Selected quad for the lemma: rest_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
rest_n	day_n	observation_n	sabbath_n	2,346	5	9.4956	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

Baptizing of Infants but none for the observation of the ●ords day although herein I humbly conceive they are mistaken I doubt not but it doth and will appeare to impartiall and unprejudiced Readers that there is sufficient evidence of an Institution for both of them though not in such expresse Texts of Scripture in the New-Testament as the Anabaptists require and I shall now examine whether you bring any better evidence for the one then is to be found for the other First you say they meane it of positive worship consisting in outward rites and not of worship which is naturall or morall Answ But this but a blind morall and naturall are not to be confounded whatever worship is naturall may bee indeed acknowledged to be morall but not whatever is morall is to be esteemed naturall I know you cannot bee ignorant of the received distinction of Morale Naturale and Morale positivum and I beseech you though a Sabbath be grant●d to be Naturall yea if I should adde that one day in the revolution of seaven should bee so yet that this or that seventh day in the revolution of a weeke should bee observed all grant this depends upon an Institution and hath no more moralitie in it then what can bee made out from an Institution and consequently that the first day of the weeke should be the Christian Sabbath or that this one day of seven which God hath separated to himself and had once expresly fixed upon the seventh or last day of the week should be translated from the last day to the first day of the weeke must depend wholly upon an Institution and consequently they who reject that which depends upon positive Institution unlesse its Institution can bee expresly found in the New-Testament are as much at a losse for the Lords day as for the baptizing of Infants Nay give me leave to adde that in this point in question the advantage lies more on this hand I meane for Infant-Baptisme because there is more necessitie of clearing the Institution for the Lords day then for baptizing of Infants because in the one the ordinance it selfe and its institution is questioned but in this of Infant-Baptisme the question is not of the Institution of the Ordinance it selfe but onely of the subject to whom the Ordinance is to be applyed If the question bee betwixt Baptisme and the Lords day all grant that we have clearer Institution for the Sacrament of Baptisme then for the Lords day Baptisme is clearly instituted in the New-Testament to bee the Sacrament of our admission into the Covenant of grace and to succeed in the roome of Circumcision as your selfe grant Now the onely question is whether taking this for granted that baptism succeeds in the roome of Circumcicision and to bee applyed unto all persons by the will of God who are in Covenant with him whether the same persons may partake of this Sacrament as might partake of the other unlesse those persons bee expresly set downe in the New-Tement I hope in the judgement of all indifferent men a question about the persons to whom an ordinance is to bee applyed is a question of a farre inferiour nature to that question whether such a thing pretended to be an Ordinance have any Institution at all or not It 's one thing to invent a new Ordinance of worship another and that of inferiour rank to mistake in some of the persons to whom an Ordinance is to be applyed In some of the ancient times the Lords Supper was given to Infants and carried to sick persons when absent to testifie their communion with the Church I take them both for errours but yet not for errors of the like nature with inventing a new Sacrament I say againe there is a great difference betweene bringing in a new Ordinance and applying it to these or these persons especially when the question is not of the persons in generall who are the subject matter as whether men or Angels men or beasts but whether men of such an age or of such a Sex Sir to my best understanding these two questions are not parallell a just parallell question to this of Infant-Baptisme would be such a one as was once disputed betwixt Mr. Bifield and Mr. Brerewood viz. Taking it for granted that by a cleare Institution the Lords day succeeds in the roome of the old Sabbath whether yet the same persons are tied to keepe the Lords day who of old were tied to keepe the Sabbath unlesse those parties were mentioned in the New-Testament as whether servants as well as their masters the same holds here All this I speake not as any whit doubting that there is as cleare evidence for Baptizing of Infants as there is for the religious observation of the Christian Sabbath notwithstanding the latter seemes to require fuller evidence then this doth Your second explication gives you as little advantage you say that Apostolicall example which hath not a me●re temporary reason is enough to prove an Institution from God to which that practise doth relate especially when such examples come to bee backed with the constant practise of all Churches in all ages And then you bring in Pauls preaching at Troa● the collections upon the first day of the weeks in the first of the Corinthians and the sixteenth the mentioning of the Lords day Revel 1. Sir I except against none of all this to bee a part of that good evidence which wee have for the religious observation of the Lords day but I dare confidently speake it that out of these you can never evince more laying all things together to prove the Institution of the Lords day then I have done for the lawfulnesse of baptizing of Infants and I appeale to all learned Readers whether the many bookes written of late against the Institution of the Lords day give not as specious and plausible answers to these places alledged by you concerning the Christian Sabbath as yours are against Infant-baptisme although they have received sufficient cleare and solid answers yea and tread under their feet all arguments taken from these examples with as much confidence and scorne as your selfe doe that which I and others have named for Paedo-Baptisme And as for the supplement which you bring out of the constant practise of the Churches for the religious observation of the Lords day in stead of the old Sabbath I earnestly desire you in your next to produce as many of the ancients to beare witnesse to that truth as I have done in this point for Paedo-Baptisme and I promise you you shall receive my hearty thanks among the rest of your Readers in the meane time the Reader shall judge whether I have not brought a moity of that for the Baptizing of Infants which you have done for the Lords day Further whether you have not abused your reader in so confident averring that there are no footsteps in Antiquity for Paedo-Baptisme till the erroneous conceit of giving Gods grace by it the

other were capable of baptisme in this say you I grant many things which doe yeeld the cause Sir I shall not recall any one of them make your best of your advantage 1. Hence you collect it followes that baptizing of Infants is not according to Iohns and Christs Disciples and the Apostles practise I answer it no wayes followes if you take but that in which immediatly followes that their Infants came in in their parents right 2. Hence I grant say you that no other were capable of Baptisme but wherein I beseech you have I granted the cause in saying their Infants were not capable of it till their Parents came in and when they 〈◊〉 in their children came in also by vertue of the Covenant What need you keepe such a coyle in asking whether beleevers had then no children or whether the Apostles had no commission or whether wee have a Commission if they had not you goe on and say I thinke to salve it thus when once themselves were instructed and baptized then their children were capable of it by vertue of the Covenant I doe so and what have you to say against it why then say you they were capable in Iohns time and the Apostles time and this destroyes that which I said before that then none but taught persons were capable of Baptisme but where did I say so I said there was no expresse mention made of any other I said also Infants were not capable till their Parents came in because their Parents were to come under this new administration but I never said when their Parents were come in in Johns time and Christs time that their children then were not capable of it Yea I have shewed good grounds by consequence that the practise was otherwise Further you say it seemes I cou●d produce no Institution in the new administration but the Institution of Circumcision because I say the children were capable by vertue of the Covenant and the validitie of arguing from Circumcision hath been considered before and you further adde that the Covenant being the same at all times as my first conclusion holds the children of bel●evers were as capable in Johns time as after and thus you say my words doe plainely interfere I answer I have abundantly proved that this ground from the Covenants being the same and our Infants right the same with theirs to the Covenant and our Baptisme succeeding in the roome and place of Circumcision is a sufficient ground for this practise though there be no expresse mention of them in this new administration nor did I ever say that Infants of beleevers were not capable of it by vertue of the Covenant in Johns time so that this triumph of yours is not the fruit of my interfering but of your owne blindnesse or stumbling Whereas in the close of this Section I said if any in the Jewish Church had received Commission to goe and make other Cities Proselytes to them their Commission must have runne thus goe teach and circumcise and yet it would not thence have followed that none might bee circumcised but 〈◊〉 as were first taught you answer the Commission must have had reference in the execution of it either to the old institution of Circumcision Gen. 17. or to a new Institution and then it would have been told plainely what and whom they were to circumcise I reply supposing it had gone according to the institution Gen. 17. which as you say was to circumcise males at eight dayes old not taught I hope you will not say they might circumcise the males of any at eight dayes old although their Parents were not taught which is the case that I put you cannot I perceive deny this case to bee parallell onely this arguing from Circumcision to Baptism you cannot away with but Sir this reasoning is justified to be good rumpuntur ut ilia The second objection I thus expressed it is expresly said that he that beleeves and is baptized shall bee saved faith in Christ is the condition upon which men may bee baptized and no other unbeleevers may not be baptized children are unbeleevers therefore they may not bee baptized they say the negative is included under the affirmative beleeving is the affirmative unbeleeving is the negative therefore where beleevers are commanded to be baptized unbeleevers are forbidden to be baptized This Argument I said the Anabaptists doe very much glory in my answer to it was to this effect that if this Argument have any strength at all against the baptizing it hath much more strength against the salvation of Infants because it is expresly said both affirmatively and negatively hee that beleeveth shall bee saved but bee that beleeves not shall bee damned whereas though it bee said affirmatively hee that beleeveth and is baptized shall bee saved it is not said hee that is not baptized shall not bee saved looke by what distinction they will maintaine the salvation of Infants against this Argument by the same will I more clearely justifie the baptisme of Infants against this argument I adde now further if they take beleevers in a contradistinction to Infidells then I say Infants of beleevers are beleevers as well as the children of Infidells are Infidells if they take beleevers in a more restrained sense for positive and actuall faith then I deny that this is a necessary condition required to bee found and manifested in every one who is to bee baptized as I have at large proved before and your selfe cannot deny To this Argument your answer is onely this that you owne not the Argument onely thus farre you owne it viz. that a profession of faith is a pre-requisite to Baptisme and so it was accounted in the dayes of Justin Martyr Tertullian Cyprian and Augustine c. But I reply though you dare not owne this Argument yet it stands upon the same ground that the rest of your arguments doe and upon the same grounds that many of your expressions doe such as this That men are not to bee baptized because they may have grace but because they have it But now you will not stick to this That to have true faith is a pre-requisite to Baptism you are contented with an outward confession of it onely and that a visible profession gives right to a visible membership and consequently that a visible membership gives a right to Baptisme which is the thing I have been contending for all this while As for what you adde That in the dayes of Iustin Martyr Tertullian Cyprian and so forward this confession before baptisme was continued it is true it was continued for those that had been Pagans and Infidels that they should make such a confession before Baptisme and it is as true that in their days Infants of Christians were baptized 3. I said it was objected That though Infants are capable o● the inward grace and that God doth effectually worke in some of them yet that is no sufficient warrant for us to baptize all of