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	faith_n	seal_n	4,746	5	9.5373	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A75851	A modest reply humbly offer'd, as an answer to, and confutation of seven arguments collected and deliver'd by Mr. Samuel Lawrence, in a sermon preach'd at his meeting-house in Namptwich, Octob. 16th, 1691, whereby he would shew, that the infants of professing Christians ought to be baptized : with a seasonable word to my brethren of the baptized church / presented by the most unworthiest of her servants, S.A.	Acton, Samuel, d. 1740?; Lawrence, Samuel.	1692 (1692)	Wing A452aA; ESTC R203313	36,660	49

a Lease in which your Childrens Lives are put together with your own will any say the Childrens are not in because the Parents have been the principal Actors 1 So that this is nothing but what is common amongst Men. 2 GOD hath dealt thus with Man all along in the Covenant of Works with Adam in the Old Testament with the Patriarchs or Fathers and can we think He hath altered his Methods What Evidence can be brought of that 3 It is but reason it should be so for Children are a part of their Parents till they come to stand on their own Legs and act for themselves 4 The thing signified doth belong to Infants as the pardon of Sin Regeneration and the Kingdom of Heaven c. therefore the Sign if the greater then the less If any object That for the same reason they may come to the Lord's Table because they have the thing signified Ans Weakly argued because that though the thing signified is the same yet the sign is different and they may be capable of the one that are not of the other Because they receive Milk are they therefore fit for strong Meat 2 may they not be taken in at the Door and washed by Baptism because unfit by reason of their Age to come to the Lord's Supper Second ANSWER If you would carefully examine and look into the nature of this Covenant mention'd Gen. 17. you will find it such as yields not your Infant-Seed the least Right to Gospel Ordinances it being a Covenant peculiar to Abraham which God made with him for his natural Seed his Children according to the Flesh wherein we have God promising unto him a very numerous and honourable Issue v. 5 6. 2 That as God hath graciously condescended to become a God in Covenant to Abraham even so He will continue to be the God of his Seed after him ver 7. from whence it 's evident that God hath chosen the whole Off-spring of Abraham in a peculiar manner to be his Covenant-People by vertue of that Covenant that He made with him for himself and his Seed and therefore 3 God on his part promiseth to plant and settle the Seed and Posterity of Abraham in the promised Canaan which was a Blessing peculiar to that People made sure to them by a Covenant-promise on God's part ver 8. as a Token whereof he gives them Circumcision to be kept and observed by them through their Generations as ver 9 10. And this we judge easie to make evident were that our Business though there be something of the Covenant of Grace intermixt with it But if by Covenant Gen. 17.7 you mean the Covenant of Grace made in Christ the alone Mediator unto Eternal Salvation why then we cheerfully assent that the Children of all professing Christians are included and heartily believe that the Infants of others are not excluded this Covenant with Abraham being but a recital of that which God made with lapsed Adam which was the Covenant of Grace in the first Edition of it Gen. 3.15 And Mr. Baxter is so far from thinking that any are excluded the Grace of this Covenant that he affirms The Law of Grace was as truly made with all men in Adam as the Law of Innocency was and that all were really alike in Adam and that Cain was not the Serpents Seed meerly for original Sin and as born of Adam as Abel was nor did God make him the Serpents Seed by Reprobation but that he made himself so by superadded Sins against the Redeemer and Law of Grace So that if a being in the Covenant of Grace be a sufficient ground to baptize any why then it is confest that all Infants have equally a Right to Baptism But it is humbly offer'd That neither Baptism now nor Circumcision in its place was given as a Sign and Seal to the Covenant of Grace for though the efficacy of its Grace did reach innocents and Believers in all Ages yet what Ordinance was ever annexed to it as its Seal through the several Ages from Adam to Noah in which Ages lived Abel Seth Enoch who by Faith walked with God and Noah with whom this Covenant was renewed Gen. 6.18 and from Noah to Abraham and from the time that Abraham had this Covenant ratified by a sure Promise of a faithful Seed before the Covenant of Circumcision was given out which was about 25 years A Seal it was to Abraham of the Righteousness of his Faith wherewith he believed whilst uncircumcised so the Holy Ghost applies it Rom. 4.9 10 11. Verses but to no other Person as a Seal as I know of Nay to imagine that Circumcision was a Seal proper and peculiar to the Covenant of Grace must needs be a Mistake else the Patriarchs of old Melchisedeck King of Salem and Priest of the Most High God an eminent Type of Christ just Lot and Job God's righteous Servant of whom it 's said there is none like him in all the Earth could have laid as good a claim thereunto as any besides but Circumcision never received its Being as a Seal annexed to the Covenant of Grace for had it been given as a Token peculiar thereto it would have remain'd I presume as unchangeable as the Covenant itself and would not have vanish'd away with the other shadows of the Mosaical Dispensation So that though we grant your Infant-Seed to be in the Covenant of Grace yet because of their Interest therein it follows not that they have a Right to Baptism that being now no more a Sign peculiar to the Covenant than Circumcision was that is now abolish'd for were it a Sign then the Covenant once had two Signs annexed to it as proper and peculiar even from the time of the institution of Baptism to Christ's Death till then Circumcision was in force and how absurd is this to imagine Neither is Baptism any more a Sign which you grant Children than the Lord's Supper of which you most uncharitably deprive them for they who in a Gospel sence have a Right to the one have no less Right to the other Besides the Seed promised to Abraham in the Covenant of Grace made or renewed with him is a spiritual and believing Seed and so the Holy Ghost expresly tells you if you dare depend upon his Testimony Gal. 3.6 7 8 9. of whom Isaac was the Type not a carnal and fleshly Seed figured by Ishmael as is obvious in the Allegory explain'd by the Apostle Gal. 4. from 22 to 29. And as it is Faith only which denominates a person to be the Child of Abraham Gal. 3.7 9. so it is Faith only that bespeaks a Person to be a fit subject for Baptism as Acts 8.37 38. Could any person shew where the Holy Ghost calls Baptism a Seal 't would be of some service to your Cause but as that cannot be assigned so Baptism cannot be any more than Circumcision was a Seal for the proper use of a Seal is to confirm ratifie and make sure

Bonds and Contracts c. But I pray what is it that Baptism confirms ratifies and makes sure unto Children more than what is through Grace made sure to them to wit Eternal Life by Jesus Christ without Baptism 'T is true by Faith in Baptism we put to our Seal but there is something else which God annexeth as his Seal whereby he sealeth up Believers the alone Children of Abraham and confirms them in the sure hope and expectation of Eternal Life viz. the Holy Spirit Ephes 1.13 and Chap. 4.30 Grieve not the Holy Spirit of God whereby you are sealed to the day of Redemption Many may be baptized that are not of the Seed promised to Abraham as many such heretofore have been to instance only in Judas Simon Magus and the foolish Virgins but the Holy Spirit is given to none as a Seal but such who by believing are not Bastards but the true Sons of Abraham Furthermore if you consider the nature and scope of the Covenant made with Abraham it must needs make void your manner of arguing because it 's said to Abraham and his Seed Therefore say you to us and our seed But now consider are each of you by this Covenant made the Father of a blessed Seed as Abraham was the Father of the Faithful Or can you claim the Promise for your selves and your Seed according to the Tenure of Abraham's Covenant and as he might know but we must rest in a relation to him as Children and so receive his Blessings i. e. the Blessings promised to him for his Seed and that by means of our own Faith and for our selves alone Believers because they are Abraham's Seed are blessed with faithful Abraham Gal. 3.9 And if we are Christ's then are we Abraham's seed and heirs according to promise ver 29. So much to the Covenant and its Seal You add The Promise is to you and your Children Acts 2.39 Ans If by Promise you mean the Remission of Sin and the Gifts of the Holy Ghost spoken of in v. 38. we are of your mind That they belong to every penitent and believing Jew Even so to every penitent and believing Gentile the Wall of Partition being now taken down is this Grace extended as is plain in the close of the Verse Even to as many i. e. Jews or Gentiles as the Lord our God shall call But doth it follow hence that any person ought to be baptized before Repentance whereas it is our being renewed by Repentance and Faith in our Lord Jesus Christ that evidenceth our Right to the Grace promised and Baptism is prescribed to be performed as a Duty by such for the obtaining the Grace promised But if you say it doth follow I demand why John did treat any of the natural Offspring of Abraham so roughly as he seems to do calling them a Brood of Vipers and as such rejected them requiring them to bring forth Fruits meet for Repentance Mat. 3.7 8 9. And doth not Acts 2.38 as plainly say Repent and be baptized Is not therefore to baptize any without the least shew of Repentance in the Subject to invert the Order of the Holy Ghost it being certain that you and your Children in the 39th Verse is not so properly you and your Infant as you and your Posterity I wish it were not to be said of you in this case as Stephen speaks of some Jews in another Ye stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears ye do always resist the Holy Ghost as your Fathers did so do ye Acts 7.51 You proceed telling us That God dealt thus with Man in all Ages in the Covenant of Works with Adam in the Old Testament with the Patriarchs or Fathers and can we think He hath altered his Methods What Evidence of that Ans That the Transactions of God with his People and their Seed in all Ages hath been in a Covenant-way and will be so to the end of the World and that our Seed is interested in the Grace of the same Covenant that Adam and the Fathers were in all Generations God hath not altered his methods at all with respect to the Covenant he hath made which is unalterable and everlasting as David saith 2 Sam. 23.5 As you had an Interest in the Covenant of Grace so have your Infant-seed but should they live to forfeit their Interest in that Grace by actual Transgression as you and I have done may not God direct to the use of such Mediums as Faith Repentance and Obedience are for the Sinner's Recovery and give out such Laws and Ordinances as is consistent with his own Grace and Wisdom upon his dissolving of one Church Frame and erecting another without the Sinner's controul You say Children are a part of their Parents and of the same Condition with them c. Ans If this pass for right Reason with you it will not so with me neither will it at another turn pass for good sence with you We grant that Children are of the same nature humane with their Parents Bone of their Bone and Flesh of their Flesh but not alwaies of the same state with their Parents What think you Was Cain of the same Condition with Adam Ishmael with Abraham Esau with Isaac Absalom with David Manasseh and Amon with Hezekiah or good Hezekiah with wicked Ahaz or good Josiah with his wicked Father Amon or those Children of Israel who enter'd and possessed the promised Canaan with their wicked Father whose Carcasses for their Sin fell in the Wilderness How directly opposite is this your beloved Notion to that Rule of perfect Righteousness and Equity which God hath laid down in that 18th of Ezekiel wherein he attesteth that all Souls are his as v. 4. and that the soul of the Son shall not dye for the sin of the Father intimating that the Father by becoming a wicked Apostate and abominable Idolater may change his own State and forfeit his own Interest in the Covenant but thereby shall not weaken his Childs Interest in the Covenant which abideth firm unto Eternal Life notwithstanding any Sin in the Father nothing can ruin that but the Child 's own Disobedience as the whole Chapter sheweth Nay if the good and happy estate of Infants depends so much upon the believing of mediate Parents is not the Salvation of such Infants rather to be imputed to their Parents believing than to Christ in dying But this your way is not God's way for God claims a Right to and a Propriety in the Children of an Apostate Israelite as well as the Children of his faithful Servants which could not be should the Covenant-Interest of Children be suspended upon the defection of their immediate Parents but so it is Ezek 16.20 21. Moreover thou hast taken thy sons and thy daughters whom thou hast born unto me and these hast thou sacrificed unto them to be devoured Is this of thy whoredoms a small matter that thou hast slain my Children You add That the thing signified belongs unto

Children to wit Pardon Regeneration and the Kingdom of Heaven if the greater then the less Ans That the Grace of Pardon belongs to Children we believe flowing purely from the Grace of God in Christ to them and not by vertue of any Act of Faith in their immediate Parents That the Kingdom of Heaven also belongs to Children we fully consent to with you but that Regeneration doth belong to Children or the Duties of it is any where required of them I profess my self a Stranger and that this may issue I do sincerely promise that when you can by good warrant prove it the Duty of Infants to be regenerated and that such are regenerated according to the true sence of that word to be one with you in the baptizing of them As to the Objection formed in the close of your Argument I judge it stands strong against you till you have given us a more convincing Answer than telling us it's weakly argued amounts to appealing to your own Conscience whether Infants with respect to Spirituals are any more fit for Milk than strong Meat whilst capable of neither and whether the Prerequisites necessary to Baptism be not superiour to the Capacity of Children as those necessary to the Lord's Supper whether an actual Dying to Sin can be any more the work of an Infant than Self-examination I now come to your Third ARGUMENT I argue from Circumcision Baptism comes in the room of Circumcision Col. 2.11 12. they belong to the same Covenant they have the same Nature the same Ends and Vses there is no essential Difference therefore there is the same reason why Children should be baptized now as that they should be circumcised then and had it not been so doubtless the believing Jews would have made a scruple of it and debated with the Apostles about it as they do of other matters and that would have occasion'd a more full Decision of the Point but there was no occasion given them to raise Scruples and therefore we hear nothing of it Objection But there is no Command Answ A general Command there is for the making it an Ordinance a particular Command there did not need as to the determining the proper Subjects of it because it is what might easily be gathered from the foregoing practice of the Church And that there is no particular Command is an Argument to me that though Christ changed the outward Signs yet not the Subjects for if it had been so he would have told us And that there is no little weight in these three Scripture-Arguments and over that which is equivalent to an express Command I spake to wise men judge ye what I say 1 Cor. 10.15 Third ANSWER If Circumcision be the best Authority you have for Infant-Baptism as I think it may be or at least as good as any in another Case I should mightily pity you to think how poor a shift you make to prove a New-Testament-Ordinance by an Old-Testament-Writ and an abolish'd Ceremony Is not this as good Arguing The Lord's Supper comes in the room of the Passover the Children eat of the Passover why not of the Lord's Supper But that Baptism comes in the room of Circumcision is not in the least proved nor can be from Col. 2.11 12. for there the Apostle is speaking of a Circumcision then and to this day in force to wit the cutting of the fore-skin of the Heart a putting off the Body of Sin in token whereof the believing Colossians are said to be buried with Christ in Baptism Besides that Baptism comes not in the room of Circumcision is further evident as they were both in force together from the time of Baptisms institution to the end of our Saviour's Life whereas if Circumcision had been a Type of Baptism the Shadow must have vanish'd when the Substance was come but no man will say that Circumcision was abolish'd until Christ by Death nail'd it with other Ordinances that was against us to his Cross You add They belong to the same Covenant Ans That they may appertain to the Covenant as annexed thereto by positive Institution we believe but as we told you before neither of them as Signs and Tokens proper and peculiar to the Covenant of Grace and therefore can belong only to them to whom they are assigned You say They are of the same nature Ans Is not this to say the Ministration of Christ is as legal as the Mosaical contrary to Heb. 8.6 7. and so on If Flesh and Spirit Legal and Evangelical be one in Nature then Baptism is the same with Circumcision You add further They have the same Ends and Vses Ans How that appears I know not Was not this one end of Circumcision to confirm unto Abraham and the Jews in their successive Generations that Christ the Promised Seed should come of the Line of Abraham according to the Flesh whereas Baptism hath no such End therefore the Analogy betwixt them are not the same as you imagine However from what you have said you conclude there is the same Reason that Children should be baptized now as circumcised then if you have the same warrant for the one as for the other I confess the Reason is the same else not for the tryal hereof I will briefly enquire 1. what it was that made Circumcision the Duty of Children 2. the Qualifications that gave Children a Right thereunto But 1. That which made Circumcision the Duty of Children was not their Covenant-Interest as we have before shewed Had that the Patriarchs Melchisedeck Lot and Job had had an undoubted Right thereto and their Posterity as they were of the same condition with them as before you have argued but it was the positive Command of God given out to Abraham in Gen. 17.10 Every Man-child amongst you saith the Lord shall be circumcised Here Circumcision is introduced by Divine Institution and Appointment and that you may assuredly know who are the Subjects hereof the Lord plainly tells them every male Child amongst them shall be circumcised the time when is expresly set down viz. at eight days old v. 12. They were not to do it sooner nor deferr it longer And as the Law is thus express for the Male Children through their Generations even so it is as positive for those born in their Houses that are not of their Seed and the Stranger that is bought with their Money v. 13. and also for the Proselyte Exod. 12.48 49. And to oblige all to the due observance of this Law the Lord joyns a severe Threatning of disinheriting or cutting off every uncircumcised Male Child amongst them or rather every man amongst them that circumcised not his Males else the Commination would turn its edge against the Child for the Parents Fault knowing the Child could only be passive in the thing Thus you see by what Authority Circumcision was practised 2. The Qualification that gave Children a Right thereto was not their Covenant-Interest for then their Females had the