Selected quad for the lemma: law_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
law_n	heart_n	put_v	write_v	8,223	5	5.9548	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A74998	Some baptismal abuses briefly discovered. Or A cordial endeavour to reduce the administration and use of baptism, to its primitive purity; in two parts. The first part, tending to disprove the lawfulness of infant baptism. The second part, tending to prove it necessary for persons to be baptized after they believe, their infant baptism, or any pre-profession of the Gospel notwithstanding. As also, discovering the disorder and irregularity that is in mixt communion of persons baptized, with such as are unbaptized, in church-fellowship. By William Allen.	Allen, William, d. 1686.	1653 (1653)	Wing A1075; Thomason E702_12; ESTC R10531	105,249	135

to this God puts his Laws in the minds of men and writes them in their hearts Heb. 8.10 which implies that he did not do so under the Old Testament or at least but very little comparatively Again Joh. 4.23 But the hour cometh and now is when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and truth implying that thither-unto or until then they had not so worshipped him or at least that there was but little of that found under the Legal Dispensation And according to the nature of this Ministration children voyd of understanding and faith were capable of holy things as Circumcision and Passover and the like and consequently of the ends and benefits of them in part upon a literal administration and reception of them Rom. 3.1 2. Exod. 12.44 48. But the case is far otherwise now under the Gospel which is the Ministration of the Spirit 2 Cor. 3.6 It is not the work done but the manner of doing of it in knowledg faith and fear of the Lord that entitles men unto the benefit and blessing of Gospel-Ordinances for so the Apostle affirms concerning Baptism it self 1 Pet. 3.21 when he says that it saves us now as the Ark did some in the days of Noah not saith he the putting away of the filth of the flesh i. e. not by the external letter of the Ordinance but the answer of a good Conscience towards God i.e. when accompanyed with such a frame of mind and conscience as does answer God in his intendments of Grace in that Ordinance So again Col. 2.12 when the Apostle saith that they were buryed with Christ in Baptism and that they were therein also risen with him yet he says that thus they were by the faith of the operation of God who raised Christ from the dead meaning such a faith as was produced by the operation of God or else such as had the operation of God in raising up Christ for its object however it was by the interveniency of this Faith that they became both buryed and risen with Christ in Baptism Now Infants as they are not capable of acting this Faith or making this answer of a good Conscience so they are not capable of those blessings and benefits intended by God in Baptism in as much as he hath suspended the donation thereof upon these in conjunction with Baptism And where any effect depends upon the taking place of more causes then one as it does in the case in hand it is not any one of those causes alone that will produce that effect 3. How ever the ends of Circumcision were attainable though administred to Infants in those respects before mentioned with their fellows yet doubtless the Ordinance it self was so much the less spiritual and so much the more weak and savoring of the Legal Ministration and suited to the then childish condition of the Church because administration thereof was made to Infants This I conceive might easily be made out from several of those rational principles consonant to the Scripture upon and from which I have already evinced Baptism to be more spiritual profitable and edifying when administred to men professing the Faith then when applyed to children Therefore doubtless what the Apostle speaketh of the Commandment in general meaning the Law which as he says made nothing perfect how that it is disanulled for the weakness and unprofitableness of it Hebr. 7.18 19. may well be understood to comprehend even this part of the Commandment also which enjoyned an Ordinance one or more to be administred to little children And how ever such a mean low way and method of enjoying Ordinances as was accommodated to the capacity of babes was not uncomely whilest the Church was in the condition of children as the Apostle speaks Gal. 4.3 no more then it is for a child whilest he is a child to speak and act as a child yet to retain this poor and low and barren way of administring a Gospel-Ordinance to Infants now the Church is raised both in capacity and administration to its manly condition is as incongruous and uncomely as it is for one still to speak and act as a child when he is become a man By this time I hope it appears that there is not the same reason why Baptism administred to Infants should reach the ends thereof as there was why Circumcision though applyed to Infants formerly should attain its end For the nature of the two Ordinances differ the terms of their Administration differ and the respective capacities of the Church then and the Church now differ and according to that rule in Logick Where the things themselves differ there the reasons of those things differ also ARGUM. III. 3. MY next Argument shall be taken from the different nature of the two Ministrations of the Old and New Testaments as rendering Infant-Baptism in that precise consideration of it as applyed to Infants disagreeable to the Ministration of the Gospel but withall more correspondent with the Ministration of the Law Therefore I thus further argue If Infant-Baptism be disagreeable to the Ministration of the New Testament then Infants ought not to be baptized The reason hereof is because so far as either this or any other way or practice does comply with the Legal Ministration and disagree with the Evangelical so far it does cross or oppose the design of God in changing the Ministration of the Law for that of the Gospel and consequently carries in it a spirit of antipathy against the very spirit of the Gospel Ministration This if it were not sufficiently evident of it self might receive abundant confirmation from such Scriptures as these and what might fairly and plainly be deduced from them Joh. 4.23 24. 2 Cor. 3.6 Gal. 4.9 Col. 2.8 17. Heb. 7.18 19. 8.6 7. 9.9 10 11. 10.1 But I presume of every mans plenary satisfaction as to this Therefore I proceed But Infant-Baptism is disagreeable to the Ministration of the New Testament Assumption 1. The truth hereof in the first place is conspicuous and perceptible by what hath been made good in our former Argument For there we proved Baptism as administred to Infants less edifying as to the several ends of it then when administred unto Believers and if less edifying then the more suitable and conformable to the Ministration of the Law which was a Ministration of less light and edification and to the same proportion disproportionate to the Ministration of the Gospel which is a Ministration of a greater light and a more rich edification 2. I might in the second place well suppose Infant-Baptism to savor strongly of the Legal Ministration because the principal Arguments produced in defence thereof are such as do arise out of and are deducted from the example of Infant-Circumcision a principal part of the Legal Ministration and from that analogy and proportion that is supposed to be between them and not only so but likewise because such Arguments and Pleas tend to draw down this

not to be found in the Baptism of Infants And the reason hereof is because Intants neither do not can put on Christ in their Baptism i. e. make an actual declaration and profession unto the world that they own and acknowledg Christ to be come in the flesh to be the Son of God and Saviour of the World to be their Lord and Lawgiver as they do who put him on in Baptism If the Apostle had intended to have expressed the incorporation of Infants into Christ by Baptism sure he would have said that Christ had put them on or had put himself upon them and not that they had put him on or else that they were thereby put into Christ by their Parents that offered them to Baptism or by him who did baptize them and not that they themselves had put him on as now the words carry it seeing they are onely passive in their Baptism But now the words of the Apostle are express that as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have that is you even you your selves have put on Christ And therefore in as much as Infants cannot with any propriety or truth of speaking be said to put on Christ in Baptism neither can they any whit more properly or truly be said to be baptized into Christ because the Apostle makes the one to wit the putting on of Christ as general and universal as the other viz. the being baptized into Christ Against this whole Argument Object which concludes Infact-Baptism unlawful because the ends of Baptism are better attained in the Baptism of Believers c. it is objected That this might have been an Argument as well against the circumcising of Infants under the Law as against the Baptism of Infants under the Gospel because there is the same reason to suppose that Circumcision should have less answered the ends thereof when applyed to Infants as there is to conceive that Baptism should less answer its ends when it is applyed to Infants and yet we well know that this was no bar to Infant-Circumcision then and therefore why should it be any against their Baptism now To this I answer by way of negation Answ 1 or denyal of that supposition upon which the Objection stands and wherein the utmost strength of it lies which is this viz. That there is the same reason to suppose that Circumcision should less answer the ends thereof as administred to Infants then it would have done in case it had been applyed to men of riper years as there is to conceive the like thing in the Administration of Baptism to Infants I say I do deny there is the like reason for the one as there is for the other and that upon these grounds 1. There is no such accommodation to or correspondence between Baptism in the letter of it and its spiritual ends when applyed to Infants as there was between Circumcision in the letter of it and its more spiritual ends because the proper end of Circumcision being by Gods own appointment for a token or sign of the Covenant between God and that people to whom it was enjoyned Gen. 17.11 this token or sign was not any transient thing I mean as touching the letter of it that did pass away in the acting of it but was permanent and lasting so that the sign it self and the Covenant to which it related remained in the flesh of him who was circumcised all the days of his life as visible to him and as capable of improvement to spiritual ends many years after it was made as if it had been but newly acted and done before his eyes My Covenant saith God shall be in your flesh i.e. remain there for an everlasting Covenant Genes 17.13 Whereas Baptism is a transient act and leaves no such visible impression in the Infant as matter of memorial signification or instruction to him when he comes to be a man as that of Circumcision did so that we see there is not the like reason but an apparent difference in this respect Nor can it be truly said That either the report of Parents or Neighbors or any Parish or other Register is or can be equivalent unto the sign in the flesh before mentioned as to the ascertaining of men and women of their being baptized in their Infancy 1. Because there is not the like certainty nor satisfaction in reports and hear-says as there is in seeing and beholding which difference notwithstanding we have in these two cases in hand 2. Because opportunity of such satisfaction as these reports c. are capable of giving may be cut off by the death or other removal of such from whom it is to be received or else by the removal of such Infants themselves into places far remote before ever they come to age upon occasion whereof it may well fall out many times that persons may be at a great loss as touching any knowledg they have or can get whether they were ever baptized or no which inconveniency was not incident to Infants Circumcision And therefore in as much as the spiritual influence and operation of such an Ordinance upon the heart of a man when he comes to age which he received in his minority as touching his personal interest in it does depend upon his knowledg of the thing done as to matter of fact therefore by how much more evident and indubitable satisfaction hereabout was exhibited in and by that durable sign in the flesh which was made by Circumcision above what is to be had by any means to assure persons at age of their being baptized in their Infancy by so much the more did Infant-Circumcision answer the ends of that Ordinance above what Infant-Baptism can be so much as supposed to answer the ends of this 2. I answer yet further That the end of Circumcision though administred to Infants was better attained then the end of Baptism can be when it is so applyed because much of the benefit of Circumcision did accrue to the circumcised upon the work done without respect to any inward qualification or endowment whereas the benefit of Baptism does not accrue meerly upon the work done but is suspended upon the knowledg faith c. of him who is baptized The Righteousness of the Law of which Circumcision was a principal part speaketh on this wise The man that doth those things shal live by them saith the Apostle by way of contradistinction from the voyce of the Gospel or the Righteousness of Faith Rom. 10.5 And again The Law is not of Faith i. e. the Promises many of them at least were not suspended on mens believing but the man that doth them shall live in them Gal. 3.12 Hereupon that Ministration is called the Ministration of the letter 2 Cor. 3.6 the Ordinances thereof carnal Ordinances and such as did not make perfect as pertaining to the Conscience Heb. 9.9 10. The Apostle to shew wherein the Gospel or new Covenant exceeds the Law or old one saith that according