Selected quad for the lemma: nation_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
nation_n	abraham_n	gentile_n	seed_n	1,786	5	8.0049	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A36095	A Discourse of infant-baptism by way of a dialogue between Pædobaptista, a minister for infant-baptism, Antipædobaptista, his friend, against it, Aporeticus, an ingenuous doubter		1698 (1698)	Wing D1599; ESTC R27860	30,411	63

the Promise is also to those that are afar off viz. the Gentiles even as many as the Lord our God shall call Antipaed It is true it is joyn'd to the Latter Sentence Paed. And there is a manifest Reason that Limits it to the latter Sentence Because that tho' the Blessing of Abraham be come upon the Gentiles Gal. 3.14 That the Blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ Yet no Gentile Nation had such a Promise but as converted and call'd to Christianity and so becoming Abraham's Spiritual Seed they are heirs of the same Promises with the Jews So that the meaning of that Scripture is plainly this Repent and be Baptized O ye Jews for the Promise is to you and your seed as God spake to Abraham And it 's the same Covenant that Baptism Seals to And your children have the same Priviledge of Entering into Covenant with your selves as you know And the same Promise of Pardon and Priviledge is also to as many Gentile Nations as shall be converted to the Faith so yet they and their Children may be Baptized into Covenant as well as they Antipaed You have said enough of this Scripture pray name another Paed. The next Scripture I shall offer you to prove Infant Baptism That is that it was Sufficiently known in the New Testament that Infants came into the Covenant with their Parents shall be 1 Cor. 7.14 For the unbelieveing Husband is Sanctify'd by the Wife and the unbelieving Wife is sanctify'd by the Husband else were your Children Vnclean but now are they Holy Antipaed I Expected this but I wonder you should urge it when you have been so often told that the Holiness there is a Marriage Holiness and the Holiness of their children is but this that they are not Bastards Paed. And I wonder more you Shelter your self under so pitiful an Evasion But to answer you Will not you grant in the General That whatever be the Holiness here to be understood it is a priviledge which Children receive from their Parents Antipaed That cannot be deny'd Paed. Then if I prove that this Holiness is not Legitimacy but a priviledge of another Nature and such as entitles them unto the Covenant you 'll confess I prove what I produced this Scripture for Antipaed Let me see the Performance Paed. To remove your Allegation that the Childrens uncleanness is in this case Bastardy and so intended by the Apostle I aske you Was not the Law of Marriage observ'd among the Heathens And was it not a known thing that among them fornication was distinguish'd from the Issue of such Marriages some children being reckoned Bastards and others Legitimate If you say there was no such thing you contradict the Apostle who here saith they were Husband and Wife before Conversation and elsewhere mentioneth fornication as a sin which the Heathens themselves owned as such and that Incust was such a degree of fornication as was rarely found amongst them If you grant this Distinction of Bastard and Legitimate Children was found among the Heathen then be sure the Apostle did not design to overthrow this difference and call all the Children of Heathens Bastards But I aske you further If Marriages of the Heathens were not Lawful Marriages and so esteemed by the Apostle Why did he not direct them to be Married anew This he would have done If Infidels in the Matrimonial state lived in fornication I might ask yet further where the word Holy is ever us'd to signify Legitimacy of Children And if you seriously consider the Occasion of the Apostles discourse you 'll find it was this When the Gospel was preached to the Heathens it frequently happened that sometimes an Heathen Wife was converted and not the Husband and sometimes on the contrary Now in this case the Question was not whether the Marriage was Lawfull But whether it were to be continu'd in Because if it were the converted Party was to live in Society with an Idolater This might seem a difficult case and its rise from what we Read in Ezra Where the Reforming Israelites put away their strange Wives but there was this difference in these two Cases In that of the Jews they being of another Religion when there was no need and expresly against God's Command took Idolatrous Wives Here both Parties when they Marry'd were Idolaters alike and therefore the Apostle determines their Marriages being Lawful before they might still continue in that state though but one Party were Converted if both were willing In this case the Apostle takes it for granted that the Marriage was Lawful and if it had not been so there had been no room for so difficult a Question and all might have been Answer'd with this That it was no Marriage and therefore they were at Liberty Once again let me Ask you Suppose among Christians both Husband and Wife be Unbelievers are their Children Bastards and do they live in Fornication till one at least be Converted And doth Faith make that Marriage-Society which was Fornication before to become Lawful And doth it Legitimate the Children Antipae But if I grant all this yet the Holiness of the Children seems not to be real Sanctification because the Believers Wife or Husband are said to be Sanctifyed Paed. Nor do we say it is But the Text evidently shews all we seek for viz That the Children in this case are not reckoned as the Children of Infidels that are Strangers to the Covenant but are Numbred amongst the Peculiar People of God Let it be observ'd the Apostle gives this as a Reason of the advice for the Continuance of their Conjugal Estate The Unbelieving Party doth not make their Marriage-State Unholy but the Relation is so Sanctifyed to a Believer as other things are for Holy and Lawful Uses that Children have the known Priviledge which Children of the Jews and Gentile Believers have not to be cast out of the Covenant as unclean but to be accepted into the Covenant with the Believing Parent If you yet doubt Whether this be the Sense of the Apostles Reasoning I pray you consider to what purpose the Apostle should have mentioned their Children certainly he intends to signify that the Children have some priviledge by their Parents and if this priviledge be not Legitimacy as I have prov'd and I think for shame you will Urge it no more then there is no Church priviledge can be thought of but that known priviledge of Childrens Entring into Covenant with their Parents and this the Apostle doth not speak of as a New proposed Doctrin but as generally known and truly appliable in this case as well as others Antipaed Have you any more Scriptures to offer for proof That Children entring into Covenant with their Parents was a known and unquestionable Truth in the New Testament Paed. All these Scriptures that speak of the families priviledge upon the Master or Mistress's believing Luke 19.9 And Jesus said unto him This day is Salvation come to this

would give the same Answer to the like persons Who are they he speaks to Were they not a company of corrupt men A generation of Vipers that boasted of being Abraham's children and yet did the Works of their Father the Devil The Pharisee was a Self Iusticiary And the Sadduce deny'd the Resurrection of the Dead Should such plead their Parental Right we would bid them Repent But what is this to the outing children of their Right These were adult and had by their wickedness forfeited their right Did not the Prophets while their Church state stood use the same Methods with them Antipaed But you have not yet answered my Objection about the Obligation Circumcision laid upon men to the keeping the whole Law you only prov'd that that Law was not a Covenant of Works Paed. You do well to put me in mind of it The Apostle there speaks of the erroneous opinion of the Jews who sought for a Righteousness by the Works of the Law making the Law to themselves a Covenant of Works Circumcision being an Initiating Seal was to them according to their abuse of the Law an obligation to keep the whole But in it self Circumcision did oblige only to such Obedience as God requires and accepts in his Covenant of Grace according to that dispensation of it that was then on foot and therefore when a more large and manly state of the Church was to succeed he took away that of Circumcision and in its room commanded Baptism Col. 2. v. 10. And ye are compleat in him which is the head of all Principality and Power v. 11. In whom also ye are circumcised with the Circumcision made without hands in putting off the Body of the sins of the flesh by the Circumcision of Christ v. 12. Buried with him in Baptism c. Whereby we are compleat in Christ without Circumcision for it contains all that was signify'd by Circumcision the Circumcision of the heart and the putting off the Body of Sin As their Signification was the same so one succeeded but not typifyed the other Antipaed Circumcision was only in Abraham's family and other Believers in the time of the old Testament had it not Enjoyn'd to them which must for that Reason seal somewhat peculiar to Abraham's Family viz. The Promise of the Land of Canaan and the descent of the Messiah from that Family Paed. If it designed either of the things you mention Then all that received it must partake of the Promise but so could not Abraham's Servants who were neither of Abraham's Lineage nor had a promise of the Canaanitish Inheritance Otherwise as Proselytes Converts or Believers they were capable of the spiritual Significancy All therefore that entred into Abraham's family which then was most properly and eminently the Church of God for other good men that were scattered here and there and were not gathered into one body tho they belonged to the Covenant yet we are left in the dark as to what God requir'd of them and therefore are the less able to judge concerning them and all that were admitted into that House were to be Circumcised nor was Circumcision given them as a Mark of Distinction as you distinguish Beasts by sliting and cutting That is a gross conceit but they were to be acquainted with the meaning of that sign and the contents of the Covenant What a Religious person was Eliezer Abraham's Servant What a noble Testimony does God give to Abraham as to his care in instructing his family after God that is To relinquish Idolatry and false-Worship and make a Profession of the true God Antipaed But Circumcision took in only the Males Baptism both Males and Females Paed. You think you have a mighty Plea in this but it is just nothing 1. Do you not consider that in the various Editions of the Covenant of Grace God hath made gradual Alterations without any change of the Substance Tho Infants were still included in the Covenant from Adam to Abraham as parts of their Parents yet when God brought in the Male Children under the Seal of the Covenant this was an additional Mercy but no change of the Covenant Now were the Female children hereby excluded from the Covenant it self Pray give me the true meaning of Exod. 12.48 For no Vncircumcised Person shall eat thereof By this Rule no Woman shall eat of the Passover Antipaed Surely Women were not debarred Paed. But they were some way or other Circumcised then For the Rule is Positive and Universal What other Answer can you give than this That the Females were partakers of the Circumcision of the Males 2. Do you not consider that God seeing it fit to alter his Covenant for the better when he saw fit to alter the Seal of Circumcision which was a painful Ordinance and not applicable to Females and to Substitute another for the same general end It is but suitable to his usual Method to bring in Females expresly which were Implicitly under the Seal before especially when Baptism is so easily applicable both to Males and to Females Antipaed But it is a doubt to me whether God intended Baptism to be a Seal of the Covenant of Grace Paed. Your Doubting implyes you would willingly deny it if you durst Will you doubt also Whether the Lords-Supper be a Seal of the Covenant of Grace succeeding the Passover pray tell me first Was not Circumcision expresly call'd a sign or a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith And was it not so because it was a Token of the Covenant both on Man's part and God's The contempt of which God reckoned a Contempt and rejection of his Covenant Gen. 17.14 And the Vncircumcised Manchild whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised that Soul shall be cut off from his people he hath broken my Covenant Antipaed Be it so What then Paed. If Baptism be appointed to the same Ends and uses in the New Testament 't is as much the Seal of the Covenant as Circumcision was before But it is evident Baptism has the same Office in the Institution For as Prosolytes and Abraham's seed Entred into the Covenant of the Old Testament by Circumcision so hath Christ appointed that Consenters should be initiated into the new by Baptism as soon as teaching made them capable of giving Consent Mat. 28.19 Go ye therefore and teach all Nations Baptizing them c. and men are said to accept of or reject the New Testament proffer according to their Submission to or Refusal of Baptism Antipaed This indeed seems to be so Else Baptism would not have been so Expresly commanded and so generally propounded to all Paed. The Apostle expresly saith so 1 Cor. 12.13 For by one Spirit are we all Baptized into one body whether we be Jews or Gentiles c. But for your further Satisfaction Tell me 2dly Doth not the very make and frame of Baptism show it to be a sign and Seal as well as Circumcision Why else is Water used but as a Token What is