Selected quad for the lemma: truth_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
truth_n rule_n scripture_n word_n 4,530 5 4.5831 4 true
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
A87257 Infants baptizing proved lawfull by the Scriptures: objections against it resolved and removed. Aug. 24. 1644. Imprimatur, John White. 1644 (1644) Wing I162; Thomason E8_31; ESTC R15802 13,658 16

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

breake the constant rule of right interpretation and construction to support their fancy The Scriptures are one intire body of truth Joh 17.17 Thy word is truth and therefore construction must not be made by fraction upon any part of it touching any question raised out of it alone but upon all matters concerning it compared together and therefore we are to search the Scriptures and compare spirituall things with spirituall things Take all the holy Scriptures together concerning Sacraments and it cleerely appeares that when God instituted them in his Church he declared his mind that the children of the Church should be partakers of them as Gen. 17.7 10. of Circumcision the Sacrament then of initiation and regeneration and of the Passeover Exod. 12.16 47. the then Sacrament of edification every soule in the house all the Congregation were to eate it After by the Gospell in the institution of Baptisme there is no change made save only in the outward element water washing for the fore-skins circumcising no word of altering the persons to partake in it as appeares expresly Joh. 1.33 God sent John to baptise with water Here the element and outward matter of the Sacrament of regeneration is altered but no more by the institution no word of altering the persons so as they remaine as before to be determined by the generall rule at first common to all Sacraments But in the institution of the Lords Supper there is made not only a change of the outward matter but also an alteration and limitation of the persons and children excluded and all that examine not and judge themselves and discerne not the Lords body Certainely if the Lord had intended any alteration or restraint of persons in the institution of Baptisme he would have spoken it out as he doth in the institution of the Lords Supper and his silence therein may satisfie any sober spirit that it never came into his mind But these men looke only upon the actuall dispensation of this Sacrament of Baptisme by the Baptist and by the Apostles upon persons of full age expresly recorded and not upon the rules of the Scriptures compared as afore-said nor doe they consider the reason and rule of those practises It appeares expresly that those recorded practises were upon proselites new converts added to the Church and newly brought to the faith of the Gospell and with them they proceeded by the rule concerning proselites set downe Ezek. 47.22 they gave them a portion in the inheritance of the Church and made them partakers of the priviledges thereof can any conclude hence that they intended hereby to disseise the children of the Church and to disinherit them and divest them of the Covenant or seale to which they were borne Certainly no There is enough in the Covenant of grace and priviledges of the Church for both the natives and the stranger that by his profession and conversion is added to the Church To preach to infidels before they be baptised is necessary because else a seale is put to a blanck but to baptise the infants of beleevers is to put the seale to the Covenant as much as it is to baptise professors of full age such infants having the same right as professors These men cleerely erre by not observing the difference between natives of the Church and those that are forreiners and strangers to be received into the Church and by not conferring the whole body of the Scriptures concerning Sacraments to find out the mind of God in this businesse what is the ground whereupon the Church under the Gospell receives women to partake in the Supper of the Lord for which they have neither precept nor example in the new Testament no more then we have for Infant-baptisme Certainly none but that God commanded their partaking in the Passeover * Exod. 12. ●● ●● and thereby declared them to be persons to whom he would have Sacraments administred if they were capable thereof and of this they are capable and nothing in the new institution and alteration induced by the Gospell excludes them Ob. But some object further That there is an expresse declaration of Gods will concerning persons in the institution of baptisme Mat. 28.19 G●● teach all nations baptising them c. from which they inferre that none are to be baptised but those that are taught and therefore only persons of discretion Sol. To which I answer That cleerely here is no institution of Baptisme which was instituted long before Joh. 1. 33. God sent John the Baptist to baptise with water and Jesus Christ that gave this command was himselfe before this baptised Mat. 3. 16. and the Apostles to whom he spake this had baptised before Joh. 4. 2. Secondly It cannot be intended that these two duties of the Ministeriall office preach and baptise should be inseperable in regard of the persons in whom they determine that the same persons that partake not in the one should not be partakers of the other or that those that partake in the one should necessarily partake in the other John baptised Jesus Christ though he did not preach unto him and it is apparantly absurd that Ministers must baptise all they preach unto whether they receive their preaching or not and it is as manifestly absurd that Ministers must deny baptisme to them that by the word have right unto it because they have not preached unto them for it is the right unto it not preaching to them that determines to whom it is to be given and such exposition is to be made of Scripture and of all writings as absurditie may be avoided Thirdly The true sense and scope of this place of Scripture is plainly no more but first to inlarge the Apostles commission which was given them before Mat. 10.5 to all nations at first limited to the lost sheep of the house of Israel and secondly to injoyne them to attend principally and with great care and heed the two principall duties of their office preaching the word and administring the Sacraments and whosoever extends it further apparantly wrongs and abuses it Ob. It is further objected That the words Mat. 28.19 where the Apostles are commanded to teach and baptise all nations in the originall tongue import that they were to baptise none but whom they made disciples and then Infants are excluded Sol. To which I answer The words upon which this cavill and criticisme is grounded are two the one translated * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 teach which they would have to meane make disciples and pretend that it ought to be so translated and the other is them which is of the Masculine gender and cannot in Grammaticall construction agree with the word Nations going before being of the Neuter gender and therefore must refer to the word disciples implied in the Verbe usually translated teach In both which it seems to me very evident that they are greatly if not wilfully mistaken For though the word may signifie to teach and to make disciples
seale of the Covenant being meerely passive in the administration of it both in respect of the outward element and inward grace of it and it is a strong ingagement of them to devote themselves unto God when they attaine discretion that from the beginning they are consecrated unto God and have such excellent promises c 2 Cor. 7.1 sealed unto them and what then hinders them to be baptised It is yet further objected That baptising of children hath no foundation in Scripture To which I answer There is a two-fold testimony of Scripture expresse in termes and that is not to be had for some principall truths Secondly by necessary cleere deduction from cleere Scriptures and such grounds Scripture abound withall for Pedobaptisme and some of them I have above opened and cleered Ob. It is further said and but said That Baptisme cannot be administred Infant baptisme to infants as John the Baptist and the Apostles did administer it Sol. To which I answer That it may be and that sufficeth in an answer expecting the proofe of the objection But because I desire to drive the adversary of this truth out of all his coverts and seeming strengths I answer further That in the administration of Baptisme according to the institution of it and the use of it by John and the Apostles and others recorded in Scriptures there are some things essentiall and necessary in all cases and some things accidentall that are not necessary nor usefull in all but only in some cases The essentials are three only first a Minister of the Gospell to administer it Mat. 28.19 they only have commission and authority for it Secondly A person that hath right unto it either by his own personall profession of faith and repentance d Mat. 3.6 Acts 8.37 or otherwise upon whom it is to be conferred Thirdly To baptise in the Name of the Father Sonne and Holy Ghost And that such personall confession is not necessary where it is otherwise apparant the person to receive it hath right unto it is plaine by Johns baptising of Jesus Christ who had Covenant-right unto it and could not confesse sinne Mark 1.9 and by Ananias baptising Paul without confession of sinne or profession of faith Acts 9.15 18. God telling him he had a right unto it being his chosen vessell and Peters baptizing the Centurions friends upon whom he saw the Holy Ghost in extraordinary gifts to fall without their personall confessions Acts 10.47 and yet those extraordinary gifts were not certaine evidences of election to eternall life And by Pauls baptising of all Lydias houshold * Act 16 1● meerly upon their submitting willingly unto it without distinct personall confessions for ought appeares and so the Jaylors a Act. 16.31 33. houshold and Stephanas b 1 Cor. 1. ●6 his houshold and it cannot be reasonably imagined that there were no children among them And 1 Cor. 10.2 All the children of the Israelites being within the Covenant were baptised in the cloude and in the sea as well as those that were of full age Ob. But it is further objected That by what I have said children are to partake in the Lords Supper also being another seale of the Covenant and by it Infant-Communion may be as strongly inferred as Infant-Baptisme Sol. To which I answer the case is wholy unlike and followes not for there is in the institution of the Lords Supper required necessarily and as essentiall unto it such things as Infants are not capable of and are not required in Baptisme In Baptisme the Sacrament of regeneration the receiver is passive both in the outward and inward administrations thereof But in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper the Sacrament of corroboration and increase the partaker of it must be active An infant cannot examine and judge himselfe discerne the Lords body doe it in remembrance of Christ all expresly required in the receiver of the Lords Supper 1 Cor. 11.25 26 28 29 31. But an Infant can receive the sprinkling of water and is capable of the Spirit of life and grace and if he be a child of a beleever and member of the visible Church nothing in the institution of Baptisme excludes him and the Covenant includes him expresly which is to be sealed by it Some other arguments are brought against Pedobaptisme but because they are from humane testimony negatively a way of arguing exploded by all Logitians I will not mispend pretious time in dealing with them but leave them as of no weight or value But I shall subjoyne some few considerations of some further absurdities and mistakes of the opinion of those that deny Baptisme to the children of beleevers by which the truth in this question will more cleerely appeare Besides that by their opinion the children of beleevers under the Gospell are in as bad a case as the children of infidels strangers from the Promises and Covenant of grace strangers from the wombe which is the condition of the wicked Psal 58.3 so as one observes Gods holy lambes should live like straies not marked with his brand ordained to distinguish his from those he will not owne which is expresly against the Scriptures as I have above cleerely evinced But they be also in a worse case then the children of the Jewes under the law were they were within the Covenant of grace and had the seale of Circumcision a Sacrament the same in substance with Baptisme of the same spirituall use and end in the place and stead whereof Baptisme succeeds which is also cleerely against the Scriptures which informe us that better things are reserved for us under the Gospell a better condition then they had under the Law Heb. 11 40. Yea the children of the Christian Jew are by their opinion put in a worse condition then the children of the Jew before Christ were in and yet they grant them to be within the said Promise made to Abraham first above-mentioned The children of the circumcised Jew might have the seale but the children of the Christian Jew may not whereby the comming of Christ is made to turne to the disparagement of the children of the Christian Jewes to depose them from the hereditary dignity they had under the Law contrary to the Scriptures Heb. 7.19 22. ● 6 which testifie that Christ Jesus hath brought us a better hope a better testament and his Ministery to be more excellent and established upon better promises Secondly These men would have the Church and the Ministers of Christ refuse and refuse to blesse those whom Jesus Christ himselfe in person received embraced and blessed as those to whom the Kingdome of Heaven belonged contrary to the Scriptures Ephes 5.1 Be ye followers of God as deare children and the Scriptures call upon the children of the Church even those that suck the brests to partake in the extraordinary duties of the Church namely fasts Joel 2.16 Ezra 10.1 for which they are more unfit then for Baptisme Thirdly These men