Selected quad for the lemma: life_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
life_n	blood_n	drink_v	flesh_n	36,140	5	8.2247	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A77497	The doctrine and practice of paedobaptisme, asserted and vindicated. By a large and full improovement of some principall arguments for it, and a briefe resolution of such materiall objections as are made against it. Whereunto is annexed a briefe and plaine Enarration, both doctrinall and practicall, upon Mark 10.V.13.14.15.16. As it was some time since preached in the church of Great Yarmouth: now published for an antidote against those yet spreading errours of the times, Anabaptisme and Catabaptisme. / By Joh. Brinsley.	Brinsley, John, 1600-1665.	1645 (1645)	Wing B4712; Thomason E300_14; ESTC R200258	127,125	196

in to debar children from the one who had so undoubted a right to and so long a continued possession of the other How they come to be cut off from this priviledge which was once so firmly intailed upon them Which if they cannot shew then must we still conclude it to be their right As for other alterations wherein Baptisme differs from Circumcision we can shew good warrant for them out of the Scriptures As viz. 1. Why whereas Circumcision was administred only to males Baptisme should be administred to both sexes both to male and female For this we have both the practise of the Apostles to warrant it At Philips preaching to the Samaritanes they beleeving his doctrine were baptized both men and women Act. 8. 11. and we have the Apostles reason for it Gal. 3. 28. As many of you as have beene baptized into Christ have put on Christ For in Christ Iesus there is neither male nor female c. 2. So secondly for baptizing of all Nations Whereas Circumcision was restrained peculiarly to one Nation Baptisme is to be tendred to all For this we have our Saviours owne commission and warrant G●e teach all Nations baptizing them i. e. Not Iewes only but Gentiles also And we have the Apostles reason for it also in the place forenamed For in Christ Iesus there is neither Iew nor Greek c. 3. So againe for the circumstance of time That we do not tye the administration of Baptisme to any certaine day as it was in Circumcision but administer it before the eight day or after For this also we have the Apostles warrant who tells us that it is not for Christians now to observe dayes as the Jewes did reckoning up this amongst those weake and beggarly rudiments as he calls them Yee observe months and dayes and times and years Herein Christians have a liberty a liberty purchased for them by the blood of Christ and that liberty they must stand fast in Thus in what ever other changes and alterations herein we meet with we can still shew good warrant for it out of Scripture Now if our Adversaries can doe the like for this great alteration why Baptisme should not bee administred to Infants as well as Circumcision was then indeed wee will hearken to them In the meane time it is not for them to presse us for a speciall warrant an expresse and particular order and command in this case This we conceive to be altogether needlesse having such a standing order and direction touching Circumcision shewing us to whom this seale of the Covenant belongs and to whom it is to be administred viz. to all that are in Covenant Infants as well as others what needeth any new order in this particular This order for the substance of it is perpetuall of force under the New Testament as well as under the Old Further answer to this question I shall defer till hereafter conceiving this sufficient for the present One allegation is yet behinde which our Adversaries by way of reply here cast in our way I shall only touch briefly and so dismisse this second Argument with it Repl. If this bee a good Argument say they that Infants may be baptized because they were Circumcised then by a like reason they should now be admitted to the Lords Table because under the Old Testament they eat the Passeover The reason say they is a like for both So as if it hold in the one why not in the other Ans To part of this I have in part answered already give me leave now to doe it a little more fully For childrens eating of the Lords Supper whether lawfull or no it hath beene and yet is a Question Anciently it is well knowne it was allowed and practised in the Roman and African Churches Those ancient Doctors Augustine and Cyprian are Advocates in this cause pleading not only for the lawfulnesse but Expediencie of it At this day the practice is or at least lately was as Peter Martyr informes me retained amongst the Grecian Bohemian Moravian Churches How warrantable this hath been or may be is disputable P. Martyr for his part professeth that he will not be zealous in siding with either part in this quarrell As for the custome of those ancient Churches in admitting them he will not he dare not condemne it and as for the practise of other Churches in debarring them he cannot but allow it The latter not so warrantable is amongst us and most of the Churches at this day and that upon good ground as we conceive concluded to be the more safe the more warrantable For their admission Scripture will not beare it out As for that place cited and made use of by those Ancients as a ground for this practice Joh. 6. 53. Except yee eat the Flesh of the Son of man and drinke his Blood ye have no life in you it maketh nothing for it our Saviour there speaking not of a Sacramentall but a Spirituall Communion a Spirituall feeding upon him which is done by faith fetching refreshment nourishment from Christ by the application of his merits unto the soule Much in Scripture that seemeth to make against it Paul telleth us of divers Qualifications requisite in Communicants and divers actions to be performed by them in and about the supper of the Lord which Infants are not capable of as viz. besides the eating and drinking of the Elements which young Infants cannot doe the examining of themselves the discerning of the Lords body the shewing forth the Lords death the doing what they doe in remembrance of him c. All these actions are actually to be performed by worthy Communicants So as there is just reason why Infants though they be baptized yet they should not be admitted to the Supper of the Lord this being as you see an active Ordinance consisting mostly in doing Doe this as oft as you eat it c. Q. But what say we then to the Argument Infants eat the Passeover why not then the Lords Supper as well as be baptized because they were circumcised A. 1. To this we answer i. should it be granted that Infants did partake of the one yet we see good reason why they should not be admitted to the other being not subjects capable of the aforesaid Qualifications 2. But secondly how can it be proved that Infants did eat the Passeover I know it is an opinion that hath been received swallowed downe I suppose without chewing as many other of this nature have been and that by some of note but upon what ground I know not Scripture I am sure will not make it out True we finde an order that there should be a Lambe for a house and in case that one family were too little to eat it up the next family was to be joyned to it they must take it according to the number of the soules saith the Text reckoning

could doe having authority to blesse and having all power in his hands to conferre not onely temporall but spirituall and heavenly blessings Thou hast given him power over all flesh that hee should give eternall life to as many as thou hast given him Quest But the question is what blessing it was that Christ here bestowed upon these Infants Christ hath many blessings saith the Anabaptist right-hand and left-hand blessings In the dayes of his flesh hee healed the sicke cleansed the leapers made the dumbe to speake the blinde to see c. And who knoweth say they but some such blessing it might bee that Christ here bestowed upon them some temporall blessing Answ To this wee answer that possibly it might be so Hee might possibly and probably prav that they might live and grow in stature in wisedome and favour and the like But surely this blessing of his imports more The Text telleth us here that Christ layd his hands on them Not one hand but both Christs blessings when hee was upon earth seldome went single Seldome did he bestow a left-hand without a right-hand blessing Seldome did hee cure any in their bodies but hee cured them also in their soules And surely such was his blessing here More than a bare temporall blessing chiefly and principally a spirituall and heavenly blessing even the blessing of Gods Kingdome This hee had before avowed to belong unto them Of such is the Kingdome of God and the blessing of this Kingdome hee here conferred upon them Hee blessed them And what could hee have done more for them or for any This was the best thing that Isaac could doe to or for his sonne Jacob to blesse him And what could Christ have done better for these Infants Hee blessing them they were blessed I have blessed him and hee shall bee blessed saith Isaac concerning his sonne And those whom Christ blesseth they shall bee blessed Applic. O seeke we after this blessing the root of all blessings Seeke it for our selves and seeke it for our Children Without this our blessing of them our providing for them will be little worth Let it be our care and endeavour to bring them to Christ to know him to believe on him that hee may blesse them If he blesse them they shall be blessed And thus I have as briefly as I could run over this portion of Scripture both in a Doctrinall and Practicall way shewing you still by the way what it maketh for that end to which it hath beene ordinarily made use of amongst us viz. the Baptisme of Infants Such they were that were here brought to Christ. Such they were whom the Disciples here out of no ill intent attempt to keepe backe from ●●ming t● Christ Such they were whom Christ here inviteth to come unto him prohibiting his Disciples or any other to hinder them Such they were to whom hee avoweth the Kingdome of God both of Grace and Glory to belong Such they were whom he here embraceth luy●●h his hands on blesseth Object But saith the Anabaptist what is all this to the point in hand All this while wee doe not read that Christ Baptized these Infants Answ True No more did he any others Iesus himselfe baptized not Iohn 4. 2. But yet hee expressed a singular and peculiar affection to them Invites them to communion with himselfe avowes the Kingdome of God to bee theirs and conferres upon them the blessing of that Kingdome And hath Christ thus honoured some of this tender age What shall new bee done to them whom the King of Heaven delighteth to honour Doth hee invite them to communion with himselfe Who shall keepe them backe by debarring them of the meanes of that communion Doth hee avow and conferre the thing signified who shall then deny them the signe FINIS Col. 4. 14. Lucas de Medico corporum factus jam erat Medicus animarum Hieron in ep ad Phil. The healing of Israels breaches An. 1642 Church-Reformation An. Church-Remedy An. 1644 M. Marshals Sermon M. Cooke D● Featly c. Gen. 38. 30. 31 a Non inficior in co nonnihil hallucinari Hieronymum quod Apostolicam esse observationem dicit viz. Confi●mationem Calv instit l. 4 c. 19. S. 4. b Hieron contra Lucif c Heb. 6. 2. Hic unus locus abundè testatur hujus Ceremoniae sc Impositionis manuum in Confirmatione originem fluxisse ab Apostolis Cat. Com. in ep ad Heb. ca. 6. v. 2. d Rev. 1. 16. 20. e Joh. 5. 35. The Subject of Baptisme Q. Who may and ought to be baptized A. Such as are in Covenant with God Gen. 17. 13. 14 Baptisme a seale of the Covenant already made Gen. 17. 1. 2. Vers 9. 10. Act. 2. 38. All such as are in Covenant may and ought ●o be baptized ●en 17. 26. 27 R. 1. Mans sinne and misery universall Gal. 3. 22. Rom. 5. 14. Eph. 2. 3. Tit. 3. 5. 2. The tender of Gods grace and mercy universall Gal. 3. 28. 1 Cor. 12. 13. 2. Only such as are in Covenant may be baptised The Churches rule the rule of charity Q Who may be thought to be within the Covenant A. All that professe the faith of Christ and their children Professours of the faith baptiseable Act. 8. 36. Vers 37. Act. 12. 1● Generall profession makes a Christian Rom. 2. Gal. 4. 19. Act. 11 26. Mat. 3. Act 5. and 8. Persons come to years of discretion how they ought to be admitted to Baptisme Mat. 3. 6. Act. 19. 4. The answer of a good conscience in Baptisme what Beza Annot. in 1 Pet. 3. 21. Baptisme of Infants Anabaptisme a dangerous errour Q. Whether Infants be baptizeable or no. The Question stated Infan●s of beleeving parents are subjects capable of Baptisme Proved by arguments 〈…〉 Children may be baptized because within the Covenant Infants of beleeving parents are to be reputed in Covenant Rom. 3. 22. 23. Proved by 3 Arguments Arg. 1. Taken from Act. 2. 38. 39. Explication Q 1. What meant by the Promise Vers 38. A. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Q. 2. What by children Calv. ad lo● Not children by Regeneration Or Succession But children in Age. Vid. Robinson Bap. of Infants Arg. 5. The Promise said to belong to three sorts of persons Q. Who were those a far off Calvin Piscator A Lapide Not the Gentiles as it is usually expounded Ephes 2 17. vers 13. Beza ad loc Proved by two reasons Peter was not yet fully instructed in this mystery touching the calling of the Gentiles Act. 10. Vers 13. 28. 34. No fit time to preach this doctrine But the posterity of the Iewes a far off in time What meant by Children Object As many as the Lord our God shall call how to be understood Arg. 2. Some Infants were in Covenant under the Old Testament Gen. 17. 10 11 Therefore some are in covenant now Proved by 3 Arguments Otherwise Infants should be losers by the comming of Christ Nisi

them in the great businesse of salvation but to promote and further it 2. Again secondly if Infants should be in Covenant under the Old Testament and not under the New then the grace of God under the Old Testament should be more large then under the New and under the New more straite then under the Old Under the Old Testament the Covenant was I will be thy God and the God of thy seed The grace of God then extended not to the Parent only but to the Childe Now if this grace should now be restrained only to the Parent not reaching unto the Child then the grace of the New Testament should be more straite then of the Old which cannot be imagined without great wrong and injury to Christ himself and his Gospel As for Christ we know he brought grace along with him as the Sun doth his beames Grace and Truth came by and with Iesus Christ Grace and that ample grace Such is the grace of the New Testament reaching and spreading further then that of the Old The grace of God which bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men saith the Apostle i. e. to all sorts ages and conditions of men Therein is this grace more ample then it was under the Law There the grace of God in an ordinary dispensation it was appropriated to the Iews They were then the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gods favourites to whom his grace in Christ was manifested But now that grace hath appeared to all men The grace of the Gospel is more ample and every wayes greater grace then that before or under the Law God having provided some better thing for us saith the Apostle The priviledges of the Gospel are more and greater and better then those under the Law Surely therefore Infants being in Covenant then they are not excluded now Which if they be 3. Let it be shewed in the third place by what act they are excluded If once they were in Covenant let it be shewed when and how they came to be ejected how this Magna Charta this Great Charter granted first to Abraham came to be forfeited or when it was called in How they who were once of Gods family and wore his livery came to be cashiered How they who were once members of the mysticall Body came to be cut off If our adversaries can shew us a speciall warrant for the calling in of this act of grace towards them as they must before we can give way to it a speciall and expresse order to prohibit Infants from laying any further claime to that priviledge under the Gospel which for so many ages they had beene peaceably possessed of under the Law then we will hearken to them Otherwise we must hold Infants to be in statu quo in the same or in a better state and condition now then they were in under the Old Testament Being in Covenant with God then they are in Covenant with him now And being in Covenant they have right to this initiall seale of the Covenant I know what the Anabaptist will here reply to this Argument Give me leave to meet with it that I may cleare the way as I goe That Infants should be in Covenant under the New Testament because they were so under the old it followeth not say they why In as much as these are two distinct Covenants not the same For this say they Scripture is expresse calling this Covenant which we have under the Gospel a New Covenant and a better Covenant established upon better promises c. As for that old Covenant it is antiquated and abrogated being as the Apostle tells us disanulled by reason of the weaknesse and unprofitablenesse thereof That Covenant then is now determined neither have we any thing to doe with it under the Gospel This is a new Covenant nor like the former A. For answer to this in as much as it will make much to the clearing of this doctrine and tend greatly to the satisfaction of those who desire it give me leave briefly to shew you what the old Covenant was which is there opposed to this new Covenant and said to bee abrogated and abolished c. Where let God himselfe be his owne Interpreter In that 31. of Ieremy v. 32. cited by the Apostle Heb. 8. v. 9. the words are expresse Behold the dayes come saith the Lord that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel c. What Covenant why marke what followes Not according to the Covenant which I made with their fathers in the day that I tooke them by the hand to bring them out of Egypt c. Marke it This was the old Covenant so much spoken of in that Epistle to the Hebrewes Not that Covenant which God made with Abraham Gen. 17. But that Covenant which he made with Israel at their comming out of Egypt Exod. 19. These were two distinct Covenants distinct I say whether in kinde or only in manner of administration I will not contend A point worthy to be observed as letting in much light to the controversie now in hand Many remarkable differences there are betwixt them To glean some of the handfulls that others have let fall 1. In the first place they differ in time The Covenant made with Abraham was long before that other Covenant even foure hundred and thirty yeares So the Apostle tells us expressely Gal. 3. 17. The Covenant that was confirmed before of God in Christ the Law which was foure hundred and thirty yeares after cannot disanull So long was this Covenant after that Covenant made with Abraham 2. As they differ in time so in place The one made at Mount Sina Exod. 19. the other first made with Abraham in Vr of the Caldees Gen. 12. after renewed and confirmed in Canaan Gen. 15. and 17. 3. They differ in the manner both of their making and dispensing The Law was given after a terrible manner to declare the Iustice of God against the violaters and transgressours of that Covenant But the Covenant made with Abraham was made with all sweetnes of love and mercy breathing forth nothing but free grace And for the manner of their dispensation that legall Covenant it was dispensed under types and figures and ceremoniall observances It had Ordinances of divine service and a wordly Sanctuary c. as the Apostle speaketh Heb. 9. 1. But the Covenant made with Abraham was more plainely and simply dispensed having no other Ceremony annexed to it but only Circumcision which was a seale of that Covenant 4. Againe they differ in their Conditions The condition of that legall Covenant at Mount Sina was even the same for substance with that which God made with Adam in Paradise Doe this and live A legall condition promising life all earthly and heavenly blessings upon the condition of perfect obedience to all the Commandements Whereupon this Covenant through mans corruption and inability

to keep it it is said to be weake It was weake through the flesh Rom. 8. 3. and unprofitable Heb. 7. 18. It was disanulled for the weaknesse and unprofitablenesse thereof But now the condition of that Covenant made with Abraham was Evangelicall viz. Faith and Evangelicall obedience Faith Circumcision the seale of that Covenant was to Abraham a seale of the righteousnesse of Faith sealing up unto him righteousnesse and life not upon the condition of doing working but beleeving which was accounted to him for Righteousnesse as the Apostle sets it forth Rom. 4. Obedience not exactnesse but uprightnesse Gen. 17. 1. Walke before me and be upright or sincere 5. Againe fifthly they differ in the end and use of them That legall Covenant it was given chiefly because of transgressions So the Apostle tells us Gal. 3. 19. wherefore then serveth the Law it was added because of transgressions viz. to discover them to bridle and restrain men from them to denounce punishments for them for that is a threefold use of the Law 1. Detegit 2. Fraenat 3. Punit to convince men of sinne and of their misery by reason of sinne that so they might come to see the need they have of Christ and be driven to him according to that of the Apostle Gal. 3. 24. The Law was our School-master to bring us unto Christ But that other Covenant made with Abraham it was to assure him and his seed of their interest in the Messiah and the promise of life through him Sixtly and lastly They differ in their duration and continuance That legall Covenant it was but temporary to continue but till Christ should come So saith the Apostle Gal. 3. 19. The law was added because of transgressions untill the seed should come to whom the promise was made i. e. untill Christ should come Then that legall Covenant as a Covenant with the Church ceased But the Covenant made with Abraham it was an everlasting Covenant So the Lord tells him Gen. 17. 7. I will establish my Covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee for an everlasting Covenant c. So then you see that these Covenants were two distinet Covenants That Covenant which God made with Israel at Mount Sina it was not the same with that which he had made with Abraham before And of that Covenant it is that the Apostle there speaketh in the 7. and 8. chap. of the Hebrewes Not of the Covenant made with Abraham which was an Evangelicall Covenant and for substance the same with that which we are now under But of the Covenant made at Mount Sina that legall Covenant That is the Covenant which the Apostle there compareth with the new Covenant and of which he telleth us that it is now disanulled and abolished Q. Why but saith our Adversary how could that be called the old Covenant and the first Covenant when as it was 430. years after the Covenant made with Abraham This was rather the first Covenant and old Covenant A. To this it is answered That legall Covenant is called the old Covenant 1. In opposition to the Covenant of the Gospell under the new Testament which because it was revived and renewed and confirmed by the comming of Christ the promised seed it is therefore peculiarly called the new Covenant and that legall Covenant in opposition to it is called the old Covenant 2. The old Covenant because it waxed old and through age decayed So saith the Apostle of it in the place last named Heb. 8. last In that he saith a new Covenant he hath made the first old new that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish aw●y 3. The old Covenant and the first Covenant because for substance it was partly the same with that first Covenant which God made with Adam in state of innocencie The Law the morall part of it published upon Mount Sina it was no other but the same Law that was given to Adam at the first What was there written in Tables of stone was but a counterpane of what was written in the fleshy Tables of the heart of man at the beginning And being so well might it be called the old Covenant and the first Covenant being before the Covenant of Grace made with Abraham I or with Adam either You see then what the old Covenant is that legall Covenant whereof Moses was the Mediatour And of this Covenant it is true it is disanulled abrogated so as there is now no more use of the Law as a Covenant to the Church Marke that as a Covenant Other uses there are of it many which are still in force as much as ever But it is no longer a Covenant This Covenant is disanulled But so is not that Evangelicall Covenant made with Abraham which is as I told you an Everlasting Covenant and for substance the very same with that which Beleevers are now under viz. the Covenant of Grace promising life and salvation upon the condition of beleeving So much the Apostle tells us expressely Gal. 3. v. 8. The Scripture i. e. the Spirit of God speaking in Scripture foreseeing that God would justifie the heathen the Gentiles through faith preached before the Gospel unto Abraham saying In thee shall all Nations be blessed Marke it When God made this Covenant with Abraham declaring and promising that in his seed all the Nations of the earth should be blessed he then preached the Gospel to him making a Covenant with him concerning Christ and salvation by Christ So much Zacharias in his song acknowledgeth Luke 1. 72 73. where speaking of the exhibiting and sending of Christ into the world he calls it An holy Covenant the oath which God sware unto our father Abraham The Covenant made with Abraham then was no other but the Covenant of Grace even the same Covenant that we are now under All the difference is the Covenant now is new drawne and so put into another forme set forth and expressed more clearly and fully then that with Abraham was even as our evidences and conveyances now they are more large and full then they were wont to be in the dayes of our forefathers though in effect the same but for substance they are one and the same And being so to close up this second Argument that Covenant is an everlasting Covenant I will make an everlasting Covenant with them saith the Lord speaking of the renewing of the Covenant of Grace with them Ier. 32. 40. A Covenant that is not waxed old as that legall Covenant did that is not nor ever shall be disanulled but is in force still as much as ever And consequently children of Beleevers being once in Covenant they are still in Covenant And being in Covenant they have a right to this seale of the Covenant Arg. 3. I passe now to a third Argument to prove children of Beleevers to be within the Covenant I take it from that known place of the