the Church of Israel and the Authority of the writings of Moses and the Prophets against the frowardnes of some who were but too apt and ready to dis-esteem them That the Institutions of God by Moses for the Church of Israel were the Pattern for the Apostolicall Traditions which were appointed for the Discipline and Order to be observed in the Christian Congregations it will appear more evidently if we consider that the subject matter of these Orders are Times Places Persons and the like In all which the Apostles by the Commandement of Christ setled such Rules as were consonant to what had been formerly in the Church of Israel That we might know that no better Orders for the Church can be devised than such as in Conformity to the Church of the Old Testament may justly and without wrong to the time of Truth and Grace be framed and as it were thence translated Was it not for this cause that divers particulars which should be in the Christian Churches are prophetically described in phrases taken from the Church of Israel See these texts Esai 66.21 23. Zech. 12.16 I said Without wrong to the time of Truth and Grace Because as some judiciall lawes were peculiar to that Nation and to that Age of the World and so may not be now taken into the Statutes of the Common-wealth So some Ecclesiasticall Rites were peculiar to that Age of the Church and may not now be taken into the Canons of the Christian Church tho others may which are more morall and so more perpetuall Ex. gr In the Old Testament ther was one day in seven set a part to be a Day of Holy Rest i. e. a time for the Assemblies and Holy Convocations meeting together for the works of Piety and Devotion In imitation where-of th'Apostles by the Direction of our Blessed Saviour consecrated the first day of the week to the same ends and uses and gave it that honourable name which still it beareth The Lords Day Then for Places Israel had their Synagogues beside the Temple And who knoweth not that even in th'Apostles times ther were places sett apart for the Assemblies to meet in and even then began to be called Churches So for Persons Israel had those who were sett apart to the service of the Altar and the Temple Accordingly the Apostles ordained in severall Churches certain Elders men sett apart and separated to the work and office of the Ministry who by that solemn Rite and Ceremony of their Ordination might be known and acknowledged to receiv from God a speciall designation to that function from which they might not return to secular employments and the cares of the world The maintenance of them doth St. Paul affirm to be ordained of the Lord in conformity to the Ordinance of the Old Testament Cor. 9.13.14 And whether the subordination of Some in the Ministery to other in the same Order were not likewise an Apostolicall Institution appointed by Christ and this also fetcht from the pattern of Moses I dispute not But this I make no question will be acknowledged by all That the Censures of the Church That the Directions given to the Church how to proceed in the execution of those Censures That these I say were received from Israel and that not only by the Apostles appointing them Cor. 5. Tit. 3. but also by our Saviour himself Mat. 18.15 That the Liberty which women have to come to the Table of the Lord must be acknowledged a Tradition of the Apostles taken from the Pattern of the Passover Nay yet more The Custome of the Apostles to baptise the whol housholds of them that beleeved and that immediatly upon the Conversion of the Master of the family and his subscription to the Faith of Christ whence they should have it except from that like pattern and President in the Old Testament viz. Abraham circumcising all the

Males in his house that very day in which the Lord made a Covenant with him and the practise of Israel who did the like by all the male-children and infants which they bought with their money Whence I say that Custome should come except from this president I see not That they did so is evident by the story of their Acts and being done by them we doubt not of the lawfulnes No Revelation had they for it that is recorded This Ground of Conformity to the Pattern of the Old Testament we find in others and therfore conclude this also Now them The issue of all returns to this text Why this Rule should hold in so many particulars and only fail in this point of Baptising Infants I leav for them to give a reason who know what difference ther is betwixt reason and absurdity Especially since it is plain enough by the Testimony of the Ancients who lived in the next Ages after the Apostles That this also was a Custome establisht by the Apostles In Pam●lius notes on Cyprian Epla 59. you may find the names of the Ancients who referr it to an Apostolicall Tradition So also doth Augusti● lib. 4. De Baptismo c●ntra Donatist cap. 23. And in his Epl. 28. Ad Hyeronimum speaking of the 59 epistle of Cyprian the Title wher-of is Ad Fidum de Infantibus Baptisandis he saith Beatus Cyprianus non aliquod dec●etum condens novum ●ed Ecclesi●e fidem firmissimam se●●ans ad corrigendum cos qui putabant ante octavum d●●m nitivitatis non esse parvulum baptisandum mox natum rite baptisari cum suis quibussdam coepissopis censuit The Breviat of all this discours is this Every Commandement of Christ is to be observed Mat. 28. Infants-Baptism is the Commandement of Christ Every Apostolicall Institution is the Commandement of Christ Infants Baptism is an Apostolicall Institution therfore The Major is proved Cor. 11.25 and 14.37 and must be acknowledged except we would suspect them of fals and faithless dealing The Minor is acknowledged by the Ancients And ther is great reason for it because it doth as do the rest of the Rules for Order and Discipline delivered to the Church carry in its face and fore-head the stamp of Christs Ordinances viz. Conformity to the Pattern of the Church of Israel So then To them who think they may triumph in that Argument produced against Infants Baptism That it being presupposed that the Testament of Christ is so perfect and he so faithfull that nothing ought to be practised of Christians which is not therein warranted either by Precept or Pattern And it being assumed that ther is neither Precept nor Pattern for this Custome Therfore it may not be practised To them I say we see what Answer may be returned 1. To the Major Flourished with that text of Heb. 3.2.6 as Moses So Christ was faithfull Nay more Moses only as a servant but Christ as a Sonn And therfore his Testament as perfect nay more perfect than that of Moses True indeed But know we not that the faithfulness of a man in his office is to be measured according to the intent and scope of his Office imposed In which if he fail and faulter then is he unfaithfull if not then is he not unfaithfull tho he look not to other things ex gr The Minister may be faithfull tho he meddle not with the Sword of Justice The Magistrate tho he fight not with the sword of the Spirit So then what was the office of Moses and what of Christ The Office of Moses was to settle the Common-wealth and the Nationall Church of Israel The Office of Christ was to make Reconciliation betwixt God and man to work out the Redemption of Mankind It was fitt that Moses should sett down particular laws for the Common-wealth and Ordinances for the Church Neither of these did pertain to the Office of Christ yet by his Apostles and their successors in severall Ages doth he provide whatsoever is necessary for the welfare and good order of the Church of the New Testament But in his own person and by himself he established the Covenant of Grace ordained the Seals ther-of sett up a Ministery gave to them the word of life and salvation and pointed to them a pattern for good Order and Government and so was faithfull in his house as a Sonn and worthy of more honour than Moses This for the Major 2. To the Minor We grant That neither Precept nor Pattern formall and explicite is to be found in the books of the New Testament for Infants baptising i. e. There is no Precept that saith Go and baptise Infants no more is ther any Precept to baptise Women nor to observ the Lords day as a Christian Sabbath Ther is no text that saith The Children and Infants of this or that man were baptised Nor is ther any text that saith Such a woman was admitted to the Table of the Lord. But we say that both Precept and Pattern virtuall and implicit may be found to warrant it The which if found is not to be neglected Precept Virtuall and implicit Here we pitch upon the continuation of the Custome in Israel to present their Infants to the Sacrament of initiation and we frame the Argument thus What was instituted in the Old Testament and not repealed in the New nor is any way incompatible with the state of the Church in the New Testament that is understood to be continued and commended to the practise of the Christian Church But that Infants should be initiated and admitted into the Covenant of Grace by a Sacrament was commanded in the Old Testament neither is it repealed in the New nor incompatible with the state of the New Testament therfore That it is not repealed is thence confirmed Because in the Substitution of that new Sacrament of Initiation ther is no particular exception taken against Infants as before was noted in the first Argument That it is not incompatible with the state of the Church in the New Testament is thus further confirmed 1. The Infants of Christians are as capable of present incorporation into Christ and of admission into the Covenant of Grace as were the infants of the Jews And if so who shall barr them whom God hath not barred from the Seal of the Covenant 2. The Infants of Christians have as much need of the Communion and Participation in the Covenant of Grace as had the Infants of the Jews And their Parents as much need of a Ground of comfort as touching the Remedy of that which maketh them stand in need of the Covenant of Grace and the Benefits therof as the Parents of Jewish Infants If so who shall think that God hath not provided for them so well as for the other If he hath not how hath Grace abounded in the New Testament when in this particular it is much restreined both to Beleevers and to their Infants But if he hath who shall forbid them