Selected quad for the lemma: act_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
act_n	faith_n	heart_n	purify_v	2,568	5	11.6551	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A79560	The divine warrant of infant-baptism. Or VI. arguments for baptism of infants of Christians. viz. I. Infants of Christians are rightly judged in the promise of propriety in God. p.1. II. Infants of Christians are rightly judged to be of the church. p.20. III. Infants of Christians are rightly judged meet for baptisme. p.25. IV. The sealing of the promise to infants of visible professors, hath been the practise of the universal church ever since God added seals to the covenant. p.30 V. The profit of baptism is great to the infants of Christians. p.36. VI. The promise was sealed by the initiall sacrament aforetime to infants of visible professors, both Jews and of the Gentiles. p.38. / By John Church, M.A. minister of Seachurch, in the county of Essex.	Church, Josiah.	1648 (1648)	Wing C3987; Thomason E441_9	42,925	58

indifferent nor things strangled and blood sinful And if by unclean are not meant only bastards by holy are not meant only legitimate Argum. 4 IIII. The Scripture denominates not any holy for legitimation only Isaiah 52.1.2 Eccles 9.2 Tit. 1 15 Mat. 15 26 but all that have not besides it foederal holiness it denominates unclean yea dogs Therefore the Apostle denominates not children holy for legitimation only Argum. 5 V. Interpreting holiness to be legitimation only renders the Apostle an underminer of the priviledg which the children of Christians have above the children of Infidels from the time of the birth Isaiah 61.8 9 and which they ought to be acknowledged to have and a giver of no more to the one then to the other for children of Infidels born in marriage are matrimonially holy Hac ratione nihil plus tribueret liberis fidelium quam infidelium Ames Infidelium filij si ex matrimonio procreentur legitimi sunt Pet. Martyr But the Apostle was no under-miner of the priviledges of the faithful or of their seed therefore he meant not legitimation only Argum. 6 VI. If by holiness is meant legitimation only the Apostle was mistaken about the question proposed which was not whether their living together were not adulterous they being married each to other For 1. Such a doubt could not arise in any having any use of reason all know that living in marriage is not living in adultery and that children begotten in marriage are not bastards 2. It is granted by those that interpret the holiness to be legitimation only that they believed that their children were not bastards how then could they doubt that their living in marriage together was adulterous It is easier for a Christian married with an Infidel to be assured that the Infidel is his wife then to know that the children that he hath by her are his children The Question was Whether a Christian might with a safe conscience have such intimate familiarity with an Infidel as living together in marriage required the Infidel being a professed enemy of Christianity For this was dangerous for the Christian and seemingly inconsistent with precepts given to Christians to have no familiarity with Idolaters but to seperate from them yea from scandalous Christians though orthodox with whom familiarity might seem in that regard more tolerable The answer is The Christian having a lawful calling being in marriage with the Infidel might continue with the Infidel for the Christian had this priviledg by faith and the Covenants that he or she in this case should not be infidellized by the Infidel but preserved yea the Infidel was in some sort sanctified in the Christian for the children born of them were not Infidels but Christians as aforetime the children of Jews were Jews and not Heathens If the answer were that the Christian might live with the Infidel because the Infidel is legitimate by marriage else the children were bastards c. and nothing else were intended it had been no more then that a Christian might live with an Infidel as one Infidel with another and familiarity with Idolaters may be sinful in Christians and pernicious to them though no adultery be committed Such interpreters make the Apostle sectari minutias Object If foederal holiness be meant and the Sanctification of the Infidel in the Christian be a consequent of faith and the Covenant then a believing adulterer may live with an Infidel adulteress For where the cause of sanctification is the effect will follow Posita causa ponitur effectum Answer 1. This inference hath no proportion to the case about which the Apostle speaks which was the case of a Christian in marriage with an Infidel which was in those times common one imbracing Christianity and the other continuing in infidelity If a Question had been propounded whether a believing Adulterer might live with an Infidel Adulteress he would have answered silentio et contemptu 2. He meant not that faith and the Covenant exclusively were the cause of the sanctification of the Infidel in the Christian 1 Tim. 4.4 As where he saith every creature of God is good if it be received with thanksgiving c. He means not that it is good without a legal right to it though it be received with thanksgiving which is usual in thieves and robbers but in the case of civil right only Zech. 11.3 One cause produceth not the effect una causa non producit effectum 3. It supposes a believing Adulterer living with an Infidel Adulteress which is not to be supposed for a beleever may fall into that sin but living in it is inconsistent with faith Acts 15 9. which purifies the heart with Ecclesiastical Discipline which if despised the despiser is to be accounted an Heathen Mat. 18.17 Job 31.11 and not a Christian and with civil Laws for it is an heynous crime to be punished by the Judges And if a defect of these happen the Word of God which shall judg men at the last day judgeth such to be without Rev. 22.15 and such are to be accounted Infidels no l●ss then the Infidels with whom they so impurely live Argum. 6 VI. God never made a visible partition wall between the Parent and the Infant In the first Covenant which was of works the parent and the infant were comprehended alike and the second which was of grace was in this Gen. 17.7 like the former the seed was named with the parent in the most eminent promise of it and the infants of visible professors had it sealed to them by the initial Sacrament so soon as seals were added to it and in the present dispensation of it Acts 2.39 1 Cor. 7.14 the Apostles judged the parents and the children alike in it and Christians in their days doubted not of the holiness of their children and it is the doctrine of the Scripture that the off-spring is blessed with the parent Isaiah 61.8.9 and so to be accounted of all until a visible breaking off for Apostacy in those of riper years In adultis incipit omne malum Also when for a violation of Covenant by those of riper years there hath been a visible breaking off the manner hath been to reject the infant with the parent Adam and his were rejected alike for violation of the first Covenant and the Jews and theirs for the transgression of the second Therefore the infants are rightly judged in the promise with their parents Argum. 7 VII Threatnings extend to infants of Covenant-breakers Isaiah 13 18 Iob 20.19 Exodus 20.5 Hosea 2 4. c. 9.16 c 13 16 Ezekiel 9 6 Psalm 109 Deut. 7.9 Psa 103 17.18 to the fruits of their womb with their children of riper years Therefore the promises are rightly judged to extend to infants of such as continue in the Covenant for the Scripture holds forth the goodness of God to be of greater extent to them which keep his Covenant and theirs then his severity against them