Selected quad for the lemma: grace_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
grace_n	abraham_n	covenant_n	law_n	4,107	5	5.8933	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A57955	A vindication of the baptized churches from the calumnies of Mr. Michael Harrison, of Potters Pury in Northampton-shire. Being an answer to his two books, intituled, Infant baptism God's ordinance. By William Russel, M.D. A lover of primitive Christianity.	Russel, William, d. 1702.	1697 (1697)	Wing R2360A; ESTC R218555	79,105	138

of their own and is detested by all Protestant Churches Error Abominable Doctrine False dangerous and uncomfortable Doctrine Error of the Anabaptists Arminian Anabaptists The grossness and foulness of it Weak ignorant Preachers they have Pride and Confidence and 't is these ignorant men that broach most of these Errors I might tax the Anabaptists as guilty Opposing their Errors This stone is flung at the head of the general Anabaptists Now which Party Mr. Collins is of I know not but by what he saith it seems to me not only rank Arminiamism but a new way to Heaven and Mountebank Divinity Thus you may see what frame of Spirit this man is of it 's in Vain for him to think he is in a better state for leaving Episcopacy and becoming a Presbyter whilst such corrupt Communications proceeds out of his mouth For as our Lord saith Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh it 's an Indication therefore of a corrupt and unmortified Heart for which he ought to be deeply humbled 'T is contrary to all those Exhortations in the Gospel to Meekness Kindness Tenderness and Gharity Our Lord who is the Prince of Peace whose Gospel is a Gospel of peace whose People are peaceable gentle and easy to be entreated hath himself set us a blessed Example who when he was Reviled Reviled not again when he sufferred he threatned not but commited himself to him that Judgeth Righteously Let us therefore labour to follow his Example and then we may expect a Blessing in our Deed. For the wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God Jam. 1.20 Let the Reader take notice I have collected these harsh expressions out of Mr. Harrison's Books page by page as he may see by examining the same beginning with the first and ending with the last and have been very exact therein because I would not wrong him My Reason was partly that you might see what Spirit he is of and how unfairly he hath dealt by us as also to avoid being vex'd with them in every paragraph where they occurr'd CHAP. II. THE first thing he begins with is the Covenant of Circumcision which he supposes to be the Covenant of Grace and quotes Genes 17.7 for proof thereof and infers That all Infants of Believers are in this Covenant and therefore they have a right to Baptism He spends the first eight Pages upon it and seems to hug himself in the Thoughts of some great Success among his Hearers upon this his Undertaking But if I shall be so happy as to take from him the Foundation upon which all his Fabrick is built He may then think he hath labour'd in vain and spent his time for nought This therefore I shall first insist upon it being the main Pillar he rests upon in both his Tracts to support that humane Invention of Baby baptism I shall first shew That the Covenant mentioned in Genes 17.7 8 9 10 c. the place cited by him is not the Covenant of Grace but the Covenant of Circumcision 2. That this Covenant was abolished by the Death of the Messiah 3. That if that Covenant Gen. 17.7 had been as he saith the Covenant of Grace yet it had not therefore given the Infants of believing Parents a right to Baptism without an Institution from God requiring it to be done 1. To prove therefore That the Covenant mentioned Gen. 17.7 8 9 10 c. is the Covenant of Circumcision we have nothing to do but to read the Words as they are recorded And I will establish my Covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their Generations for an everlasting Covenant to be a God unto thee and to thy seed after thee And I will give unto thee and to thy seed after thee the land wherein thou art a stranger all the land of Canaan for an everlasting possession and I will be their God And God said unto Abraham thou shalt keep my Covenant therefore thou and thy seed after thee in their Generations This is my Covenant which ye shall keep between me and you and thy seed after thee every man child among you shall he circumcised And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin and it shall be a token of the Covenant betwixt me and you And ver 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 Notwithstanding the fulness and plainness of these Expressions Mr. H. is pleased to tell us this Covenant is the Covenant of Grace as you may see in pag. 4 5. lib. 1. Altho' I believe no man that is not prepossessed with Error can ever find any thing like it by the Words of God himself for he saith positively it is that of Circumcision I need not therefore insist much upon his ipse dixit when it is directly contrary to the Word of God But to make the matter beyond any reasonable Contradiction I shall urge those very Arguments Mr. Collins hath so well advanced upon this Subject in his Sandy Foundation of Infant Baptism shaken in Answer to Mr. Mence and Mr. Harrison which do yet remain unanswered pag. 10 c. Mr. H. Collins to prove that that Covenant God made with Abraham and his natural Seed Gen. 17.7 8 c. was not the Covenant of Grace he urges these following Arguments Arg. 1. The Covenant of Grace extends unto all Nations the Covenant of Circumcision was limited to one Nation Ergo the Covenant of Circumcision is not the Covenant of Grace Both which he hath substantially proved to which I refer you Arg. 2. That Covenant which obligeth to keep the whole Law is not the Covenant of Grace But the Covenant of Circumcision obligeth to keep the whole Law Ergo the Covenant of Circumcision is not the Covenant of Grace The major he shews to be undeniable and the minor he proves from Gal. 5.2 3 4. For I testify to every man that is circumcised that he is a Debtor to do the whole Law and that Christ shall profit him nothing c. Arg. 3. That Covenant which is abrogated and repeal'd is not the Covenant of Grace But the Covenant of Circumcision is abrogated and repealed Ergo the Covenant of Circumcision is not the Covenant of Grace As for the minor there are few in the World but such as are Judaizing will deny And for the major none do suppose the Covenant of Grace can be repealed c. Therefore the conscquence follows that that Circumcision was not the Covenant of Grace Now notwithstanding all this and much more which Mr. H. Collins hath spoken upon this subject and that indeed with such clearness of Evidence that Mr. H. will never be able to answer yet in his second Book he russ over his old Arguments again in the former Book and instead of giving any new solid Arguments to take off the force of what Mr. H.

it for he hath written two Books already and not one Argument in either of them that concludes the thing in Question And to tell you my Thoughts upon it I am of Opinion if he should write a hundred Books it will be still the same for he hath run over nine Arguments twice to no purpose For there is nothing of the Point in question inferr'd in any of them And I know the Reason It is not simply for want of Parts and Learning but for want of Matter for that which is not cannot be proved to be but Infant-baptism is not an Ordinance of God and therefore it cannot be proved so to be And whereas he doth allow he cannot shew us a Command for it by abusing us for but demanding it of him I am sure his Attempt to prove that to be an Ordinance of God by Consequence only when he hath granted there is no express Command is too great a Task for him ever to perform And if he would take my Advice I would not have him so much as attempt it any more because it 's im●ossible to be done But why doth Mr. H. tell us Baptism is a Seal of the New Covenant If it be his Arguments are all out of doors for a Seal is not to be set to a Blank as it must be if applied to Infants Besides he is mistaken in the whole of his Position for Circumcision is only said to be a seal of the Righteousness of Faith to Abraham and not to the rest of his Posterity Rom. 4.9 Faith is reckoned to Abraham for Righteousness And in the 10th Verse he tells us it was before he was circumcised But in Ver. 11. he received the sign of Circumcision a seal of the Righteousness of the Faith which he had yet being uncircumcised that he might be the Father of all them that believe tho' they be not circumcised that Righteousness might be imputed unto them also This is the only Text that I find the Word is used in as applied to Circumcision and here it is restrained to Abraham only and not applied to any other Person whatsoever I do think therefore it was an unwary Expression of Mr. H. to make Circumcision a Seal of the Covenant of Grace under the Law to all circumcised Infants when it 's applied by Paul to Abraham only and not to any one of his Posterity Nor could it be because it was to him as a Seal of that Promise that he should be the Father of all Believers which could not be true of Individuals nor of any other but himself it being commanded to them for other Ends. As for his calling Baptism a Seal of the New Covenant I must say the same of it as of the other For 1. It is no where called so in all the Holy Scripture and therefore no metaphorical Use to be made of it 2. The Holy Scriptures do tell us 〈◊〉 other thing that is the Seal of the New and everlasting Covenant wherewith Believers are sealed under the Gospel and that is the Holy Spirit 2 Cor. 1.21 22. Now he which stablisheth us with you in Christ and hath anointed us is God who hath also sealed us and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts Ephes 1.13 After ye believed ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of Promise Ephes 4.30 And grieve not the holy Spirit of God whereby ye are sealed unto the day of Redemption The Learned Dr. Cox upon these words Rom. 4.11 saith It is Genitivus Speciei as when we read the City of Jerusalem for the City Jerusalem and the like For we read not saith he that any other Ordinance No not Baptism is so called in Scripture but in the New Testament the sealing of Believers is attributed to the Holy Ghost For it is not possible to conceive that Circumcision should be a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith c. to one that never had Faith And it is equally absurd to say that Circumcision was a Seal unto all its Subjects of the Righteousness of Faith which they had while uncircumcised as to affirm that it was the Seal of a paternal relation to all Believers unto every one that received it And I hope this Gentleman will allow me to say that it 's more absurd now under the Gospel wherein all the Children of the Covenant are to be taught of God and all of them to know God that any should affirm that Baptism is a Seal to Infants who have no Faith at all neither in Habit nor in Act espeeially seeing it 's no where called so in the Holy Scriptures If men ●●●ough the Lightness and Vanity of their Minds must needs play with metaphorical Expressions in Scripture yet I know not how they should have a liberty to impose words upon us as Mr. H. doth which are not at any time nor in any place so much as mentioned This is our Case Mr. H. will have Baptism called the Seal of the Covenant we will not allow it him because it 's no where so called in Scripture But suppose we should it would ruine his beloved Cause for then it could be administred to none but such who are true Believers But before Mr. H. goes any further he proposes this Question Who we are to understand by the Children in the Text viz. Acts. 2 39. His Answer is No doubt but they are the very same which in Gen. 17 are called Seed The Reason he gives for it is from the Etymology of the Greek word there used The Word saith he is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used for little sucking Babes Matt. 21.18 and 1 Cor. 7.14 How he came to give us this sence of the Word so contrary to the Scope of the place I know not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the singular is rendred thus by a late famous Grecian A Child an Off-spring and in the plural a numerous Off-spring In the 2d Epistle of John Ver. 1. he uses the same Words as in Acts 2.39 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The elder unto the elect Lady and her Children Here it 's rendred Children as it is in Acts. 2.39 but not little sucking Babes For you have their Character given in Ver. 4. I rejoyced greatly that I found of thy Children walking in truth as we have received a commandment from the Father And he writes to her and them in the plural to look-to themselves and to 〈◊〉 false Teachers c. And in the last Verse 〈◊〉 saith The Children of thy Elect Sister greet thee Now these things can no ways agree with Mr. H's little sucking Babes And he hath every whit as much Reason to give this sence of the word here as in Acts 2.39 it being the same Word But let us examine his other two Texts In Matt. 21.18 Now in the morning as he returnned into the City he hungred This I am sure hath neither the word nor thing he intends But I suppose he intended the 15th Verse And when the chief Priests and

C. had said this is his Answer in Part 2. Page 15. The plain truth is the poor man hath such a weak head that he knows not what in the World to make of it He mistook the man It was himself and not Mr. Collins to whom these words ought to be applied For it 's manifest that he knew not how to confute him because he repeats the old Arguments he had used in his first Part. But I would not have Mr. Collins think the worse of himself for all his Railery against him because the poor man hath not yet learned the common Civility and curteous Behaviour which every ingenuous man will shew to any one that is a stranger especially if he put himself upon the trouble and charge to serve him for the good of his Soul as Mr. Collins hath done But some mens evil Nature will never depart from them nor be mortified by them let us do what we can There are several other Arguments Mr. Collins hath also added by which he hath undeniably evinced this Covenant in Gen. 17.7 8 c. not to be the Covenant of Grace as having only temporal Blessings promised in it And because persons might be saved out of this Covenant and many were saved who were never circumcised nor in that Covenant That many Absurdities follow the holding such an Opinion and that it overthrows many fundamental Points of Religion divers of which he there enumerates Now I appeal to all ingenious men whether it had not been Mr. H's business to have given some solid Answers to these Particulars and whether Mr. H. Collins deserved such a Treatment from a man who calls himself a Minister of the Gospel But to proceed 2. I have undertaken to prove That this Covenant of Circumcifion Gen. 17.7 8 c. was abolished by Christ But upon Enquiry I find that Mr. M. H. Part 1. pag. 6. doth confess that Circumcision is now abolished His Words are these Circumcision is now abolished by Christ and cites for Probation thereof Eph. 2.15 Having abolished in his Flesh the Enmity even the Law of Commandmandments contained in Ordinances for to make in himself of twain one new man so making Peace To this he adds 1 Cor. 7.19 Circumcision is nothing and Vncircumcision is nothing but the keeping the commandments of God Now upon this Concession I would willingly know of Mr. H. why he supposes the Covenant of which he saith Circumcision was a Seal is still remaining when he confesses the Seal thereof is broken off and taken away from it If a Bond for the performance of a Covenant be once cancelled the Covenant it self ceases to be obligatory any longer 3. If that Covenant Gen. 17.7 8 c. had been as he saith the Covenant of Grace yet it had not therefore given the Infants of believing Parents a right to Baptism without an Institution from God requiring it to be done I prove it thus 1. From Mr. H. own words part 1. page 6 7. We do not baptize persons as the Elect of God or Infants as Infants of the Elect. And a little before speaking of persons being really in the Covenant of Grace as united to Christ living Branches knit to Christ by a vital union he adds and thus only the Elect are in Covenant The Covenant thus considered is not the ground of Baptism if we must baptize none but such as are vitally in Christ then must we baptize none and he gives this reason for it because tho' we see the outward profession we do not know who belong to the Election of Grace From all which its plain Mr. H. doth not think their being in the Covenant of Grace a sufficient ground to baptize any person because he cannot possibly know that they are so How then can he baptize any Infant upon the terms of that Covenant Gen. 17. if it were as he saith the Covenant of Grace But saith he those that are externally and visibly in Covenant all that profess Christ Tares and Wheat wise Virgins and foolish This saith he is the Ground of Baptism I answer Had Mr. H. being speaking of the Members of a Nation and also of the Members of the visible Church and had distinguished the latter into these two sorts of Persons i. e. such that were invisible members and such that were only so by a bare profession reason would that I should allow it But when he is speaking of the Covenant of Grace to tell us of Hypocrites and carnal Professors who are devoid of true Grace and that all such are to be accounted Believers in Covenant and that all Infants of such believing Parents are in the Covenant of Grace as you may see in the Page before-mentioned this is one of the greatest Paradoxes I ever met with If the wicked who are called Tares are to be accounted Believers in Covenant why shall they be cast into Hell-fire Mat. 13.40 41 42. If the foolish Virgins in the Church are in the Covenant of Grace why must they be shut out of Heaven Mat. 25.11 12. Now that it was without reason for him thus to argue I prove from his own Words Because he doth assure us from the Testimony of Holy Scripture that all Believers are in this Covenant This saith he in pag. 6. is abundabtly evident from Rom. 4.11 12 13 14 15. Gal. 3.29 the Covenant was made with Abraham as a Believers and with all Believers as well as him And that we may not mistake his meaning he often calls it the Covenant of Grace made with Abraham c. Now that the Covenant in Gen. 17.7 8 c. is not the Covenant of Grace I have already shown But that there was a Covenant of Grace in which Abraham was instated being a Believer in Christ and a special Friend and Favourite of God as the Father of the faithful wherein all true Believers have a right and interest as being in Christ I readily allow And moreover That all true Believers in Christ altho ' under the former dispensation they could not be admitted to Baptism because it had been Will-Worship so to do it not being then commanded Yet now they have a right to that Holy Ordinance as the proper Subjects thereof because Christ hath not only commanded it but made a gracious promise to them upon their Obedience thereunto Mark 16.16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved Now seeing Mr. H. further saith in page 7. That Persons are to be baptized as making a visible and credible profession of Religion and that the Apostles did baptize such as did profess Repentance towards God and Faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ Acts 2.41 I therefore infer upon him the unreasonableness of his former Assertion That the Children of such as are only formal Hypocrites are to be baptized because their Parents make an outward profession of Christianity for which he quotes Ezek. 16.20 21. which I desire may be read over for I think he might have proved it as well

in being under the Gospel a thing so contrary to the tenor of the Gospel and the express Words of Holy Scripture The whole Fabrick of the Jewish Church-state being pulled down and a New Church-state erected in the room thereof it is not the House of God erected by the Mosaical Law but the House of Christ erected by the Son himself Heb. 3.6 opposed to and in contradistinction from that former one under the Law which all that were circumcised were obliged to observe For the Apostle saith If any man he circumcised he is a debtor to the whole Law But in his next Paragraph he entangles himself with a difficulty I suppose he will not be able to free himself from For he saith in page 21. This promise the Apostle speaks of was that promise or covenant of which Baptism was the Seal And in the words following he tells us that Circumcision and Baptism are Seals of the same covenant Now whereas I have already proved that the covenant of Circumcision was not the covenant of Grace I think I need not prove that Baptism is a duty belonging to the New Covenant because all acknowledge it so to be And as certain I am that the Apostle Paul opposes the Law of Works to the Law of Faith It is of Faith that it might be of Grace and circumcision obliging to keep the whole Law which covenant being now abolished he saith If ye be circumcised Christ shall profit you nothing And he gives this reason for it Whosoever of you are justified by the law ye are fallen from Grace And that this respects the covenant of circumcision with its adjuncts is plain from Gal. 5.1 where the Apostle exhorts them To stand fast in that liberty wherewith Christ hath made them free and not to be entangled again with the yoke of bondage which he explains in the following verses to be meant of the covenant of circumcision So that Mr. H. may see what a Labyrinth he is in out of which I suppose it will not be easie for him to extricate himself The late Learned Dr. Neh. Coxe in his Excellent Discourse of the Covenants hath given us the true ground of these perplexities that the Learned have fallen into which I shall transcribe for the sake of those who have not his Book to inform them nor are likely to obtain because it 's out of print Sect. 6. pag. 12. Now as it is evident from what hath been already said that all soederal transactions of God with men flow only from his good pleasure and the counsel of his Will so upon that ground it is certainly to be concluded that our knowledge and understanding of them must wholly depend upon Divine Revelation None can pretend acquaintance with the secret of God but as he hath pleased to reveal it in his Word this light must guide all our inquiries after it and our Sentiments of things of this nature must be strictly governed by this Rule seeing the nature of them is such as transcends the common principles of reason or natural Light inasmuch as they owe their original to the free acts of the Divine Will and Wisdom which are unaccountable 'till revealed by God himself and therefore it becomes us to captivate all our thoughts of them to the obedience of Faith as knowing that Learning and strength of Parts tho' of excellent use in their place not guided by Scripture light in these Inquiries can only form an Ingenious Error and lose a man in the Labyrinth of his own Imagination and uncertain Guesses seeing the single advantage of those assistances in this case trusted to and stretched beyond their line can reach no farther than to enable him cum ratione errare and so to wander from truth in a path seeming more smooth tho' no less dangerous than others light upon And therefore in these things lyes the spring of most mistakes and corruption of Doctrine and Practise in matters of Religion men do easily find out and agree in the true Dictates of the Law of Nature but in things pertaining to the covenants of God how various are their Sentiments Yea many great Learned and good men have been divided in their Judgments about some things of great importance to the Faith and Edification of the Church And some one Error admitted about the nature of God's soederal transactions with men doth strangely perplex the whole System or Body of Divinity and entangle our Interpretation of innumerable Texts of Scripture and by this means Jars and Contentions have been perpetuated in the Church to the great grief and hindrance of all the offence of the weak and greater scandal of the blind World and all this hath been much occasioned thro' the want of a due and humble attention to that Revelation of Truth which God hath given us in the Holy Scriptures and endeavouring to collect the mind of God from thence without prepossession of Judgment which is a greater occasion of these mistakes than men are generally aware of and careful avoiding the undue mixture or confusion of things natural with those that are purely of a soederal nature Now I would earnestly beg of Mr. H. both for his own good and the good of the people he stands related to that he would be pleased to consider seriously what this Learned Man hath said and by laying aside all pre-conceived Prejudices and pre-possession of Judgment would apply himself to an humble inquiry after the mind of God as revealed in his Word and not trust to his Learning nor lean to his own understanding in the matters of Divine Truths but labour to satisfie his conscience from the Revelation of God in his Holy Word that thus it is written and therefore I believe And to apply it to the present case if Mr. H. can shew us where is written that Infants ought to be baptized by any appointment of God or where it s written that any one Infant was baptized or where it s charged as a sin upon any one to neglect carrying them to be baptized or where any Minister is blamed for not teaching them to bring their Children to Baptism or for not baptizing them when they were brought or indeed if there be any thing said about it directly or indirectly to enjoyn the practise thereof or any the least mention made of it in all the Book of God we will grant him the cause But I perceive himself is satisfied there is no such thing and therefore he is pleased to ridicule us for demanding of him to shew us where it is commanded in the Scripture But let him know that all instituted Worship hath no foundation but the Divine Will requiring it and therefore his pretence to evade the Objection is vain But however seeing he thinks he is so excellent at consequences and that he can do mighty things that way let Mr. H. if he can prove by consequence or any other way that Infant-baptism is God's Ordinance But I perceive he cannot do