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 prove_v sabbath_n 10,739 5 10.5479 5 false
View all documents for the selected quad

Text snippets containing the quad

ID Title Author Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) STC Words Pages
A45681 Infant baptism God's ordinance, or, Clear proof that all the children of believing parents are in the covenant of grace and have as much a right to baptism the now seal of the covenant, as the infant seed of the Jewes had to circumcision, the then seal of the covenant / by Michael Harrison ... Harrison, Michael, Minister at Potters-Pury. 1694 (1694) Wing H905; ESTC R9581 26,416 65

There are 2 snippets containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

25.1 2 3 4. This is the ground of Baptism we do not baptize persons as the Elect of God or Infants as the Infants of the Elect but as making a visible and credible profession of Religion so the Apostles did presently baptize such as did profess repentance towards God and faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ Act. 2.41 Simon Magus in barely professing to believe in Christ was baptised Thus all those who visibly profess Christianity and are baptised in the name of Christ and do not scandalous Sins notoriously contradict their Profession are to be accounted Believers in Covenant and their Children to be baptised Ezek. 16.20 21. 3. That all Infants of such believing Parents are in the Covenant of Grace and have as much a right to Baptism the now Seal of the Covenant as the Infants of the Jews had to Circumcision the then Seal of the Covenant This is the principal thing designed from this Text. There are you know a sort of restless people amongst us who are perpetually letting fly and with great indignation spurning at Infant Baptism telling you your Infants have no right to the Seal of the Covenant and thereby tempt you to be cruel to the Children of your own Bowels setting them among Pagans and Infidels Therefore I hope it will be an acceptable service to plead the Cause of your poor Infants who cannot yet speak a word for themselves to assert and prove their right to the Covenant and the initiating Seal thereof which is Baptism I hope to find very few amongst you who will join with the Enemy of Infants but rather put to a helping hand to restore them those Priviledges God allows them In speaking to this I shall 1. Lay down some Conclusions to clear the Doctrine of Infant Baptism 2. Prove the Doctrine by several Arguments 3. Shew the dangerous Consequence of denying Infant Baptism 4. Answer Objections 5. Prove that Dipping over head in baptizing in these cold Countreys is no Ordinance of God but a grievous Sin CHAP. I. Containing five Introductory Considerations very needful for the right understanding the Controversy of Infant Baptism 1. COnsider that a Doctrine or Practice may be proved to be of God two ways 1. By the express words of Scripture as the Resurrection of the dead may be proved from such a Text as cannot be denied by any that own the Scripture to be God's Word as John 5.28 All that are in the grave shall come forth 2. Or from Evident Consequences drawn from Scripture then have we the mind of Christ when we have the right meaning of Scripture thus Christ proves the Resurrection to the Sadduces Luke 20.37 38. Now that the dead are raised even Moses shewed at the bush when he calleth the Lord The God of Abraham the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob God is not the God of the dead but of the living Now this Scripture doth not prove the Resurrection in direct terms but remotely and by consequence How little satisfaction would this Text have given our Modern Anabaptists if they had been present at the Dispute between Christ and the Sadduces would they not have reprov'd Christ for his Impertinence We will not believe the dead will rise unless we have a plain Text would not these men have reported abroad that Christ could could not prove the Resurrection Thus they deal with us at this day We challenge you say they to prove Infant Baptism to be God's Ordinance bring us a plain Text and we will believe Now if we prove Infant Baptism as plainly as Christ proved the Resurrection then it is certainly God's Ordinance and we are bound to own it Most we believe nothing but what we have totidem verbis in just so many words in Scripture then how shall we prove the first day of the Week to be the Christian Sabbath That a Woman may come to the Lord's Table That a Christian may be a Magistrate 2. Observe That a mind prepossessed with Error and Prejudice that is not seeking Truth but only something to defend their present Embraced Opinions will not be satisfied let the Text be never so clear or the Argument never so firmly built upon Scripture but will still be inventing some shift or other to ward off the force of any Text or Argument This is evident in the Example of the Sadduces beforementioned we find indeed Christ silenced them but we do not find so much as one of them convinced and brought off to a sound mind Men are generally so fond of their Errors that when they are beaten out of one hold they fly to another 3. Those Doctrines which were clearly revealed and fully confirmed in the Old Testament though little or nothing be said of them in the New Testament and were never repealed are yet to be owned received and believed as if much had been said of them in the New Testament the whole Scripture is God's Word and what need of proving the same thing twice unless the Authority of the Old Testament were questioned this is evident in the lawfulness of a Christian Magistracy in an Oath before a Magistrate and making war upon a just occasion There is so little said of these things in the New Testament many of the Anabaptists have denied them yet these being fully setled and confirmed by God in the Old Testament are to be owned though little be said of them in the New Now this is the case of Infant Baptism The Question is not by what Sign but at what Age persons are to be admitted into the visible Church Now this was fully determined in the Old Testament That Infants at eight days old were to be admitted Members of the Visible Church and suppose little be said of it in the New Testament it is because there was no need of it this truth having been once setled in the Old Testament and never repealed 4. Those Doctrines which were once throughly setled in the Old Testament and never called in question by any in the New there was no occasion given to speak of them again We find that what was but darkly hinted in the Old Testament and much questioned in the New is fully cleared and much is said of it as that glorious Doctrine of Justification by the imputation of the Righteousness of Christ This was very darkly hinted in the Old Testament and very much opposed by Legal Preachers in the New Testament therefore much is said in the New Testament to clear it But Infants right to the Covenant or to Church-membership there was much said of it in the Old Testament and it was neve● denied or called in question by any in the Apostles days they were setled and had had peaceable possession of their Priviledges ever since Abraham's time Had any in the Apostles days scrupled in Infants Right very much would have been said of it for the Jews who tenaciously adhered to their old Priviledges would never so silently have suffered their Children to be cast
Gift and Appointment of God not yet repealed some Infants were once to be admitted Members of the visible Church by vertue of the Covenant of Grace then 't is certain some Infants are still to be so admitted but the former is true therefore the latter Two things must here be done to shew 1. That some Infants were once admitted Members of the visible Church 2. That this Church-membership was never repealed 1. Some Infants were once so admitted by vertue of the Covenant of Grace If any deny this thus it is proved 1. Infants were part of them that entered into covenant with the Lord God and into his Oath that he might take them to be a peculiar People to himself Deut 29.10 11 12 13 14 15. Ye stand this day all of you before the Lord your God your captains of your tribes your elders with your officers with all the men of Israel 11. Your little ones your wives c. 12. That thou shouldest enter into covenant with the Lord thy God and into his oath which the Lord thy God maketh with thee this day 13. That he establish thee to day for a people unto himself and that be may be unto thee a God as he hath said unto thee and as he hath sworn unto thy fathers to Abraham to Isaac and to Jacob. 14. Neither with you only do I make this covenant and this oath but v. 15. with him that standeth here with us this day before the Lord your God but with him that is not here with us this day This was not a new Covenant but a renewing the Covenant made with Abraham as v. 13. Into this Covenant their little ones present were taken and their little ones yet unborn 2. Infants were engaged to God by the Seal of the Covenant which was Circumcision Gen. 17.10 Circumcision was not a meer politick Rite as some Frantick Anabaptists have dreamed but a Seal of the Covenant of Grace Rom. 4.11 He received the Sign of Circumcision as a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith That is Circumcision was 1. a Sign of what of the Circumcision of the heart by the Spirit of Christ of the mortifying and killing the old man of the sad effects of Sin both original and actual and the way of recovery by Jesus Christ 2. It 's a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith that is of the Righteousness of Christ imputed to the Believer and received by faith this is a Periphrasis of the Covenant of Grace wherein righteousness is promised and made over to us in a way of believing 3. Infants were baptized to Moses in the Cloud and in the Sea 1 Cor. 10.1 2 3. And Stephen calls that Assembly whereof they were Members the Church in the Wilderness From hence it is evident beyond rational contradiction that Infants were sometimes taken into the visible Church as visible Church-members by vertue of the Covenant of Grace Secondly That this Infant Church-membership was never repealed For if Infant Church-membership be repealed then that repeal must be either in Mercy or Judgment but it was in neither therefore it was never repealed 1. Infant Church-membership was never repealed in Judgment for God never revokes his Covenant to any People till first that People break covenant with him which Infants never did therefore being once taken into covenant 't is certain God did never cast them out Now it was a mercy to have Infants taken into covenant Deut. 29.10 11 12. therefore if this Privilege be revok'd it must be in Judgment for as it is a great Mercy to be in the visible Church so 't is a sore Judgment to be out of it to be cast out of covenant Now if Infant Church-membership be repeal'd then the Infants of Believers under the Gospel are in a much worse condition than before Christ's Incarnation certainly Christ did not come to make our Children miserable or to put them into a worse condition than they were in before this would make Christ a Destroyer who is the only Saviour But certainly the Church is now in a much better condition and her Privileges more ample and larger than they were before she hath lost none of her Privileges but gained many more Heb. 8.6 A more excellent ministry better promises Rom. 5.15 16 17. 'T is certain Infants are not thrown out of covenant for that would much darken the Grace of God received in the Gospel 2. Nor is Infant Church-membership repeal'd in Mercy for it can be no Mercy to take away a Mercy unless it means to give a greater Mercy in the room of it Now let the Anabaptists shew what greater Mercy God hath given in the room of Infant Church-membership there is none Therefore it was never repealed 2. If that Covenant by vertue whereof Infants were received into the visible Church was the Covenant of Grace then 't is certain it was never repeal'd But that Covenant by vertue whereof they were taken in was the Covenant of Grace therefore it was never repealed But that Covenant by vertue whereof they were taken into the visible Church was the Covenant of Grace as is most evident Deut. 29.10 11 12. And so the Covenant made with Abraham whereof Circumcision was a Seal Gen. 17.7 10. as the Apostle clearly proves Rom. 4.11 Now the Covenant of Grace is an everlasting Covenant 2 Sam. 23.5 never was nor ever will be repeal'd Infant Church-membership was no Ceremony neither was it any part of the Ceremonial Law if any say it was let them shew what it typified under the Gospel If it were a Ceremony then the Materials of the Church would be a Ceremony and so the Church it self which would be very absurb to affirm Neither was it part of the Moral Law the Covenant of Works whatever pains some of the opposite Persuasion have taken to prove it for the Covenant of Works knows no Mercy neither was it any part of the Judicial Law for Church-membership was not a piece of meer Policy the Church is one thing and the Commonwealth another 3. If there be no mention or record of the Repeal of Infant Church-membership in any part of the New Testament then it is most certain it was never repealed But there is no record of any such Repeal in any part of the New Testament therefore it was never repealed if any say it was let them shew where that Repeal is recorded 'T is true Circumcision is ceased because it was a Ceremonial Type but Infant Church-membership being no Type or Ceremony is not ceased Argument 2. If an Infant was Head of the visible Church then an Infant may be a Member of the visible Church But an Infant was Head of the visible Church for who will deny but that Jesus Christ was Head of the visible Church in his infancy what honour was done to Christ in his infancy both by Angels and men Hence it appears 1. That the Nonage of Infants doth not make them uncapable of being Church-members supposing God's will 2.