Selected quad for the lemma: sense_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
sense_n	abraham_n	covenant_n	seed_n	2,017	5	9.1132	5	false

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

Covenant with Abraham and under the Seal of it I have also given you plain Declarations from the New Testament That Children were to come into Covenant with their Parents And now I will put one Question to you Antipaedobaptista Children have been in Covenant and under the Seal of it all along If you think they are not in Covenant still shew me where when and how God hath put them out And here I might be as Peremptory with you as you were with me Give me either Precept or President that will prove that God hath taken this Priviledge from them Aporet One would think that the Dispute were at an end when it hath proceeded so far as to prove That Children were always in the Covenant and under the Seal of it so soon as any Seals were Instituted Except Antipaedobaptista can prove from plain Scripture in the New Testament that God hath repealed his Grant and Priviledge formerly given to Infants If he affirm that God hath done so the Proof must ly on his side Antipaed God disolved the Jewish Church-State at the Resurrection of Christ and set up a New Church-state in the New Testament Paed. What do you mean by Church-State Do you mean God's taking down their particular Ordinances of Worship as Sacrifices and consequently their Temple and the Services of it Or do you mean God took down these Promises by the Messiah to the faithful and their Seed upon which the Church was founded and constituted Or do you mean that God destroyed the Nation and Individual Church of the Jews and broke them off for their Unbelief If you mean the first or the last you say Nothing that can prove their Church-State altered The Question is Whether now that God hath taken away the Jewish Circumcision and their particular Mode of Worship and hath also destroyed the Nation and unchurched these Unbelievers Whether God hath set up a New Church upon a foundation quite distinct from that upon which the Church of the Jews was Established viz. a different Promise and a different way of Salvation and Justification than that which was given to Abraham Antipaed You know the New Testament is said to be a better Covenant and to be Established upon better promises Paed. And you know That tho' we grant that the New Testament Edition is in many Respects better yet I have proved to you before that for Substance it was the same Aporet To save Labour and needless Talk Pray for my Satisfaction Prove That God hath not repeal'd the Essential Church-State of the Jews nor Infants Priviledge Paed. It s more than I am oblig'd to do by the Rules of Disputation But for Truths sake and your satisfaction I will do it And for that end will recommend to your Consideration these few things 1. No Edition of the Covenant and there were at least two Editions of the Covenant before Abraham's time repealed any Covenant priviledge formerly granted but confirmed and Enlarged such Priviledges The New Testament Edition being every way better it cannot be suppos'd that God would take away from Infants their Covenant Priviledge except he had given them something better in the Room of it 2. Whatever God saw fit to take from the Old Testament-Church he hath plainly declared the Repeal of it in the New Testament where he dischargeth Circumcision Sacrifices and difference of Meat and Days And it was necessary that God should do so or else we could not have known the mind of God in these matters But now tell me Is not the Priviledge of Children Entring into Covenant with their Parents a greater Priviledge and matter of greater Importance than a Ceremony And would it not have been highly necessary that if Cod should have purposed to take it away he should have plainly declared his mind about it 3. The Apostle Gal. 3.15.17 Brethren I speak after the manner of men though it be but a Man's Covenant yet if it be confirmed no man disanulleth or addeth thereunto 17. And this I say that the Covenant that was before confirmed of God in Christ the Law which was 430 years after cannot disanul that it should make the Promise of none Effect I say the Apostle here doth expresly Affirm that God's Covenant of Grace particularly that made to Abraham as a Covenant or Testament is as to all Essential's unalterable and that the Law which was 430 years after could not disanul it And by the same Reason the New Testament could not disanul the Covenant to Abraham neither as to promise nor priviledge I need not repeat what I have already proved That the New Testament was not the taking down one house and setting up another but building upon the old foundation and planting the Gentiles where the Jews were broken off The Olive Tree is the same and the Seed but one Gal. 3.16 Not and to Seeds as of many but as of one c. 4. If this Church-state and Covenant had been altered then should not Abraham and we have been justifyed after the same manner which the Apostle affirms Gal. 4.3 upon the Supposition that the Church-state of both was the same Else it might have been answered That they might have been justifyed one way and we another 5. Let it be observ'd that the New Testament insists upon this Principle frequently as a thing denyed by none That Abraham is the Father of the Faithful and That the Gentiles were Children raised up to Abraham That they were Abraham's Seed and Heirs according to the Promise That this Blessing of Abraham is come upon the Gentiles That tho' the natural Seed of Abraham be now rejected upon Unbelief yet the Converted Gentiles were the Spiritual Seed And if this had not been Intended by God when he gave the Promise the Promise to Abraham had been broken upon the Rejection of the Jews This the Apostle Expresly argues Rom. 9.6 Not as though the Word of God hath taken none Effect For they are not all Israel which are of Israel Antipaed The Apostle there tells us That the Children of the flesh are not the Children of God and that all are not Israel that are of Israel Neither were they the Children of God because they were of the Seed of Abraham and therefore it would seem that there is no such priviledge to Infants by Birth Paed. The Apostle is there speaking of the rejection of the Jews for their Unbelief and asserts no more than this that in that case when they put themselves out of Covenant it was no breach of Promise in God to reject them tho' they were the Natural Seed of Abraham But what is all this against the Priviledge of Infants of Believing Parents The Promise was still made to Believers and their Seed and in that sense the Promise was made to Abraham and his own Imediate Natural Seed as the Seed of a Believer and so successively to that Seed when grown up when they continued in the Faith and to their Infant Seed and so on

to succeeding generations Now if any Israelite forsook God he was not reckoned to be in Covenant because he was of Abraham according to the flesh so that the Natural Seed of Israelites Believing and of Believing Gentiles were the Spiritual seed tho' still the Infants were Children by natural desent and by it had this Priviledge with their Parents not because their Parents were their Fathers but because their Fathers were Believers But this has diverted me I will return to what I have to say further 6. That God is so far from taking down the Essential Church-state of the Jews that as I hinted before he has taken down the Partition Wall of Ceremonies and has made them one house of which the Apostles and Prophets are secondary foundations Eph. 2.14 For he is our peace who hath made both one and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us 19. Now therefore ye are no more Strangers and Foreigners but fellow Citizens with the Saints and of the Housho●d of God 20. And are built upon the Foundation of the Apostles and Prophets Jesus Christ himself being the chief Corner Stone Lastly Consider also that Christ hath Expresly declared that Children belong to this Church as parts of the Kingdome of God Mat. 19.13 14. Then were there brought unto him little Children that he should put his hands upon them and pray and the disciples rebuked them But Jesus said suffer little Children and forbid them not to come unto me for of such is the Kingdome of Heaven I know you would evade this Text by telling us that such means such like in Humility c. but that Christ intends these very little Children is Evident 1. Because he might if such like had been his meaning as properly have said suffer Doves and Lambs to come to me for of such like is the Kingdom of Heaven 2. This taking them in his Arms and Blessing them shews he meant them 3. He asserts their Church Membership and that as a Reason why he would have them come For of such is the Kingdom of Heaven Antipaed You have said enough to convince me that Infant Baptism is not a groundless absurd opinion there is much more to be said in its behalf than ever I Imagin'd or was acquainted with before I thought neither Argument nor Solution was able to stand before me And I assured my self the Smooth Stones that I had chosen out of the Brook the Pleas for Precept or Example and the mighty Objection of Childrens Incapacity would have knock'd down the stoutest Champion for Infant Baptism I will try your Strength in one thing more and that is the manner of Baptizing You know that we hold that it ought to be done by total Immersion douseing dipping or covering the person with Water This has mov'd some otherwise well enough satisfied with Infant Baptism to be Baptized after our way taking the former to be only Sprinkling and therefore as not answering our Lords Institution null and void And what Indeed can be more plain Seeing the Genuine proper and primitive signification of the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the thing designed in this Sacrament and the Concurrent practise of the Primitive Church are all on our side Paed. What your Arguments want in Strength you make up in Readiness All that you have said and it 's all that can be said is very easily Answer'd If you will joyn with us in what I have been pleading for the Covenant right of Children We shall leave you to your Liberty in this to act as you are perswaded in your own mind The Scripture as I shall show you anon has not determined the particular Mode and why should we To your First Argument from the signification of the Word Baptizo I answer That Word in Scripture is of a large signification and generally signifies to Wash but determines not the manner How Whether by Aspersion Superfusion or Dipping I think most rarely the Last viz. Dipping I 'll give you some Instances in which you cannot without manifest wresting of the Text confine it to Dipping or Dousing My first Instance is Mark 7.4 Vnless they Wash 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unless they be Baptized Spoken of their Traditionary washing of their Hands by them accounted Religious That it is only meant of their hands is plain from v. 2.3 And when they saw some of his Disciples eat bread with defiled that is to say with unwashen hands they found fault For the Pharisees c. And the Paralel place Mat. 15.2 where the Quarrel with the Disciples was for Eating with Unwashen Hands and their contrary practice was asserted Now the Jewish way of washing was by powring Water upon the Hands and not by dipping their hands in Water And therefore one that poureth water on the hands of a man is but another Word for a Servant or Attendant Thus Elisha poured Water on the hands of Elijah From both these Scriptures compar'd I gather That when one principal part of the Body is washed or Baptized the whole man is said to be Baptized or washed 2. That pouring on of Water is called Baptizing I do not see what you can object against this Scripture and therefore I proceed to another and that is Hebrews the 9.10 Which stood only in Meats and Drinks and divers Washings and carnal Ordinances Imposed on them untill the time of Reformation divers Washings in Greek Baptisms This Text undoubtedly relates to the Ceremonious Legal Washings of which some were by way of sprinkling compare it with these Places that speak professedly of them Num. 8.7 And thus shalt thou do unto them to cleanse them sprinkle Water of purifying upon them c. to the 19. Besides These Washings did signify to them their Pardon and Sanctification Antipae The Dutch Translators Translate John the Baptist John the Dooper or Dipper Paed. You Triumph mightily in their Suffrage and yet I know not by what Authority they changed a Word used by the Scriptures and retained all along in the Christian Church into a Word of a less and more restrained Sense However you take Dooper to signify their Painting wherein the Wit of that People lies expresses it by his pouring Water upon the Head of the Penitent and well enough might they do so for we read Lawrence was so Baptized Nor can it be well thought that his Case was singular You see then Vossius in These de Baptismo by Limitting the Word Baptizo you distinguish where the Law doth not distinguish For plunging or going under Water properly is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Do not you think now that if Dipping were as one of your Writers affirms the very form of Baptism but that God would have told us more exactly what it is and described it in every Circumstance but seeing he has not determined the Quantity of Elements in either Sacrament as in the Lord's Supper how great a Piece of Bread or how large a Draught of Wine we are to take