Selected quad for the lemma: grace_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
grace_n	child_n	covenant_n	seal_n	2,756	5	9.5397	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A27442	The Church of England evidently proved the holy catholick church by Peter Berault ...	Berault, Peter.	1682 (1682)	Wing B1948A; ESTC R22975	53,217	264

contrary is to be seen in the eighth Chapter wherein it appears that after these things Paul came to Corinth and continued there a year and six months teaching the Word of God amongst the People of that City to whom he did write two Epistles some years after From whence it is evident that this Commandment to abstain from Meats and things strangled and from Blood is now abolished I must confess that if any Person would keep himself wholsom and have a mild and benign Temper he ought to abstain from both for seeing that Axiome is received amongst Physitians ex his constamus ex quibus nutrimur and since experience teacheth that those who feed upon Blood are commonly cruel and bloody and those that feed upon Meats strangled are neither so healthful nor live so long as those that abstain from them it ought to be sufficient to perswade us to abstain from both However in eating Blood and Meats strangled there is no sin And to make it appear we must know the Ceremonial Law changeth as the shadow of our Body when the Sun shines upon it differently and so may be considered in three different times First when God did establish it by Moses unto the death of our Lord Jesus Christ Who blotted out the hand-writing of Ordinances that was against us and took it out of the way nailing it to his Cross as it is written in the 2d to the Colossians Secondly From the death of our Lord Jesus Christ unto the destruction of the Synagogue and perfect manifestation of the Gospel Thirdly From the manifestation of the Gospel unto the end of the World In the first time that Commandment To abstain from things strangled and from Blood ought to be kept and the Transgressors were cast out of the Synagogue and separated from the People of Israel In the Second they were bound to keep it for Conscience sake and that they might not offend the Jews But in the Third after the Gospel was manifested that Commandment was abolished as I have made it appear already and therefore when the Church of England eat things strangled and Blood it is not true that they believe and practise any thing now forbidden in the holy Scripture Object The Church of England believes and puts it in practise that we ought to baptize young Children before they can use their own Reason and give account of their Faith but that Doctrine is not agreeable to the holy Scripture there being mention made only of the Baptism of adult Persons I mean of them that can be instructed and are able of Faith and Repentance as it appears by these Texts Teach all Nations baptizing them in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost Repent and be baptized every one of you in the Name of Jesus Christ for remission of sins if ye believe ye may be baptized Therefore the Church of England is not the holy Catholick Church since she believeth and practiseth an Article of Faith which is not agreeable to the holy Scripture Answ First I grant that the Baptism of young Children is not Necessary necessitate medii as the Church of Rome believes teaching that they cannot possibly be saved unless they receive the Water of Baptism because the Grace of God doth not always depend upon Elements which are not in our power at every time And the Baptism that saves us saith St. Peter Is not that that puts away the filth of the Flesh but the Answer of a good Conscience towards God by the Resurrection of Jesus Christ Therefore that which shuts the Gates of the Kingdom of Heaven against us is not a meer and innocent privation of Baptism but the Contempt and Prophanation of it and a bad Conscience which will not forsake sin Secondly I say That the Baptism of young Children is necessary necessitate praecepti that is to say as much as it is possible to obey the Commandment of Jesus Christ and though this Precept be not found in the holy Scripture in distinct and express words yet it may be inferred from thence by clear and necessary Consequences My first Proof concerning the Baptism of young Children is from the Covenant of Grace wherein God makes appear the eternal Riches of his Mercies and Compassions in so great a measure that he receives no body in that holy Covenant without receiving their Children likewise as it is seen in these words which God spake to Abraham saying 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 by those of the Acts wherein St. Peter speaks thus unto the Jews Be baptized every one of you in the Name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins for the promise is unto you and to your Children and to all that are afar off even as many as the Lord our God shall call From which words I infer these two Arguments First All that are partakers of the Covenant of Grace ought to be Partakers of the Seal of that Covenant and of that Sacrament which is the Mystical sign of our entring into that Covenant now not only the Faithful are Partakers of the Covenant of Grace but 〈◊〉 Children also as 〈◊〉 by the aforementio●●● Texts both of Genes●s and Acts therefore not only the Faithful but their Children also ought to be partakers of the Seal of that Covenant and consequently of Baptism which is the Mystical Sign of our entring into that Covenant Secondly Unto whom the Promise is made they ought to be baptized as it appears by the words of St. Peter Act. 2. 39. But the Promise is made unto the Children as well as unto their Parents therefore Children ought to be baptized Which is confirmed by these words of St. Matthew Go teach all Nations baptizing them in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost now young Children are of the number of Nations therefore unto them belongs Baptism therefore they ought to be baptized You may further urge Immediately before that Text in the Acts Be baptized every one of you c. it is read Repent And in that of St. Matthew we read Teach all Nations and so Repentance and Doctrine are presupposed before Baptism but young Children who cannot use their Reason neither are capable of one or the other therefore it follows they ought not to be baptized Answ We ought to teach them that are able to be taught and baptize them that are able to be baptized Repentance and Doctrine are necessary in adult Persons but not in young Children Otherwise it should follow that the new Law which is a Law of Grace should be less favourable than the old which is a Law of Rigor and that Jesus Christ were come to lessen the favours of God and not to increase them seeing in the old Law young

Children were circumcised now since Baptism is in the place of Circumcision weare to baptize young Children since they were circumcised and seeing Circumcision which was a Ceremony and divine Institution did neither require Doctrine nor Repentance in young Children though it were necessary in adult Persons as it appears in Abraham and in all others who turned Jews even so Baptism which is a Ceremony and a divine Institution doth neither require Faith nor Repentance in young Children although it doth in adult Persons Which is confirmed by the words of St. Matthew where it is said that They brought unto Jesus Christ little Children that he should put his hands on them and pray and that the Disciples rebuking them Jesus said suffer little Children and forbid them not to come unto me for of such is the Kingdom of God From whence I argue thus To whom do belong the things signified unto them belong the Signs also as the Crown which is the Sign and Mark of Royalty belongs to him to whom the Kingdom belongs but unto little Children belongs the Kingdom of God as it is written in St. Matthew 19. 13. Therefore unto them belongs Baptism which is the Sign of the entring into that Kingdom For except a man be born of water and of the Spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God Therefore young Children born with original sin as it appears in several places of the holy Scripture but especially by these words of St. Paul to the Romans By the Offencof one Ju dgment came upon all men to Condemnation are not to be deprived of Baptism lest they should not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven which is the Reason that St. Cyprian and Austin have so often declared the Baptism of little Children to be necessary Moreover if they brought unto Jesus Christ young Children and he put his hands on them and prayed for them why shall they not bring unto him little Children in the Church Why shall not the Minister pray for them And why shall he not confer unto them the Ceremony or the Institution of Baptism as Jesus Christ gave unto little Children the Ceremony or Institution of Imposition of hands I ask this Question whether the Ceremony of Imposition of hands was in vain or whether they received by it some particular Grace from Christ Ye will not say that it was in vain because then Jesus Christ in whom were hid all the Treasures of Wisdom and Knowledg would not have used it if they received by it some special Grace notwithstanding their want of Repentance and Faith which they were not then capable of why shall not young Children now receive the Ceremony of Baptism and thereby all Graces annexed unto it though they be not capable of Faith and Repentance When a Father or Mother were baptized all those of the Houshold were baptized also as it appears in the Acts where it is said that Lydia a seller of Purple of the City of Thyatira was baptized and her Houshold and that the Keeper of the Prison was baptized he and all his And in the first Chapter of the first Epistle to the Corinthians St. Paul saith that he hath baptized the Houshold of Stephanus but it is probable though not convincing that in so many Families there were Children And since our Fathers and their Children were baptized in the Cloud and in the Sea and they being the Figures of our Baptism as is evident by St. Paul that that which is by them figured may be accomplished the Children now ought to be baptized in the Baptism of Jesus Christ Object It is forbidden in several places of the holy Scriptures to Swear or to take an Oath Ye have heard that it hath been said to them of old time thou shalt not forswear thy self but I say unto you Swear not at all neither by Heaven c. But let your Communication be yea yea and nay nay for whatsoever is more than these cometh o evil and in the Epistle of St. James Above all things my Brethren swear not lest ye fall into Condemnation But the Church of England is not against swearing or taking an Oath yea she uses and maintains it lawful therefore she believes and practises an Article forbidden in the holy Scripture therefore she is not the holy Catholick Church Before I give an Answer it is necessary to know that an Oath is an Invocation to God or an Appeal to him as a Witness of the Truth of what we say so that in case that that we swear be not true we if not expresly at least virtually invoke God as a Judge and Avenger There are two sorts of Oaths one Assertory and the other Promissory an assertory Oath is when we promise by Oath something that is Future and if our promise be made directly and immediately to God 't is called a Vow if to men an Oath That being supposed I Answer That an Oath is not only lawful but also is sometimes necessary as when mens Estates are concern'd and no Evidence can be had to decide and clear the matter but what is assured by Oath Then it is necessary to make an end of and decide the Controversie as it appears by these words of St. Paul An Oath for Confirmations is to them an end of strife And its lawfulness appears by several Texts of the holy Scripture wherein God who is truth it self and cannot lie and consequently might be believed of men upon his bare word and without necessity of making an Oath yet to confirm his promises is willing to take it For when God made the Promise to Abraham because he could not swear by a greater he sware by himself And verse 17. God willing more abundantly to shew unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his Counsel confirmed it by an Oath Therefore if God himself swears and takes an Oath why shall it not be lawful to men to take an Oath in dubious matters and of great Concern and when no Evidence can be had to decide and clear them Was not Mephibosheth spared because of the Lord's Oath that was between them between David and Jonathan the Son of Saul Did not the Law of Moses in many cases require them Doth not St. Paul use them oftentimes as when he saith God is my witness I call God for a Record upon my Soul Before God I lie not Which Oaths St. Paul who was to teach the Precepts of Christ to others should not have used if they had been unlawful and forbidden in the holy Scriptures And Christ himself as ye may read Mat. 26. 63 64. did not refuse it when the High-Priest asked him to answer upon his Oath whether he was the Son of God I adjure thee saith the High-Priest by the living God that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ the Son of God and Jesus said unto him thou hast said Therefore seeing Jesus Christ himself doth answer when he is