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 faith_n seed_n 2,179 5 8.7030 4 false
View all documents for the selected quad

Text snippets containing the quad

ID Title Author Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) STC Words Pages
A79560 The divine warrant of infant-baptism. Or VI. arguments for baptism of infants of Christians. viz. I. Infants of Christians are rightly judged in the promise of propriety in God. p.1. II. Infants of Christians are rightly judged to be of the church. p.20. III. Infants of Christians are rightly judged meet for baptisme. p.25. IV. The sealing of the promise to infants of visible professors, hath been the practise of the universal church ever since God added seals to the covenant. p.30 V. The profit of baptism is great to the infants of Christians. p.36. VI. The promise was sealed by the initiall sacrament aforetime to infants of visible professors, both Jews and of the Gentiles. p.38. / By John Church, M.A. minister of Seachurch, in the county of Essex. Church, Josiah. 1648 (1648) Wing C3987; Thomason E441_9 42,925 58

There is 1 snippet containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

should be discipled before baptism Sensus est qui adult â sunt aetate ante sunt instituendi quàm baptizandi non si se rumpant aliud ex hoc loco ostendent Calv. And that the Apostles repulsed Christians desiring sealing the promise by the initial Sacrament to their Infants Acts 2.29 1 Cor. 7.14 doth not appear but the contrary is rather to be beleeved for they judged children of Christians in the promise and foederally holy as well as their parents and baptized Christians and all theirs where it was desired of which sufficient instances as witnesses are left us upon record Therefore I conclude that the promise of propriety in God being sealed to Infants of Gods people in the former dispensation by the initial Sacrament thereof It may be sealed to Infants of Christians in this dispensation by the initial seal of it Objection 1 The Covenant sealed aforetime to Infants of Gods people by an initial Sacrament was much differing from that whereof Baptism is the initial Sacrament for that was not purely Evangelical but a mixt Gospel-Covenant consisting partly of Evangelical promises appertaining to Beleevers as such and partly of domestick and civil promises both which were sealed by the initial Sacrament of that time which for that cause might be administred to some which could not be rightly ju●ged Beleevers But the Covenant whereof Baptism is the initial Sacrament is purely Evangelical consisting of promises belonging only to Beleevers as such Answer 1. Spiritual and temporal promises may be said to make a mixt Covenant but not a mixt Evangelical Covenant for a mixt Gospel-Covenant is a Covenant partly of works and partly of grace and the Covenant of which Circumcision was the initial Sacrament was not mixed after that manner for the Law was not given until four hundred thirty years after it Galat. 3.17 and then it was not mixed with it but only annexed to it 2. The difference was only in the dispensation and not in the substance of the Covenant the Covenant of which Circumcision was the initial Sacrament was as purely Evangelicall as this whereof Baptism is the initial Sacrament for the Gospel is said to be preached unto them as well as to us Galat. 3.8 Heb. 3.19 Matthew 5.5 Matth. 6.33 Rom 9. ●2 Ezek. 36.25 30 and the temporal promises were Evangelical and belonged to Beleevers as such for because of unbelief many obtained them not Also there are temporal promises in this dispensation and the people of God have Christ and all other things by the same Charter 3. The promises sealed in the former dispensation were principally spiritual Certò certius est primarias promissiones sub veteri testamento spirituales fuisse Calv. Heb. 11.13 For the Fathers had temporal things little in their eye they sought a better Country then Canaan Rom 15.8 9 and Christ who is called the Minister of Circumcision for the confirming the promises made to the Fathers did not restore to the Iews temporal things when he came the Romans did tyrannize over them and he brake not their yoak from their neck and not long after their Country was utterly destroyed Also the Gentiles that did not take hold of that Covenant are said to be without Christ hope and God Yea Ephes 2.12 spiritual promises only were sealed by the initial Sacrament to many Infants for the promise of Canaan and other civil and domestick promises were not sealed by it to Infants of Converts of the Gentiles for these things did not appertain to them but to the natural seed of ●braham Also only spiritual promises were sealed by it to Infants dying in infancy and if these were not sealed to them none were Rom 3.1 2 and their bodies were wounded and their souls were not profited and Circumcision was a punishment and no benefit which is contrary to the Scripture Objection 2 Circumcision was administred to some to whom the Covenant did not extend as to Ishmael and others and it was not administred to some to whom the Covenant did extend as to Melchizedeck Job Lot Infants not 8 days old and women Answer 1. Circumcision could not rightly be administred to any that could not be rightly judged in the Covenant for it is called the Covenant Gen. 17.10 and the token of it therefore might not be carryed beyond it Also Ishmael was rightly judged in the Covenant when he was circumcised though he was not in it for life as appeared afterwards for he was the seed and of the family of Abraham and not then actually broken off 2. It is uncertain whether Circumcision were instituted in the days of Melchizedeck Job and Lot and if it were it is uncertain whether the institution of it came to their knowledg they being removed far from Abraham and if both these could be known it is uncertain that they were not circumcised and certain that they might have been circumcised and most probable that they were if that there were not some lets and in such cases some of the Israelites were not circumcised Joshuah 5.5 for Circumcision was intermitted fourty years in the wilderness 3. Infants not eight days old had a dispensation not having strength to indure and women not having a natural capacity or to prevent the transgressing the bounds of modesty in circumcising them or perhaps it was denyed that sex for a chastisement because the woman was first in the transgression of the first Covenant Objection 3 3. In the former dispensation all the seed of Abrahams flesh were his seed and therefore they might have the promise sealed to them by the initial Sacrament But in this only such as have Abrahams faith are to be accounted his seed which Infants not having they cannot be accounted his seed therefore they cannot have the Promise rightly sealed to them by the initial Sacrament Answer 1. They which being of riper years have not visible faith cannot be accounted Abrahams seed yet Infants of Christians are rightly accounted his seed without it For 1. the S●ripture speaks expresly that the faithful are the seed of the blessed of the Lord and their off spring with them Isa 65.23 2. The Converts of the Gentiles and their Infants aforetime were rightly accounted the seed of Abraham Exod. 12 49. the stranger was to be accounted as he that was home-born and it must be granted that they were to be accounted the seed of his faith for they were not the seed of his flesh 3. The most learned and rational of the Anabaptists confess that elect Infants are Abrahams spiritual seed yet there is not in them visible faith 4. The Lord calls the Infants of visible Professors his Children and their seed the seed of God Eze 16.20 21 Mal. 2 15. Ma●k 10.14 therefore the Infants of such may be called the seed of Abraham 5. Christ on earth affirmed the Kingdom of God to be of such therefore they may be accounted to Abrahams family 6. Christ numbred