Selected quad for the lemma: grace_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
grace_n	covenant_n	deny_v	infant_n	2,377	5	9.5458	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A62871	A publick dispute betwixt John Tombs ... respondent, John Cragge, and Henry Vaughan ... opponents, touching infant-baptism, the fifth of September, 1653 ... occasioned by a sermon preached the day before, by Mr. Tombs, upon St. Mark 16.16 ... : also a sermon preached by Mr. Cragge, the next Lords day following, upon the same text, wherein the necessity of dipping is refuted, and infant-baptism asserted.	Tombes, John, 1603?-1676.; Cragge, John, Gent.; Vaughan, Henry, Sir, 1587?-1659?	1654 (1654)	Wing T1813; ESTC R9749	45,440	168

day and a half to long censure Fourthly the Anabaptists as they will deem for too uncourteously galling their soars Fiftly their Adversaries the Paedobaptists for too courteously or as they will fancy partially concealing Mr. Tombs harsh language and his Favourites Incivilities Sixtly the Learned in general for bringing these Nilus-like hatched Births in a moment into the open Amphitheater with those Elephants that have been ten years in conception My Apologie for the whole is as followeth The bulk of this Manual is small some may reach to the price of it that cannot of those larger Volumes may have time to read it that cannot them The method of this is facile the language plain some will understand this that cannot them Besides we naturally love the transactions of those whose persons we know Some heard them transiently as they were delivered and would be glad deliberately to read them Some heard them not but at the second hand as they were variously reported according to the judgement and affection of the Relator who would be willing to know the business truly stated If any of the Parties cencerned find themselves aggrieved and intend to bend their stile against me I 'le answer them at the Day of Judgement when the secrets of all hearts shall be disclosed In the mean time if Truth may be advanced Errour discouraged Godliness countenanced Hypocrisie unmasked thou edified God glorified I have mine ends Farewell Yours in the Lord I. T. P. A relation of a conference had between Mr. John Tombs B. D. and Henry Vaghan M. A. in St. Maries Church in Abergevennie Sept. 5. 1653. touching Infants Baptism briefly and punctually set down to the sense of both V. INfants may lawfully be Baptized for they may be admitted into the covenant of grace now by Baptism as they were before and under the Law admitted into the same covenant by Circumcision T. I deny your consequence V. You must deny it either because the covenant of grace made with Abraham and his seed is not the same in substance with that which is now actually in force with beleevers and their Children or Secondly because Baptism succeedeth not in the room of Circumcision T. I could deny your division yet I say to gratifie you for both those reasons V. For the Former That the covenant made with Abraham and his seed is the same which is now actually in force with beleevers appears by comparing Genes 17.2 with Galat. 3.14 where it is clearly set forth that the promise made to Abraham came unto the Gentiles through Jesus Christ T. Here he distinguisheth of a towfold seed of Abraham the naturall and spirituall and saith that the covenant was made with Abrahams spirituall seed and not the naturall V. Even all the children of Abraham were Circumcised and consequently admitted into the covenant not one excepted for every Man-child was to be Circumcised Gen. 17.10 It appears by what hapned to Moses for not circumcising his Child Exod. 4.24 Even Ishmael was circumcised Genes 17.23 who belonged not to the promise but was of the naturall seed T. Ishmael and the naturall Children of Abraham were admitted to the externall part namely outward privileges and temporall blessings and not to the internall or spirituall part thereof By the Internall part he must needs mean that part of it expressed Gen. 17.7 in these words To be a God unto thee and unto thy seed after thee and in the end of v. 8. I will be their God To justifie this his distinction he referred us to Rom. 9. and I think v. 8. where the Children of the promise are contradistinguished from the Children of the flesh or the naturall Children of Abraham So that the covenant was made not to the naturall Children of Abraham but to such of them as were elect and faithfull V. This covenant was made alike in the same extent and latitude promiscuously with all the seed of Abraham and those that lost the promise and the benefit of this covenant which men you call the naturall seed lost it not because they were not at first comprehended in the covenant but because of their own unbeleef Rom. 11.20 I confesse that the Children of Isaack are Rom. 9. called the Children of the promise not in regard of any peremtory election or designation to faith and Salvation or on the contrary of any absolute reprobation of the seed of Ishmael For if it had been Pauls designe to declare the Children of Ishmael yea the greatest part of the Jewes to have been rejected by a certain absolute decree why should he v. 1.2 so much lament their incredulitie wish himself accursed for their sakes v. 3. and Rom. 10. v. 1. desire and pray for their conversion since upon such an absolute decree of reprobating them all that happened to them was inevitable But the Children of Isaack are called the Children of promise First because they onely were to inherite the land of Canaan and Secondly because Christ according to the flesh was to descend from the progenie of Isaack not of Ishmael I might have added that if none but the elect and faithfull can be admitted into the covenant there is no subject left for the ordinance of Baptism it being impossible for man to know who are elect spirituall and true believers Neither can you Baptize with right or safety all such grown persons as you Baptize since you cannot be assured that they are elect Spirituall or true believers Revel. 2.17 nor have any light to guide you save that of charitable opinion and conjecture Again it being admitted that none but the Spiritually elect and believing can be Baptized the same charitie that swayes your judgment for grown persons must much rather move you to hope the best of innocent infants guiltie of no actuall sin since it hopes all things and thinks no evill 1. Cor. 13.2 They may have faith in semine habitu in the seed as they have the habit of principles and reason tho they cannot exercise it till ripe years 3. Though they have not actuall faith yet the faith of their parents may and doth put them into a capacitie of being admitted into the covenant nor is it news that the parents faith advantageth the Children Joh. 4.50 T. I could wish you could prove that Infants of believers might be admitted to Baptism by virtue of their parents faith V. They were admitted into the same covenant by Circumcision into which we are admitted now by Baptism but Circumcision is a seal of the righteousness of faith Rom. 4.11 12. Whence it will follow that either they had the righteousness of faith inherently in themselves or that of their parents imputed to them chuse you whether or else it will follow that Circumcision was a false seal T. It is not said there that Circumcision was the seal of righteousness of the Childrens faith but onely of Abrahams own faith in particular V. But the covenant or promise was the same and alike to Abraham and his

as were Baptized before should be drowned So we have resolved the former doubt that Baptizing is not dipping and come to the latter that Infants may nay ought to be Baptized And Brethren I beseech you to give me leave a little to speak for Infants those poor Souls that cannot speak for themselves And before we come to the Question take with you these two Considerations First that those truths that were not in controversie in the Primitive times the Apostles were not so punctual in pressing of them seeing there was no need Solon being asked why he made no Law against murtherers of Parents answer'd because he conceiv'd none would commit that unnatural Act If the Apostles had been asked why they did not put down Infant-Baptism in plainer terms I suppose they would have answered that they thought none would have denyed it Secondly observe that those things that are pressed often in the old Testament are mentioned more sparingly in the New as the Sabbath and Magistracy in the old Testament line upon line and precept upon precept but scarce a Syllable for a Christian Sabbath or a Christian Magistracie in the new Nothing is more clear then Infants Church-Membership in the old Testament therefore not so clear in the New and yet clear enough to those that have eyes to see it as will appear by these reasons following 1. Arg. First those that are in Covenant with God ought to have the Seal of the Covenant which is Baptism But Infants of beleeving Parents are in Covenant with God Therefore Infants ought to have the Seal of the Covenant which is Baptism The former Proposition is firm by Confession of all Divines even our adversaries Haec est fundamentalis ratio paedobaptismi sayes Daneus this is the fundamentall reason of Baptizing of Infants that they are in Covenant Esse foederatum sufficit ad accipiendum signum foederis sayes Davenant to be in Covenant is sufficient to receive the signe and seal of the Covenant Omnes foederati sunt Baptizandi sayes Wendel all that are in Covenant are to be Baptized Si in foedere sunt impiè agunt qui eis signum foederis negant saith Ferus if they be in Covenant they do wickedly that deny them the signe of the Covenant in a Civill contract sayes Mr Perkins the Father and the heir make but one person and the Covenant 's for himself and his posterity The Minor proposition that Infants of believing Parents are in Covenant is grounded on many Scriptures Genes 17.7 Where God establishes a Covenant not only with Abraham but with his seed after him in their generations for an everlating Covenant everlasting and therefore to last to the end of the World as Cornelius à Lapide sayes absolutè aeternum est in semine spirituali fidelibus It is absolutely everlasting in the spirituall seed to the faithfull Galat. 3.8 The Scripture foreseeing that God would justifie the Heathen through faith preached before the Gospel to Abraham therefore if Isaac was in Covenant with his Father when he was but eight dayes old and had the seal by vertue of the Lamb to be slain much more the Children of believing Parents by vertue of the Lamb that is already slain Deutero 29.11 When all the people stood in Covenant before the Lord their little ones are mentioned amongst the rest which is further confirmed Acts 2.38 39. Be Baptized every one of you for the promise is to you and your children to say that they were not yet believers is but a shift the Text makes it cleer as soon as they were believers their Children were in Covenant with them and to be Baptized Arg. 2. Such as were Circumcised under the Law may be Baptized under the Gospell But Infants of believers were Circumcised under the Law Therfore they may baptized under the Gospel Huic Argumento non omnes Anabaptistae resistent sayes learned Whitaker all the Anabaptists shall not be able to resist this Argument the Minor that Infants under the Law were Circumcised is confessed The former proposition is onely questioned that Baptism under the Gospel to Infants does not necessarily follow from Circumcision under the Law Augustin is cleer for it saying Mutatis signis manet eadem gratia sine aetatis discrimine the outward visible signes being changed the same grace remaines without any difference of age and he gives a reason because the grace of God is not straiter in the new Testament than in the old Therefore Christ Hebr. 8.6 Is said to be Mediator of a better Covenant but how were it a better Covenant if all poor Infants that were in Covenant under the Law were out of Covenant under the Gospel Titus 2 12. The grace of God hath appeared unto all and therefore surely to Infants as Ireneus sayes Christus pro parvulis parvulus factus est Christ becam a little one for little ones sake that he might redeem the little ones Little ones were the first Martyrs that suffered for Christ in Rama was a voice heard and that Baptism came in place of Circumcision the Apostle cleares it Coloss. 2.11 12. Ye are circumcised with circumcision made without hands How is that Buryed with him in Baptism Hence arises another Argument Arg. 3. Those that were once in Covenant had the Seal of the Covenant and were never disfranchized and put out of Covenant have title to the Covenant and Seal of it still But Infants were once in Covenant had the Seal of the Covenant and were never disfranchized and put out of Covenant Therefore Infants have title to the covenant and seal of it still Let any man shew one syllable one tittle in Scripture that ever Infants were put out and wee l yield the gantlet nay the Gospell is so far from expressing of them that they are put out that it gives them large commendations beyond them of riper years making them the rule of our perfection as new born babes receive the sincere milk of the Word Unless you be as little Children ye shall not enter into the Kingdom of God which is a case so cleer that even Bellarmine him self encludes Nullum est impedimentum c. there is nothing that hinders but that Infants may as well be Baptized under the Gospell as they were Circumcised under the Law for neither hath God forbidden Ministers to give them this Sacrament neither are they uncapable to receive it Arg. 4. That which God hath commanded may lafully be practised by the Ministers of Jesus Christ But God hath commanded Infant-Baptism Therefore it may lawfully be practised by the Ministers of Jesus Christ That God hath ommanded it appears Matth. 28.19 Go Baptize all Nations it s a generall command and as Aquinas sayes posito generali mandato pars ejus negari non potest a generall command being given no part of it can be denyed Infants are a part of Nations and included in them Object But here is no mention made of Infants Answ. No nor of them of

Gentiles shall be graffed in Parent with Children But the Jews were broken off Parents with Children Therefore the Gentiles shall be graffed in Parents with Children 9. Arg. If Infants should be out of Covenant under the Gospel many dangerous absurdities would follow First Infants would be losers by the comming of Christ and be put in a worse condition than the Jewish Infants were they with the Parents were admitted to the Seal of the Covenant which was Circumcision and not Children with Parents to Baptism Secondly if Infants should be in Covenant then and not now Grace would be larger under the Law than under the Gospel Thirdly there would be no difference betwixt the Child of a Christian and of a Pagan but all the Infants of Christians would be as vile as the Children of Turks Tartars or Cannibals Fourthly they would be without God without Christ without hope in the world not the Children of God but of the Devil would all be damned for out of Covenant and visible Church ordinarily there is no salvation 10. Arg. Lastly that which hath continued since the Apostles times with blessed success must needs be lawful But Infant-Baptism hath continued with blessed success since the Apostles times Therefore Infant Baptism is lawful Wee l begin with the first Centurie or hundred years after Christ Dionysius the Areopagite whom the Apostles converted at Athens says Holy men have received a tradition from the Fathers that is the Apostles to Baptise Infants Clemens who is recorded by some of the antients to succeed Peter in his Ministry at Rome says {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} Baptise your Infants Ireneus who lived in the second Century says Christus pro parvulis parvulus factus est Christ became a little one for little ones sake that little ones might be received into Covenant Origen that lived in the begining of the third Century says The Church received a tradition from the Apostles to Baptize Infants and gives a reason because they are born in impurity of sin nay Pelagius a great Scholar who lived in the latter end of this Century though he denyed Original sin yet confessed Infant-Baptism for when they pressed him with this Argument if Infants had not Original sin what need they Baptism he answered that Christ appointed and the Church practised Infant-Baptism not to purge sin by past but to prevent it for the time to come Cyprian in the fourth Century confirms it in his Epistle to Fidus and gives an account of a Council of sixty six Bishops that decreed that Infants should be Baptized Ambrose says because every age is lyable to sin therefore every age is fit for the Sacrament of Baptism Nazianzene says it is better to Seal Infants with Baptism though they know it not then to leave them unsealed Austen is conceived to go too far who denyed possibility of salvation to them that dyed un-baptized pressing that place John 3.5 Except a Man be Born of water and of the Spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God The Millevitan Counsel in the fifth Century decreed That whosoever should deny that Infants even taken from their Mothers wombs might not be Baptized should be accursed All Churches all ages since agree in this the Harmonies of confessions of all Reformed Churches the Church of England in the Apologie the old Catechism The twenty seventh Article the Directory the greater and lesser Catechism composed by the Assembly of Divines the late Parliament by a further Declaration all confirm it The Canons of our Church did not only in former times declare but the Lawes of our Land did punish Anabaptists as hereticks Mr. Fox in his Acts and Monuments approves of the Albigenses Waldenses Wickliffists Lollards Poor men of Lyons Brownists Barrowists as members of the Reformed Churches but wholly excludes the Anabaptists as erring fundamentally I 'le say no more for confirmation of this polemicall discourse but wind up all with a word of exhortation I beseech you brethren consider what a dangerous errour this is that robbs the Scripture of its truth Infants of their right parents of their comforts the Church of its members Christ of his merits God of his glory That is the mother of many other errours hence sprung the Ranters Socinians Antitrinitarians Shakers Levellers they that are above Ordinances Antiscripturians An errour that God hath expressed many signall judgments against as Sleiden and Gastius in Germany and some of our worthies in England have declared As reverend Mr. Cotton tells one of his Aposta●ed flock that had his house burned and his children in it No wonder that fire seised upon his house and God denyed water to quench it who denyed that water should be brought to Baptize his Infants Secondly consider that much benefit redounds both to parents and children by Infant-Baptism First much comfort comes hereby to the parents when they consider Gods free grace to them and theirs that he is not ashamed to be called their God and the God of their seed after them Hebr. 11.16 Secondly much benefit comes to Infants by Baptism which the Devill knowes well when he causes witches to renounce their Baptism when they enter into Covenant with him for they are thereby admitted into the bosome of the Church devoted and consecrated unto God his Name is put upon them they wear his Royall badge and by it they are distinguished from Heathens And this so clear from Scriptures truly and spiritually understood That the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it Now the God of Peace and Truth by his Spirit lead us into all truth keep us pure and unspotted in this houre of Englands temptation and triall keep us faithfull to the death that so we may receive a crown of life {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} FINIS And that by washing as the Proselytes and Jews Children were initiated Mr. Cradock and Mr. Walter Monmothshire {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} or to the water

is that I must walk by and his word that I must be judged by and he hath given me so full a discovery of his will in this point I will boldly adventure to follow his rule and had rather answer him upon his own incouragement for admitting an hundred Infants into his Church than answer for keeping out of one Argument 6. All Disciples may be Baptized But Infants of believing parents are Disciples Therefore some Infants may be Baptized The Major or former proposition is granted by our adversaries who translate that place Matth. 28.19 {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} go make Disciples of all Nations which is in our last translation Go teach all Nations confessing as soon as they are Disciples they may be Baptized Now for the Minor that Infants are Disciples is evident from Acts 15.10 Why tempt yee God and put a yoak upon the neck of the Disciples this yoak was Circumcision and the attendants of it as will appear by comparing it with the fift verse and the context from the beginning of the Chapter Now among the Jews children were only to be Circumcised and amongst the Gentiles children together with parents when they were converted and became Proselites To say that not only Circumcision but the Doctrine and Observation of the whole Law by the yoak is meant is but a shift Circumcision was the Seal or Ordinance by which the Jews were bound to observe the Doctrine and the Law and all those upon whom the yoak was layd by Circumcision are called Disciples whereof Infants were a great part And if it be objected that children are not capable of instruction as it is nothing to the purpose so it contradicts Scripture Esay 54.13 And all thy Children shall be taught of the Lord and great shall be the peace of thy Children And if any one carnally interpret this of the Jews return from captivity as they do other places of Esa. our Saviour checks them John 6.45 And It is written in the Prophets And they shall all be taught of God Arg. 7. All that have faith may be Baptized But some Infants have faith Therefore some Infants may be Baptized The proposition none will deny the Minor may be proved by severall reasons First Christ expresly calls them Believers Matth. 18. He attributes humility to them and faith and commands Elders to imitate them and that you may see they were Infants Mark 9.36 tells us they were such as Christ took up in His armes Secondly they are said to receive the Kingdom of God Mark 10. that is the grace of God Remission of sins and life eternall now the Kingdom is not received but by faith in Christ Thirdly they please God therfore Christ blesseth them but without faith it is impossible to please God Fourthly either faith must be allowed them or salvation denyed them but the latter is cruell and impious therefore the former must be godly and pious faith only purifies the heart but no unclean thing shall enter into Heaven Fiftly tho Infants cannot make actuall profession of faith yet they may have inward roots of Sanctification and faith John Baptist and Jeremie were sanctified in their mothers wombs let carnalists say what they will that is the principal meaning of that place Esay 65.20 There shall be no more an Infant of days The Jews thought they were not sanctified unless a Sabbath went over them the child shall dy an hundred year old that is as well in Covenant with God or a visible Church-member as if he were a hundred years old Therefore Pareus sayes Infantes Ecclesiae etiam ante Baptismum censentur sideles Infants of the Church even before Baptism are judged faithfull Hommius sayes infants have faith in semine in the seed tho not in messe in the harvest Beza sayes they have faith {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} in power tho not {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} in operation Faith says Treleatius is twofold 1. Active which the Elder have by hearing the Word 2. Passive and by imputation which Infants have by vertue of the Covenant and Divine promise Pelagius asks Austin where he places infants Baptized he answers in numero credentium in the number of believers and addes nec judicare ullo modo aliter audebis si non vis esse apertè haereticus neither may thou presume to judge otherwise if thou wilt not be a plain Heretick Wee l conclude this with that of Vossius As in naturals so in supernaturals we must distinguish these three things power habit and act there is the power of reasoning in Infants the habit in men sleeping but the act and exercise in them that are waking the power answers the seed the habit the tree the act and exercise the fruit the seed of Faith may be in Infants the habit in men of age but the act and exercise in them that work according to the habit 8. Arg. Those that are Holy with a Covenant-holiness may be Baptized But Infants of beleeving Parents are Holy with a Covenant-Holiness Therefore Infants of beleeving Parents may be Baptized For the former Proposition foederatis competit signum foederis says Vossius the sign of the Covenant belongs to them that are in Covenant Holiness is twofold says Bullinger either of Faith or of the Covenant Ezra 9.2 Ye have mingled the holy seed that is them in Covenant with the Nations that is them that are out of Covenant Thus you see that Covenant-holiness is no gibberidge but grounded upon Scripture and avouched by learned men as shall more fully appear The Minor that Children of beleeving Parents are holy with a Covenant-holiness is clear from 1 Cor. 7.14 Else your Children were unclean that is not in Covenant but now they are holy that is in Covenant thus besides the ancients Sharpius and Peter Martyr interpret it and Hugo Grotius himself Non loquitur Apostolus de Sanctitate naturali c. The Apostle says he speaks not of natural holiness and inhering to the nature of Children but of an holiness adhering to them that is the holiness of the Covenant for the Children of beleevers are comprehended in the Covenant of grace and therefore accounted holy of God To interpret it as the gross Anabaptists do that they are holy that is no Bastards is a new holiness not heard of in Scripture and as Doctor Featly says a Bastard exposition and Pareus gives the reason if the Children of beleevers be therefore holy because they are no Bastards the Children of Pagans are as well holy for they are also no Bastards If the first-fruits be holy the lump is holy and if the root be holy so are also the branches Rom. 11.16 The first fruits and the root that is the Parents the lump the branches that is the Children and posterity And Rom. 11.17 if the Jews were broken off and the Gentiles graffed into their place it will follow that if the Jews were broken off Parents with Children then the