Selected quad for the lemma: law_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
law_n	daughter_n	son_n	wife_n	6,684	5	7.2935	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A80754	The covenant of God with Abraham, opened. Wherein I. The duty of infant-baptism is cleared. II. Something added concerning the Sabbath, and the nature and increase of the kingdome of Christ. Together with a short discourse concerning the manifestations of God unto his people in the last dayes. Wherein is shewed the manner of the spirits work therein to be in the use of ordinary gifts, not by extraordinary revelations. / By William Carter minister of the gospel in London.	Carter, William, 1605-1658.	1654 (1654)	Wing C679; Thomason E811_5; ESTC R207606	118,861	192

blessing which these are not yea though we cannot with certainty affirm of this or that Infant of a beleever that it is inherently holy yet holy as thus separated and differenced from those who are common by that word of blessing from God under which they are As we cannot upon certainty affirm of any particular person in the Church that he is inherently holy because he may make a lye in his confession yet of every such person we can say he is in that sense holy namely as separated unto God in that relation and thereby differenced from those who are common or uncleane To this I adde that as it is a necessary qualification in the confession of one who is received into Church relation that therein be held forth in words and actions that which giveth a positive ground of hope that he is inherently holy so in this promise of God to Abraham concerning his purpose of election so by families as hath been shewed we have no less ground of hope concerning Infants of beleevers In the one we have a persons own profession concerning his spiritual state and interest in Christ 1 Cor. 7. 14. Matth. 10. 14. in the other we have what God himself professeth how he hath separated them unto himself and made them part of his kingdom and partakers of the blessing of his covenant And as a person of ripe years is received to baptisme not because he is certainly known to be inherently holy but upon his profession to be such wherein both himself and the Church may be deceived so upon that which God hath said concerning Infants are they to be received also Nor let it seem strange that those who are made holy from a word of blessing from the Lord are by him appointed to have the seale of that word and covenant by which they are so made holy as in the former use was proved that he hath so commanded and appointed Which also is another reason why such children are by the Apostle called holy namely because they are not onely within the covenant of Abraham but also are appointed of God to be a subject recipient of the seale of that covenant The seale is holy and those to whom it is applyed must be so or else it is profaned and made common As for that interpretation given of that place by some els were your children unclean but now are they holy to be meant that else their children were bastards but now they were legitimate It cannot be the meaning of the Apostle because so the Apostle had answered nothing to the satisfaction of those who had put the Question to him about putting away an unbeleeving Wife For it seems the Corinthians had written to him and had put certain questions to be answered by him as we see vers 1. whereof that was one Now for him to say that a beleeving Husband might lawfully keep his Wife still though an unbeleever else were their children bastards had been to leave them as dark and unsatisfied as before for that had been but idem per idem or barely to affirm the thing But it is evident the Apostle bringeth that of the childrens being holy as an argument to prove their lawful continuance in that relation notwithstanding one of them was an unbeleever Nor can we suppose the Apostle would so reason that except one of the married couple be a beleever their children are bastards Moreover the holinesse here mentioned is supposed to be such as the unbeleever contributeth nothing to it he is sanctified he doth not sanctifie therefore cannot be meant of legitimacy of birth which must be as well from the one as from the other since marriage is an ordinance not peculiar to the Church of God but common unto all mankind By this answer of his it appears that it was a Jewish scruple that did trouble them namely whereas under the Law it was a sinne for one of the Church of the Jewes to marry a strange Wife that is one who was not of the Church and in such case they were commanded to put away their Wives and to separate themselves from them as being polluted by them as we see in Ezra 10. 11. 9. 12. as it was also the sinne of the old world that the sons of God that is they of the Church did take in marriage the Daughters of men that is of the posterity of Caine Such was the Law of the communion of Saints also in the Church even in those dayes Therefore the Corinthians put the Question to the Apostle whether now also in the times of the New Testament one of the Church might continue in Wedlock with one not of the Church but an infidell To this the Apostle answereth that if the unbelieving Wife was not sanctified in or by the believing Husband that is if any church-Church-Law was thereby broken so as their continuance in that relation was not lawful but did cause pollution to the beleever that then their Children must not be reputed holy but unclean or common so as if they would deny the Wife mariage communion upon that account they must deny their children all spiritual communion in the Church For such was the Law to the Jewes Ezra 10. 3. They put away their Wives and such as were born of them also and that according to the command of Ezra and according to the Law By that which they granted he proves that which they did question Obj. If it be objected that upon this account not onely children of beleevers but also Nations must be reputed holy because the promise is that beleevers shall be blessings also unto Nations To this I answer Answ The case is not the same for children are immediately under this word of blessing in the familie relation as the people of God in the Church are immediately under that blessing which the Lord commandeth out of Sion But as for Nations they are under it in a more remote capacity by means of what the Saints are in their families and in the Church Therefore although such as are of the Church and the children also of such families are holy yet it followeth not that therefore the Nation should be holy To this I adde that children are in the power of parents and at their disposing and so as when they in their sanctification or being made holy give up themselves to God by faith and obedience to his ordinances their children are therein vertually given up also in as much as a beleever in some respect giveth up to God together with himself all in his power Now this cannot be said of any nation whatsoever Obj. It will be objected yet further That the Jews are said to be holy even the whole people of the Jews who now are unbeleevers Rom. 11. 16. If the first fruit be holy the lump is also holy and if the root be holy so are the branches yet have they no right to baptisme and therefore that this holiness of the children of