Selected quad for the lemma: work_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
work_n	argument_n	circumcision_n	covenant_n	4,685	5	10.4381	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A57687	Paedobaptismus vindicatus, or, Infant-baptism stated in an essay to evidence its lawfulness from the testimony of the Holy Scripture, especially St. Matthew, XXVIII, 19 : the grand, if not sole place, so much insisted on by the antipaedobaptists, to prove their mistaken principle : handled in a different method form other tracts on the subject, as appears in the contents : with an account of a conference publickly held with an antipaedobaptist of no small fame / by J.R., A.M., a Presbyter of te Church of England.	Rothwell, John, d. 1661.	1693 (1693)	Wing R2005; ESTC R6073	107,326	230

I offer this Proof That Principle which makes the Covenant of Grace less beneficial and extensive than the Covenant of Works hinders the Propagation of Christian Religion But the former Principle does so Therefore such a Principle hinders the Progress of Christianity The Major is undoubtedly so and I will endeavour to make the Minor to be such by this One Argument That Principle which allows not as great Immunities Benefits and Privileges to the Covenant of Grace as to the Covenant of Works makes the Covenant of Grace less Beneficial and Extensive than the Covenant of Works But the Principle that denies Baptism to Infants does so Therefore it makes the Covenant of Grace less Beneficial and Extensive than the Covenant of Works Siquidem evidentissimum est quod semel cum Abrahamo Dominus foedus percussit non minus hodie Christiano constare quam olim Judaico populo adeoque verbum istud non minus Christianos respicere quam Judaeos tum respiciebat Nist forte arbitramur Christum suo adventu Patris gratiam imminuisse aut decurtasse quod sine execrabili blasphemianon vacat Calv. Institut lib. 4. cap. 16. Par. 6. And the Judicious Mr. Calvin in his Institutes seems to speak the same sence with this last Argument for after he had said It is most clear that God entred once into Covenant with Abraham he tells us That that Covenant had a respect and regard to Christian as well as Jewish People unless peradventure we should suppose that Christ by his Advent or Coming had diminish'd or curtail'd the Grace of his Father which would be execrable Blasphemy to imagine CHAP. III. The true Sence of the Holy Jesus's Commission unto his Blessed Disciples for the Administration of Baptism St. Matth. xxviij 19. makes for the Baptizing of Infants AND now I will endeavour to confirm these Arguments by the Authority of Holy Scripture and prove in particular That that Text of St. Matth. xxviij 19. must have such a sence as to evidence That the Covenant of Grace or else it would not be such a Covenant and so forfeit its Title is full as or rather more beneficial and extensive than the Covenant of Works and consequently that the Baptizing Infants is a Christian as well as a Comfortable Doctrine which is the Truth to be proved and then it will plainly appear this Text our Adversaries so much Glory in and Vaunt of is on our side For if there had been as General a Commission given by Moses to Twelve Elders of Israel as the Blessed Jesus gave to his Disciples and it had been said to them Go teach all Nations circumcising them this had been no Prohibition to the Circumcising the Jewish Children because there was a Positive Command given them by Divine Revelation and no After-Commission could discharge from Obedience to such a Command And where the same Reason holds for the same Observation under a different Dispensation there is no necessity for the Publication of a New Command to enjoyn its Observance Now there never was since the Creation of the World but two Instituted Religions that had Truth on their side the Jewish and the Christian And the Blessings that were conferred by either of these Religions and the Duties and Services required to ensure and consign the Blessings from the Party that was to bestow them to the Parties that were to enjoy them were transacted transmitted and conveyed in a Covenanting way Now the Evangelic Dispensation being in a Covenanting way as well as the Legal one those that had a right to the Covenant under the Holy Gospel had a right to the Sign Seal or Sacrament of the Covenant as well as those under the Law Hereupon that Children under the Holy Gospel had a right to the Covenant is not very difficult to prove from St. Mark x. 14. Suffer little Children to come unto me and forbid them not for of such is the Kingdom of God i. e. the Kingdom of Grace For in that sence is that Phrase of the Kingdom of God in several places of Holy Writ to be understood and it plainly signifies that his Holy Gospel-Dispensation by which the Kingdom of God is meant was as extensive and mercifull as the Legal Dispensation and of which they were capable of being Members and having the Benefits and Blessings therein communicated consigned to them which is true not only in respect of their Innocency and Meekness for by reason of their Infantile State they were not capable of actual and voluntary Sins and so might in some sence be fit for his Kingdom of Glory but because also they were to be allowed an admission into his Covenant by virtue of an Imputation of their Parents Faith as the Jewish Children were upon that account capable of being Members of the Covenant and of receiving the Sign thereof Circumcision So that by this Argument which I doubt not is sufficiently founded upon this place of Holy Scripture whereby Christian Children have as true a right to Baptism under the Holy Gospel as the Jewish Children had to Circumcision under the Law It may appear there is no necessity for an express Place of Holy Scripture in so many words for the Baptizing Children when the reason of the thing is founded in Circumcision for which there was a Positive Command Now our Blessed Saviour substituted Baptism in the room of Circumcision for these two Reasons as may probably be conjectured 1. Because he was the Author of a more Mercifull Dispensation and that That might not be said of the Christian Parents which Zipporah said to Moses Exod. iv 25. Surely a bloody Husband art thou to me 2. Because he was the Author of a more extensive Dispensation and therefore he appointed a Sacrament or Seal of his Covenant that Females as well as Males might undergo Whereas under the Legal Dispensation Females were not capable of the Sign of the Covenant and because it was a more narrow Dispensation and likewise for St. Paul's reason the Man being the Head of the Woman 1 Cor. xj 3. she was included in or comprehended under the Man which there was no need she should be under the Evangelic Dispensation that admitting a Sign or Seal of the Covenant she was as capable of as the Man Thus as our Blessed Saviour took his Holy Supper from the Postcoenium or After-supper after the Passover which as I have found in some Authors was only a Sallad of Endive Lettuce and Succory so he took Baptism as the Sacrament of Initiating or Entring Disciples into his Evangelick Dispensation being well known among the Jews because it was the Ceremony for admitting Proselytes into their Church That by taking both Sacraments from known usages among the Jews he might the more easily and powerfully reduce and bring over his own beloved Country-men the Jews to his Holy Gospel and this being a more gentle way of Entrance into his Church might have a better Influence and be more probably successfull to

the Infants of the Jews and the concurrent usage of the first Planters of Christianity and their Successors in the early times of the Church that followed their Example I should not infer it from the Jews circumcising Children because tho' by the instance of circumcising Children under the old Law it hath been defended from several Objections brought to disprove it Yet I understand there is not a proper and infallible Consequence that whatsoever is not Irrational must instantly be that a thing is therefore true because a possibility it may be so according to the old Logical Maxim Ab esse ad posse non valet Consequentia or that what is allowed must therefore have an Institution An Obj. But when the Antipedobaptists object and alledge That tho' there be a correspondency of Analogy between Circumcision and Baptism yet is there no correspondency of Identity Tho' by way of Answer I own with the Learned Dr. Hammond Answ I know not the Sense of this latter Term and therefore understand not why they use it yet I own the agreeableness doth not suit with all Circumstances especially in one particular because I find Females were not nor could be circumcised there being no Foreskin of which there could be an abscission which is no more an Objection against Christian Baptism than the Jewish one I think it fitter to fix the agreeableness where there is greater reason for it and seeing as the Author to the Hebrews saith He tasted death for every Man Heb. ij 9. it was fit that he who upon that account was an universal Saviour for all Mankind should make choice of such a Sacrament of admission into his Church as should be correspondent with and agreeable unto both the Sexes An Obj. But under this Head I meet with another Objection of the Antipedobaptists which I am very willing to remove They seem to offer an Argument why circumcising should be more proper for Infants than baptizing them because Circumcision left a Character in the Flesh which being impressed on Children did its work when they were Adult and baptizing left no remanent Character But in Answer hereto this hath no force Answ if we lay the Foundation of the Christian Sacrament in that which was used to Jewish Proselytes which had no outward Mark on the Body for Water being fluid though it hath a Dew leaves no Impression or Sign but what is immediately transient and not in Circumcision which hath yet I will not wholly neglect it but if it be of any seeming strength own it to be allowed in some measure against our Principles but in truth I believe it hath not for though there be a small distinction in reference to Circumcision and Baptism the first Maims the second Cleanses the first Hurts the second Washes only yet that Objection is of no great strength in this concern for upon different Accounts but solely in respect of the Infants in regard of God and the Assembly there is nothing that differs for in regard of both both are alike Signs of the Covenant And whereas it differs in regard of the Infant sure it is that at the season of Administration it signifies not at all because then the Child hath not the power or faculty of understanding the Character and that he knows when he becomes Adult arises from Teaching and Discipline For the Character imprinted when he is circumcised hath no signification by Nature but only by the will of him that appoints it or because it is instituted else Ishmael was in Confederation and Covenant with God as well as Isaac and consequently the Infant can never know it by the force of natural Principles but as he is taught when he is at Age how he was used in his Infancy and the reason of it and therefore the Law that enjoyned Circumcision enjoyned Instruction and of that the Christian that hath Baptism when a Child is as capable as a Jewish Child that hath Circumcision in its Infancy and the diligence of the Church may be as exact in our days as the care was great in the Synagogue formerly An Obj. As for the Objection the Antipedobaptists make That Christ baptized none I Answer thereunto Answ That will hold against baptizing at all for the Text is clear Christ baptized not but his Disciples St. John iv 2. 1. The negative Argument holds on our side that his Holy Disciples so far as we can know never denyed the baptizing any Nor is it like they would when they were once reproved for doing something of such a Nature as you may read in the Holy Gospel as it can be reasonably supposed they did not Baptize any St. Mark x. 14. but indeed neither is conclusive However 2. That in the Holy Apostolic Age Infants did receive Baptism is more than probable by the Sense we have given of 1 Cor. vij 14. and then there will be no imaginable ground left but that the Holy Apostles did administer Baptism unto such or at least which is much the same did well like it and by such their approbation did strengthen the same And that we may confirm the Sense we have given of that Text of Holy Scripture and prove and make appear that what we offered is its true and proper meaning we come with our endeavours to give a satisfactory Answer unto the strongest Objection that ever was started by the most Learned of the Antipedobaptists or any of the Adverse Party CHAP. XVII An Answer to an Objection that would overturn the Sense delivered of 1 Cor. vij 14. THE same Ingenious Antipedobaptist makes this Objection to the Sense we have given of 1 Cor. vij 14. An Obj. That the word Holy there used is only such an Holiness as is opposite to some kind of Uncleanness which saith he I take to be this as if when they are said to be Holy it is no more than to say they are not Unclean viz. no Bastards To which I answer If 1 Cor. vij 14. Answ may seem rationally to be interpreted of Matrimonial Legitimacy and thereby a Priviledg of freeing from Bastardy then a fortiorl with more strength it may signifie a federal Holiness that gives them a Title unto the Sign of the Covenant and thereby makes them the Legimate Sons of Heaven by Adoption which is a greater Priviledg than a Matrimonial Legitimacy and this might be a greater Motive unto the Gentile World to be proselyted to Christianity as much as the Spiritual Legitimacy is to be preferred before the Matrimonial one and the Holy Scripture is to be taken in the more favourable and exalted sense rather than in an inferior or subordinate one and besides this is agreeable to the Jewish Custom where when any married to an Heathen the Male-Children after such a Marriage were circumcised whether the Children were born before or after such a Marriage which caused the Holy Apostle in allusion thereto to use that Phrase of Baptizing

told him I would speak more intelligibly and that by Foederal I meant a Covenant Holiness Now Children antecedent to exercise of Reason are not capable of a Personal Holiness which is a comprehensive Word for all the Graces of Christian Religion But here the Antipaedobaptists object object We read of two Persons endued with Holiness before they came to the use of Reason the Blessed Jesus and St. John the Baptist To which I answer answ We do not find that either of them acted any Divine Grace antecedent to Years of Discretion though they were sanctified from the Womb. After I had given this Sence I was told the reverend Dr. Hammond had given the same Interpretation Upon which I was pleased I had the concurring Judgment of so learned a Man Though I had not read it in him or any else to my remembrance but it was purely the suggestion of my own Mind assisted by the Divine Spirit who is never wanting with his Grace to help those that are sincerely employed in the Investigation of and Enquiry after Truth This is the main Substance so far as my Memory will reach of the many hours Discourse we had If I had had any Thought of printing it I would have transcribed it while fresh in my Memory and then possibly might have given a more particular Account but I hope this may be satisfactory being as much as I can remember Toward the end of our Discourse I told him if he could make appear he had answered any Argument of mine or properly stated any for his Principles I dare promise to yield the Cause but to this as I remember he returned no Answer After this was brought from 1 Cor. VII 14. I remember not I had any Answer but he did as he used make an Harangue to the People And when he could neither answer my Argument nor state any proper for his Principles he diverted to another Subject and would needs enter into a Dispute against Tiths Upon which I desired we might come to a better Conclusion about the Doctrine of Infant-Baptism but I could have no further Discours on that Subject But he requested me to shew him a place of Holy Scripture in the New Testament for Tiths which I told him was unreasonable to demand seeing our dear Redeemer and his blessed Disciples lived under Heathen Governors that were Enemies to Christianity and it could not be expected such as were Gentile Rulers should make Laws in Favour of the Christian Religion Yet St. Paul asserts the Reasonableness of Ministerial Maintenance 1 Cor. IX 14. when he saith He that preacheth the Gospel should live of the Gospel But when Constantine made Profession of Christianity he adopted Tiths into the Laws of the Empire and then Tiths were to be paid under as high an Obligation of Conscience as the Jews were under by virtue of their Judicial Law which was a part of their Theocracy or the Government of God himself So that a Man who after such an Obligation defrauds his Minister either in whole or part may be said to be guilty of the Sin of the Jews which they committed Mal. III. 8. and it is well if none commit it in our days who are said directly to rob God which they that love their Souls believ a God and a future Judgment may tremble at the Consideration of Which made me wonder Mr. M. C. should tell me he paid Tiths to a certain Clergy-man I think he said one of the Residentiaries of Chichester but he did it as he said against his Conscience Whereupon I told him he could not be an honest Man because he paid that voluntarily which was against his Conscience For any Man that payeth what he thinketh he ought not to do without force doth it voluntarily because he is under no Compulsion and he that consents to that which he believes a Sin though it be not yet is a Sin to him as the Author of The Whole Duty of Man informs us Dr. Tillotson in his Sermon at the Funeral of Mr. Gouge the best of Books as our learned and most rational Arch-bishop calls it Because God judgeth according to our Wills not according to our Understandings And now to pay my Adversary all the Respect he may look for and to do him all the Justice he can expect I believe from the Fame I have heard he could have disputed like a Scholar more coherently and congruously argued more closely and properly but without breach of Charity I think I may suspect he talked impertinently with a Design to put me in a Passion which I was somewhat aware of and therefore stood on my Guard and that I might not be guilty of self-confidence I implored the Divine Assistance to prevent my falling into the Indecencies and Disadvantages of Passion because I knew from my natural Temper I had some Inclination thereto and that makes me think he did not believ the Character I have been told he heard that Morning he came For enquiring whether I was a Man of Passion he was answered I was not easily disturbed on which I was told he shook his Head But I believe by his roving Talk he thought to raise a Passion for nothing disturbs a Man of Sens more than impertinent Talk and when that would not do he fell to the mean Art of Flattery by commending my Patience and told me after three hour's Discourse he had oft talked with Men of my Coat but before so long time had been turned out of Doors Upon which I told him his impertinent Discourse deserved such usage but I would not give him occasion against me For then I supposed he would go into the Town and boast what a Victory he had obtained But being he was there I would inflict that Penance on my self as to discourse till Bed-time if he would stay and then leav him but I would have the Courage to meet him next Morning For I now found where his Strength lay which was more in evading an Argument than in rightly stating one or standing to it and learnedly defending it After this Day 's tedious Work because of the Impertinency I was troubled with I saw him no more till New-Year's Day which hapned to be on a Sunday the Festival engaged me to say something of Infant-Baptism When Evening-Prayer was done I sent to Mr. M.C. where he held forth and I think it was the first Day he did so in my Parish He was so kind as to come and brought two of my Neighbours of his Opinion I treated them civilly and after a while desired them to withdraw because I had a Mind to speak with my Antagonist alone which they did when they were gon and none but he and my self I told him He might have the same suspicion of me I had of him that when he and I discoursed before a Company we might be tempted more to purchase Reputation than to maintain Truth but now it was not in the Devil's power to

Covenant of Grace less beneficial and extensive than the Covenant of Works and so consequently doth not allow as great Benefits Priviledges and Immunities to the Covenant of Grace which he doth to the Covenant of Works all which are the dangerous Consequences of Antipedobaptism as I hope I have sufficiently proved and convincingly made out and in the evincing or proving this Argument I have plainly shewed that we have the proper meaning of three Texts of Holy Scripture which I think to any Man of sense is as clear a Proof and as powerful an Evidence to engage our belief to the truth of any Doctrin propounded to us as if we had brought the positive and express Words of Holy Scripture which is as strong a conviction as any Man can with the least shew of reason desire So that if the true sense of the Holy Jesus's Commission to his Blessed Disciples be duly considered and that no other meaning can tolerably be put upon them being backt with the Authority of two other places of Holy Scripture and a threefold Cord is not easily broken no Antipedobaptist that is a Man of sense will hereafter press for a positive and direct place of Holy Writ because he hath no reason to expect a Tautology in Sacred Scripture to please an Humour or serve an Interest and because he will thereby weaken his Cause and then have great reason to be ashamed of if not repent for the Injury he doth his Principles and he will see the vanity of demanding express words for a confutation when he hath plain sense against him for the Holy Scriptures are to be expounded and interpreted by their Sense and not by their Sound by their Spiritual Meaning and not by the bare Words Syllables and Letters for they are best understood by their proper Design and Purport or a true Relation to their Coherence and Connexion with what preceeds and follows after And now give me leave to offer one thing that will confirm the sense of the Texts I have delivered and will also further shew how unreasonable and absurd weak and trifling the Antipedobaptists are for being so peremptory and positive in demanding an express place of Holy Scripture for the baptizing of Infants and this I will endeavour to evince from Customs among the Jews well known to all learned Men. Three things were required by the Jews to make a Male Proselyte of Righteousness Circumcision a kind of Purfication by Water which was an Allusion to Baptism and Oblation which was commonly two Turtles or Pidgeons To a Female Purification by Water and Oblation Now because the Jews since their Dispersion have neither Altar nor Sacrifice they say For the Male Circumcision and Purification by Water are sufficient For the Female Only Purification by Water In David's time they tell us many Thousands were added to the Church without Circumcision by Purification only Hence we may observe that a kind of Admission by Water into the Church was long in use among the Jews tho' it were not Sacramental till the Blessed Jesus's Institution therefore it may seem to be used by them because they looked for it as a Sacrament at the coming of the Messiah as is evident by their coming to St. John the Baptist not so much scrupling his Baptism as his Authority by what Power he baptized St. John i. 25. And they asked him and said unto him Why baptizest thou then if thou be not that Christ nor Elias nor that Prophet By which three different words they meant the Messiah because he was well known to the Jews by those Terms or Phrases to be foresignified so that had he owned himself for such they would not have doubted his Commission but Christ being plainly proved the Messiah he was Lord of the Sacrament as well as of the Sabbath and so had a sufficient Power to institute a New Sacrament and so substituted Baptism in the room of Circumcision which whosoever believes not to be as extensive as the other is so irrational as to make the holy Jesus not so merciful a Legislator as Moses which shews the unreasonableness and absurdity of demanding an express Text of holy Scripture for Infant Baptism which was the Truth to be cleared and I hope is sufficiently made apparent and manifest CHAP. XI Some general Observations upon the Sense and Expositions delivered LET me now offer some general Observations upon the Sense and Expositions of those Texts I have brought for the Proof hereof and I will begin with the Observation of Chemnitius in his Plea he makes against the Antipedobaptists of Germany * Ego sane qui simplicitatem amo etiamsi nec intelligam nec explicare possim quomodo Infantes qui Baptizantur credant judico tamen suffitire firmissima illa testimonia explicata Infantes esse Abaptizandos neque enim ab illis propterea discedendum etsi non possim vel intelligere velexplicare quomedo credant Infames Chemnit Exam. Conc. Trid. part 2. Tit. de Baptismo ad Canon 13. I do so truly love Simplicity and Truth that altho' I cannot tell how Children who are baptized believe yet I judge the Testimonies from Holy Scripture above-named most strong Evidences and a sufficient Proof for this Christian Practice neither ought Christians to depart from this Truth tho' I cannot understand or explain how Children believe In some things we should take St. Paul's Advice And become Fools that we may be wise 1 Cor. iij. 18. Obedience being more acceptable than burnt Offerings 1 Sam. xv 22. And we should offer up our Understandings to divine Revelation where there is clear Reason to submit to it Faith is the wisest and most well-pleasing Service we can offer to God Nescire ea quae docere non vult Magister maximus erudita est inscitia not to know those things our great Master would have us ignorant of is if I may so speak without a Solecism a learned Ignorance But prais'd be Heaven I have yet met with no Arguments of the Adversaries so strong as to need such an Apology or Plea We find not any Accusation laid to the Charge of Christianity by the Jewish or Pagan World upon this Account which certainly would have been done by some of the Enemies of our holy Religion if the Jewish Believer had not enjoyed the same Immunities when Christian that he did before Or if the first Planters of Christianity had preached the same Doctrin the Antipedobaptists do now how would the Enemies of our holy Religion have declamed against us and declared the Doctrin they preached was not the same Covenant God offered to the Father of the Faithful and the People of Israel because that included Father and Son as to the Covenant and the Sign that conveyed the Benefits of the Covenant An Obj. Now because the Antipedobaptists call upon us for an Example of any baptized in a gathered Church without Faith and that herein the holy Scripture is silent Answ To which I