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	keep_v	week_n	11,303	5	10.2397	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A85949	Vindiciæ vindiciarum: or, A vindication of his Vindication of infant-baptisme, from the exceptions of M. Harrison, in his Pœdo-baptisme oppugned, and from the exceptions of Mr. Tombes, in his chief digressions of his late Apology, from the manner to the matter of his treatises. By Io. Geree M. of Arts, and Preacher of the Word in S. Albanes. Imprimatur, Edm. Calamy.	Geree, John, 1601?-1649.	1646 (1646)	Wing G604; Thomason E363_13; ESTC R201234	35,208	49

of water to signe parties to be initiated into the Christian Church as circumcision was in use in the Jewisn Church without expresse warrant from Scripture But in deciding the extent of the circumstance of the person or subject to be initiated under the Gospel there implicit warrant may suffice for of the more weight and importance any thing is the more cleer warrant are we to expect for it Now the being of an Ordinance in the Church is of more consequence then a part of that subject to which it is to be applyed And therefore his discourse about John the Baptist and pag 2. is here uslesse as in it self it is to me nonsence Neither did I adde in vain That when we have Baptisme appointed as a Gospel Ordinance to whomsoever we finde by ground in Scripture that it doth of right belong there we may apply it This I say is not vain unlesse he can p●ove it false which he therefore indeavours pag. 3. Where he saith by grounds and principles in Scriptures I mean such as are taken out of the old Testament But he might have remembred that of all the six grounds brought by me to cleer the title of beleevers Infants to Baptisme onely one of them is fetcht out of the old Testament the other five are out of the New Therefore I cannot mean onely nor chiefly grounds out of the old Testament that was therefore but a fetch to put an ill glosse upon a good position but I say indeed afterwards That the Scriptures of the new Testament have a sufficieny to direct in Gospel Ordinances yet not without taking in some grounds and principles from the old Testament which M. Tombes acknowledgeth in the Christian Sabbath but for this M. H. is confident to make me of another minde But sure his confidence doth exceed his skill But saith he this position is so derogatory from the Kingly and Propheticall office of Christ pag. 3. But I would know of him whether Christ were not a King and a Prophet to the Jewish as well as to Christian Churches And whether that instruction that the Church had by penmen of Scriptures under the old Testement were not by vertue of Christs mediation as well as that under the new And if so what derogation is it from Christ to take in some grounds out of the old Testament sith these former revelations were from him also And is not Christ a perfect law-giver if he adde to the Scriptures of the old Testament so much as Gospel-administration doth require Doe the Scriptures of the new Testament give sufficient direction about usur● incest c. without taking in something from the Scriptures of the old It is therefore sufficient to make Christ a perfect Law-giver and as faithfull as Moses that he hath added in the Scriptures of the new Testament whatsoever was needfull to be added to his own revelations in the Scriptures under the Old And if he affirm that Christ cannot be accounted a perfect Law giver and Prophet or faithfull as Moses Vnlesse all commands and Ordinances that concern Christians be as fully and plainly exprest in Scripture of the new Testament without any light from the Old as the Ordinances of the Jews were by Moses Surely he will be found the accuser of Christ not I. For were the pattern of the Gospel as full and plain as that of the Law I say not how should the Assembly of Divines be so long in finding it But how should those that it may be you more respect be so backward to give in their modell Sure it would neither have required much time nor pains to have given a modell of Leviticall Ordinances order and Descipline And therefore let M. Har. take heed lest by inconsiderate speaking for Christ he lay down false grounds to condemn him For proof of my assertion That we must take in some ground from the Scriptures of the old Testament for our direction in the use of ●ospel-ordinances I instance in the Christian Sabbath where M. Tombes confesseth it pag. 28. He answers he findes no such thing in that page of M. Tombes his book But I say it is for want of sight for doth not M. Tombes distinguish there of Gospel worships or Ordinances that some are positive onely consisting in outward rites and others are in part morall And in these later they allow an institution or command in the old Testament as obligatory to Christians Is not this the thing which I affirmed But now let us see M. Har. plaister He saith it maketh nothing for the purpose whether we consider a rule for one day in seven which is naturall and morall instituted in paradise Where first he speaks unscholarly naturall instituted in Paradise for naturall and instituted worship are two opposite things If naturall then it was not instituted If instituted then not naturall The truth is there is a double morall 1. Naturâ 2. Ex instituto That time be set apart for the Worship of God is morall by nature But that such a proportion of time as one day in seven be consecrated to God that is morall by institution being instituted in Paradise before sin or ceremony But how could we have known this institution but by Moses his relation So then we could not know that it is an Ordinance of the Gospel to observe one of seven holy unto the Lord without that Ministry performed by Moses Again it being a Cospel ordinance that every first day of the week be kept holy to the Lord I would fain know of M. Harrison where he can finde direction for the manner of fanctifying this day without recourse to the old Testament If not I have proved what I intended that for direction in some Gospel ordinances we are to fetch light from the old Pestament My second instance is in excommunication for which we have expresse warrant yet some circumstances as who may apply it and to whom are not so exoresse but they are colligeable from generall grounds of Scripture Here M. Harrison saith pag. 5. He knowes not what I mean by so expresse But he might know that I am by this instance making it good that expresse warrant in Scripture is not requisite in all particular circumstances of Gospel ordinances but implicit from generall grounds may serve in some herein paralleling excommunication with Baptisme in the subject or persons to whom they are to be applied But he saith be shall easily prove that Christ hath left direction sufficient for this particular without sending us to Moses He should have said without sending us to the Scriptures of the old Testament or rather have exprest neither here where indeed the question is onely whether Christs direction for the persons excommunicating and to be excommunicated be explicit which if he can easily prove notwithstanding the difference of men so learned and godly about them its pity he had not been Prolocutour of the Assembly But for the persons in whom the authority of convening examining judging

admonishing and excommunicating resides our Saviour saith he hath determined to be Disciples as Disciples Why then are women to doe all this sure they cannot doe this without speaking which is not permitted to them in the Church yet M. H. will not deny women to be Disciples For the person to declare it saies he it must be him whom the Chruch shall elect as he saith appears from 1 Cor. 5.4 5. In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ when ye are gathered together and my spirit with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ To deliver such an one to Satan And now what expresse testimony is here for the person declaring Just none at all yea indeed that one person declare the sentence in the name of the rest is an act of order to which we are led by the light of nature to avoid confusion For the persons to be excommunicated he findes he saith two sorts 1. Persons after admonition persisting in scandalous sin But first he must know that we read of no admonition appointed to be used to the incestuous person whence some gather that some sins are so grosse that they deserve excommunicanon ipso facto Secondly he should remember the difference that is about enumerating scandalous sins and how that is to be determined by way of collection Secondly he addes such as after pains taken with them to convince them persist peremptory in holding and maintaining Haeresies * Tit. 3.10 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i.e. Qui novas sibi eligit opiniones cum sundamento salutis pugnantes easque mordicùs defendit Pasor Graec. Lexic Now M. Har. can be content to consult with flesh and blood when he thinks it makes for him for he brings a sentence out of Pasor where saies he observe c. As though his observations were out of the text when they are but out of Pasers exposition I thought he would not have grounded his followers faith on mans authority But what are his observations 1. They must be fundamentall errours but as a Zanch. in 4. praecep able men as Pasor distinguish haeresies into such as are fundamentall and such as are not fundamentall 2. They must be obstinately asserted That is after the first and second admonition 3. They must appear to arise from choise not weaknes but this is a weak observation as though what were of weaknesse could not be of choice Whereas many chuse many things out of weaknes and therefore this was but a poor collection to exempt from censure the grossest haereticks Arrians Antiscripturists c. If they hold these damnable Haeresies unlesse forsooth it appear they doe it out of pravity of heart and affection they shall not be obnoxious to excommunication That is they shall not injoy that remedy to cure their infirmities Is this sound Divinity Thus I have cleared my second thing premised from his exceptions But I must now a little look back and take notice of some passages not only false but foul that have slipt from M. H. pag. 3. Where he tells us that the writings of Moses and the Prophets were as their Covenant was at least the administrations of their Covenant faulty imperfect at the best abstracted from the writings and administrations of the new Covenant Were the writings of Moses and the Prophets faulty and imperfect without the writings and administrations of the new Testament Then they were so till the new Testament was written and the administration of it instituted And what is this but to exclude all under the old Testament from compleat means of salvation and so from salvation it self which how false horrid uncharitable and popish is it Popish I say for if this be true the Saints of the old Testament could not enter into blisse till Christ were exh bited and so must be imagined to be in some limbo Nay how apparantly contradictory is his assertion to many dictates of the holy Ghost Psal 19.7 The Law of the Lord is perfect converting the soul Prov. 30.5 Psal 12.6 Every word of God is pure 2 Tim. 3.15 16. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God c 2 Pet. 1.21 Prophecy came not in old time by the will of man but holy men spake as they were moved by the holy Ghost and can these writings be faulty Is not this to charge the holy Ghost foolishly which is no lesse then blasphemy He saith also that it could not be said of Moses thou hast the words of aternall life as of Christ Joh. 6.68 I confesse the Lord hath somewhat peculiar above the servant But were not the Scriptures of the old Testament the words of life yea of eternall life what then became of those that had no other means of salvation or what thinks he of that Spirit of our Saviour Iohn 5.39 But M. H. urgeth Heb. 8. 8 9. where finding fault with them he said behold the daies come saith the Lord when I will make a new Covenant with the house of Iudah not according to the Covenant c. But the Covenant there faulted is the Covenant of works the condition whereof was the Law given on mount Sinai which typified the Covenant of works Gal. 4 24. But had the Jews no other Covenant thinks he but that Had they not promises and tipes holding forth Christ Had not Abraham the Gospel preached to him Gal. 3 8. Did not Moses know and suffer for Christ Heb. 11.26 Esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches M. H. should therefore have considered that not all that was revealed by Moses and the Prophets was faulted but the Covenant of works only They had the Cnvenant of grace also which God promised at the exhibition of Christ to reveal more clearly and dispence the grace of it more plentifully and this M. H. might learn if he were as willing to receive instruction from expositours on such places as this as he was from Pasor on Tit. 3.10 My third thing premised was to take the state of the question as M. Martiall stated it In which M. H. r. saith he shall freely joyn issue Though he saith that it is a strange fallacy of the times to Baptize all infants and to undertake the defence of Baptizing some onely Nay afterwards he saith I Baptize more then I am able to make good But the truth is the stating of the question touching children of believers is neither a fallacy nor flowes it from disability but to distinguish controversies and facilitate the dispute for he knowes well enough that these are distinct disputes whether children of any believers are to be Baptized and what profession of faith doth make a man so to be reputed a believer as to convey this priviledge to his children And the former controversy being ended this later may have its due place and therefore what M. H. dictates here about fallacy or disability is indeed fallacious adfaciendum populum My fourth thing premised that I must have liberty to chuse and order mine own weapons M. Har. count●reasonable