Selected quad for the lemma: scripture_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
scripture_n	day_n	sabbath_n	week_n	4,928	5	10.6975	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A34433	The font uncover'd for infant-baptisme, or, An answer to the challenges of the Anabaptists of Stafford, never yet reply'd unto, though long since promised wherein the baptisme of all church-members infants is by plain Scripture-proof maintained to be the will of Jesus Christ, and many points about churches and their constitutions are occasionally handled / by William Cook, late minister of the Gospel at Ashby-Delazouch.	Cook, William, Minister of the gospel at Ashby-Delazouch.	1651 (1651)	Wing C6042; ESTC R1614	62,529	56

are so sacred that they cannot without high offence to his Majesty Deut. 4.1 great wrong to Gods people and extream danger to their own souls be denied by any to those to whom they belong God no lesse forbidding detracting from then adding to his word and so much the more dangerous is diminution in this case as it tends to darken the glorious grace of God in the times of the Gospel which times he hath reserved for the more full illustration thereof above former times 2. That those main priviledges which God granted ordinarily to persons in Covenant before Christ as That their children should be in Covenant and admitted to the seal of entrance thereinto should cease in the time of the Gospel is so unagreeable unto the wisdom and goodnesse of God which reserves his greatest and choicest blessings for the last times to be bestowed on his people so contrary to the nature of the Covenant of grace which under Evangelical dispensation is far more glorious and comfortable to the faithfull then under legall so contrary to the end of Christs coming which was to multiply increase and ratifie not cut off diminish or abolish blessings and priviledges to his Church and so contrary to the promises and prophecies concerning the glory of the Church in the times of the Gospel that he deserves to be abhorred of all that know God and Christ and his Covenant that should tell us of a great fall and diminution of priviledges in Evangelicall times compared with legall and yet can bring no pregnant and pertinent Scripture to prove a repeal of those priviledges 3. I grant that where God hath repealed priviledges of the Old Testament which whiles they continued unrepealed were priviledges yet cease to be so when greater answerable thereto yet more sutable to the Gospel-dispensation are vouchsafed in their place in the New Testament they in respect of that old administration are not to be accounted priviledges neither are priviledges in this case properly revoked but altered and inlarged when the old administration indeed is abrogated but the same spiritual blessing is given in a more comfortable manner under a new dispensation As when Christians 1 In stead of the Old Testament Scriptures in the Jews mother tongue which was the Jews priviledge have both Old and New Testament Scriptures translated into a known tongue 2 In stead of the Jews seventh-day-Sabbath Ioh. 19.36 2 Cor. 5.7 have the first day or Lords-day-Sabbath 3 In stead of the Passeover which to the Jews was a Type of Christ to come have Christ exhibited and now represented in the blessed Communion And 4 in stead of Circumcision have Baptism And 5 generally when Christians in stead of the old Legal dispensation of the Covenant of grace which the Jews had have the new Evangelical dispensation of the Covenant Here the same priviledges are continued with inlargement under a new and different garb or dresse 4. It 's granted also that when men have wilfully rejected priviledges and therefore God hath cast them off neither they nor theirs lying under that obstinacy may lay claim to obstinatly rejected priviledges as in the case of the body of the Jews and their seed at this day To the Minor 1. Gen 17.7 Exod 12.48 Ezek. 16.10 21. Mat. 2.15 Act. 3.25 It 's plain that from Abrahams time and so forward to the last of the Prophets yea to the time of our Saviour Christ unto which time Circumcision of children was in force the faithfull had interest in this priviledge that their children were in Covenant and had the seal of admission 2. It 's plain also Gen. 17 10 11 12 13. Rom. 4.11 Rom 3.1 2. Phil. 3.5 that this was a great priviledge or prerogative to the people of God and their children that they were in Covenant and had Circumcision which is called the sign of the Covenant yea the Covenant and the seal of the righteousnesse of faith As to be an Hebrew and Israelite was a great priviledge before Christs coming so to be circumcised 3. That God hath not recalled this grant of Beleevers children having right to the Covenant and seal of entrance it is evident for neither the Scriptures of Old or New Testament speak any such thing but rather the contrary heightning the priviledges of the Gospel above those of the Law but never depressing them Obj. But Circumcision is repealed and abrogated Ans 1. True Ob. in regard of the outward ceremony Ans 1 so the former dispensation of the Covenant of grace in regard of the Legal manner of administration Doth the Covenant it self therefore and duties and priviledges therefore which are essential and perpetual cease Womens going up to Jerusalem to the sacrifices and Passeover ceaseth Must not they therefore come to and partake of the Lords Supper The Church of the Jews which understood the Scriptures of the Old Testament without translation is cast off Must not Gods people now have the Scriptures in their mother language by translation because there is no direct expresse Scripture for that purpose The Jews Sabbath being the seventh day of the week with us called Saturday is abolished Must we not therefore have a Christian Sabbath or Lords day Nay rather we may well gather from the Jewish-beleeving womens priviledge to partake of the Passeover and sacrifices in the Old Testament the priviledge of Christian women to come to the Lords Table and from Jewish Beleevers liberty to have the Scriptures in a known tongue we may gather against the Papists the priviledge of Christian common people of the like nature though in a different way they by the Originall writing we by Translation and from the Jews Sabbath of the seventh day that being appointed by the moral Law we may gather our Christian Sabbath and so from the Jewish infants priviledge to have the seal of initiation into the Covenant and Church we may gather the like priviledge to belong to Christians Infants though in a different ceremony if we compare those priviledges of the Jews in the Old Testament with what is spoken in the New Testament concerning Gospel-priviledges that are analogicall and succedaneous to these legal priviledges and lay together other common grounds warranting unto them these priviledges though there be no expresse immediate particular command for womens partaking at the Lords Table nor for the common peoples enjoying vernaculous translations of the Scripture nor for the Christian Sabbath nor for the baptizing of Infants 2. I answer to this objection If it had been the pleasure of God and Christ that children should in the time of the Gospel lose their former interest in the Covenant and seal thereof and their priviledge of Church-membership as well as he would have Circumcision abolished he would have no lesse revealed that in the Scripture then this But he hath no where revealed either expressely or to be gathered by consequence that whereas untill Christs time Infants of Beleevers were in Covenant Gods children Church-members

practice in point of Religion It is sufficient sometimes and in some cases that by good consequence we deduce them from Scripture 1. Mat 22.32 33 This was very usuall with our Saviour and the Apostles Thus our Saviour proves the doctrine of the Resurrection against the Sadduces by consequence from that Scripture I am the God of Abraham the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob laid together with another principle God is not the God of the dead but of the living Which doctrine also the Apostle Paul proves by many Arguments and consequences 1 Cor. 15.13 to 33. 1 Cor. 15. from vers 13. to 33. So our Lord Christ argues for the lawfulnesse of his disciples pulling ears of corn and eating them on the Sabbath day Mat. 12.3 4 5 6 7. by consequence 1. From Davids eating of the Shew-bread 2. From the Priests sacrificing on the Sabbath and 3. From that sentence in Hosea I will have mercy and not sacrifice H●● 6. ● Which Scripture-examples and testimony do not expressely and immediatly say It is lawfull for the disciples being hungry to pluck ears of corn on the Sabbath day and eat them But by good consequence each of these Scriptures much more all jointly prove it So whereas it is said Luke 24.27 44. Luk. 24.27 44. That Christ expounded the Scriptures of all the Prophets shewing that they were fulfilled in him It is not to be understood that those things which were written of Christ in Moses the Prophets and Psalmes did expressely immediatly plainly and positively say that Jesus the son of Mary was the Messias and must suffer all those things and then rise again and enter into glory But by Christs expounding them and arguing from them the two disciples were brought to see the truth So Act. 2.25 26 c. the Apostle Peter sheweth to prove the resurrection of Christ from Scripture that what was contained in Psal 16.9 10. was spoken of Christ It doth not appear immediatly and expressely but by consequence thus It was to be understood of David himself or of Christ the seed of David No of David for he had seen corruption and his Sepulchre was yet extant as Act. 2.29 Therefore it must be meant of Christ Davids seed vers 30.31 32. So the other Apostles in the Acts and the Epistles and the Prophets before them usually deduce conclusions by way of reasoning or syllogizing either from Scriptures or other known principles or both laid together as is evident to any that with understanding and care reade the Scriptures so that further to prove this were to light a candle at noonday and sure he is miserably blinde that cannot see it 2. If you deny the use of consequence you have no warrant or proof for the reading of Scripture in an English translation Printed and so you must cast away your English Bibles as well as Infant-baptism or else fall into Will-worship and Idolatry Nor for womens receiving the Communion nor for the Christian-Sabbath Overthrow these and overthrow all Christian Religion Yea I may confidently say there is no Ordinance of God or religious act can be externally observed which you can perform but at least in respect of some accidentals or circumstantials thereof you must be beholden to consequence from Scripture or else must want warrant for the using of them and so either forbear them all and cast off all religious exercise and become visible Atheists or run into that which is Will-worship and Idolatry in your conceit and act against conscience and not in faith which to do is sin 3. Whereas all Scriptures were written for our learning Rom. 15.4 2 Tim. 3.16 that we may have patience comfort and hope and are profitable for doctrine reproof correction and instruction All or most of this benefit will be lost unto us if we reject the use of consequences The Scripture doth not positively and plainly make particular application to several men that live amongst us by name this must be done either by publike Ministry or private brotherly instruction and conference or by our own conscience which must by reasoning shew that the Scripture applied is pertinent and sutable to us or else we shall get no good by it 4. For what use should the Ministry of the word or preaching and teaching by others serve Pro. 2 2 3 4. or what use is there of studying and diligently searching the Scriptures as for gold silver and hid treasures if all things therein were so plain and particular to us in them that there were no need of drawing particulars from generals gathering obscurer truths from plainer Scriptures and applying them according to exigency Yea what use should there be of reason it self if we might not exercise it in this case which so much concerns Gods glory and our own and others edification and salvation I study shortnesse else it might be easily made to appear that they who deny and abhorre syllogisms and consequences in matters of Religion do not only deny the principall use of the most excellent gift of reason which God hath given to men for the finding out of the truth Rom. 2.15 Rom. 12.1 but also must cast off all right use of Conscience Scripture and Religion if they stick to that irrationall and irreligious conceit Taking it therefore for granted that no man who hath the use of reason and the heart of a Christian will deny us the liberty of reason in drawing out the truth from Scriptures by consequence I will lay down several Arguments grounded on Scripture whereof some were touched in the Answer to the former Paper what I shall here omit which there I touched the Reader may fetch thence for the baptizing of Infants Arg. Arg. 1 1. Such persons as have had by Gods gracious grant right to the Covenant of grace and seal of entrance thereinto in the time of the Old Testament and from whom this grant was never repealed by God nor cast off by themselves are not to be debarred by any man from the priviledges of Gods Covenant and the seal of entrance thereinto whiles the Covenant of grace and a seal of entrance is dispensed to the Church But the children of beleeving parents have by Gods gracious grant had interest in the Covenant of grace and the seal of entrance thereinto at least from Abrahams time to Christs which grant God did never repeal neither did the children of Beleevers cast it off but God hath continued in his Church the Covenant of grace and seal of entrance thereinto though in a different manner yet far more comfortable and glorious Therefore the children of beleeving parents are not to be debarred from the Covenant or seal of entrance thereinto which now in the time of the Gospel is Baptism For the clearing of the Proposition let these things be noted 1. Gods gracious grants of priviledges to his people wherein are also implied ingagements to thankfulnesse and obedience laid on them

being taught or at least they would gather from Christs Commission they are uncapable of being preached to and taught Therefore of being baptized But this is not a sufficient cause why they should not be baptized For teaching the doctrines and commands of Christ should go after not before Baptism according to the order of Christs Commission It 's enough that persons be devoted to Christ upon the tender of the Gospel by those that have power externally to dedicate them to him and then they are to be baptized and as it were matriculated into his School and after taught all things that Christ hath commanded them the contrary course is a preposterous inverting of the order of Christ Therefore Baptism is not to be denied to the Infants of Beleevers But they are by their parents to be dedicated to Christ and then baptized and afterwards instructed and taught in all the doctrines and commands of Christ which way is most agreeable to the order of Christs Commission 4. Whereas it is said in Mark 16.16 He that beleeveth and is baptized shall be saved he that beleeveth not shall be condemned If you will take these words precisely as containing a generall and compleat rule by which we must judge who must be baptized and saved who not without limitation to the first calling of Jews and Gentiles to Christianity I reason thus against you from this Scripture Children even the Infants of Christians either beleeve or not If they beleeve Deut. 30.6 having faith though but seminal or virtual comprehended in regeneration or circumcision of the heart which God promiseth to the seed of the faithfull or maybe said to beleeve in their parents who accept of the Covenant for themselves and their seed then they are to be baptiye● as this Scripture shews and your own argument against their Baptism yields this being your great reason against baptizing children because say you they cannot beleeve But if you say they do not cannot beleeve they are all damned by you from this Scripture which saith expressely Whosoever beleeves not shall be condemned Take which you will If you say the former the cause is yielded by you If the later viz. That all the children of Beleevers whiles Infants are condemned and that there is no hope of salvation if they die before grown years this being so contrary to the Covenant of God and his promises will make you deservedly abhorred of all those that know God his Covenant and Scriptures If you to avoid this dilemma say this Scripture belongs only to those of grown years as were those unbeleeving Jews and Heathens to whom the Apostles were immediatly sent and therefore the condemnation of Infants through want of actual faith cannot be hence concluded you answer your selves and might as easily see that the exclusion of Infants from Baptism for want of actuall personal professed faith cannot hence be gathered especially seeing these words are far more peremptory and expresse against the salvation then against the Baptism of non-beleevers Secondly You say What you practise is proved to be the Baptism of Christ by the practice of the Disciples in obedience to those commands as Act 2.38 Then Peter said unto them Repent and be baptized every one of you in the Name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of sins ver 41. Then they that gladly received the word were baptized and the same day added to the Church Ans You cut off in the citation of this Scripture a very material part namely the ground of the Apostles exhortation to them to be baptized which if you would have considered seriously might have made you afraid to urge this place for your purpose It seems you thought it good policy to omit it least others should see how little it makes for your purpose or rather how much against you The words you omitted are in ver 39. The Apostle having exhorted them to repent and be baptized in the Name of Christ for the remission of sin and that they might receive the gift of the holy Ghost adds this reason ver 39. For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that be afar off so many as the Lord our God shall call Using this argument to perswade them to be baptized and to expect the spiritual blessing signified in Baptism viz. the remission of sins and pouring of the Spirit on them for the promise saith he is to you and your children and least we should think that this priviledge was peculiar to the Jews to have their children interested in the promise with their parents he adds And to all that be afar off so many as the Lord your God shall call Noting that all that shall be called of the remote Gentiles shall enjoy the like priviledge namely that the promise shall belong not only to them but also their children Whence I reason thus To whom the promise of remission of sins and the gift of the holy Ghost belongs to the same also Baptism the pledge thereof belongs for this is the summe of the Apostles reasoning to be gathered out of the 38. and 39. verse But the promise is to the faithfull or people of God and their children whether Jews or Gentiles Deut. 4.2 Mat. 46. compared with Psal 91.11 12. even those that were afar off whom God shall call and therefore Baptism belongs to them and their children You know who forbids to add to or take from the word and who is the ringleader of that art of curtayling the word 2. Whereas it is said Those that gladly received the word were baptized It may be well understood as they received the word they received Baptism the seal and appendix of the word But they received the word of promise as it was propounded to them by the Apostles which was thus That it belonged to them and their children Therefore answerably the seal of the word viz. Baptism belonging to them and their children they were baptized and their children 3. Whereas you say They that received the word were added to the Church The text saith And the same day there were added to the Church three thousand souls It is not safe thus to make bold with and mis-report Scripture The next Scripture which you cite is Act. 8.1 But when they beleeved Philip preaching the things concerning the Kingdom of God in the Name of Jesus they were baptized both men and women To this I answer 1. Who knows not that the words men and women are names rather noting the sexes then ages and are appliable to Infants as well as grown persons Did not Eve when she had born her first childe say Gen. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I have gotten a man from the Lord Will you hence gather that because she cals him a man therefore he was at perfect age at the day of his birth When Christ saith that the woman when she is delivered of a childe Ioh. 16.21 remembred not her anguish for joy that a man

to accept the Covenant for themselves and their children Gen. 17.7 They that hold out a new way must shew some Scripture for the abolishing of the Old and establishing the New or must expect no regard from those that are not willing to be deluded 3. Shew the ground of this distinction Jewish children were to be educated for God as being under Covenant and seal but the children of Christians only that they may be brought under the Covenant and seal when they come to actual faith professed in their own person What Scripture or reason puts such a vast difference between them that those should be brought up Religiously as actually in Covenant and sealed these only as in a remote possibility to be brought to the Covenant and seal 5. The fifth consideration will not only strengthen the Proposition but also further answer the foregoing objection It 's this If the children of the faithfull be not already actually in Covenant from their infancy and so interested in the priviledges of the Covenant not only parents may be afraid to instruct them in Scripture Catechise and pray with them require their presence in the Congregation and family duties and their sanctification of the Lords day which are both duties and priviledges of the Covenant least they should cast Pearls to swine and judge them that are without But also the children if urged hereunto may demand of their parents What have you to do to require of us any Christian duties or to correct us for the neglect thereof or for the commission of any sin against the Gospel as profanation of the Lords day blaspheming Christ Christian Religion or the Scripture c. Might not they plead liberty of conscience and say What have you to do to judge us that are without we are to chuse our Religion and as free to worship Mahomet as Christ The Jews indeed had authority to bring up their children in the Jewish Religion as being devoted thereto from their infancy by the Covenant and seal thereof under which they were but now we children of Christians are under no such priviledges nor ingagements Which practice I fear will be the genuine fruit of this opinion argued against and swallowed down as no absurdity by those that are poisoned with Anabaptisticall fancies but must needs be detested by all that prize the Covenant of God and love Christ sincerely or their own and childrens souls spiritually To clear the Assumption let these things be considered Gen. 18.19 Exod. 12.26 27. Iosh 24.15 Psal 78.5 6. Prov. ● 3 4 5. 2 Tim. 3.15 1. How can it be doubted but that all those morall duties that lay upon Abraham and his children and the Israelites and their children enjoining the one party to teach and the other to learn the way and commandments of God lye now upon Christian parents and their children 2. Paul greatly commends Timothies happinesse and his parents care in that he had been brought up from his infancy in holy Scripture which he would not have done if either Timothy had not been in Covenant from his infancy for what have those to do with the tables of the Covenant that are strangers or aliens to the Covenant or that example had not been of moral equity to be imitated by Christian parents and their children in the time of the Gospel 3. That Scripture cited to prove the Assumption contains a full expresse charge which lies on all Christian parents to teach 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and children to learn the fear and information of the Lord Eph. 6.4 which argues also that children of the faithfull are disciples of the Lord to be trained up in his school being dedicated to his discipline and nurture 4. Were not this so that moral Law which the Apostle in special manner above all the rest urgeth upon Christians children would be abrogated or greatly weakened as to the children of Christian parents at least untill they come to actual faith Children saith he obey your parents in the Lord. Eph 6.1 2. And Honour thy father and mother which is the first commandment with promise For how can they obey them in the Lord when the parents have no authority to command them any thing in the name of the Lord they not being under his yoke and Covenant How can parents challenge honour from their children by virtue of Gods command when they bring not up their children for God and to his honour Or how can children Religiously and Christianly honour their parents that have left them in the state of Infidels Especially considering this commandment Honour thy father c. as it was given to the Israelites supposed their children to be in Covenant with their parents and to have the like interest with their parents in the Covenant and its seal and the like ingagement to the duties thereof in respect of outward dispensation which is denied now to the children of Christians unlesse the Assumption yea and the main point in controversie be granted Twelfthly I argue thus Arg. 12 Children of beleeving parents must either be baptized while children or while able to professe the faith or not at all 1. This last your practice shews you will not hold and it were unreasonable to think that their being born of beleeving parents should deprive them of this priviledge seeing in the Old Testament this procured to children the seal of entrance 2. That they should be kept without Baptism untill they be able to make a profession of faith is no where commanded neither can any Scripture-example or good reason be given for it 1. Not commanded for the command which was given for baptizing of professours of faith and repentance did expressely and immediatly belong to those Jews and Gentiles which had not been born of Christian parents 2. Neither is there Scripture-example for it for the examples we reade of were according to Commission none as we reade in Scripture that were born after their parents were Christians were baptized when grown Scripture speaks only of those that had been Jews and Infidels children that were baptized by the Apostles 3. Neither stands it with right reason that Beleevers children should be left untill they professe their faith in the same state with Jews Turks and Infidels considering Gods promises and Covenant Therefore it remains that they must be baptized while Infants this being most agreeable 1. To Gods dealing with Abraham the father of the faithfull that children while Infants should be admitted with their beleeving parents and that Covenant and seal thereof 2. To the nature of this Sacrament which is to be administred the first opportunity to persons known to be in Covenant and members of the Church 3. To all those commands and examples of baptizing new converted Jews and Infidels for as their conversion did put them into the Covenant of grace whereupon they had right to the seal of entrance So these Infants being born of Christian parents doth inright them to the Covenant