Selected quad for the lemma: reason_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
reason_n	creation_n	day_n	sabbath_n	2,519	5	9.8015	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A89563	A defence of infant-baptism: in answer to two treatises, and an appendix to them concerning it; lately published by Mr. Jo. Tombes. Wherein that controversie is fully discussed, the ancient and generally received use of it from the apostles dayes, untill the Anabaptists sprung up in Germany, manifested. The arguments for it from the holy Scriptures maintained, and the objections against it answered. / By Steven Marshall B.D. minister of the Gospell, at Finchingfield in Essex.	Marshall, Stephen, 1594?-1655.	1646 (1646)	Wing M751; Thomason E332_5; ESTC R200739	211,040	270

same practise I added that Circumcision was to be administred upon the eighth day onely was an accidentall thing and therefore binds not meaning that it had some peculiar relation to that manner of administration and had nothing common either to the nature of a Sacrament in generall or to the end and use of that Sacrament as it was the Seale of admission you answer if reason may rule the rost there is more reason that Circumcising on the eighth day should rather belong to the substance of the Covenant then but once circumcising both because it was commanded by God and typified as some conceive Christs resurrection on the eighth day I reply if you please but once to understand that by the substance I understand the res signata the spirituall part of the Sacrament you will no longer insist upon making every thing a substantiall part of the Sacrament which God hath made a part of the outward administration onely Indeed if Circumcising upon the eighth day had had any such spirituall meaning of Christs resurrection upon the eighth day you had spoke something to the purpose but had I pleaded any such Type in it as that Circumcision was to be upon the eighth day because Jesus Christ was to rise the first day of the weeke you would have laught at me though Cyprian had joyned with mee and told mee as you doe here mens conceits are voin● without the light of the word My next instance was from the Passeover which being yearely to bee repeated binds us to a repetition of the Sacrament of the Lords Supper which succeeds the Passeover it being the Sacrament of spirituall nourishment and growth as the other was for birth and enterance but that the Passeover was to be eaten in an evening and upon one set evening in the yeer was accidentall and so binds not us You answer here are a heape of dictates and you as confidently dictate the contrary you grant that the Passeover was to bee yearely repeated but that this yeerly repetition belonged to the substance of the Covenant or that this binds us to a frequent use of the Sacrament of the Lords supper you utterly deny but I doubt not that the Reader who knowes that by belonging to the substance of the Covenant I meant nothing but the end and use of it to bee a standing memoriall of that deliverance and a typicall representation of Jesus Christ and our deliverance by him will not reject this because you magisterially deny it That our Lords Supper comes in the roome and stead of it there is such a cleare demonstration of it from the very manner of the first Institution and the ends and uses of it Christ our Passeover being then to bee sacrificed for us and wee in this service shewing it forth and in this parallell there is such a harmony of consent that I intend not to lead the Reader into a digression about it As for the maintaining of Easter and such superstitious customes my discourse gives not so much as one hint for it yea in my Sermon I expressely shewed That that Circumstance of once a yeere belonged onely to the Jewes administration And I pleaded for a frequency of it but because you love to knit knots for others to untie you demand since wee have so cleere an Example Acts 20. 7. of the disciples comming together the first day of the weeke 〈◊〉 eate the Lords Supper and that that Action gave denomination to the whole service and by the relation of Justin Martyr and others this was the received practise in the primitive Churches whether wee are not tied to have 〈◊〉 Sacrament every Lords day in the weeke I answer though I conceive no absolute tie to have it so yet when it can bee with convenience I know no reason why it may not bee so but you making this one of your great Arguments to prove the Institution of the Lords day viz. An Apostolicall example and practise of the primitive Churches whether you bee not further engaged in this point to a Sacrament every Lords day I leave to your selfe to consider You demand further since the Apostle does so expresly and distinctly in his relation of the Institution mention the time of it you would know of the Assembly of Divines especially such of them as have beene earnest for sitting at the Sacrament how wee can be loose to receive it at another time I answer certainly the Assembly would answer you as Cyprian did in the like case that the time was an occasionall circumstance and that the cleere examples recorded in the New Testament of the Disciples partaking of the Lords Supper at any of their Church-meetings whether by night or by day doth abundantly manifest it nor can I conceive why you put this question to the Assembly unlesse it be to shew you are not pleased with the dispute about sitting at the Communion it seemes you still like kneeling better for the thing it selfe you either judge thus of it that it was an occasionall circumstance and so you pick quarrells even against your owne light and principles or if you thinke it a binding circumstance whence comes it that you use it not You have yet another quarrell about that expression of mine in caliing Baptisme the seale of our extrance and new birth and thence you would insinuate that I deny Baptisme to be a Sacrament of our nourishment and continuance and you tell me that 's but a dictate like the rest and somewhat akin to Bellarmine and the rest of the Papists who make the efficacy of Baptisme to extend not to the remission of the sinnes of our whole life but of originall sinne onely I answer that Baptisme is a Sacrament of our Birth and entrance I have proved and your selfe grant that it is not of use afterward I never spake never thought but as for my being akin to Bellarmines assertion if your assertions were no more akin to Socinus Servetus Marcion c. then mine are to the Papists it were better for you My next Instance was from our Christian Sabbath the fourth Commandement binds us for the substance as much as ever it bound the Jews there God once for all separated one day of seven to be sacred to himselfe and all the world stood bound by vertue of that Commandment in all ages to give unto God that one day of seven which should be of his owne choosing though onely the seventh day of the week be named in the fourth Commandement Now said I God having put an end to the Saturday Sabbath and surrogated the first day of the weeke in stead thereof to be the Lords day we need no new Commandement for keeping of the Lords day being tyed by the fourth Commandement to keep that day of seven which the Lord should choose And though no day bee mentioned in the fourth Commandment but onely the seventh from the Creation yet our Divines think it no absurdity to reason thus Thou shalt keepe

the Sabbath thou shalt rest the seventh day that is thou shalt rest the seventh day from the Creation while the Lord continues that day to be his Sabbath and thou shalt rest the first day of the week when the Lord chooses that to be his Sabbath in like manner I say of the Sacrament of Baptisme To this you answer You referre your selfe to what you have before declared Part 2. Sect. 8. And thither also I referre the Reader where I have vindicated this answer from you I further adde you neither there nor here deny this Argument from a consequence to be sufficient for practise of some things in the Worship of God which are not expresly laid downe in the New Testament onely you adde here I forget the marke at which I shoot the Sabbath or Lords day being not to be reckoned among the Iews Sacraments I reply first I might as well reckon the seventh day from the Creation among the Jews Sacraments as you may say the Jewes had as many Sacraments as Ceremonies Secondly I never numbred the Sabbath amongst Sacraments but because the Sabbath belongs to the instituted Worship of God as well as the Sacrament and requires its institution to bee at least as cleare as this about Infant-Baptisme which touches but a circumstance of age this Argument from the one to the other will appeare to the impartiall Reader to bee too strong for you to answer Next follows the blow which will tumble downe all if your selfe may be believed Mark Reader how heavie a one it is I said when God made the Covenant with Abraham and promised for his part to be the God of him and his seed what God promised to Abraham we claime our part in it as the children of Abraham and what God required on Abrahams part for the substance of obedience wee stand charged with as well as Abraham to beleeve to love the Lord with all our heart to walke before God in uprightnesse to instruct and bring up our Children for God not for our selves nor for the Devill to teach them to worship God according to his revealed will to traine them up under Ordinances and Institutions of Gods owne appointment All these things God commanded Abraham and wee by vertue of that Covenant being Covenanters with Abraham stand bound to all these duties though there were no expresse reviving these Commandements in any part of the New Testament and therefore consequently that command of God to Abraham which bound his seed of the Jews to traine up their children in that manner of Worship which was then in force binds beleevers now to traine up their children in conformity to such Ordinances as are now in force To all this you answer supposing I meane the spirituall part of the Covenant to be that which God promised to Abraham and the persons claiming to bee beleevers this passage you grant to bee true be●ause these are mor●ll duties Well then the deadly blow is not yet given I meane this which you suppose and I meane more then this I meane that what Abraham might claime as an invisible beleever we may claime as invisible beleevers what he might claime as a visible beleever or Professor wee claime the same as visible Professors and so what he stood obliged unto as a visible beleever or professor the same are wee obliged to I meane all this and you say nothing against it but the next passage is that which kills all I said and the same command which enjoyned Abraham to seal his children with the seal of the Covenant enjoyns us to seal ours with the seale of the Covenant and that command of God which expresly bound Abraham to seal his with the sign of circumcision which was the Sacrament then in force pro tempore for the time doth vertually bind us to seale ours with the sign of Baptisme which is the Sacrament now in force and succeeds into the room of the other by his owne appointment Your answer is This Consequence is inferred from a Judaizing principle without Scripture proving either principle or Conclusion whereas you have brought ten Arguments out of the Scripture against it and that the meaning of the Concluclusion must be that we are still bound to circumcise that our males must be circumcised at the eighth day that by no rule of Divinity Logick Grammar or Rhetorique any man can construe this Command Cut off the foreskin of the males upon the eighth day that is let a Preacher of the Gospel baptize young Infants male or female by as good Consequence I might say thou art Peter and upon this rock Ergo the Pope is Monarch of the Church or arise Peter kill and eate Ergo the Pope may deprive Princes So then the din● of your mortall blow lyes in this that you magisterially call it a Judaizing principle that you have brought ten Arguments to prove that Moses Ceremonies Rites do not bind Christian men but that they are all abrogated substance and circumstance whole and part that this vertuall consequence from the command of Circumcision to baptism cannot be made good either by Divinity or Logick but sure if this be all you can say against it the Consequent and Conclusion will easily recover of this wound When I said but just now That Gods Command to Abraham and the Jews to traine up their children in that manner of Worship which was then in force binds us now to traine up our children in conformity to such Ordinances as are now in force You granted this rule was true if meant of beleevers I pray what difference is there betwixt this consequence and that especially it being cleare in the Scripture that Baptisme succeeds Circumcision as the initiall seale of the Covenant and our children have the same right with theirs to bee reckoned to the Covenant if it be a good consequent That because Abraham was bound to traine up his Children in conformity to those institutions which were then in force because their children had right to be so trained up therefore we are bound to traine up our children in conformity to the present institutions because our children have right to be so trained up is not this other consequence I say as good That because God commanded Abraham to administer to his children the seale of admission into Covenant because his children were to be accounted to belong to that administration we are to doe the like to our children now because they belong to this administration I say further because Abraham and the Jews were to traine up their children to celebrate the seventh day of the week to be Gods Sabbath we therefore are bound by vertue of that Commandment to traine up ours to keep the first day of the weeke as Gods Sabbath which consequence your self grant to be good though the thing be a part of instituted Worship and no expresse command or example of it in the new Testament I appeale to al Divinity Logick whether this consequence

answer that Anabaptist I should answer him silentio contemptu for why should I not since in that very place of my Sacraments part 1. p. 78 79. where I confute those Schismaticks he snatches my words from their own defence My words are I confesse my selfe unconvinced by any demonstration of Scripture for Paedo-Baptisme meaning by any positive Text what is that to helpe him Except I thought there were no other arguments to evince it Now what I thinke of that my next words shew pag. 77. lin 4 5 6 7. I need not transcribe them In a mord this I say though I know 〈◊〉 yet that is no argument for the non-Baptizing of Infants since so many Scriptures are sufficiently convincing for it Therefore this want of a positive Text must no more exclude Insants c. then the like reason should disanull a Christian Sabbath or Women-kind not to be partakers of the Supper The quoting of mine own Text were enough 6. If Mr. Ball cut the sinewes of the Argument from Circumcision to Baptisme himself was very much mistaken in his owne meaning and intentions who in the very same place alledged by you uses the same Argument makes the parallel to lie in the same things which my Sermon doth you might have done well to have informed the Reader so much when you used his authority to overthrow that Argument his words are these Circumcision and Baptisme are both Sacraments of Divine institution and so they argree in the substance of the things signified the Persons to whom they are to be administred and the order of administration if the right proportion be observed as Circumcision sealed the entrance into the Covenant the righteousnesse of Faith and Circumcision of the heart so doth Baptisme much more clearly as Abraham and his Houshold and the Infants of beleeving Jewes were to bee Circumcised so the faithfull their families and their seed are to be baptized Circumcision was to bee but once applyed by Gods appointment and the same holds in Baptisme according to the will and good pleasure of God Seventhly I perceive you glory much that Musculus hath deserted 1 Cor. 7. 14. as an impertinent proofe for baptizing of Infants and you repeat it at least three or foure times in your book and I observe through out your whole Treatise that when any Authour joynes with you in any particular you improve his authority to the utmost which makes me conceive that it would be a great glory to you to be able to prove a consent of Learned men to concur with you in your way And therefore I cannot but wonder that you should so much slight and undervalue the Judgements of Fathers and Councells Harmonies and Confessions of whole Churches when they differ from you As for Musculus whether he changed his Judgement upon 1 Cor. 7. on good grounds shall be examined in due place In the meane time I informe the Reader that in the same place Musculus acknowledges that there are Arguments enough and sufficiently strong to prove baptizing of Infants though this 1 Cor. 7. be left out And if Musculus Opinion sway in the one I hope it 's not to bee rejected in the other Eightly whether Dignum tanto tulit hic promissor hiatn whether your roast be answerable to your great boast Whether your Arguments and Answers will make good this high charge that Paedo-Baptisme is an Innovation maintained upon dangerous principles c. we proceed now to examine And first wee shall inquire concerning the Historicall part Whether Paedo-Baptisme as it is now taught be but a late Innovation whether it bee not as anoient as is pretended Because many of the Anabaptists shame not to say That the Ancients especially the Greek Church rejected Infant-Baptisme for many hundred yeares I said in the beginning of my Sermon that the Christian Church hath been in the possession of it for the space of 1500 years and upward and named a few testimonies out of the Greeke and Latine Fathers in little more then one page to make this good no wayes intending to make the weight of the Question to hang in any degree upon humane testimonies or consent of authority but onely upon the evidence of the Word upon this you have bestowed two or three sheets of your book and as if all Antiquity run on your fi●e you confidently affirme 1. As much may bee said for Episcopacy keeping of Faster the religious use of the Crosse 2. That my highest Testimonies reach not so high 3. That being rightly weighed they make rather against the present Doctrine and practice then for it 4. That there are many evidences which doe as strongly prove that from the beginning it was not so and therefore is but an Innovation The first of these you suppose so cleare to Scholars that it is needlesse for you to bring any proofe the other three you undertake to make good in your subsequent discourse Truly Sir your undertaking is very high and confident and I shall diligently weigh with what strength you perform it and shall therefore more fully inquire into the practice of Antiquity in this point then else I should have judged convenient to doe As for that which you tooke for granted That there are plaine testimonies for Episcopacy the Religious use of the Crosse c. before any testimonies can be produced for the baptizing of Infants pardon mee that I forbear to beleeve you till you have made it good I have already alledged some and shall now God willing alledge more testimonies to prove that in the Judgement of the Ancients the baptizing of Infants was received in all ages and from the very Apostles as a divine Institution I read no such thing for Episcopacy as a distinct order from Presbytery your selfe may read in Dr. Reynolds his Epistle to Sir Francis Knolls that in the Judgement of Ambrose Chrysostome Augustine Theodoret Theophylact Oecumenius Primasius Sedulius Gregorius and many other that Bishops and Presbyters were all one by divine Institution and that Ecclesiasticall constitution made the difference between them Much lesse doe I read among them that the Religious use of the Crosse was received in all ages and that as a divine Institution If you can make it out that these things were so you will do a very acceptable service to the Papists Anabaptists Prelaticall Party who no doubt will return you hearty thanks if your evidence be correspondent to your confidence If you cannot you should doe well to revoke this bold assertion In the meane time I shall examine your Examen of the Antiquity produced to make good the practice of the Ancient Church in Paedo-Baptisme The first whereof was taken from Justine Martyr Your first exception put in against this testimony is concerning the year in which he lived I said 150 thereupon you charge me with overlashing because I affirmed the Church had been in possession of the priviledge of baptizing Infants 1500 yeares and upwards Yet my