Selected quad for the lemma: grace_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
grace_n	adam_n	covenant_n	fall_n	2,656	5	9.6090	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A81720	A boundary to the Holy Mount, or a barre against free admission to the Lords Supper. In answer to an humble vindication of free admission to the Lords Supper. Published by Mr. Humphrey minister of Froome in Somersetshire. Which humble vindication, though it profess much of piety and conscience, yet upon due triall and examination, is found worthy of suspension, if not of a greater censure. By Roger Drake minister of Peters Cheap London.	R. D. (Roger Drake), 1608-1669.	1653 (1653)	Wing D2129; Thomason E1314_2; ESTC R209198	85,461	218

righteousnesse and salvation let this man be never so pious outwardly I should sooner admit a common adulterer c. then him Objection 4. page 41. The Seal is set to a blank if be admitted An. 1. For understanding this Objection the better we must know that what the Philosopher said in generall that Anima est rasa tabula is too true of all men since the fall in order unto saving grace They are Tabulae as capable of the Spirits writing they are rasae tabulae which notes 1. They are naturally destitute of this writing 2. This writing was rased out by Adams fall and thus all men naturally are blanks in order to the writing of the new Covenant in their hearts The similitude you have 2 Cor. 3.3 Heb. 8.10 2. This Blank is either visible or invisible To God all blanks are visible and he may use his liberty to set his seal where he pleases by commanding to baptise all Infants of beleeving parents c. and to admit to the Lords Supper all visible Saints that are Church-members The Question is then Whether man may apply the Seals to visible blanks It 's clear he may not for then Heathen themselves before instruction and profession as also their Infants might be baptised I assume But there are visible blanks in the Church as well as in the world namely persons that are as notoriously ignorant and profane as Heathen and who if they had not been baptised in their infancy should not be now admitted to baptism without evidence first given of their knowledge and piety Therefore say I seeing according to M. H. his own rule Adultis eadem est ratio utriusque Sacramenti they who at present would be uncapable of baptisme had they not been baptised are not to be admitted to the Lords Supper though baptised in their infancy The Objection thus stated we conceive to be good Le ts see now what M. H. hath to object against it I shall at present passe his first distinction as waved yet by himself Page 41 and 42. He conceive it 's a generall mistake that people take the Sacrament to be a Seal to their faith and if there be m true faith that it is set they think to a blanks Answ 1. Sacramentall seals as others relate either to parties or to things 1. To parties namely the Covenanters on both parts God and the creature in Covenant from God to the creature they seal the Covenant of grace from the creature to God they seal dutifulnesse and thankfulnesse Here we say the Church cannot apply the seals of the Covenant to any who are visibly out of the Covenant but in our Congregations there are many grosly ignorant and prophane persons visibly out of the Covenant You will say they are visibly in the Covenant as Church-members and professors though at large True but their visible profession is not equivalent to their visible ignorance and prophanenesse no more then profession of honesty is to open cheating as a cheater uncased loses the repute and priviledges of an honest man so an hypocrite uncased forfeits the priviledges of his profession and the Church both may and ought to take the forfeiture till the breach made upon his profession be repaired by a new profession of his repentance and promise of reformation yea and visible reformation too so far as it can be had and certainty if such a person may be denied all publike Ordinances in M. H. his judgement much more may he be denied one Ordinance He that deserves the greater penalty much more deserves the lesse Secondly To come neerer to his Answer Sacramentall Seals relate to things as well as to persons And thus as Seals 1. They confirm the Covenant 2. They confirm the faith of the worthy receiver 3. They confirm judgement to the unworthy receiver To apply the distinction 1. All sorts may be present to see the Covenant sealed 2. None but persons Evangelically worthy may partake these only having faith to be confirmed 3. None visibly unworthy may by the Church be admitted to partake as being visibly without faith either in the habit or actings thereof which last I note in reference to godly persons who sometimes may be justly either suspended or excommunicated 4. Supposing they may be admitted on the Ministers part where the power of the Keyes is imperfect yet to clear his own soul the Minister is to deal plainly with every unworthy receiver and let him know that he will but betray and murther Christ as our Saviour did to Iudas supposing he did receive and that the Sacrament which confirms other mens faith will confirm his unbelief and seal judgement unto him To summe up all That which confirms or ratifies is tropically a Seal but the Sacrament doth confirm faith and ratifie the Covenant to faith Ergo It s both a seal of faith and a seal to faith contra where there is no faith to confirm as to that particular it must needs seal to a blank as sealing to a blank is a known expression to note the application of a seal to a paper that hath no writings and where nothing is writ there nothing can be confirmed 2. That the Sacrament seals Christs bloud in particular for pardon to the receivers by vertue of its primitive institution is evident by comparing Matth. 26.28 with Luk. 22.20 The latter place saith This cup is the new Testament in my bloud which is shed for you the former place sheweth for what end namely for remission of sins The language then of the Sacrament given to every receiver is the body and bloud of Christ is thine for the remission of thy sins and how dares any Minister say or seal this to a person known to be grosly ignorant or profane Pag. 42. God doth not attest our faith but the truth of his own promises but the Sacraments are Seals properly of the Covenant Answ 1. I know none so simple as to assert that God doth in terminis * My meaning is the Sacrament doth not say in expres terms thou Roger beleevest no more then the word doth but only by consequence attest our faith in the Sacrament as M. H. seems to insinuate the Sacrament doth not so attest but suppose and require faith and then seals the Covenant to faith 2. In vain doth it seal the Covenant if to no persons A Covenant cannot be but with some body and if it be sealed it must be sealed to those with whom it is made therefore the Covenant being sealed in the Sacrament it must be sealed to some body and sealed regularly it cannot be to those who visibly reject it but grosly ignorant and prophane persons uncased do visibly reject the Covenant of grace Ergo the Covenant of grace cannot regularly be applied to them by the Seals 3. If the Sacraments are seals properly of the Covenant why may not Infants and distracted persons partake of them who have a more visible right to it then grosly ignorant and

its exception so no part of Worship but hath its inclosure Of which afterward And therefore though I cannot justifie any of the Independents in separating from our Congregations yet if in excluding from the Lords Supper persons visibly unworthy they act upon the same principles with us in so doing though they bring in a Quae genus of Anomalacs and Heteroclites at the Lords Supper yet they violate not the Syntax of Divine Worship If they walk by other rules or principles not warranted let them plead for themselves I am not of their Counsell But for his challenge to the Presbyterians or at least some of them How we can admit of children as Members of the visible Church being born of Christian Parents unto Baptisme and yet turn away the Parents of those children from the Sacrament Those that have gone about to answer this had better haply have said nothing for our free course of Baptisme and a deniall of this is such a seam-rent as will never be handsomely drawn up though stitcht together Nevertheless in yeelding the one they have granted the other Answ 1. How can Mr. H. admit the children themselves to Baptisme and yet deny them the Lords Supper If herein he act by faith let him shew a Divine Precept by which he excludes them If he bring a proof by consequence let him consider if that or a like consequence will not exclude others as well as children for whom he keeps the door open 2. How can himself admit children to Baptisme and yet excludes their parents from the Lords Supper If the parents of a child baptized be either distracted or excommunicated Mr. H. being Judge they ought not to be admitted to the Lords Supper whereby its apparent that even in Mr. H. his judgement the childes baptisme is no necessary medium to prove the Parents must be admitted to the Lords Supper which yet he urgeth against us but forgets how he wounds himself with the same weapon 3. To come closer to the Objection two things by way of answer are very considerable 1. That we clear and justifie the promiscuous baptizing of children of Christian Parents be the Parents themselves never so unworthy 2. That the promiscuous admission of children to Baptisme is no ground for the promiscuous admission of their parents to the Lords Supper For the first of these We admit children to Baptisme 1. By vertue of their remote parents who may be good though their immediate parents be bad Acts 2.39 The promise is made to you and to your children and to all that are afar off c. To your children indefinitely not to your next children onely Which is yet more evident by comparing Levit. 26.45 Micah 7.20 where the Covenant of Ancestors and Parents extends to the children for many generations till the children themselves in person renounce the Covenant This also is hinted in the Text under the notion of them that are afar off which is extendable not only to remoteness of place or of state but also to remoteness of time that is as Beza notes to your children in remote ages to come Omnibus longè post futuris Nor is it in the Originall 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Gentiles were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ephes 2.17 and so opposed to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but future generations are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In this particular mercy triumphs over justice in that God who punishes the parents sin to the fourth generation extends Covenant-mercy to a thousand generations Exod. 20. ver 5 6. Nor was Peters design here to foretell the calling of the Gentiles but to incourage his Auditors to faith and repentance since as Beza well notes upon the place the mystery of the Gentiles votation was not yet known to Peter himself nor was expedient to be revealed to these new Converts had he known it never so well As the Covenant of Adam so the Covenant of Abraham as the Covenant of Works so the Covenant of Grace is extendible to many generations and where the root is holy there not only the immediate but also the most remote branches are federally holy Rom. 11.16 and that whether the branches be naturall or ingrafted ver 17. 2. Children may be admitted by stipulation of others to see them educated in the faith into which they are baptized be the parents themselves never so wicked yea excommunicated yea Papists and thus bastards and foundlings may be baptized See Amesius his Cases lib. 4. cap. 27. Nay upon this account divers learned men very probably conceive that even Heathen children may be baptized if once taken into a Christian Family where the Governour or Governours undertake for their Christian education and they are out of the power of their Heathen parents for by being members of a Christian Family they are made members of the visible Church as civill though not naturall children of Christians I am sure this Doctrine is consonant to the Analogy of Circumcision Genes 17.12 where not onely the childe born in the house but also bought with money was to be circumcised yea bought of strangers and not of the seed of Abraham as is express and evident in the Text. Thus an Heathen born in the house or bought with money might eat of the holy things Levit. 21.11 3. These is something considerable in the immediate parents which makes their children capable of Baptisme and 1. Though they transgress yet they do not renounce the Covenant as Turks do 2. They are Members of the visible Church till excommunicated and why may not the children be admitted to the same priviledge the parents yet injoy provided their tender age be capable of that priviledge and children are as capable of Baptisme as they were of Circumcision both being passive Ordinances The second thing to be cleared is That the promiscuous admission of children to Baptisme is no ground for the promiscuous admission of their parents to the Lords Supper This is evident 1. Because more is required to make a person capable of the Lords Supper then an Infant capable of Baptisme 2. Personall unworthiness may easily appear in the parent which cannot appear in the Infant 3. It is not simple membership gives an immediate right to the Lords Supper and therefore though the parents membership do regularly make the childe capable of Church membership and so give it a right to Baptisme yet neither his own nor his childes Church membership can make the parent capable of the Lords Supper a priviledge not for every Church member but for a visibly worthy Church member Suppose the same person Timothy for instance baptized regularly in his riper years yea and admitted to the Lords Supper also as visibly worthy afterwards he walks scandalously he is 1. Admonished 2. Suspended 3. If persisting obstinate dismembred I beseech you what irregular proceeding is here 4. Therefore if the promiscuous admission of children to Baptisme is no ground for their own promiscuous admission

prophane persons have 4. As the Sacraments are seals of the Covenant so they may be applied to the Covenant before all but the Covenant may not by them be applied or sealed to any but to persons visibly worthy It s well therefore in the same page he corrects himself and grants the Sacraments may be seals of our faith consecutivè because they confirm and strengthen faith But he shuffles in saying They are not formaliter and in a true and proper sense seales unto any thing but the Covenant In a proper sense a seal is an artificiall thing fit to make a visible representation or impression and confirmation This the Sacrament is not properly but figuratively to the Covenant it self namely as it hath the office of a seal which is to represent and confirm and this it doth to faith as well as to the Covenant For 1. As it represents the Covenant it must needs represent faith as an especiall branch promised in the Covenant 2. As it confirms the Covenant so it confirms faith gradually offered and promised in it and thereby also confirms faith inherent in the worthy receiver as a Bond sealed unto me confirms my belief that the particulars sealed unto shall be performed and if this be not to seal in a formal and proper sense theologically I know not what is And thus increase of faith and all other graces are sealed by the Sacrament to the worthy receiver but neither the beginnings nor increase of faith are sealed to the unworthy receiver Nor will his instance of Circumcision pag. 43. help him as to the point in hand since Circumcision was applied to none but visible Saints either by Covenant election or by actuall profession not contradicted by living in scandalous sins or notorious ignorance of the Covenant of grace which is the rule we walk by in admission or non-admission And as little advantage will his cause gain by his illustration here again repeated drawn from a Proclamation sealed and offered to rebels that refuse it True the similitude holds in some particulars 1. The Covenant of grace is proclaimed by the Minister 2. The truth of it is sealed by the Sacrament 3. The benefits of it offered to all and therefore we deny not but all sorts may be present at the Ordinance as all rebels whether obstinate or submissive may be present at the Proclamation and sealing of a Pardon But what is offering a sealed Pardon in generall and conditionally to the particular application and sealing of the same Pardon to singular persons Or how can a Commissioner without breach of his trust assure either by word of mouth or seal pardon to a Traytor that visibly stands out against his Prince In like manner at the Sacrament not only the Elements do represent and seal the Covenant of grace as to its truth in generall but some of the Sacramentall actions as giving and receiving do particularly apply it to every receiver And how dares any Minister having regular power to deny it by word and seal apply the Covenant of grace to any person that visibly rejects it To illustrate this by the initiall Sacrament Baptism when ever administred seals the Covenant of grace as well as the Lords Supper but only to the person baptized doth it make particular application of the Covenant and therefore cannot be applied to any unbaptized person that is visibly out of the Covenant be he born of Heathen or of Christian Parents But all who are visibly in the state of nature are visibly out of the Covenant and such are grosly ignorant and scandalous persons willfully persisting in both Since therefore both Sacraments seal one and the same Covenant he who should not be admitted to the first were he unbaptized must not pari ratione be admitted to the second though baptized Page 44. Rep. by M. H. But is it not alsurd for a man to set his seal where there hath been no agreement and transactions before c. M. H. grants it's absurd on the receivers part but as for the Minister or Church who offer it as a seal on Gods part there is a true seal to a true copy and nothing out of order Answ There 's nothing out of order if the Minister proceed not to delivery of the writing and seal to those who visibly refuse the Covenant offered But should M. H. or any else deliver a purchase sealed to a person who refused the bargain let himself be Judge whether it were not an act both disorderly and imprudent And as disorderly is it to deliver unto any person bond and seal for the promised Land who visibly prefers Aegypt and Babylon before it God will not Ministers should deliver precious pearls to such swine What he addes Pag. 45. is also weak in which respect he doth well to cover the nakednesse of it with a blinde and misty parenthesis His words are these As they are Gods seals for the same reason they cannot be seals of faith because God seals not imaginably to our part of the Covenant which is faith Answ 1. Both the assertion it self and its reason are false For First Are they not Gods seals 1. As relating to Gods Covenant 2. As instituted by God himself to ratifie his Covenant Secondly Is not faith it self and every saving grace promised in the New Covenant unlesse M. H. will professedly turn Pelagian and make faith only the birth of mans free-will Thirdly If the Covenant be Gods if the seal be Gods and faith promised in it be Gods also is it not apparent that Gods seal must needs be faiths seal also Not a seal from faith authoritatively as from God but a seal of faith as a branch of the Covenant promised and as a seal to faith actually laying hold on the Covenant If the Covenant of grace undertake not for our part of the Covenant we are in a worse condition now under the Covenant of grace then we were under the Covenant of works since then Adam had perfection of grace to back free-will but in fallen man free-will either hath no grace inherent or but weak grace to act it and impossible were it for any either to convert or persevere unlesse God under-took both for the infusion and supporting of grace Object If faith and grace be a part of the Covenant that is sealed by the Sacrament then the best way were free admission that the Covenant and so faith it self may be sealed to all Answ Not so For 1. Though the Covenant offer grace to all conditionally yet it promiseth not grace absolutely to any but the elect and persons effectually called to the first it promiseth initiall grace to the latter it promiseth progresse and perseverance in grace Now the seal can secure no more then what is in the writing but saving grace is not absolutely promised to all in the Covenant ergò it cannot be sealed to all in the Sacrament The offer of grace indeed is sealed to all present whether they receive it or