Selected quad for the lemma: scripture_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
scripture_n	abraham_n	believe_v	work_n	2,176	5	6.8327	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A89563	A defence of infant-baptism: in answer to two treatises, and an appendix to them concerning it; lately published by Mr. Jo. Tombes. Wherein that controversie is fully discussed, the ancient and generally received use of it from the apostles dayes, untill the Anabaptists sprung up in Germany, manifested. The arguments for it from the holy Scriptures maintained, and the objections against it answered. / By Steven Marshall B.D. minister of the Gospell, at Finchingfield in Essex.	Marshall, Stephen, 1594?-1655.	1646 (1646)	Wing M751; Thomason E332_5; ESTC R200739	211,040	270

existence of the duty but the Covenant of grace is the motive to it 4. Whereas you alledge concerning Melchisedeck Lot Job we find no such thing that they either received this seale of circumcision or were tyed to it I reply it 's very hard for you to prove that Melchisedeck was then alive and had he been alive he was of an higher Order and above that Paedagogie Or in what age of the world Job lived though hee bee thought to be of the posterity of Esau and so might have a right to it even in your sense as descending lineally from Abraham however this is a meere negative Argument in matter of fact which your self know to bee of no validity Negative arguments from Scripture are good in matters of faith I am not bound to beleeve this or that unlesse it be found in the Scriptures but they are not good in matter of fact this or that fact is not recorded in the Scripture therefore I am bound to beleeve it was not done is no good consequence A non scripto ad non factum non valet consequentia No Scripture saith they were circumcised though very good Authors thinke that Lot and Iob were circumcised nor doth any Scripture say they were not circumcised As to that you say of Infants under eight dayes old and of all the females in Abrahams family I answer to that of Infants there was a peculiar exemption of them by God himself whether for any typicall reason or in regard they were not fit in nature to undergoe so sharp a paine as was to bee indured in Circumcision before the seventh and criticall day was past or whether for any other cause I dispute not it is sufficient God forbad them to have the seale till they were eight dayes old For the women they were not subjectum capax circumcisionis there was in them a naturall impediment against it therfore could not be injoyned them and suppose some men among them or some who turned proselytes to them had not had a praeputium as some sort of Eunuchs this Ordinance had not reached them whether the wisdome of God purposely chose a signe that Women might not be capable of receiving it for some typicall use as some conjecture I cannot tell it is sufficient that they were not capable of it were exempted from it by God himselfe so that if you please to state the generall Proposition as you needs must That all who since Abrahams time are foederati or covenanters with God must by Gods own appointment receive the seale of admission into covenant unlesse they be either uncapable of it or are exempted by a particular dispensation This proposition will indure all the shock of your arguments and remain unmovable Next you reply to my answer concerning Women among the Jews I said they were circumcised in the males this you cast away with scorne affirming it to be an easie answer because it 's easie to bee answered Indeed Sir you answer it as easily as he who undertooke to answer Bellarmine in one word and said Bellarmine thou lyest so you it is an insufficient answer to take away the exception against the proposition and that you might have a little matter to worke upon you goe to another part of my Sermon and thence you fetch the word virtually with which you make your selfe merry putting my proposition into severall shapes and formes and in one form you say it concludes not the thing in question in another it hath 4 termes in another the major is false Wheras my plaine meaning was and is that the women being uncapable of it in their own person because of their sex wherein was a naturall impediment as to this Sacrament God imposed it onely upon the Males and yet the women were not esteemed as uncircumcised being as Divines use to expresse in this point viris annexae in iis censerentur qui familiarum capita debebant esse and whether this will not be justified we shall presently inquire But first give me leave to observe by the way how you pinch me with a point of law That no man can be said virtually to have that by his Proxie or Atturney which he might not actually receive himself in his own person I question whether this be good law but I am confident it is bad Divinity sure we sin'd virtually in Adam yet we could not actually though that sin of Adam be ours by imputation The sun is virtually hot yet Philosophers say it 's not actually And the Jews of old offered to God such things by the hands of the Priests who were their Proxies in that work which they might not offer in their own persons yea and received such things by the hand of the high Priest who bare their names in the most holy place which they might not receive in their owne persons immediately and the Saints now in this world do virtually and quoad effectum juris receive some such priviledges in Christ their Advocate who in their right is at Gods right hand which here they are not capable of receiving immediately in their own persons I also obiter desire you to remember this expression of yours That it had beene a sinne for a child to have been circumcised after the eighth day was past And try how you will reconcile this with an opinion of yours delivered elsewhere viz. That circumcision might bee administred oftner then once surely those other times must be after the first eighth day The other fault you note in my argument is That I conclude of a signe of the Covenant indefinitely and not of Baptisme onely whereas the Lords Supper is also a signe of the Covenant which yet you thinke I will say is not to bee delivered to them because not appointed for them I answer I clearely in my Sermon shewed this Proposition onely to be meant of the initiall sign and not of the other and I am confident your self who durst baptize an Infant known to you to be regenerate durst not yet give the other Sacrament to it because more is required to make one capable of that Sacrament then is required to make them capable of Baptisme a regenerate Infant you thinke is capable of this but besides regeneration I am sure you will grant That an examination of a mans selfe and an ability to discern● the Lords body is required to make one capable of that Now let us see how you avoid my proofes That the Women were circumcised in the men My first was That the whole house of Israel are in the Scripture said to be circumcised You answer That by the whole house of Israel must not be meant all but the major part or the most confiderable part But Sir doe you imagine that any of your judicious Readers can be satisfied with this answer when you know well enough that the Circumcision is put for the Church and people of God in opposition to the uncircumcised that is

added hee seemed afterwards to restraine baptizing Infants to the case of necessity You ask of me Doth he seeme onely to restrain it to the case of necessity He gives say you his reason why they should be baptized but withall declares his opinion that others should stay longer but what of all this what follows hence more then this that in his dayes Infants were baptized though his advice was that they should defer it unlesse there were danger of death These are the Greek Authors alledged by me none of which are denyed by you to testifie the practice of the Church in this point in their severall ages onely your exceptions have been all on the by not against the testimonies themselves which yet notwithstanding what you have answered I doubt not will by any judicious Reader bee allowed for cleare proofes of the practice of Paedo-baptisme in the Greek Church After your examination of the former Testimonies you adde 3 Arguments to shew that Infant-Baptisme was not known in the Greek Church First if it had been known among them you wonder why I finde nothing for it in Eusebius Ignatius Clemens Alexandrinus Athanasius and Epiphanius To this I say they spake to the clearing of such questions as were afoot in their times had any question been started when they wrote about Paedo-baptisme no doubt they would have cleared it as Cyprian did and as it was done in the Councell of Neocaesarea It is enough to mee that none of the Authors named by you speake against it can wee say that the Fathers living before the Pelagians troubled the Church denyed the traduction of originall sin because they spake not clearly of it before it was denyed by those cursed Heretiques Nor is it any glory to you that your Error was not ancient enough to be confuted by Eusebius Ignatius Clemens Alexandrinus Athanasius and Epiphanius yet whether any of these named by you spake for Infant-Baptisme shall now bee considered I finde even in some of them which you have named expressions which doth induce mee to beleeve that they were farre from rejecting of Paedo-baptisme I will not search into them all for if any thing were brought out of Ignatius you would tell mee that you did not know Ignatius when you see him as you have done with others named before and I have no time to wrangle You desire to know what Clemens Alexandrinus saith why sure he had none but great Infants to his Scholars if you who pretend to be acquainted familiarly with the secrets of antiquity be acquainted with him you 'll know what I meane He desired as it is likely more Greeke Fathers who were converted from Paganisme did to set forth Religion in such a way as might move other Pagans to come and make confession of the Christian faith that so they might be added to the Church by Baptisme in such a way as was proper to the baptizing of grown men The next whose testimony you misse is Athanasius you desire mee to quote any thing out of him to prove the Greeke Church did admit Infants to Baptisme if that will make you cease wondering I 'll doe it what say you to that passage in Athanasius where hee is shewing how we are buryed with Christ in Baptisme and rise againe hee sayes the dipping of the Infant quite under water thrice and raising of it up again doth signifie the death of Christ and his resurrection upon the third day is not that testimony plaine In his Questions ad Antioch in the second question of that booke it is desired to be known how shall we know that he was truly baptized and received the holy Ghost 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in holy Baptism when he was a Child it seems then it was a custome for Infants to receive Baptisme He sets down an answer to it that is to be known saith he by the motions of the Spirit in his heart afterwards as a Woman knows she hath conceived when she feels the child to stir in her womb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not because his Parents say so If that place doth not plainly and in an Orthodoxall way beare witnesse to Paedo-baptisme I know not what can doe it I could out of the same Booke adde another testimony but you will perhaps tell me the words next following those that I shall cite are questioned But I shall then reply 1. The words that follow may bee erroneous and yet written by Athanasius 2. The words which I shall cite may be the words of Athanasius and the words which follow none of his but added by some other 3. How doe you prove that Tertullian or Greg. Nazianzen wrote those words which you cite out of them 4. You can more then once make this a plea for your selfe that your allegations may gaine a favourable construction That your proofes taken out of Antiquity doe ●s strongly prove the point in hand as proofes are usually taken in such matters I doubt not but all impartiall Readers will vouchsafe me the same favourable graines of allowance and then this testimony also of Athanasius may passe for currant These words then which are safe sound grounded upon the same Scripture which I have much insisted on are read in the works of Athanasius where the question is about Infants dying requiring a resolution that might clearly set forth whether they goe to be punished or to the Kingdom The answer is Seeing the Lord said Suffer little children to come unto me for of such is the Kingdom of Heaven And the Apostle sayes Now your children are holy observe that Gospel ground the same that I build upon it is manifest that the Infants of beleevers which are baptized doe as unspotted and faithfull enter into the Kingdome This assertion is owned by all the Reformed Churches Epiphanius you say sayes nothing of it in a place which you cite and are you sure he sayes nothing any where else admit he doth not forme a Syllogisme and see how your argument will run c. but I desire you at your leasure to cast your eye upon that expression of Epiphanius which doth induce mee to beleeve that hee did not reject Paedo-baptisme where hee tells us That Circumcision had its time untill the great Circumcision came that is the washing of the new birth as is manifest to every one What 's the washing of Regeneration but Baptisme which he would scarcely have called Circumcision if hee had rejected Infant-Baptisme and denyed that the children of beleevers who are hopefully capable of Circumcision made without hands may lawfully partake of this great Circumcision and addes That this was notoriously knowne to all surely then none denyed it in his time Secondly you reason from the continuance of the Questions put to persons when they were to be baptized and answered by them which I think because we must conceive children were not able to returne an answer to them thereby you would

that such Infants may bee elected though they are not regenerated for if there be any thing lesse then regeneration promised sure there can be no comfortable likelihood of the election of a child gathered from a promise of any thing which leaves a child in an unregenerate estate But I much admire that speech of yours where you feare you should incur blasphemy by challenging a promise which God doth not keepe because many of the children of beleevers prove wicked I beseech you tell me was it not so among Abrahams posteritie and yet you grant Abraham had a peculiar promise which wee have not might not they without blasphemy plead that promise notwithstanding that promise I will he the God of thee and thy seed was not made good to every one of them for it is most cleare by the Apostles discourse in the ninth and eleventh Chapters to the Romans that God was not the God of thousands of Abrahams seed either in respect of saving grace or outward priviledges for he cast off the Jewes from being his people and suffered them not to enjoy so much as outward priviledges but made choice of the Gentiles in their stead and yet I hope you will not say that God broke his Covenant with those that had the seale of the Covenant in their flesh and yet were rejected not onely from saving grace but from outward priviledges Next let us see how you avoid being goared by the three hornes of my Syllogisme I said all being left in the same condition 1. All must be saved Or 2. all must bee damned Or 3. God saves some of the Infants of the Turkes and some of the Infants of beleevers pro beneplacito After some discourse of the two first of these you deny the consequence It follows not say you God may save some and those some may bee the Infants of beleevers and none of the Infants of Turks and Indians It 's true a man that will may venture to say so and if another will he may venture to say That those some are the Infants of Pagans and not of Christians and hee that should say so hath as good warrant for this as you have for the other according to your principle But what 's this to the question before us I said This opinion leaves them all in the like condition One having no more reference to a promise then another Now if you will avoid being goared by any of these three hornes you should have shewed that according to your opinion there is some promise for some of the Infants of beleevers though there be none for the Infants of Pagans But in stead of shewing how your doctrine and opinion leaves them you tell me what God may possibly doe in his secret Counsell which is altogether unknowne to us But I perceive your selfe suspected this answer would not endure the tryall and therefore you quarrell at that expression of mine That if any of the Infants of such as live and die Pagans be saved by Christ then salvation by Christ is earryed out of the Church whereof God hath made no promise Against this you except 1. That salvation is not carryed out of the invisible Church though some Infants of Pagans should bee saved by Christ I answer it 's true and I adde That if any man shall say the Devils should be saved by Christ even that Opinion would not carry salvation out of the invisible Church But Sir we are enquiring after the salvation of them to whom a promise of salvation is made Now when you can prove that God hath made a promise that he will gather a number or hath a number whose names are written in the Lambs book although their Parents never knew Jesus Christ nor themselves ever live to bee instructed you may then perswade your Reader to beleeve that even some of the Infants of Pagans dying in their Infancy belong to the invisible Church and till then you must give him leave to beleeve that this answer is brought in as a shift onely to serve your present need Secondly you answer That men may bee saved out of the communion of the visible Church and you instance Abraham called out of Chaldea Job in the Land of Vz Rahab in Jericho and you say Hee that called these may save some amongst Turkes and Indians out of the visible Church I answer I hope in your next you will a little better explaine your meaning The Reader will certainly take this to bee your meaning that as Abraham Job and Rahab were saved out of the communion of th● visible Church in their dayes so some among the Turkes and Indians may bee saved out of the communion of the visible Church in our dayes But surely this is not your meaning you doe not beleeve that Abraham Job and Rahab were out of the communion of the visible Church though possibly the manner of their calling might bee extraordinary as afterwards St. Pauls was Nor doe you beleeve that the Eunuch when he was returned into Ethiopia was out of the Communion of the visible Church though his habitation at least for a● while was not among Christians but Infidels I am perswaded that you thinke all visible beleevers to bee within the Communion of the visible Church though possibly they may be hindered from being actuall Members of any particular Church I will not so much as imagine that you mentioned these three examples as a Blinde to deceive your uncautelous Reader and therefore I only desire you in your next to let us know your meaning plainely and discover to us this mystery how men may bee called to fellowship with Jesus Christ and yet have no communion with the visible Church of Christ The rest of this Section wherein you enquire what those promises are which are are made to the seed of beleevers I shall God willing give you an account of them in the next part of the Sermon whither now you call me onely I cannot but take notice of your confident brag in the close of this Section how manfully you have entred my out-workes and thereby incourage your selfe to scale my walls You indeed entred and set up your flag but I hope it appeares to the indifferent Reader that you are in no great probabilitie of getting any great spoile unlesse my walls prove weaker then the outworke which as yet are farre from being taken by you PART III. NOw wee come to that wherein I rightly placed the strength of my cause the evidence which the Scripture gives for Infant-Baptisme which before I proceed in the examination of I briefly propound to the Readers consideration that you have this advantage to make your worke have a specious probabilitie in that the question is concerning Infants concerning whom there is much silence in the Scripture and should any man argue against the justification of Infants by the Theologicall doctrine that is to bee found cleare in the Scripture how specious a plea might he make especially if his

as they were types of spirituall things it may then passe ●um gran● salis but if by primarily be intended principally that Circumcision did chiefly seale earthly blessings the opinion is too unsavory to be received and whereas he and you with him say that Circumcision did thus primarily seale the earthly part of the Covenant I desire to know of you what Scripture ever made Circumcision a Seale of Canaan wee have expresse Scripture that it sealed the righteousnesse of faith whereby he was justified but I no where read that i● sealed the Land of Canaan Whereas you say though the promises were types of spirituall and heavenly things yet the things promised were but carnall and earthly as the sacrifices were but carnall things though shadowes of spirituall I reply all this is true but this belongs to the administration of the Covenant as was said before but makes it never a whit the more a mixt Covenant for the substance of it the Covenant then was more administred by carnall things then it is now and yet the administration of the Covenant even now also hath some carnall promises and priviledges as well as then as the externall ordinances of the Gospell Baptisme and the Lords Supper and wee as well as they have in the Covenant of grace the promise of this life and of that which is to come and so you may if you will call ours also a mixt Covenant consisting both of temporall and spirituall blessings and as among them some who were in Covenant did partake onely of the temporall part and never were partakers of the spirituall others of them were partakers of the spirituall part also even so now some partake of the externall and carnall part onely whilst others partake of both this you must grant to be true unlesse you will maintaine that none are now members of the visible Church but onely Elect and true beleevers Secondly you except against mee that when I said the manner of administration of this Covenant was first by types shadowes and sacrifices c. it had beene convenient to have named Circumcision that it might not be conceived to belong to the substance of the Covenant I reply first this is a very small quarrell I added c. which supplies both Circumcision and other things Secondly you know the Covenant of grace was administred by sacrifices and other types before Circumcision was instituted Thirdly whereas I said there were some Proselytes in the Jewish Church who were but selfe-justiciaries carnall and formall professors who are yet in the Scripture called Abrahams seed you answer I call them so without the warrant of Scripture as you conceive to which I reply my words were that there was another sort of Abrahams seed who were onely circumcised in the flesh and not in the heart who though they were borne of Abrahams seed or professed Abrahams faith and so were Iewes facti though not nati yet they never made Abrahams God their portion but rested in somewhat which was not Christ c. and so were to perish with the uncircumcised This you doe not here deny to bee true onely you would have me shew where the Proselytes were called Abrahams seed I reply had I mentioned no proselytes at all but onely said there were some in the Church of the Iewes who were visible members and partakers of outward Church-priviledges and yet were not inwardly godly nor partakers of the spirituall part and that these were called Abrahams seed as well as others it had been enough for my purpose I named not Proselytes to adde any strength to the argument and because they are called Gods people I feared not to call them Abrahams children by profession and never expected to have met with a quarrell for calling them who joyned to the Church of Israel by that common name whereby the Church members were called viz. the seede of Abraham or the children of Israel and could no place of Scripture be produced where proselytes are expresly called by this name the matter were not tanti But if it were a thing of any moment it would be no hard matter to produce evidence sufficient to prove that proselytes were called Israelites and the seed of Abraham as Acts 2. 10. and 22. compared Act. 13. 26. compared with Verse 43. but I forbeare You go on and accuse me that herein I joyne with Arminius who saith there is a seed of Abraham mentioned Rom. 4. 9. 10. Gal. 3. Gal. 4. who seeke justification and salvation by the workes of the Law and that hee makes this the ground of wresting that Scripture and that Mr. Bayne upon Ephes 1. sayes that the seed of Abraham without any adjoyned is never so taken I reply you give an high charge but a weake proofe I said there was a sort of proselytes who were the seed of Abraham by profession onely or outward cleaving to the Covenant who though they professed Abrahams faith yet did not place their happinesse in Christ or make choyce of Abrahams God for their all-sufficient portion Sir is this to joyne with Arminius in his interpretation of the ninth to the Romans 1. How doe you prove that Arminius meanes the words which you cite of Jewish Proselytes Nulli filii carnis censentur in semine saith Arminius doth hee meane that no proselytes were the seed of Abraham according to the flesh if so I beleeve acute Mr. Bayne would have been more wary then to have opposed him in that point Nay Mr. Bayne in the very selfe same page which you quote having set downe Arminius his two conclusions 1. The children of the promise are reckoned for the seed 2. The children of the flesh are not reckoned for the seed passes his judgement upon them in these words Page 140. The Conclusions are true but not pertinent to this sense for the children of the flesh here are those onely who in course of nature came from Abraham But you very wisely mention neither of these Conclusions of Arminius you thought it more for your advantage to fasten upon some other proposition laid downe by Arminius and as you set it downe it runs thus There is a seed of Abraham qui per opera legis justitiam salutem consequuntur I was much amused at the words I know Arminius saith Deus ex promisse ac debito dat vitam aeternam operanti but he meanes it not of the workes of the Law and therefore I wondered to see opera legis in your proposition but the word which puzled me most was consequuntur Sir let me intreat you to correct your booke there is no such word as consequuntur in Arminius his exposition and it doth not agree with your own exposition for consequuntur justitiam is by you translated Follow after righteousnesse I have perused Arminius with whom you say I joyn and Mr. Bayne from whom you say I say I differ and I shall give an account of both to the reader First for Arminius his words