Selected quad for the lemma: reason_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
reason_n	divine_a	faith_n	revelation_n	3,413	5	9.3938	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A94741	Tvvo treatises and an appendix to them concerning infant-baptisme. The former treatise being an exercitation presented to the chair-man of a committee of the Assembly of Divines. The later an examen of the sermon of Mr Stephen Marshall, about infant-baptisme, in a letter sent to him. / By John Tombes. B.D.	Tombes, John, 1603?-1676.; Tombes, John, 1603?-1676. Excercitation about infant-baptisme.	1645 (1645)	Wing T1825; Thomason E312_1; Thomason E312_2; ESTC R200471	33,550	44

of the continuation of the Covenant with Isaac of the coming of Christ out of Isaac the bondage of the Israelites in Egypt and deliverance thence of possessing the Land of Canaan Gen. 15. 13. 18. Gen. 17. 7 8. 15. 16. Act. 7. 4 5 6 7 8. and many other places Yea it is to be noted that those promises which were Euangelicall according to the more inward sense of the Holy Ghost do point at the priviledges of Abrahams House in the outward face of the words whence it may be well doubted whether this Covenant made with Abraham may be called simply Euangelicall and so pertain to Believers as such although there be Euangelicall promises in that Covenant pertaining to all Believers as Believers There were annexed to the Covenant on Mount Sinai sacrifices pointing at the sacrifice of Christ and yet we call not that Covenant simply Euangelicall but in some respect Secondly The seed of Abraham is many wayes so called First Christ is called the seed of Abraham by excellency Gal. 3. 16. Secondly all the Elect Rom. 9. 7. all Believers Rom. 4. 11 12. 16. 17 18. are called the seed of Abraham that is the spirituall seed Thirdly there was a naturall seed of Abraham to whom the inheritance did accrue this was Isaac Gen. 21. 12. Fourthly a naturall seed whether lawfull as the sons of Keturah or base as Ishmael to whom the inheritance belonged not Gen. 15. 5. But no where do I find that the Infants of Believers of the Gentiles are called Abrahams seed of the three former kinds of Abrahams seed the promise recited is meant but in a different manner thus that God promiseth he will be a God to Christ imparting in him blessing to all nations of the earth to the spirituall seed of Abraham in Euangelicall benefits to the naturall seed inheriting in domestick and politicall benefits 3. That the promise of the Gospel or Gospel-covenant was the same in all ages in respect of the thing promised and condition of the covenant which we may call the substantiall and essentiall part of that covenant to wit Christ Faith Sanctification Remission of sins Eternall life yet this Euangelicall covenant had divers forms in which these things were signified and various sanctions by which it was confirmed To Adam the promise was made under the name of the seed of the woman bruising the head of the Serpent to Enoch Noah in other forms otherwise to Abraham under the name of his seed in whom all nations should be blessed otherwise to Moses under the obscure shadows of the Law otherwise to David under the name of a successor in the kingdome otherwise in the New Testament in plain words 2 Cor. 3. 6. Heb. 8. 10. It had likewise divers sanctions The promise of the Gospel was confirmed to Abraham by the sign of circumcision and by the birth of Isaac to Moses by the Paschall Lamb and the sprinkling of blood on the book the rain of Mannah and other signs to David by an oath in the New Testament by Christs blood 1 Cor. 11. 25. Therefore circumcision signified and confirmed the promise of the Gospel according to the form and sanction of the covenant with Abraham Baptisme signifies and confirms the same promise according to the form sanction and accomplishment of the new Testament Now these forms and sanctions differ many wayes as much as concerns our present purpose in these First circumcision confirmed not only Euangelicall promises but also Politicall and if we may believe Mr. Cameron in his Theses of the threefold Covenant of God Thesi 78. Circumcision did primarily separate the seed of Abraham from other nations sealed unto them the earthly promise Secondarily it did signifie sanctification But Baptisme signifies only Euangelicall benefits Secondly circumcision did confirm the promise concerning Christ to come out of Isaac Baptisme assures Christ to be already come to have been dead and to have risen again Thirdly circumcision belonged to the Church constituted in the House of Abraham Baptisme to the Church gathered out of all nations whence I gather that there is not the same reason of circumcision and baptisme in signing the Euangelicall covenant nor may there be an argument drawn from the administration of the one to the like manner of administring the other 4. That some there were circumcised to whom no promise in the covenant made with Abraham did belong of Ishmael God had said that his covenant was not to be established with him but with Isaac and yet he was circumcised Gen. 17. 20 21. 25. Rom. 9. 7 8 9. Gal. 4. 29 30. the same may be said of Esau All that were in Abrahams house whether strangers or born in his house were circumcised Gen. 17. 12 13. of whom neverthelesse it may be doubted whether any promises of the covenant made with Abraham did belong to them there were other persons to whom all or most of the promises in the covenant pertained that were not circumcised this may be affirmed of the Females coming from Abraham the Infants dying before the eighth day of just men living out of Abrahams house as Melchisedech Lot Job If any say that the females were circumcised in the circumcision of the Males he saith it without proof and by like perhaps greater reason it may be said that the children of Believers are baptized in the persons of their parents and therefore are not to be baptized in their own persons But it is manifest that the Jewes comprehended in the covenant made with Abraham and circumcised were neverthelesse not admitted to Baptisme by John Baptist and Christs Disciples till they professed repentance and faith in Christ Hence I gather first that the right to Euangelicall promises was not the adequate reason of crrcumcising these or those but Gods precept as is expressed Gen. 17. 23. Gen. 21. 4. Secondly that those terms are not convertible federate and to be signed Whereupon I answer to the Argument First either by denying the Major if it be universally taken otherwise it concludes nothing or by granting it with this limitation it is true of that sign of the covenant which agrees universally in respect of form and sanction to them that receive the Gospel but it is not true of that sign of the covenant which is of a particular form or sanctior of which sort is circumcision Secondly I answer by denying the Minor universally taken the reason is because those children only of believing Gentiles are Abrahams children who are his spirituall seed according to the election of grace by faith which are not known to us but by profession or speciall Revelation THe second Argument is thus formed To whom circumcision did agree to them Baptisme doth agree but to Infants Circumcision did agree therefore also Baptisme The Major is thus proved If the baptisme of Christ succeed into the place of circumcision then Baptisme belongs to them that circumcision belonged to but the Antecedent is true therefore also the Consequent The Minor is

yet the use of reason as also the anointing of the posts which by things without feeling preserved the first born But for others I give my opinion that they stay three yeares or a little within this or beyond it when they may be able to heare and answer some mysticall points if they cannot understand perfectly yet being thus stamped they shall sanctifie both soules and bodies with the great mystery of consecration THe eleventh reason of doubting is Because the Assertors of Infant-Baptisme little agree among themselves upon what foundation they may build Infant-Baptisme Cyprian and others of the Ancients draw it from the universality of divine grace and the necessity of Baptisme to salvation Augustine Bernard and others bring the faith of the Church as the reason of baptizing Infants Others among whom is the Catechisme in the English Liturgie put as the reason of Infant-Baptisme the promise of the Sureties in the place of the faith and repentance of the baptized The Lutherans the faith of the Infant others the holinesse of a believing Nation others the faith of the next parent others the faith of the next parent in covenant in a gathered Church This difference of the maintainers of Infant-Baptism deservedly causeth doubt concerning the thing it self THE last and that a weighty reason of doubting is because Infant-Baptisme seemes to take away one perhaps the primary end of Baptism for many things argue that it was one end of Baptism that it should be a signe that the baptized shews himself a disciple and confesseth the faith in which he hath been instructed 1. The requiring of confession by John Baptist and the Apostles was wont to be before Baptisme Luk. 3. 10. Act. 8. 35. Act. 16. 31. 2. The frequent manner of speaking in the new Testament which puts Baptism for Doctrine Act. 10. 37. Act. 19. 3. shews this Beza in his Annot. on Act. 19. 3. The answer is most apposite in which they signifie that they professed in Baptism the doctrine propounded by John and confirmed by use of Baptisme with which they had been baptized whereby they had acknowledged Christ but very slenderly 3. The form of Christs institution Mat. 28. 19. compared with the phrase as it is used 1 Cor. 1. 13. Or were you baptized into the name of Paul implies the same On which place Beza The third reason is taken from the form and end of Baptisme in which we give our name to Christ being called upon with the Father and Holy Spirit 4. That which is said Joh. 4. 2. He made and baptized more disciples And Mat. 28. 19. Going make disciples in all nations baptizing them Intimate this And if as some affirme Baptism was in use with the Jews in the initiating of proselytes into the profession of Judaisme this opinion is the more confirmed But in Infant-Baptisme the matter is so carried that Baptisme serves to confirm a benefit not to signifie a profession made and so one perhaps the chief end of Baptisme is voyded And here I think it is to be minded that the usuall description of a Sacrament and such as are like to it That it is a visible signe of invisible grace hath occasioned the misunderstanding of both Sacraments as if they signed a divine benefit not our duty to which in the first place the Institution had respect It seems to some that Infant-baptisme should be good because the Devil requires Witches to renounce it Which reason if ought worth might as well prove Baptisme of any Infants Baptisme by a Midwife good because these the Devil requires them to renounce as well that which is of the Infants of believers by a lawfull Minister But the true reason why he requires the Baptisme of Witches to be renounced by them is not because the Baptisme is good in respect of the administration of it but because the Faith mentioned in the form of Baptisme is good and they that renounce not their baptisme do shew their adherence to that faith in some sort which cannot stand with an explicite covenant with the Devil Nor is the assuming of baptisme in ripe yeares by those who were washed in infancy a renouncing of baptisme as some in their grosse ignorance conceit but indeed a firmer avouching of baptisme according to Christs mind This more likely might be inferred from the Devils practise in requiring Witches to renounce their baptisme That the profession of Faith is the main businesse in Baptisme which should be before Baptisme if it were rightly administred after the first pattern FINIS §. 1. The first Argument for Infant-baptisme examined from the interest in the promise Gen. 17. 7. §. 2. The second Argument for Infant baptisme from the succession of Baptisme to circumcision examined §. 3. The third Argument from the parity of grace in the new Testament to that in the old examined §. 4. The Argument from Act. 2. 38 39. for Infant-baptisme examined §. 5. The Argument from 1 Cor. 7. 14. for Infant-Baptisme examined Mat. 17. 12. Acts 7. 44. §. 6. The Arguments from Mat. 19. 15. for Infant-Baptisme exmined §. 7. The Argument from Acts 15. 16. c. for Infant-Baptisme examined §. 8. The Argument from generall promises for Infant-baptisme examined 9. The Argument from Isa. 49. 22. for Infant-Baptisme examined §. 10. The Argument from 1 Cor. 10. 2. for Infant-Baptisme ex §. 11. The Argument from Eph. 5. 26. for Infant-Baptisme examined §. 12. The Argument from 1 Pet. 2. 9. for Infant-baptisme examined §. 13. The Argument churches failing if infant-baptisme be not lawfull examined * Sacro baptisterio admovebatur §. 14. The Argument from Heb. 6 2. for Infant-baptisme examined Arg. 2. §. 15. The argument from the institution of Christ Mat. 28. 19. against Infant-baptisme confirmed Arg. 3. 16. The argument from John Baptist and the Apostles practise against Insant-baptism confirmed Arg. 4. §. 17. The argument from the practise in the Age next the Apostles against Infant-baptism confirmed Arg. 4. §. 17. The argument from the wrong originall of Infant-baptism confirmed against it Arg. 6. §. 19. The argument against Infant-baptisme from humane inventions occasioned by it confirmed Arg. 7. §. 21. The argument against Infant-baptism from the Errors occasioned by it confirmed Arg. 8. §. 20. The argument against Infant-baptism from many abuses caused by it confirmed Arg. 9. §. 22. The argument from unnecessary disputes caused by it against Infant-baptisme confirmed Arg. 10. 23. The argument against Infant-baptism from the opposition to it in the middest of Popery confirmed Arg. 11. §. 24 The Argument against Infant-baptism from assertors difference about the ground of it confirmed Arg. 12.

in the old but this is not to be affirmed therefore Baptisme is to be granted to Infants of Believers Answ. 1. If this Argument be of any weight it will prove that the grace of God is straitened because we give not the Lords Supper to children to whom the Passeover was given as appears by that which was above said 2. The grace of God is not tied to Sacraments neither do Sacraments give grace by the work done and therefore grace is not restrained though Sacraments be never granted grace is not denyed to an excommunicated person who is inhibited the Lords Supper the Grace of God is free whether we understand it of the divine affection or the effects of it nor can be made larger or narrower by our act 3. Yet it is not absurd to say that in respect of some priviledges the Grace of God is more contracted in the new Testament then in the old For instance no family hath now the priviledge that was granted to Abrahams family that out of it Christ should be born no man besides Abraham is called The father of the faithfull no woman besides one The mother of Christ neverthelesse simply the grace of God is said to be larger in the new Testament by reason of the revelation of the Gospel imparted to all nations the more abundant communication of the holy Spirit and more plain manifestation of the mysterie of the Gospel I would have it weighed whether those phrases of the Apostle Rom. 11. 21. as the naturall branches ver. 24. The wilde Olive by nature were 't graffed contrary to nature These which be naturall branches do not sufficiently imply that the Jewes children by their birth had a priviledge beyond the Gentiles children Thereupon I answer to the Argument First by denying the consequence of the Major for the reason given Secondly by denying the Minor if it be understood of straitning the grace of God in respect of some priviledge although the Assumption may be granted if understood of the straitning Gods grace simply The summe of the Answer to the Arguments drawn from Gen. 17. 17. is this The Sacraments are not to be administred according to rules taken from our reasonings but Gods appointment Rightly doth Mr. Ball forenamed in the Book forenamed Posit. 3. 4. pag. 38. say But in whatsoever Circumcision and Baptisme do agree or differ we must look to the institution and neither stretch it wider nor draw it narrower then the Lord hath made it for he is the institutor of the Sacraments according to his own good pleasure and it is our part to learn of him both to whom how and for what end the Sacraments are to be administred how they agree and wherein they differ in all which we must affirm nothing but what God hath taught us and as he hath taught us THe Argument from Acts 2. 38 39. may be thus formed To whom the promise is made they may be baptized but to the Infants of Believers the promise is made therefore they may be baptized The Minor is proved from the words of vers 39. for the promise is made to you and to your children That an Answer may be fitted to this Argument 1. It is to be observed that the promise made is the sending of Jesus Christ and blessing by him as it is expounded Acts 3. 25 26. Acts 13. 32 33. Rom. 15. 8 9. 2. That the Text saith the promise was made to them he spake to and their children then to them that are afarre off who whether they be Gentiles who are said to be afarre of Ephes. 2. 12. or Jewes in future ages and generations as Beza thinks are limited by the words closing the verse as many as the Lord our God shall call which limitation plainly enough shewes the promise to appertain to them not simply as Jewes but as called of God which is more expresly affirmed Acts 3. 26. To you God having raised up his Son Jesus sent him to blesse you in turning away every one of you from his iniquity or as Beza Every one of you turning your selves from your iniquities therefore the promise here is not said to be made but with condition of calling and faith which may be confirmed aboundantly from Rom. 4. 13 14. 16. Gal. 3. 9. 14. 22. 3. That Peter vers. 38. doth exhort to repentance and Baptisme together and in the first place perswades to Repentance then Baptisme which shewes Repentance to be in order before Baptisme 4. That mention is made of the promise not as of it self yeelding right to Baptisme without Repentance but as a motive inciting together to Repentance and Baptisme Whereupon it is answered 1. That the Major is to be limited to whom the promise is made they may be baptized to wit when they are called and have shewed signes of repentance If it be taken without limitation it is to be denied 2. By denying the Minor if it be universally taken of all Infants of Believers of whose Baptisme the question is as for the Text it speaks not expresly of Infants but of children indefinitely nor of the children of the Gentiles at all of whom we are but of the children of the Jews and therefore if that promise be extended to Infants which doth not appear the promise is to be expounded so as to note something peculiar to the Jews Infants THe Argument from the place 1 Cor. 7. 14. may be thus formed They who are holy with Covenant-holinesse may be baptized But the Infants of a Believer are holy with a Covenant-holinesse for it is said in the Text but now they are holy therefore they may be baptized I answer 1. The Minor is not true universally understood as is manifest from Rom. 11. 16. where it is said If the first fruits be holy so is the lump if the root be holy so are the branches The sense is that Abraham is the first fruits and holy root the elect Israelites are the branches and lump so that it followes that the elect of the Israelites not yet called are holy in respect of the Covenant and are not yet therefore to be baptized for although they may be said to be holy in regard of the Covenant of old entred into with Abraham and the gracious respect of God to them to be manifested in opportune time yet in their present state before calling they denying Christ neither Infants nor grown men are to be baptized unlesse we would have the branches broken off to be graffed into the Church and therefore although the sense were in the place of 1 Cor. 7. 14. your children are holy with Covenant-holinesse by reason of Gods gracious favour to be manifested in due time yet it will not follow that they are to be baptized who have not yet yeelded any shewes of divine grace 2. The Minor is not proved from the place alledged For it doth not speak of federall holinesse but of holinesse that I may so call it Matrimoniall so that the sense