Selected quad for the lemma: father_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
father_n	believe_v	faith_n	holy_a	10,213	4	5.4982	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A97212	Caleb's inheritance in Canaan: by grace, not works, an answer to a book entituled The doctrine of baptism, and distinction of the covenants, lately published by Tho. Patient: wherein a review is taken, I. Of his four essentials, and they fully answered; ergo II. Dipping proved no gospel practice, from cleer scripture. III. His ten arguments for dipping refuted. IV. The two covenants answered, and circumcision proved a covenant of grace. V. His seven arguments to prove it a covenant of works, answered. VI. His four arguments to prove it a seale onely to Abraham, answered: and the contrary proved. VII. The seven fundamentals that he pretends to be destroyed by taking infants into covenant, cleeered; and the aspersion proved false. VIII. A reply to his answer given to our usual scriptures. For infant-subjects of the kingdom, in all which infant-baptism is cleered, and that ordinance justifyed, / by E.W. a member of the army in Ireland.	Warren, Edward, Member of the army in Ireland.	1655 (1655)	Wing W956; Thomason E856_2; ESTC R9139	117,844	134

covenant of Grace as those hypocrites had so often mentioned So in their own P. So he quotes Joh. 16. that Christ calls the unbelievers in the national Church of the Jews the world I have chosen you out of the world and their being circumcised freed them not from being justly so called A. The answer is The words are directed to the Disciples as a people that acknowledged Christ exhibited and so were Gospel worshippers And the unbelievers amongst the Anabaptists may as well be called the world if the comparison relates to one that truely believes as the Jews were called the world when Christs words related to his real believing Disciples For the denying of Christ to be the Messias was that which distinguisht because such a denyal led them to keep up a form of worship that did directly oppose the Gospel P. Another Scripture Rom. 4.16 It is of faith that it might be by grace but if the covenant was made to the seed it could not be of faith and so not of grace A. Here is sad work made in his interpretations was it not of Faith to Abraham that it might be by Grace to him and his seed for shame abuse not the Scripture so grosly It was of Faith that it might be by grace to the end the Promise might be sure to all the seed and who this seed was he tells us little children if we may draw it from Isaacs being a child in Isaac shall thy seed be called And because the Gentiles shall know that the word seed reaches them therefore he adds not to that onely which is of the Law c. So that as it was to Abraham by faith that it might be of Grace to his seed So is it now of Faith to a believer that it might be of Grace to his seed So also he quotes Act. 15.4 He put no difference between us and them purifying their hearts by faith A. If God put no difference how durst he do it then P. So Gal. 3.2 4. we are all one in Christ Jesus A. How then can he answer it before God to make us twain For as Abraham and his seed through the Law were in covenant so are believers and their seed now or else we are not all one in Christ but two seeds P. As for that opposition he gives page 99. That a temporal election into a temporal covenant was a type of the spiritual election into a spiritual covenant A. It is a whimsey of his own brain that can never be made good and therefore it shews a giddy spirit after notions P. Again Heb. 11.6 without faith it is impossible to please God therefore none can be in a covenant of Grace but such as believe So Abel A. We please God by Faith now as those worthies in that chap. mentioned did then for therefore the Apostle brings in them for an example so the answer is still the same Look how Abraham our Father pleased God in circumcising his seed as in the covenant in which there was an act of Faith and how the contrary in Moses neglecting the seal displeased God so are believers to please God by sealing their seed and the neglect hereof provokes the wrath of God as it is evident from this example by which we see that if we would please God as Abraham did we must then walk in the steps of Abraham and it is agreeable and not opposite to faith or grace to seal our Infants Thus Christian Reader thou maist see all the Scriptures by himself quoted to maintain his opinions they do like the stars of heaven in their courses fight against this Sisera P. The last place is Rev. 21.8 The fearful and unbelieving shall have their portion in the lake of fire A. Is not this well applyed to the thing in hand or doth he with one blast of his Nostrils turn all children to hell The Lord rebuke him even the Lord. CHAP. XV. The 2 Act. 3.1 Cor. 7.14 vindicated in answer to his last general head Pag. 101 102. WE are now come to his last head to examine the answer he gives to our Scripture Allegations and accordingly to reply The first Scripture he quarrels with is Act. 2.39 The promise is to you and your children and to all that are afar off even as many as the Lord our God shall call P. To which he saith the promise is just to so many as God shall cal and by Promise he opens the remission of sins and gift of the holy Ghost and then he makes this flourish I pray take notice how evident the Text makes against this error That the covenant of Grace should be made with the fleshly line of believers and to confirm the meaning of the word call in his sense he brings Rom. 8.30 and Heb. 9.15 and 1 Pet. 2.9 All which speaks of an effectual Call Rep. We are here to consider to whom the words were spoken 1. namely to the Jews who were troubled in spirit about their condition such who had crucifyed Jesus Christ that had wisht his blood to be upon them and their children Mat. 27.23 The promise is to you and your children this promise cannot be meant of the gifts of the holy Ghost by tongues and miracles for that would have been no solid cure to a wounded conscience as theirs was Judas had such gifts but they could not m●ke his conscience whole who was guilty of the same sin 2 This Promise was to relate to them afar off that is the Gentil●s it could not be therefore such Gifts for they ceast in that age and the Gentiles afar off never had them though yet the Gentiles did repent and were baptized therefore by this promise called the promise must be meant such a promise which they well knew and were acquainted with and therefore must be that of Abrahams covenant made to him and his seed So the Apostle Gal. 3. To Abraham and his seed were the promises made ver 16. not seeds as of many but as of one i. e. the Jewish seed and Gentile seed make but one seed i e. Christ mystical in his political body 1 Cor. 12.27 So here again the promise is to you and your seed Quest But what was there in Abrahams promise to cure a wounded Conscience For such were the persons mentioned therefore the salve must be suitable A. All good things were in it that related to Grace or Glory I will be thy God what could be said more what promise will cure a wounded Conscience if this will not T is a salve most proper to the ground of their distemper they had crucifyed God the son And this promise tells them he was theirs notwithstanding For the words I will be thy God imply personal promises so the father saith I wi●l be thy God and the Son I will be thy God and the Holy Ghost I will be thy God a promise sufficient enough to bear up a sinking world suitable to Gal. 3.14 explained v. 8. before to be in

faith doth reach the seed so as to incorporate them into external priviledges Gods carriage to Moses when he neglected his duty to seal his child doth sufficiently evince Exod 4.2 4 5 6. and agrees with Gen. 17.14 2 Faith and Repentance is required also upon a personal account to initiate such as come to yeers that are converted to imbrace the Gospell as Jews or Heathens or any other unbaptized persons But therefore I hope that since he hath brought this instance he will afford them to interpret their own meaning which they have best done by their practice though it may be not so orderly as he ought However we cannot but observe in this as in the like by searching after Antiquities and quoting the presidents of antient Churches and wracking the books and meaning of the Fathers as C. B. and others have done they would gladly get some humane Authority to countenance their Innovations But their fingers have been knockt off from that by worthy Mr Cobbet of New-England that I believe they do not much care to plead humane Antiquities more P. p. 32. If the covenant of life belongs to all believers seed then we need nor want for Church-members because all the world are the children and off-spring of believing Noah therefore this Argument carries the right of covenant to all the world because they are the children of a believer A. We do not baptize believers children for want of Church-members but because it is an Ordinance of Christ And though all the world be the off-spring of believing Noah yet what he affirms is untrue that therefore Noahs Faith carries the right of covenant to all the world upon these reasons 1 Because God did not pitch upon Noah to make him the Father of the Faithful as he did upon Abraham to whom he gave the promises Heb. 11.17 2 Therefore as children we are to acknowledge him to be our father that God hath made to be so which is faithful Abraham to whom he gave the seal and not faithful Noah And had God pitcht upon Noah as he did upon Abraham no question but Noah had circumcised his son as Abraham did but 3 Had God chosen Noah as he did Abraham yet it follows not that all the world could claim a covenant-right to the seal because all the world were not heirs of promise as we see the seal continued not in the race of Ishmael because discovenanted though yet he was a son of Abraham For upon the same ground M. P. argues all Abrahams off-spring to the worlds end should have been circumcised But therefore Faith ingraffs as unbelief cuts off by all which we see how vainly confident he is in what he saith and affirms Thus the honor and reputation of that Text 1 Cor. 10. stands untoucht For indeed whatsoever he hath brought thereupon with which he fills twelve pages together is but meer impertinences because he hath taken a wrong aym from the Text. CHAP. XVIII The cleering of Mark 10.13 about children being brought to Christ with other Scriptures THe next place he pretends to meet us in by way of encounter is Mark 10.13 And they brought young children to him that he should touch them And his Disciples rebuked them that brought them But when Jesus saw it he was much displeased and said Suffer little children to come unto me and forbid them not For of such is the kingdom of God Verily I say unto you whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child he shall not enter therein P. The first thing to be considered is whose children these were whether of wicked or godly Parents but by the former discourse in the chapter it should seem they might be wicked and ungodly Parents because there was such mentioned before that tempted Christ Rep Be sure ill will never thinks well and his ground to think they were wicked is non at all for how often doth one and the same chin Scripture speak of three or four distinct things that have no connexion with each other the subsequent having no dependance upon preceding discourse it is needless to give instances the Scripture is full thereof But 2 That they were believing Parents consider these grounds First they were such that in those days did visibly own Christ and if we consult Mark 10. fully It was not long before Christs Passion when he had many enemies abroad And therefore danger might ensue such an action And who would adventure to abide the frowns of great men for Infants were it not their own Parents and such also that had a face heavenward Again he P. Consider also wherefore they were brought to Christ it could not be to baptize them because Christ himself baptized none therefore it was probably to cure some bodily disease or distemper for the Text saith he laid his hands upon them and blessed them A. We never brought the place to prove that Christ baptized ●hem but to shew the abundant love care and good-will that Christ bears to such little ones especially to take such into his kingdom And for him to say or think that it was to cure them of some disease is st●ange For why then should such words be added why then should he take them up into his arms why should it be called a blessing them it is a word too high for a common cure yea to think the Apostles should keep any off from Christ that came to be ●ured of diseases smells too much of uncharitableness It is cleer therefore they were brought to Christ for a blessing which though it were not baptism it might be for confirmation after baptism for it is likely they were baptized by John because the pl●ce where it was done was in the coasts of Judea where John had before been bap●izing which also gives some more probable grounds I say no more that their Parents were godly because as John pointed at Christ in ad ministring the Ordinance so we finde these taking notice of Christ accordingly and that there was imposing of hands after baptism consider Act. 8.17 18. ch 16.6 sure it is Christ would have us learn something from that carriage of his that Infants are capable of covenant-blessings for in that channel all blessings run By which it is apparent that we have the stronger ground especially if to it be added a finger of Charity that their Parents were not onely godly but the children had been before taken into Abrahams covenant And the seal thereof as will further appear in the next P. For of such is the kingdom of God Now it is doubtful whether these children had believing Parents to the fift or sixt generation therefore if you make it to countenance that error of the covenant in the flesh that appears erroneous in that the greatest number of believe●s children never belonged in that sense to the kingdom of God Adam had a Cain as well as an Abel Noah had a Ham as well as a Shem Abraham had an Ishmael as

God did so much priviledge them above others was that all his might believe but yet some did not implying that some did i. e. many of them were justifyed T●erefore ch 4. 9. he draws t●wards a result cometh this blessedness then upon the Circumcision onely or upon the uncircumcision also how was it then reckoned i. e. If Abraham was justifyed in uncircumcision then the righteousness of Faith comes not upon the Circumcision onely and ver 12. To them who are not of the Circumcision onely and ver 16. Not to that seed onely which is of the Law And then the Apostle concludes ver 23. that it was not written for Abrahams sake alone that righteousness was imputed to him but for us also i. e. Rom. and all other Gentiles if they believe to whom Abraham is as well a Father as to the Jews So that this triumphant place gives not the least continuance to his opinion either that Circumcision was a covenant of works or that it stands in direct opposition to saith or that God gave a covenant of works to Abraham to seal a covenant of Grace as he consequentially affirms p. 53. Therefore such an interpretation as he hath given of this place is most unsound The like answer is to be given to that place Ph●l 3.2 3 4. which he brings in pag. 55. as an Appendix to this second Argument the Philippians were also revolting to seek after Justification by the works of the Law the teachers of which Doctrine the Apostle calls dogs and evil-workers And if any had cause to boast of the law of Works he had more yet to him it was but dung and dogs meat all his priviledges of being a Jew a Pharisee Circumcised one that concerning the Law was blameless All this saith Paul I can boast of but what is this as to matter of justification which is by faith alone in Christ The like plain answer also is and may he given to that other place Gal. 3.3 which Church also were back sliding into the same error and therefore he calls them fools and tells them they were bewitched ch 5.1 And if they would be seeking Justification by works they should find they were mistaken For as many as sought to be justifyed by the works of the Law were under the curse And that no man by the works of the Law was ever justifyed is evident because the just shall live by Faith ver 10 11. And therefore he sends them also to Abrahams covenant For to Abraham and his seed were the promises made And ver 18. he shews them the ill-consequence that would follow if they thought to be justifyed by works For then the inheritance must be by works that is the inheritance of Abrahams promises both for the Land of Canaan and all other spiritual blessings If it were by the Law then it is no more of promises But God gave them to Abraham by promise And not by a covenant of works remember that Mr P. upon this again comes with the old Objection Wherefore then serveth the Law If a man may not be justifyed and saved by the works of the Law to what end and purpose then was it given The answer is it was added because of transgression that is to make sin look like sin and thereby to ingage Gods people then to walk close in the duties thereof and in ver 21. The Apostle directly confutes Mr. Patients Doctrine Is the Law then against the Promises or in opposition to the Promises God forbid By all which it appears that the Law was no covenant of Works nor is Circumcision or any part of the Law opposed to Faith as he would make us beheve but this was the great mistake of many in Primitive Churches by false teachers means And so of all Israel as it is also of Mr P. that the Law was given to the Church of the Jews as a covenant of works which God never intended to any such end or purpose CHAP. IX The next thing we come to is the several Arguments he brings in p. 53. to prove Circumcision onely a seal to Abraham answered I. FIrst because the righteousness of Faith which it sealed Abraham had it before the seal was given but his posterity could not be said to believe at eight days old Therefore it was a seal to him and not to them A. The seal was not annext to Abrahams Faith as Abrahams but to Gods covenant made with Abraham therefore it is called the seal of the righteousness of Faith So that what it sealed to Abraham was as he was an heir of the same Promises with Isaac and Jacob Heb. 11.9 therefore what it sealed to him as an heir it sealed to Isaac and Jacob and so to all believers as co-heirs of the same inheritance Heb. 6.17 2. If it was a seal of Abrahams Faith onely then it must be either as it was a weak faith or strong faith 1 It could not be the first because Abrahams faith is by the Apostle said not to be weak Rom. 4.19 20. 2. If it had been given as a badge of honor to Abrahams Faith as I have seen it affirmed in a piece or C. B. as a strong faith then it should have been given to Adam and Noah who had as strong faiths as Abraham and less Gospel-light then Abraham had to work it 3. There was no necessity to have Abrahams justification sealed more then Adams Seths Noahs or any of his predecessors especially if it be considered what M. P. himself grants that he was justifyed twenty four years before this seal was given therefore 4. Had it not been a seal to Isaac as well as to Abraham and so not onely a seal of Abrahams faith it might have been given upon the birth of Ishmael and Abraham need not have staid for a son of promise for it would have sealed as much then to Abraham as it did after if it was not the covenant-seal 5. Had it not been a seal to Isaac and so a part of the covenant then Isaacs not being circumcised had been no breach of the covenant directly against that place Gen. 17.10 For a seal the Apostle calls it and a sign God calls it So that had it onely been a seal of Abrahams Faith the covenant had not come sealed to Isaac because the seal reacht onely the Faith of Abraham and when he dyed the seal was broken off Therefore 6. It is a cleer truth that as the blessings of the covenant were made to Abraham by Promise and to his seed so Gods main drift being to make those covenant-blessings sure to all the heirs of Promise Heb. 6.17 he therefore deals as a man that would be believed First he promise● secondly he swears to confirm that Promise Thirdly he seals what he hath promised So the seal becomes the covenant-seal as the oath is the Covenants oath and what God promised to Abraham he promised to his seed and what he confirmed by oath to Abraham he confirmed to his

seed and what God therefore sealed to Abraham he sealed also to his seed All which was to shew the immutability of his Counsel to the heirs of Promise not only to such as were heirs under the Law but to the worlds end as the Apostle tells us before in the place quoted II. His next reason or Argument why it sealed onely to Abraham is because it is said he received it that he might be the Father of all that believe Which could not be said of Isaac because he was but a child A. Though Abraham was made the Father of the faithful by having that seal given him yet he could not have been such a father without such a son because they are relatives not onely in the natural relation but in the promise for though Ishmael was born thirteen yeers before Isaac was promised yet had God given him circumcision then Abraham had not been the Father of the faithful because Ishmael was not a faithful child So that that which was required to make Abraham a father of a faithful son was required in Isaac to make him such a son of a faithful Father Therefore that seal that was given to Abraham as a father was given to Isaac as a son III. His third Argument to prove it a seal onely to Abraham is Here is the spirit of God affirming the sealing use of Circumcision to Abraham onely upon a reason special to him therefore where the Scripture hath not a mouth to speak we must not have an ear to hear A. The spirit of God speaks no such thing but the spirit of M. P. for where is it said it was a seal to him onely no such Text is to be sound in all the Scriptures for as is before said what it sealed to him as a father it sealed to Isaac as a son of that Father for the covenant related to posterity I may therefore say of him as the Prophet said of the false Prophets who said the Lord saith it as here M P. doth when indeed the Lord hath not spoken therefore the Scripture hath a mouth to speak if he had an understanding heart to know when and what it speaks let such therefore who have ears to hear hear what the spirit speaks to the Churches IV. P. A fourth ground or reason he gives that Circumcision sealed onely to Abraham is drawn from Rom. 4.13 The promise that he should be the heir of the world was not to him and his seed through the Law i. e. saith M. P. through the covenant of Circumcision But through the righteousness of Faith For if they that be of the Law be heirs then Faith is made void A. 1. He here again supposes that which is denyed and the contrary proved i. e. That Circumcision was not a covenant of works 2. When it is said the promise of his being the heir of the world was not made to Abraham through the Law The Apostle means that it was not to be confined and shut up to the generations of the Law onely and so it was not to his seed through the Law onely but through the righteousness of Faith that is his Patrimony came upon such high tearms as would reach to a thousand generations Psal ●05 even to the Gentiles under the Gospel to the worlds end and that this is his meaning is clear by the following words For if they which are of the Law be heirs i. e. They and they onely but heirs they were Faith is made void That is the faith which Abraham had by which he did believe the multiplying of his seed in all Nations upon the grounds of the Promise that faith is quite frustrated because it went no further then the generations of the Law And therefore it is of faith that it might be by Grace to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed and then he fully explains what he said before Not sure to that seed onely which were of the Law where the word onely doth suppose it was sure to the legal seed therefore it cannot be meant of a covenant of works for so the promise was never sure to any from the Creation to this day or ever shall be 3. If the place were to be understood in his sense namely of a covenant of works Then it confutes in direct terms w●at he hath so much pleaded for in his book As that Canaan should be given by a covenant of works For the promise that he should be the heir of the world in which that land was included was not to him and his seed through the Law i e. saith Mr P not by the covenant of Circumcision but through the righteousness of faith And if the Apostle saith not by that covenant then why doth Mr P. so often affirm elsewhere it was Thus we see there is nothing in all he hath said that proves Ci●cumcision either a covenant of works or seal to Abraham onely but enough to prove it a seal to all the heirs of promise even whilst they are infants All ye therefore that belong to the covenant of Grace fear not to give your infant-seed that Ordinance which now is the seal of the covenant P. The last Scripture he here brings to prove Circumcision a covenant of works is Gal. 4. latter end where the Apostle compa es the two covenants to Sarah and Hagar the covenant of Circumcision is held forth to be the bondwoman ch 5.1.2 3. ch 6.13 wh●ch place doth prove the covenant made in the fleshly line of Abraham is a covenant of Works And that which the Gospel is set in opposition to For the covenant of Grace is I will put my Law in their hearts but the covenant of Circumcision is not in the heart but in the flesh A. The diligent Reader may easily observe the palpable contradictions that are here to be found Hagar types out the covenant of works Sarah types out the covenant of grace and the fl●shly covenant of Circumcision as he calls it which is typed out by Hagar is made in the fleshly line of Abraham which must be Ishmael And then he contradicts what he hath been all this while maintaining i e. that the fleshly line is Isaac and Jacob in which the covenant of Circumcision was to run and so also he opposeth the Apostle Gal. 4 23 But he that was born of the bondwoman was born after the flesh but he of the free-woman was by Promise so that what Paul calls the children by promise he calls the children of the flesh Thus men leaving truth making wise God leaves them to publish their own folly That place Gal. 1.2 3. is already answered they were such that were falling back from Grace to be justified by works through their gross mistake thinking as Mr P. doth that the Law had been given for a covenant of works Lastly Though God hath promised to write the new covenant in the heart yet the seals of that covenant are written in the flesh so it was then