Selected quad for the lemma: church_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
church_n	abraham_n	promise_n	seed_n	3,082	5	8.1194	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A77753	A iustification of two points now in controversie with the Anabaptists concerning baptisme: the first is, that infants of Christians ought to be baptized, with grounds to prove it, and their objections answered. With a briefe answer to Master Tombes twelve doubtfull arguments against it in his exercitation about infants baptisme. Also a briefe answer to Captaine Hobsons five arguments in his falacy of infants baptisme, being (as he saith) that which should have beene disputed by him, and Mr. Knowles, and some others; against Mr. Calamy and Mr. Cranford. The second point is, that the sprinckling the baptized more agreeth with the minde of Christ then dipping or plunging in or under the water: with grounds to prove it, and a briefe auswer [sic] to what they have to say against it. / By T.B.	Bakewell, Thomas, b. 1618 or 19.	1646 (1646)	Wing B534; Thomason E316_23; ESTC R5282	32,062	32

upon them to baptize them that they may be known from Turks and Heathens Now if parents had not this power then no Kingdom could ever receive the Gospel and be a holy Nation as the Jew 's was and so their priviledge would exceed the priviledge of all Christian Kingdoms for there will be children to the end of the world for till then they will marry and be given in marriage till the last day Then as Abraham and the Jews received their Religion for themselves and their children so must Christians and set the token of the Covenant upon them as they did But then for the other conversion which makes them fit for the other Sacrament the Lords Supper it is not in the power of the parents although they can bring them up in the Christian Religion yet they cannot convert them from the state of corruption to the state of grace and although they be able to discern when they conform to the true Religion yet they cannot see into their souls whether there be true Faith in them that new name written none knows but he that hath it then although it be said Teach and baptize all Nations yet it is not said Teach and give the Lords Supper to all Nations for it is not in the power of man to teach effectually the heart of another nor to know when they are so taught none but himself knows whether he discern the Lords Body or whether he seed by Faith or remember the Death of Christ or whether he have truely examined himself therefore the worthinesse or unworthinesse lies upon himself and the charge also Let every man examine himself and so let him eat Neither must any baptized Christian be kept from the Lords Supper unlesse he by the leaven of errour seek to undermine the truth of Christian Religion or by prophanesse trample the Christian profession underfoot Matth. 16.12 1 Cor. 5.12 13. 2 Cor. 2.5 6. Gal. 5.9 10. and then it must be done in a legall way not by the Minister alone nor by the Congregation alone but by the Eldership the offence being scandalous So then the first conversion being in the power of the parents and potentially in the children already they may and ought to be baptized But then he saith The Baptism of infants cannot be a Baptism of Faith and Repentance and therefore it is not the Baptism of Christ. But in regard he hath no proof for it I refer him to my answer to the second and third Objection and conclude that Baptism of infants is not excluded from the Commission of Christ and it is a Baptism unto Faith and Repentance and therefore they ought to be baptized His fourth Argument He saith Baptism of infants doth cause inconveniences in the Church first because we make them Members of the Church before they be called of God which is contrary to these Scriptures 1 Cor. 1.1 and 2 Cor. 1.1 I answer Though the Corinthians were sanctified in Christ Jesus and called to be Saints yet all in the Church were not such for there was heresies and prophanesse the incestuous person was not cast out and the Lords Supper was prophaned and more carnall men then spirituall and many divisions some of Paul and some of Apollo Then Were these all Saints No. He writes in the judgement of charity and directs his Epistle chiefly to such as were Saints indeed so then in the judgement of charity we should think the best of those in the Church that use the means to attain salvation and so you may judge of infants who are brought up in the true Religion And although Heathens must have a call to Christianity yet when Christians are called their children need not to tarry for such a call because they have no false Religion to be called from Neither was it any inconvenience to the Jews that their infants had the token of the Covenant upon them before their calling but rather a grace and glory to their Church and a benefit to those infants to engage them to obedience of that Covenant when they came to age of which they had received a token So all the people and the Publicans justified Christ when they heard him being baptized of John when as the Pharisees and Lawyers rejected the Counsell of God against themselves being not baptized of him Luke 7.29 30. Then as we would have them justifie Christ and not to reject his Counsell let them be baptized But he saith Another inconvenience it is to have our infants baptized because it will intaile priviledges to us in reference to generation But to these priviledges he saith They must be sanctified quoting that place I answered already 2 Cor. 1.1 Yet I say they are sanctified or set apart from Turks and Heathens for the Christian Church else were they unclean but now they are holy 1 Cor. 7.14 then they ought to be baptized But he hath a third inconvenience and that is If infants be baptized it will make a separation and distraction in Christs conjunction and that is to baptize such as they will not give the Lords Supper nor admit them nor others to break Bread Christ would have them to do both and they will admit such as cannot do both But he hath no reason why some may not do some duties when they are disabled to do others and therefore I refer him to my answer to the tenth Objection and hither too for all his inconveniences I see no good Argument to keep infants of Christians from Baptism Fifthly He saith The baptizing of infants doth directly crosse the proceedings both in the time of the Law and in the time of the Gospel and therefore it ought not to be done for they did all both under the Law and in the time of the Gospel by a rule else Lot might have pleaded the same priviledge with Abraham being a Beleever as well as he and Ishmael who was no Beleever in God yet he was circumcised I answer The promise to Abraham was that his seed in Isaac should be the visible Church who onely should have the token of the Covenant and this excludes Lot from this priviledge and for Ishmael he being one of his Family by vertue of another command was circumcised when the Lord would have Abraham to make his own house an example or a patern for all his posterity to circumcise in his house Gen. 17.12 13. But saith the Lord I will establish my Covenant with Isaac ver 21. Onely Strangers had this benefit by living amongst them So then by the like reason our children although as bad as Ishmael may be baptized when as some true Beleevers amongst the Turks may not be baptized except they come to us and make an open profession of the Christian Religion then they may have this benefit amongst us But have not we a rule for what we do when as the command of Christ is our direction who commands all Nations to be taught and baptized and if he command it he will

Plural Number then there is more Baptismes then one but Paul speaks of Baptismes in the plural number Hebr. 6.2 therefore there is more then one I answer It is like Paul speaks of the outward and inward Baptisme and the gift of miracles and cals them altogether Baptismes in the plural number or it may be he puts the sufferings of Christians and washing their corps after death which are called Baptismes because the very next thing Paul speaketh of is the resurection howsoever if Paul here speaks of divers kinds of baptismes which it is most likely he doth then this Text will not warrant a second baptisme with water but Paul here speakes of the Doctrine of Baptisme and not of the forme therefore it makes nothing for the outward forme to re-baptize them againe with water Now as I was desired I shall give a brief Answer to Captaine Hobsons five Arguments First saies he the Baptisme of Infants doth directly deny Christ to be come in the flesh because it keepes on foot that which was before Christ and ended by Christ as come in the flesh That is saith he the Covenant God made with Abraham which ran in the flesh and was intailed to Generation Gen. 17.7 12. to this Covenant saith he Circumcision had reference now those naturall branches are cut off Rom. 11.20 21. and now there are no Seed or Sonnes of Abraham but beleevers Gal. 3.9.14.22.28.29 now the Promise is not a carnall but a spirituall John 3.5 I answ To say the Covenant which Circumcision had reverence to was a Carnall Covenant shewes but a carnall understanding of it for it is called an everlasting Covenant many times in that Chapter Gen. 17. neither was this Covenant of Grace made with Abraham but saith the Lord I will establish my Covenant with thee and thy seed every man childe shall be circumcised and this shall be a token of the Covenant and this token shall be in your flesh for that everlasting Covenant and my Covenant shall be established with Isaac Then the Covenant was no more made with Abraham then it was with Isaac but established to both by that token of Circumcision so then that circumcision was not a token of a carnall covenant but a token of that eternall Covenant made between God the Father and Christ his Sonne in our nature from all eternity For saith Christ I was set up from everlasting before the world was Pro. 8.23 he was fore-ordained before the foundation of the world 1 Pet. 1.20 God made promises to Christ before the world began Titus 1.2 so then this eternall Covenant was not manifested by a token of it from the beginning of the world till Abraham had it because till then no whole Nation was called into the visible Church but if Abraham and his posterity had onely a token that they should enjoy the Land of Canaan it had been but Esaus blessing Againe to say that eternall Covenant was made to Abraham is to make him our Redeemer for then he must performe the conditions of it for all the Elect but poore man he had failings as well as other men and not able to satisfie for his owne sinnes much lesse for the sinnes of all the Elect so then that covenant was made with his seed and saith Paul that seed was Christ Gal. 3.16 Againe marke the conclusion of Master Hobson who said Abraham received a token but of a carnall covenant but if that were true Abraham is damned and then by and by he saith the Seed and Sons of Abraham must be beleevers Gal. 3.7.9.14.22.28.29 then sure he received the token of that everlasting Covenant But how are we Gentiles the Seed and Sons of Abraham I answer By receiving the signe and token of that everlasting covenant as a seale to our faith as he did Rom. 4.11 and we are his children by receiving the same faith in Christ as he had but we are not Abrahams children as Christ is our everlasting Father who stood as a generall Person representing all the Elect and receiving a covenant for them and able to fulfill the conditions of it and to satisfie Gods Justice for the breach of Adams covenant and able to worke faith in us to enter into his covenant But when Abraham is named we must understand him as an Embassadour representing Christ the King of his Church with whom alone the new covenant was made as the first was made with Adam and all we come under it when we take upon us his naturall Image so the second covenant was made with Christ and the Elect come under it when they receive his spirituall Image so then the tokens of the covenant were before Christ came in the Flesh and Christ did not come to take away the token of the covenant but to change them from Circumcision to Baptisme and to enlarge them to all Nations and to Females as well as Males Acts 8.12 then the keeping on foot this token of the covenant which Christ instituted after his comming in the flesh doth not deny his comming in the flesh neither is this to hold circumcision which was the token before his comming in the flesh then this Argument falls to nothing whereby he would prove Infants Baptisme to deny the comming of Christ in the flesh But then he saith the Pharisees and Saduces pleading that they were Abrahams Seed and would be Baptized and yet John would not till they repent and beleeve Mat. 3.7.8.9 I answer If they had repented of their Sects and Schismes he would have Baptized them for no ignorant Person was refused by him although they had not heard whether there was any Holy Ghost yet John baptized them unto repentance and bid them beleeve and such were made Disciples Acts 19.12 34. but John knew that such Sectaries would be but as Vipers to the true Religion therefore he would not baptize them unlesse they would leave their Heresie and Schisme Then it was not because they were of the Seed of Abraham that he refused it but because they would not leave their Heresies and Schismes this cannot keepe Infants from Baptisme which have no Sects nor Schismes to repent of But he hath another Argument to prove that the baptizing of Infants directly denies the comming of Christ in the flesh and that is this He saith it takes from Christ his Propheticall and Kingly Offices which the Holy Ghost gave him as come in the Flesh I answ Christ had those Offices before he came in the flesh he was King and Priest to the Church of the Jewes although not so manifest as to the christian Church but how the baptizing of infants should rob Christ of those Offices is a Paradox to all wise men But he saith because it makes the Old Testament to expound the New but what of this Christ eates with sinners and some were offended at it and he sends them to the Old Testament saying Learne what that meaneth 〈◊〉 will have mercy and not sacrifice Mat. 9.13 but did Christ