Selected quad for the lemma: christian_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
christian_n	day_n	observe_v	sabbath_n	4,146	5	9.8777	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A57682	Infant-Baptism; or, Infant-sprinkling (as the Anabaptists ironically term it,) asserted and maintained by the scriptures, and authorities of the primitive fathers. Together with a reply to a pretended answer. To which has been added, a sermon preached on occasion of the author's baptizing an adult person. With some enlargements. By J. R. rector of Lezant in Cornwal.; Infant-Baptism.	J. R. (James Rossington), b. 1642 or 3.	1700 (1700)	Wing R1993; ESTC R218405	76,431	137

the Lord's Day That the Answerer did thus intend to represent me seems plain because after he had shewed Reasons for the first Day he concludes so we have a plain Precedent tho' not positive Prescript for the first Day but you want not only Precept but Precedent for Infant Baptism Page 3. Now the obvious meaning of my Discourse there is that the general Command of keeping God's Covenant in its Sign as also the general Command of observing the Day of the Sabbath one Day in seven is obligatory to Christians as well as it was to Abraham and his Seed The consideration what is the particular Sign or whether it be altered from what was first specified or whether with or without a Prescript being not there any part of the Argument its main strength depending on the general and primary Part of the Precepts the substance therefore of what I said is that the general and primary Command to Abraham thou and thy seed shall keep my Covenant in the sign of it is of perpetual Obligation as in the fourth Commandment the general and primary Command for sanctifying the Sabbath or keeping Holy one Day in seven obligeth now as well as then and that if Christians be discharged from observing Circumcision as the Sign and the last of seven which was appointed to be the Sabbath at first which are secondary positive Commands yet they are bound to observe a seventh Day and to keep God's Covenant in its Sign these things being of Primary obligation And now what is said to all this Why truly as to the general Command to Abraham above mentioned he passeth it over at least for the present and says nothing about it but as to the Sabbath doth he deny that the general Command of keeping one Day in seven Holy continues obligatory Not at all which he should have done if he would have opposed the force of my Argument What doth he then do Why he gravely says 1. He knows no positive Command for the change of the seventh Day to the first 2. He knows one Day of seven was commanded 3. He gives some account what we have to say for the change of the seventh Day to the first Lastly That he dares not blame the Sabbatarians By all this he confirms my Argument and that too more than it required And yet he hath so mannaged the matter blind-folding his ignorant followers that those who heard only his Papers when they were read apart in their Congregation doubtless thought that he answered what may be reasonably thought to call for an Answer He proceeds Page 3. to observe concerning the Covenant which he saith I have written several Pages about supposing that as Abraham's natural Seed were in Covenant and had right to Circumcision so the Seed of Believers are in Covenant and ought to be baptized Reply The word Natural is not in the Text neither was it put in by me 'T is rather their way to add to the Word the better to gloss over their Error Provided nevertheless it be not understood qua tale as natural I do admit it and own the whole it being that which I have fully demonstrated But so it is to be accounted for my Conclusion rather than for my Hypothesis However it be he makes two exceptions against it tho' it be very illogical to nibble as it were at the Conclusion whilst he tacitly grants the premises But it must be considered that he hath ingeniously acknowledged how unmeet and unfit he is to be a Respondent and he doth but go on to prove it The first Exception that he makes is That the Covenant in the 17 of Gen. is not a Covenant of Grace This indeed would overthrow the very foundation of my Discourse could it be proved and duly applied Nei-of which tho' he Acts here the Part of an Opponent is done by the pretended Answerer whereof he is so Conscious that he dares not depend upon it fearing he should be driven to his Shifts should we put the matter in Controversie to this issue And therefore that he may have a Loop-hole to escape he saith Page 8. neither indeed were it that Covenant meaning the Covenant of Grace would it as to that help you And he is not without a pretended Reason to help himself in it because forsooth Grace doth not go says he in Generation from Parent to Child Wisely argued 't is as much as to say speaking to the Point God is not a God to Abraham and his Seed too his Promise in that respect went beyond his Performance Grace cannot go by Covenant from Parent to Child And who are those that found descent of Grace in natural Generation or say that Believers Children are in this gracious state because they are believers Children that is by vertue of natural Generation We only say 't is by vertue of the Covenant the Promise that is made to the faithful and their Seed whereupon are grounded such gracious Priviledges and Perogatives descending from Parent to Child So that the Root being Holy the Branches are so too * Rom. 11.16 yea if but one of the Parents be a Believer † 1 Cor. 7.14 the Children are in a Holy Separate-State not common and unclean with the rest of the World but in such a State at least as puts them into a more advantagious and fairer Prospect of Heaven and greater probability of obtaining saving Grace than if they had been out of the Covenant that Holy State so as the Promise did not reach them Hence Christ speaking of the Jews Collectively calls them the Children of the Kingdom ‖ Matt. 8.12 the Apostle the Children of the Covenant * Act. 3.25 the Margin referring it to that of Gen. 12.3 which himself saith Page 5. respects the Covenant of Grace But to Reply to his Exception as he goes on to demonstrate it here as his manner is he Acts the Opponent rather than the Respondent and therefore thinks himself not concern'd to meddle with the Arguments produced by me tho' he pretended otherwise in his Preface and seemed to Promise to give Answer to such things as call for an Answer but since 't is not his mind I am content to answer his Allegations and moreover do purpose to take occasion from thence further to demonstrate the Identity of the Abrahamical and Evangelical Covenant that the Covenant Gen. 17. is a Covenant of Grace the more firmly to establish the Scripture Foundation touching God's Covenant with Abraham on which as himself says truly Page 3. I found the stress of my Discourse He says Page 4. that he looks upon this Covenant in the 17th of Gen. not to be the Covenant of Grace but a Covenant God made with Abraham respecting some temporal Blessings that God was pleased to bestow upon him and his natural Seed and the same with Deut. 29.1 and onward to the 9th but adds that he understands the Covenant in Gen. 12.3 and 18.18 to have a respect to the