Selected quad for the lemma: book_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
book_n	add_v	life_n	write_v	2,999	5	5.9232	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A47448	A counter-antidote, to purge out the malignant effects of a late counterfeit, prepared by Mr. Gyles Shute ... being an answer to his vindication of his pretended Antidote to prevent the prevalency of Anabaptism, shewing that Mr. Hercules Collins's reply to the said author remains unanswered : wherein the baptism of believers is evinced to be God's ordinance, and the baptized congregations proved true churches of Jesus Christ : with a further detection of the error of pedo-baptism : to which is added, An answer to Mr. Shute's reply to Mr. Collins's half-sheet / by Benjamin Keach.	Keach, Benjamin, 1640-1704.	1694 (1694)	Wing K54; ESTC R18808	95,415	63

Resurrection of our Saviour consists in dying to Sin and walking in newness of Life Which saith he St. Paul tells us is represented by the External ceremony of Baptism and rising out of his watry Grave a new creature Moreover unto these let me add what Dr. Tillotson the present Lord Arch-Bishop of Canterbury hath wrote see his Book stiled Sermons on several occasions 5th Edit Page 188 189. Speaking also of the same Text Rom. 6. 3 4. Antiently saith he those who were Baptised put off their garments which signified the putting off the Body of Sin and were immers'd and buried in the Water to represent the Death of Sin and then did rise up again out of the Water to signifie their entrance upon a new Life And to these customs the Apostle alludes when he says How shall we that are dead to Sin live any longer therein Know ye not that so many of us that were Baptized into Jesus Christ were Baptized into his Death c. Dr Duveil on Act. 8. Page 292 293. cites a most learned Anonimous French Protestant Writer in his answer to the famous Bishop of Meaux speaking thus viz. 't is most certain saith he that Baptism hath not hitherto been Administred otherwise than by sprinkling by the most of Protestants But truly this sprinkling is an abuse thus custom which without any accurate examination saith he they retained from the Romish Church in like manner as many other things makes their Baptism very defective it corrupteth its institution and ancient use and that nearness of similitude which is needful should be betwixt it and Faith repentance and resurrection This reflection of Mr. B●ssuet deserveth to be seriously considered to wit saith he that this use of plunging hath continued for the space of a whole thousand and three hundred years hence we may understand that we did not carefully as it was meet examine things which we have received from the Romish Church Calvin also saith l. 4. c. 16. that Baptism is a form or way of burial and none but such as are already dead to sin or have repented from dead works are to be buried But now say we sprinkling and pouring is not the form of Baptism because not the form of a Burial nor can Infants be the subjects of it because as the learned observe Baptism is a Symbol of present not of future regeneration 't is an outward sign of that Death unto sin which the party Baptised passed under then or ought to have had before Baptis'd they then professed themselves to be Dead to sin i. e. when they were Buried with Christ in their Baptism for the argument of the Apostle lies in that respect How shall we that are Dead to sin live any longer therein know you not that so many of us who were Baptized into Christ were Baptized into his Death both in sign and signification And therefore as Dr. Sherlock says they rise out of that watry Grave as new born Creatures it denotes not only what they should be hereafter but what they were actually at that time So that as this Text and arguments drawn there from utterly condemn sprinkling and pouring as that which is not Christs true Baptism so it excludes Infants from being the true subjects thereof because in them appears no such Death to Sin nor can they be said to come out of that Watry Grave as new born Creatures I will only quote one Author more and proceed and that is learned Zanchy on Col. 2. 12. There are saith he two parts in regeneration i. e. Mortification and Vivification that is called a burial with Christ this a Resurrection with Christ the Sacrament of both these is Baptism in which we are overwhelmed or buried and after that do come forth and rise again It may not be said truly but sacramentally of all that are Baptised that they are buried wich Christ and raised with him but only of such who have true faith Thus Zanchy Now Sir see what a stir and pudder as you call it these Pedo-Paptists make on this Text Rom. 6. 3 4. Col. 2. 12. to prove Baptism is Dipping or a figure of a burial Would you not have us give the true sense of the Word wherein we concur with all learned Men I hope by this time Reader thou art fully satisfied that this Man hath said nothing to weaken our Arguments or Grounds for Dipping tho' ' twice as much we have said on this Account in that Treatise called The Rector Rectified but this shall suffice here as to the Mode of Baptizing CHAP. II. Wherein Mr. Shutes Reply to Mr. Hercules Collins Answer about habitual Faith is considered detected and clearly refuted proving that Infants are not required to believe nor are they without a miracle capable so to do nor are they intended in those places of Scripture that Enjoyns Faith on the Adult BEfore I proceed to take notice of what this Man hath said about Infants having habitual Faith I shall note two or three things by the Way 1. 'T is very remarkable and worthy the Readers observation to see how the asserters of Infant Baptism differ among themselves about that Faith they suppose to be in Infants for as I noted in by Answer to Mr. Smythies Cold resined Page 144 some of them as Thomas Aquinas asserts They have the Faith of the Church that being intailed upon all who are within the Pale thereof others say they have the Faith of the Gossips or Sureties thus the Church of England c. Musculus seems to assert they have an Imputed Faith Mr. Blake intimates They have a Dogmatical Faith only Mr. Baxter would have it be a saving Faith but does not tell us how it agrees or differs from the Faith of the Adult some as Mr. Danvers observes say 'T is a Physical some a Metaphysical Faith some a hyperphysical Faith Some say They are born Believers which proceeds from their Patents being in the Covenant and being Believers but this is to intail Grace to Nature and Regeneration to Generation nay and to assert all are not Children of Wrath by nature or as they are born and come into the World others say They are made Believers by Baptism that Ordinance conveying grace as Mr. Rothwell This Man asserts they have habitual Faith the like do the Athenian Society seem to intimate But which of all these shall we give credit to The Truth is they all speak without Book having no ground from Gods word to say what they do 2. We desire it may be considered and carefully heeded lest we still are abused as Mr. Collins hath been that we stedfastly believe and readlly grant it as an Article of our Faith That all Infants are under the Guilt and stain of original Sin as they come into the World and that no Infant can be saved but through the Blood and Imputation of Christs righteousness And also we do believe That all those dying Infants who are ●aved God doth in some way or

reflects upon Mr. Collins because he calls Infants ignorant Babes See his words viz. He seems to make the ignorance of young Infants to be too hard a match for the Wisdom and Power of God and renders Infants wholly uncapable of receiving the Seeds of Grace Answer Doth Mr. Collins question the wisdom and power of God because he affirms Infants are morally uncapable of those habits of Faith which are in Adult persons What cannot God do no doubt he that placed in Infants the Seed or habit of natural knowledg will affections c. can inspire Infants with the habits of Divine Grace nay and as easily bring those Natural and Divine habits in their Infancy when infused into Acts and Exercise also according to their distinct natures and Operations as in the Adult But for any to assert that God doth this is the business and 't is that which we do deny and say God infuses no such habits into any Infants that we know of who are out of a moral capacity to Act and improve those habits according as they dispose incline and impower all that have them 2. And let it be also considered whether this Man doth not go about to limit the holy one of Israel When he argues that because God saves and sanctifies the Adult by infusing the habits of Grace into them c. that therefore God must that way and no other sanctify and apply the Blood and righteousness of Christ to dying Infants We know that Men can differently apply the same medicine to a sick person and yet it shall have the same effect in curing So say we may God some other way apply Christs merits to dying Infants and sanctify them which we know not of besides his infusing the same habits which believers are inspired withall who is a free agent and whose ways are wonderful and past finding out CHAP. III. Proving that Infants of Believers as such are not in the Covenant of Grace God made with Abraham and that there was a twofold Covenant made with Abraham one that peculiarly referred to his Natural Seed as such and the other to his Spiritual Seed as such with a full Answer and Confutation of what Mr. Shute hath said in his last reply to Mr. Collins and to Benjamin Keach in his Treatise The Ax lay'd to the Root about the Covenant of Grace and that of Circumcision I Shall pass by several things in your Answer because they are over and over fully answered in our late Treatise wrote on this Controversie as that in page 44. of your Book concerning Federatal Holiness from 1 Cor. 7. 14. See our Answer to the Athenian Society and Rector Rectified and that in page 71. about the promise Acts 2. 38. But to proceed This first of all the Reader is desired to consider of and that carefully that our Adversary hath dealt very unfairly with my Reverend Brother Collins I hope it is through his Ignorance or great oversight viz. first he positively concludes and takes it for granted that Mr. Collins hath endeavoure● 〈◊〉 ●rove the Covenant of Grace which God made with or rather promis`d to Abraham is dissannulled and taken away Secondly that Mr. Collins by his often repeated distinction of the Covenant of peculiarity God made with Abraham doth mean and intend the Covenant of Grace when this is as far from his intention and expressions any where in his Book or Judgment as the East is from to the West I have seen many Men undertake in Controvertible Points but never saw any except one abuse his Antagonist worse nor after such a sort 't is evident there was two Covenants contained in those transactings of God with Abraham one peculiarly respected only his Natural Seed or Off-spring as such which Mr. Collins calls the Covenant of peculiarity as others have done before him which Circumcision was a Sign of and this he hath proved was not the Covenant of Grace which God promised to Abraham for the Covenant of Grace God Promised to him did not peculiarly relate to Abrahams Natural Seed that were Elect Persons but to all the Gentiles also who believe in Christ for that comprehends none but the Elect or the true Spiritual Seed of Abraham as such Reader if you read Mr. Colline first Book or his answer to Mr. Shute you will find this is as plainly layd down by him as any thing could well be I am afraid that this Man`s over heated Zeal would not suffer him distinctly to read over and seriously weigh what Mr. Collins hath wrote and said upon this account before he attempted to write an Answer for thro' this gross mistake as one that hath read Mr. Shutes Book observed and told me he hath wrote near twenty Leaves to no purpose i. e. to prove that which no body denys viz. that the Covenant of Grace God promised to Abraham is not dissolved cast out or disannulled but abides the same forever which we all as stedfastly believe as Mr. Shute therefore he has but set up here on this respect a Man of Straw and then fights with it And upon search and examination of Mr. Shutes reply I see that what the Gentleman told me is very true and that those Leaves do begin about 74th page and so on And in the said 74th page Mr. Shute begins with this easie assay viz. To prove the Covenant of Grace God made with or rather promised unto Abraham abideth for ever and ever he urgeth that blessed Text Psalm 89. 34 35 c. My Covenant I will not break nor alter the thing that in gone out of my Lips once have I sworn by my my Holiness that I will not lye unto David c. Do we say or Imagin that the promise of the Covenant of Grace God made to Abraham is abrogated God forbid for that stands firm for ever and ever as the Spring of all our comfort and consolation in Life and Death being confirmed by the Oath of God who cannot lie Heb. 6. 13. 15 16 17 18. and so doth the Invisible and Mystical Church or Body of Christ remain and abide for ever also against which the Cates of Hell shall never prevail But the question is viz. Whether or no there was not a Covenant of Peculiarity made with Abraham and his Natural Seed or Off-spring as such viz a Covenant that only did belong or appertain to the Jews in which no-believing Gentiles nor their Seed as such were concerned of which Circumcision was a Sign for this is that which we affirm Now Reader observe Mr. Collins's Argument and Mr. Shutes Reply in his 76. page viz. The Natural Branches are broken off Ergo Childrens visible in Covenanting is repealed thus Mr. Collins Take the Answer as followeth Now Sir you shall see saith Mr. Shute That this doth no more prove that the Children of believing Parents were cast out of the everlasting Covenant which God made with Abraham than c. Answer By the Everlasting Covenant you mean the Covenant