Selected quad for the lemma: money_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
money_n	circumcision_n	definition_n	stable_a	15	3	16.0950	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A62864	Anti-pædobaptism, or, The third part being a full review of the dispute concerning infant baptism : in which the arguments for infant baptism from the covenant and initial seal, infants visible church membership, antiquity of infant baptism are refelled [sic] : and the writings of Mr. Stephen Marshal, Mr. Richard Baxter ... and others are examined, and many points about the covenants, and seals and other truths of weight are handled / by John Tombes.	Tombes, John, 1603?-1676.	1657 (1657)	Wing T1800; ESTC R28882	1,260,695	1,095

interest suspended But 1. still Mr. Blake speaks of the Lords Supper and of baptism as of privileges meerly whereas the Scripture speaks of each as a duty as well as a privilege 2. By the same distinction an answer is given to him concerning infants baptism that though they have the right to it yet by reason of infancy the actual interest of it is to be suspended they being no more able to profess the faith till they be grown to some riper age then a Cradle King to rule a Kingdome So that Mr. Blakes answers yield more exceptions against Mr. Ms. argument confirm it not at al but shew how we may grant his Major and yet so limit it that it will be too short of proving baptism of federate persons in infancy and these passages of Master Blake appear to be Cavils and not An●wers He next sets upon the fifth section of the first part of my Review and excepts 1. That I shew not where to find Mr. Baillees words But if he had looked into my Letter mentioned he had found them quickly in the third section 2. That I denyed the Metaphor of a seal to be rightly made the genus of a rite as of baptism to which he replies in his flirting fashion We shall expect another letter to shew Saint Pauls definition Rom. 4.11 to be alike light who runs upon the same errour if an errour when he saies that Circumcision is a sign and seal there is the genus and the differentia lies in these words to distinguish it from other signs and seals of the righteousness of faith The nature of a Sacrament stands in a figure and the whole efficacy of it in the use And how else then should the nature and use of it be held out To which I answer Paul doth not give a definition Rom. 4.11 of circumcision much less doth he define a Sacrament in general Every Definition is reciprocal with the thing defined but Mr. Bl. I presume will not say every circumcision is a seal of the righteousness of faith and every seal of the righteousness of faith is circumcision Besides individuals are not wont to be defined but what is there said is said of the singular circumcision of Abraham and no other The title given to Abrahams circumcision doth but shew what the use of it was to him not what was the constant nature and use of it on and to others Which appears from the particularizing circumstances so exactly noted by the Apostle to wit the times of his justification and circumcision which do shew that it was appropriated to Abrahams circumcision on his own body what he there said of Circumcision There is no more reason to make this the definition of Circumcision the seal of the righteousness of faith then to make that 1 Tim 6.10 the root of all evil the definition of the love of money or that Heb. 6.16 the end of all strife the definition of an oath or that v. 19. the anchor of the soul firm and stable the definition of hope or that Heb. 11.1 the evidence of things not seen the definition of faith A seal cannot be the genus of it being a Metaphor for a Metaphor shews not what it is but what it is like Circumcision is an action as it is from the agent as in the subject a passion The relation that comes to it is not from its nature but by institution and is the end of it rather than the genus rather for what it is than what it is A seal is an artificial body compound of a substance and figure which cannot be said of Circumcision What Mr. Bl. saith that the nature of a Sacrament stands in a figure cannot be true of such a figure as is in a Seal for so baptism the Passeover the Lords Supper should be no Sacrament sith they do not make any figure on the body nor of figure of speech for so a Sacrament should not be a visible sign but an audible I grant the use of it is to resemble by a visible sign some other thing as the breaking bread Christs body broken and in that sense it may be called a figure as Augustine called the bread the figure of Christs body But the use belongs to the difference to distinguish it from the same action or passion used to another purpose not to the genus And yet sign and seal of the righteousnesse of faith cannot be the difference to distinguish a Sacrament from the preaching of the Gospel for the preaching of the Gospel by word or writing is a sign or seal of the righteousness of faith What is said Rom. 4.11 that Abraham received the sign of circumcision the seal of the righteousness of faith is not all one with this a seal of the Covenant of grace For it is added which he had yet being uncircumcised and therefore was a sign not of a promise or covenant concerning a thing to be done but of a thing accomplished or already done I see not how Rom. 4.11 either the general nature of a Sacrament or the special nature of circumcision may be said to be defined Nor do I conceive it true which Mr. Bl. saith the whole efficacy of a Sacrament is in the use I suppose baptism and the Lords Supper have their efficacy in comforting moving to holiness love c. after the use The nature and use of a Sacrament may be otherwise held out then Mr. Bl. doth which I now omit It is sufficient at present to shew the emptiness of Mr. Bls. dictates And for my rejecting of the common use of the terms of seals of the Covenant and initial seals as Synonymous to sacraments and baptism especially in disputes wherein proper terms should be used I have given sufficient reason from the abuses of Paedobaptists inferring errours from a late devised term and imposing on mens consciences yet I profess if baptism were granted to be a seal or initial seal that I think that it would not follow that it hath that relation to the Covenant that infants in Covenant must not be denied it but that it is a frivolous argument infants are in covenant therefore they must have the initial seal of the Covenant for which if I had no other reason yet that one of Mr. Bl. that though a person be in Covenant and have right to the seal yet he is not to have it till the appointed time it were sufficient to justifie my censure Mr. Bl. excepts against my speech that to have the promise and to be a disciple or believer are not all one for he conceives to have a promise in Scripture phrase is to possesse it as those Jews after the flesh did possess Rom. 9.4 And how to possesse a promise without faith he doth not yet understand Whereto I reply that I find the term promise used in Scripture sometimes metonymically for the thing promised as Luke●4 ●4 49 when Christ saith I send the promise of the Father upon you he means

flirts rather than sober and serlous answers yet remaining To what I said that Abraham was engaged to circumcise only those that are males and not afore eight daies and not onely those that were from himself but also all in his house whose children soever they were which apparently shews that the giving circumcision was not commensurate to the persons interest in the Covenant but it was to be given to persons as well out of Covenant as in if of Abrahams house and not to all that were in the Covenant to wit females which doth cleerly prove that right to the initial seal as it is called of circumcision did not belong to persons by vertue of the Covenant but by force of the command Mr. Blake in his flirting fashion thus speaks If he can prove that Abraham kept Idolaters in his house professedly worshipping a false God and gave Circumcision to them in that faith and way of worship it would prove that a man might have the seal and not be in Covenant And it will prove a man might have the seal and not be in covenant though I cannot prove any Idolater in Abrahams house if I can prove there were or might be infants or young persons who were children of Idolaters for such were not in covenant as the seed of believers or by their own profession But saith he it would not prove that he might be in covenant and be denied the seal True but this that infant-males under eight daies old and females in covenant might be denyed the seal would prove it And then saith Mr. Bl. infant-baptism might be of easier proof Though they were not in Covenant though they were not holy yet they might be baptized I reply I grant that persons in Covenant might be denyed Circumcision but think infant-baptism never a whit the easier proved I ft-circumcision is commanded of all in Abrahams house whether in covenant or no but baptism to none because he is in covenant or holy but because a disciple which is not true of any infant ordinarily But saith Master Blake I will not yield so much I do not believe that Abraham carried circumcision beyond the line of the Covenant and that he had those in his house which were aliens from God seeing I find that testimony of the Lord concerning him Genesis chap. 18. verse 19. and find that resolution of Joshua Joshua chap. 24. verse 14 15. I believe Abraham catechized all he took in as Heathens and did not circumcise them as Heathens Answ. I believe he did not circumcise them as Heathens but as his own bought with his money and of his house and if he bought any infants or young children which was then and hath been since usual where men and women are sold as slaves he did circumcise infant or young males of heathen Idolaters For the command of God was he should and yet those infant or young males of heathen Idolaters could not be catechized nor were in Covenant either by their own profession or their parents right or any promise of God to them and therefore circumcision in that case must be carried beyond the line of the Covenant To what I added of Master Marshalls Confession That he granted the formal reason of the Jews being circumcised was the command and the covenant he makes only a motive Defence page 182. Master Blake speaks thus I wonder what need there is of an argument to force such a Confession The reason I say why Jews were circumcised and Christians baptized is the command were there a thousand Covenants and no institution of a sign or seal such a sign or seal there could have been no circumcision no baptism The command is the ground and the Covenant is the Directory to whom application is to be made we say all in Covenant are entituled to the seal for admission but we presuppose an institution I reply If the formal reason why the Jews were circumcised were the Command and the Covenant onely the motive then the command was the differencing reason for the form distinguisheth and the formal reason is the reason which differenceth Motives are not directions what to do but commands the same motive may be to contrary commands The Command is the Directory to whom application is to be made both of circumcision and baptism The command doth express not only the act to be done but also the persons to whom The Covenant is no Directory to whom circumcision or baptism is to be applyed The whole Covenant of Circumcision is expressed Genesis 17.4 5 6 7 8. But there is not a word who are to be circumcised but after There is not the least hint in the institution of baptism Matthew chap. 28. verse 19. Mark chap. 16. verse 15. of any Covenant God makes to man To imagine God commanded circumcision and baptism and yet not to tell who are to be baptized or circumcised but from the Covenant which no man knoweth to whom it belongs is to imagine God gives a blind command which no wise Master would do It is not true all in covenant are entitled to the seal for admission for then females males under eight daies old believers out of Abrahams house Proselytes of the gate had been entitled to Circumcision for they were in Covenant as well as those who were to be circumcised And it is as certain on the other side that Ishmael Esau the infants of strangers bought by Abraham with his money were to be circumcised though they were not in Covenant and therefore I inferre it as certain that being in covenant or interest in the covenant or having the promises of the Covenant Genesis 17.4 5 6 7 8. or the new Covenant in Christs blood Heb. 8.10 11 12. and 10.16 17. or any other Evangelical Covenant all or some of them made to a person did not intitle a person to circumcision nor doth now to baptism nor can be without the command or institution of Christ or primitive example a rule Directory or sufficient warrant for any to baptize a person nor acquit him from profaning and abusing baptism and therefore there is no such reality of connexion between the Covenant and seal that this proposition is thereby proved true All in Covenant are intitled to the seal for admission or this false some of those who are not in covenant are intitled to the seal as they call it for admission and Master Blakes censure of my exceptions as frivolous trifles shews his weaknesse in disputes there being very little in his arguings or answers but flirts quips dictates and impertinencies What he addes of my grants discovers the like vanity For though I say that believers and disciples are to be baptized not barely on their faith and knowledge but upon the Command to baptize such yet how it follows which Mr. Blake saith so that the command is with reference to the Covenant with reference to the interest in the Covenant is to me a meer inconsequence unless he imagine the command and Covenant

proposition All the children of an unbeliever are unclean unless for generation he or she be sanctified by a believer For whether by uncleanness we understand non-admissibleness into the Church it is false for the children of unbelievers bought with money by Abraham though infants yet were in Mr. Bls. sense federally holy and me thinks Mr. Bl. who asserts against Mr. Firmin the baptizability of the infants of the generality of En●lish though the parents be openly profane and hate godliness should not deny it however the case is clear in the Circumcision of professed infidels children bought with money Gen. 17.27 And for federal real holiness I suppose Mr. Bl. will not deny but that many of them as Rahab c. were in the Covenant of saving grace To the first of these Mr. Bl. 1. saith thus pag. 338. I pray leave generation out and see whether there can be any sense in it unless it be understood their sanctification will confer no legitimation without generation if I say not believer I must say husband or wi●e that is a believer Asw. If generation be left out and believer it may be good sense according to my interpretation An unbelieving husband may be sanctified to his wife that is may lawfully use her though she were an unbeliever as his wife and may continue to live with her and she with him though they never had or should have children else your children which you might beget should be unclean but this being put they are legitimate But according to Mr. Bls. interpretation it is not good sense in the case of the barren for she or he are not instrumentally sanctified for generation there being no generation there is no being an instrument for generation nor sanctification thereto And an instrument is an efficient and where there is no effect there is no efficient nor instrument And to be sanctified instrumentally must be as an instrument to a principal agent which in this thing cannot be any other then God now no instrument of God fails to produce its effect therefore without actual generation no wife can bee said to bee instrumentally sanctified for generation And for the leaving out the term believer it is good sense as I expound it without it and if the Apostle had not conceived it good sense without it hee would not as hee did have left it out But I confess it is not good sense according to Mr. Bls. interpretation who saith though falsely p. 334. The stress is wholly laid upon the believing party as to the holiness of the issue twice over I confess their sanctification would confer no legitimation actual without actual generation yet their might bee legitimation of issue which is enough to shew the consequence to bee good and for the Apostles purpose without actual generation the legitimati●n being onely upon supposition as it is usual in such arguments and so the generati●n onely supposed Doubtless the Apostle resolved the Corinthians of the lawful living together of the barren as well as they that had or should beget which wil● not agree with Mr. Bls. exposition of instrumental sanctification for that is not true but of actual generation past or future as I have proved But Mr. Bl. adds the Apostles major is of an unbelieving huusband and a believing wife and I make the propo●●tion universal according to the capacity of the subject of all believing wives joyned to unbelieving husbands not with Mr. T. of all husbands and wives And this is the Apostles included proposition which must bee the basis of so many inferences and refutations when yet all mens Logick except what Mr. T. hath learnt will utterly disclaim it Answ. That the Apostles major is not of an unbelieving husband and a believing wife is manifest by the words in which the term believing is in both speeches left out And sure if the Apostle would have ascribed any thing to the believer as such hee could as easily have put it in as the term unbeliever or the terms brother or sister used v. 12 15. And though I deny not that the wife or huusband opposite to the infidel yoke-fellow were believers yet I have l●arned so much Logick and Divinity that what attributes do agree materially do not alwayes agree formally in each speech as though Ishmael was the son of Abraham yet what is said of him Gal. 4 13 24 25 29 30 3● is said of him n●t as Abrahams sonne but as Hagars And so it is here though the husband or wife were a believer yet they are not there consid●red as believers nor the things there spoken of them ascribed to them under that consideration but under the consideration of husband and wife and if any disclaim this Logick he will disclaim such Logick as the holy Scripture useth in these and other places I alledged in my Examen part 3. sect 8. p. 78. the words of Chamier tom 4. paustr. cath l. 5. c. 10. § 67. against Augustines interpretation of 1 Cor. 7.14 o● a ceremonial holiness as apposite to refute his own of federal For saith hee that interpretation is ridiculous if these propositions bee not true that all born of those ●arents whereof one is not sanctified in the other are begotten in the time of the womans monethly courses Infidel husbands never use their wives but at such time for so the Apostle is made to speak by Augustines interpretation Now the self same I shewed to follow on his own interpretation the words being changed which should bee changed in such a retorsion For then according to it the Apostle should say All the children born of those parents of whom one is not san●tified in the other are out of the Covenant of grace infidel parents never beget of their wives children within the Covenant of grace Both which are false and consequently the interpretation of Chamier whence it is apparent that Chamier made these pr●positions in the Apostles arguing to be included Those children whereof one parent is not sanc●ified in the other are unclean none of the children of those parents whereof one is not sanctified in the other are holy I said also in my Antidote pag. 16. that Mr. Bl. confessed these propositions included in the Apostles consequence Against this Mr. Bl. thus riseth up What can I i●agine but that Mr. T. knowingly fastens this gross untruth upon mee Seeing he so we I knowes that I both deny it and have argued against it having made such defence ●s he could in his Apology of it y●t now in his Antidote says I confess it I am overmuch honoured to be named if I may say so the day that Chamier is mentioned but as much wronged to have such a Monster of absurdities as is contained in that proposition obtruded upon mee my thoughts are over-high of Chamier to believe any such weakness in him when Mr. T. shewes it in him having yet given his Reader no account where it may bee found I shall subscribe to that Proverb Nullum

when the Sun shines at noon day But to Abrahams person was not enjoyned to observe and perform the token of the Covenant whatever that prove to be for then hee had been bound to baptise which is absurd Ergo. 2. This precept is as well to Abrahams natural seed in their generations as to his spiritual seed for the precept belonging to those to whom the promise belongs and it cannot be denied the promise v. 8. to belong to Abrahams natural seed at least such as Moses David afore Christ it followes they were bound to observe and perform the token of the Covenant what ever that p●ove to be and consequently to baptise which is absurd 3. If this precept be to the spiritual seed of the Gentiles then Gentile believers are bound to observe and perform the token of the Covenant whatever that prove to be But Circumcision the text it self makes the token of the Covenant Ergo Gentile believe●s by this exposition are bound to circumcise 4. From v. 10. That Covenant was enjoyned v. 9. and no other which is expressed v. 10. This is proved from the form of words which do plainly shew Gods meaning this is the covenant Which yee shall keep which are as express as words can bee that hee meant no other Covenant to bee kept then what is set down v. ●0 c. But that is onely Circumcision therefore no other is there enjoyned v. 9. But what need I so fully refu●e that which hath no proof at all brought for it but Mr. Cs. word It 's enough to tell him that it is his dream and to let the Lord Mayor and Aldermen of London know that they have been enamoured on a vain phantasme And ●et were it grant●d him and them it will never serve their turn to prove infant Baptism by For 1. The command Gen. 17.9 is not in these words thou shalt keep the token of my Covenant therefore but thou shalt keep my Covenant therefore and therefore if according to Mr. Cs. exposition it be a general duty not fixed upon this or that way of keeping and there are other wayes of keeping the Covenant then by keeping the token of the Covenant the words may be meant of other duties then seals as he cals them of the Covenant as particularly what is required Gen. 17.1 to walk before God and be perfect upon which God promiseth to make his Covenant v. 2. and so the precept Gen. 17.9 may be observed without any seal at all 2. But if it be limited to the keeping of the token of the Covenant yet it follows not it must be either baptising or circumcising there being other tokens of the Covenant besides these as the Passeover the Lords Supper and therefore i● it command them to observe the token of the Covenant what ever it prove to be it ties them to observe the Lords Supper and if it must bee observed ●y this rule here then it must be given to infants as well as Bap●ism 3. Hence ariseth a further exception that if it were yeelded that a token of the Covenant indefinite ●s commanded and Baptism meant after Circu●cision yet sure the command ties not to observe Baptism after the rule of Circumcision bu● after the institution of Baptism in the ●ew Testament And the reason is plain the command v. 9. being onely of a general duty comma●●s not the particular rite neither Circumcision nor Baptism therefore there is no rule how to observe Baptism Gen. 17.9 Then v 10.11 1● ●3 14. is by Mr. Cs. ●wn exposition ● rule onely about Circumcisi●n who and whom and when ●o circumcise nor do I think Mr. C. dares sa● that the rule about the manner of circumstances of circumcising is a rule about the manner of circumstances of ●●ptising for then the hous●older should bee bound to baptise all his males of eight dayes old servants and children and among them himself if unbaptized none afore eight days old no female none but his own house he should wash not the face but the privy member If Mr. C. to serve his turn yet devise another general law about the manner of observing the ●ites of the New Testament besides the particular institutions and examples of Christ and his Apostles in the New Testament erit mihi magnus Apollo and if Mr. C. or any o●her find a●y institution or example of infant Baptim in the New Testament I shall believe they can cut a whetstone with a rasour 4. Saith Mr. C It is supposed by the words that when circumcision should cease to be the token of the covenant it should no longer be a duty and that circumcision is now abolished But 1. if v 9. be a command still in force and bind to observe still the token of the Covenant what ever it proved to be and that was Circumcision then it binds still to observe Circumcision 2. It is said v. 13. He that is born in thy house and he that is bought with thy money must needs be circumcised and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant Now if Mr. Cs. reasoning be good the promise is v. 8. of an everlasting possession therefore it extends to the spiritual seed even in the New Testament by the same reason sith v. 14. it is said Gods covenant shall be in their flesh which is by carnal Circumcision for an everlasting covenant Gods command is in the New Testament to Abrahams spiritual seed true believers of the Gentiles that they be circumcised in their flesh contrary to Gal. 5.2 Act. 15 24. 5. It is supposed that Baptism in the New Testament is the token of Abra●ams covenant which is not proved but is m●nifestly false For then by it every believer should be assured of the land of Canaan that K●ngs shall come of him c. as is promised Gen. 17. v. 4 5 6 7 8. but that is false and a meer Jewish conceit 6. It is said withou● any shew of proof that by the words it is supposed that what else besides circumcision by the same authority should be made the token of the same covenant would be the duty in stead thereof But neither do the words say or suppose that when circumcision should cease to be a token of the covenant it should no longer be a duty nor that what else by the same authority should be made the token of the same covenant would bee the duty in stead thereof there 's not a word that tends to either supposal nor can be either true For the Jews Circumcision was not abolished by any words Gen. 7. but by the Apostles declaration Act. 15. which doth not in the least hint any colection of its ceasing from Gen. 17. but from the calling of the Gentiles Nor is the reason there or anywhere else of its ceasing taken from its ceasing to be the token of Abrahams●ovenant ●ovenant but from the calling the Gentiles the comming of faith c. Yea the Jewish ●ircumcision still used ceaseth not to be