Selected quad for the lemma: grace_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
grace_n	baptism_n	covenant_n	seal_v	3,589	5	10.2464	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A85949	Vindiciæ vindiciarum: or, A vindication of his Vindication of infant-baptisme, from the exceptions of M. Harrison, in his Pœdo-baptisme oppugned, and from the exceptions of Mr. Tombes, in his chief digressions of his late Apology, from the manner to the matter of his treatises. By Io. Geree M. of Arts, and Preacher of the Word in S. Albanes. Imprimatur, Edm. Calamy.	Geree, John, 1601?-1649.	1646 (1646)	Wing G604; Thomason E363_13; ESTC R201234	35,208	49

Testament was meerly fleshly c. But I answer there 's no such Covenant extent no distinct Covenant with the fleshly seed distinct from the spirituall His misinterpretation of Gen. 17. from ver 7. to 15. for that purpose I have convinced of vanity in clearing my first argument There was a Covenant indeed that had divers priviledges given to Abraham and continued to a visible Church of his seed wherein were parties of different condition Some carnall some spirituall Now to the carnall though spirituall things were represented and offered yet they only partook of carnall and externall priviledges but the elect partook of the spirituall priviledges also And so is it now in the visible Churches of Christians where are wheat and chaffe carnall and spirituall Christians M. H. premiseth 2. That the Covenant made with Abraham and renewed with Christ in the Gospel was never made with any fleshly seed it s wholly spirituall the signe and sanction spirituall c. appertaining only to a spirituall seed c. But this is a manifest untruth in part and in part misapplied for is Baptisme any more a spirituall seal then circumcision Have all that are Baptised put on Christ really or many in profession only Are all Baptised yea in an unquestionable way spirituall ones What was Simon Magus Are there not yet in visible Churches such a distinction of Christians and Baptisme as there was of Jews and circumcision Rom. 2.38 29 Do not Simon Magus and daily experience shew it True it is that those that are not by profession only but really by faith Children of Abraham they are spirituall c. but this is but the invisible Church under the visible now as it was in Judaisme M. H. himself sets Baptisme to men because they professe not because they beleeve as the title of his book shews and how oft is profession without faith M. H. premiseth 3. That the Gospel-Covenant is more glorious c. Then M. H. answers If he mean by priviledges fleshly c. which if is but to make way for an evasion He knows I mean not a fleshly but an externall priviledge to be of the visible kingdom of Christ of which he that is not is without and in an ordinary way without God and without hope in the world Ephes 2.12 Of which to denude our children and to make their condition as hopeles as Turks is a great discomfort and a straitning the grace of the Covenant for tell me when a Jewish childe did die was there no more hope of him then of a Canaanites childe See 1 Sam. 12.23 and whence that hope but from the Covenant with the seed Gen. 17.7 Deut. 30.6 And is that a carnall priviledge that gives hope of salvation So then M. H. by denying Infants to be within Covenant defalkes or curtails the spirituall priviledges of the Covenant and then his answer is demonstrated to be false CHAP. X. Wherein my last Argument for Infant-Baptisme from the judgement of charity is cleared from M. Harrisons exceptions MY sixth argument was thus Where we have evidence for judgement of charity that there is the grace of the Covenant there we may set to the seal of the Covenant That we have for Infants Ergo. The minor I make good by three positions 1. Children are capable of the grace of the Covenant 2. Some are actually partakers of it 3. Because the children of believers are externally under the Covenant of grace Here M. Harrison answers not punctually but in four particulars 1. The judgement of charity must be guided by a rule and he knows none but Mat. 7.20 By their fruits you shall know them It seems he hath forgotten 1 Cor. 13.5 6.7 where he might have read many more rules of charity It believeth all things hopeth all things that is wherein there is any fair ground and that I have shewed for the grace of the Covenant to be in Infants But saith M. Harrison The spirit bloweth where it listeth Joh. 3.8 Where it is not limited to children of believers more then unbelievers Answ The spirit bloweth where it listeth doth it therefore blow no more in the ministery of the Gospel then in Philosophicall lectures No more in the Church then out of it You will not say it for the spirit that is free hath limited it self by promise to blow ordinarily more in one exercise then another in one society then another and so to one seed then another Deut. 30.6 Isa 59.21 M. H. saith Simon Magus did appear a believer but that hinders not my assertion viz. that profession is only a ground for judgement of charity not certainty as appeared in Simon Magus who by his profession in charity was judged to have what he had not For his second demanding proof That the children brought to Christ were of believing parents Why else were they brought to Christ would they offer their children to Christ that did not themselves believe in him That which M. H. saith thirdly Touching Christs omnisciency is besides the point Sith we in admitting to ordinances proceed not upon judgement of certainty but charity M. Harrison addes Fourthly that though children had grace actually which saith he why children of believers should have more then of unbelievers I know not nor I am perswaded doth M. Geree why then there 's no more hope of a Christians childe dying in innocency then of a Turks which I have shewed both false and dismall to parents yet because they cannot act it by action or profession it s no ground of administration of Baptisme wherein 1. He differs from M. Tombes 2. From the truth for what is the reall ground of claim to seals but being within Covenant or having the grace to be sealed Which if it come to my knowledge any way by fruits or testimony of Gods Word Who can forbid water to those that have received the holy Ghost as well as we Act. 10.47 As the Apostle argues from evidence of the grace of the Covenant there And thus I have cleared the sixth argument from M. Harrison who in this last answer doth so needlesly inculcate the hopelesnesse of Christian Infants for grace and glory are connex that if he have no more comfortable divinity I shall not envy but wonder at and pity the multiplicity of his followers M. Tombes takes notice of this sixth argument pag. 101. and 102. And there denies both the major and the minor And denyes Act. 10.47 to be a proof of the major which I have already made good to M. Harrison The Sacrament is a seal of the Covenant and the grace of it Baptisme is not to seal profession of faith but the righteousnes of faith properly and therefore I conceive the true ground why Baptisme was administred on profession of faith because that profession was an evidence of the righteousnesse of faith and being in the Covenant which it is not in judgement of certainty but charity as Simon Magus his case cleareth If then by any other evidence we

some strength in this consequence but that we make not all the reason for the scruple was in the Corinthians whether notwithstanding their lawfull marriage they might lawfully live together yes saith the Apostle the unbeliever in the use of marriage for so it must be understood is sanctified to the believer else c. so that marriage is the ground-work which satisfied not their consciences for so were they Ezra 9. 10. Yet was the holy seed polluted but now saith the Apostle the unbeliever is sanctified to the believer c. So then the parties that may lawfully live together on this ground are supposed to be man and wife And his major proposition must be That man and wife may lawfully dwell together whereof one is sanctified to the other and so his fornicators will be excluded not concluded He saith it is not necessary to insert being husband and wife sith the sanctification is not ascribed by him to the relation between them but to the faith of the one But I answer this is no good ground for though the marriage be no cause of this sanctification yet it is a ground supposed to make the Apostles resolution true and on that ground it is made There 's two things required to satisfie spirituall conscience in the use of a thing First that it be lawfull in it self Secondly that it be holy to us The former is common to heathens and Christians in morall things The last is the peculiar of believers if either be wanting conscience is defiled and will be disquieted Now the sanctification here to quiet their consciences is an addition to the law of marriage common with them to heathens and so we ought not to sever the later from the former which the Apostle supposed So this new argument is overthrown without denying bastards to be faederally holy where I should not have M. Tombes an adversary CHAP. VIII Wherein my fourth argument is made good for Infant-Baptisme from Col. 2.11 12. MY fourth argument for Infant-Baptisme was To whom circumcision doth agree Baptisme doth agree circumcision doth agree to Infants Ergo. The major is proved because Baptisme doth succeed circumcision in the same place state and signification in the new administration that circumcision had in the old Col. 2.11 12. Here M. Harrison first denies that circumcision and Baptisme do seal the same Covenant I answer circumcision was a seal of the Covenant made with Abraham and that is the same made with us Christians or else how can we by faith be made children of Abraham And how could the Prophet argue from the Covenant made with Abraham that Christians are justified by faith not the works of the law as he doth Gal. 3.16 17. unlesse we had the same Covenant and of our Covenant Baptisme is the seal 2. He denies circumcision to be the seal of remission of sin But doth not the Apostle say that circumcision was the seal of the righteousnes of faith and that implies remission of sins as he plainly shews in bringing as proofs of justification by faith Psal 32.1 Blessed is the man whose sins are forgiven Rom. 4 6 7 8 9 10 11. M. H. answers it was to Abraham the seal of the righteousnes of faith but that was peculiar to him Wherein again whether of ignorance or of choise ipse viderit he jumps with Bellarmine against Protestant Divines Bel. lib. 1. de sacr in grem cap. 17. But as our Divines answer Bellarmine thus he enervates the Apostles argument from Abrahams example to us which is not argumentative in any thing peculiar to Abraham Secondly I would know of M. Har. if circumcision did not seal righteousnes of faith except to Abraham what it did seal to proselytes Title to Canaan they had none seal a blanke it must not therefore it sealed the righteousnes of faith Again there being in a Sacrament an outward signe and an inward grace and that under the old Testament as well as the new as Protestants maintain against Papists I would know of him whether the circumcision of the heart Deut. 30.6 Rom. 2.29 Col. 2.11 were not the grace answering the signe in circumcision and whether that did not import the putting away the filth of nature by justification and regeneration and so included remission of sins M. H. proceeds If I mean that as circumcision was a Sacrament of the old Testament Baptisme of the new c. I answer I mean as I say Baptisme was the Sacrament of initiation under the New as circumcision under the Old and therefore as the one was set to all seleable within Covenant so the other Yet will it not hence follow that children must therefore have the Lords Supper because that is the Sacrament of growth To the place Col. 2.11 12. M. H. saith it doth no more prove Baptisme to succeed circumcision then Noahs Ark or the red Sea But he might have seen my answer to M. Tombes that there is not the same reason of these for circumcision was an Ordinance in ordinary use of the same nature vertue and state that Baptisme in being the Jews Sacrament of initiation and so is more properly said to be succeeded by Baptisme But M. H. saith that the Apostle speaks of circumcision to shew the Colossians that they were compleat in Christ by regeneration c. I answer that 's true but that 's not all the Apostle shews they needed not the elements of the world whereof circumcision was one and why not only because they had spirituall circumcision but had it sealed by Baptisme So Baptisme is in the same state and supplies the use of circumcision to seal and apply Christ to justification and regeneration and this is a manifest proof of my collection from Col. 2.11 12. and more to the purpose then M. H. hath or can answer For that proof of yours that circumcision and Baptisme were not to be applied to the same subject because John the Baptist would not Baptise those that were circumcised without further qualification I have answered already to M. Tombes in pag. 10. It was because Baptisme is a seal in a new administration and so parties to be Baptised were to be under the new administration as well as in Covenant And therefore neither Iohn the Baptist nor the Apostles did Baptise Jews till by their doctrine they were brought under the new administration Thus it appears what a feeble answerer M. H. is still found CHAP. IX Wherein my fifth Argument for Infant-Baptisme because the grace of the new Testament is not lesse then under the Old MY fifth argument was framed thus If Children of Christian parents be excluded from the Covenant and seal of initiation whereby their separation from the world is manifested then are the priviledges under the new Testament lesse then under the old But this is not to be affirmed Ergo. M. H. returns answer by a long fetch about premising three things 1. That the Covenant made with the fleshly seed as such under the old

have cause to judge in charity that there is grace and that they are within the Covenant this gives title to the seal because it contains the ground why profession of faith gives claim to the seal M. Tombes makes Gods revelation of true sanctification a ground for Baptisme for this he hath neither precept nor example in Scripture for Judas might dee all that they Act. 10.47 are said to doe The ground of his assertion therefore I think must be because true sanctification is that whereof profession is an evidence and that but conjecturall or charitable not certain and such an evidence from other grounds of Scriptures Why should it not be of the same validity For M. Tombes his denyall of my minor he affirms 1. That the judgement of charity is to be taken from a mans own actions because the Apostle saith charity believeth all things 1 Cor. 13.7 But how these words prove his assertion which I deny I know not but have shewed in answer to M. Harrison rule for charity in this point from the following words hopeth all things The ground of this judgement of charity I draw not from any one of my three grounds mentioned in the laying down my argument but from all three together Which M. Tombes saith can onely produce conjecturall hope which often miscarryeth and so much they doe amount to and that is the thing that I assert for the judgement of charity is but a conjecturall hope being opposed to demonstrative certainty Thus I have done with M. Harrison whose book hath given me fit occasion without digressing from the present matter to answer all those passages in M. Tombes his Apology for the manner of his treatise where he takes occasion largely and materially to defend the matter of it For his boasts what he hath done in this controversy without answering our reasons to the contrary I hope none will be moved with them till they have tryed them by comparing writing with writing and reason with reason and then I fear not the issue Now that he doth make shew of more then he performeth I will content my self to shew in one particular which is the first and of no small consequence it is in his Epistle Dedicatory and that to Parliament-men the Authorizers of the Directory To whom he saith that the truth hath gotten so much ground that the doctrine of the Directory is disavowed by two of his most eminent Antagonists for which he hath that I know no other ground then because we interpret the Directory according to the minde of the compilers And not as M. Tombes would have it mistaking the words as I conceive to be understood in that sense which I believe he himself conceives was not in the intention of the compilers Sure I am that many of the Assembly have assured me in private that they intended the expressions questioned by M. Tombes in no other sense then I expound them Now I will not say Crimine ab uno Omnia discite By one crimination judge of all But the carriage in this I hope will make all more wary in giving credence to his other confident assertions O that the Lord would pity us under this saddest exercise of division of judgements and make us of one minde one heart one language or make this sharp affliction as usefull to humble and mortifie as it is in sense bitter to a peaceable spirit Amen Soli Deo gloria Errata PAge 4. line 28. dele and. p. 9. l. 8. for spirit r. speech p. 11. l. 5 for at r. 〈◊〉 l. 24. dele and. p. 12. l. 21. for and r. under p. 15 l. 10. for being r. bring from the Covenant p. 16. l. 2. for Cant. 8.11 12. r. Mat. 8.11 12. l. 24. for freedom r. seed p 18. l. 5. for for r. so p. 20. l. 9. for constrains r. contains p. 26. l. 18. for Question r. Quaesitum