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	promise_n	seal_n	4,049	5	9.6971	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A62869	A plea for anti-pædobaptists, against the vanity and falshood of scribled papers, entituled, The anabaptists anatomiz'd and silenc'd in a public dispute at Abergaveny in Monmouth-shire Sept. 5. 1653. Betwixt John Tombes, John Cragg, and Henry Vaughan, touching infant-baptism. By John Tombes, B.D.	Tombes, John, 1603?-1676.	1654 (1654)	Wing T1811; ESTC R206989	34,969	48

there and some of the things the letter mentions I spake and do still avouch The two men mentioned were unknown to me I slighted neither though being wearied with preaching I did forbear to speak much and was willing to get into a dry house from the rain I was willing to have conference with Mr. Vaughan who seemed modest and intelligent The other Opponent I found before to be a man of talk who could not blush That which the second Epistle writes of my being wounded and vaunting is meerly fabulous and I think the like of the short time of conceiving the Dispute and Sermon It displeaseth me not that the business should be truly stated which is the end of this writing though it displease me that such unworthy tricks are used to deceive people as those which appear in the publishing this Disputation and Sermon I intend not to lengthen the businesse by insisting on the falsity of the reports of my Answer It is not improbable I might in five hours dispute with one who talked so fast as to give no time to consider of what he said answer not so cleerly as I would had I had the arguments to view and examine deliberately I presume it will be sufficient for cleering truth if either I shew how my Answers are misreported or how they are to be amended SECT. III. Mr. Vaughans dispute is answered TO begin with Mr. Vaughans dispute Had it been framed into a Syllogism it had been thus They that were admitted lawfully into the Covenant of grace by Circumcision may be admitted into the Covenant of grace by Baptism But infants were admitted lawfully into the covenant of grace by Circumcision Therefore they may be lawfully admited into the covenant of grace by Baptism To which had it been thus formed I should have said 1. That it is false that either by circumcision or baptism infants or other persons are admitted into the Covenant of Grace yea Paedobaptists themselves suppose they are in the Covenant of Grace before and therefore they are baptized Nor doth Mr. Vaughan shew how persons may be in Congruous sense said to be admitted into the Covenant of Grace 2. If it were true yet it is certain that infants of unbelievers were admitted by circumcision as well as infants of believers and so his medium proves as well the baptizing of unbelievers infants taken into a believers house as believers But in the manner he framed his reason I denied the consequence And when he urged it must be either because the Covenant of grace made with Abraham and his seed is not the same in substance withthat which is now actually in force with believers their children or secondly because baptism succeedeth not in the room of circumcision I did rightly say I could deny your division For there is another reason viz. because there is not the same command of baptizing infants as there was of circumcising them and yet that the disputation might proceed I denyed the consequence for both those reasons And to what was replyed I answered rightly that the Covenant now in force according to Gal. 3. 14. was not to the natural seed of Abraham but the spiritual nor is it true That all the children of Abraham were circumcised for the females were not or that They that were circumcised were consequently admitted into the Covenant For even Mr. Vaughan presently tells us That Ishmael though circumcised belonged not to the promise Now what is it to be admitted into the Covenant but to be admitted to the promise or participation of the Covenant what he replyed further That the Covenant Gen. 17. 7. was made alike in the same extent and latitude promiscuously with all the seed of Abraham even the natural is most palpably false For none but the spiritual seed of Abraham by believing as he did have the promise of righteousness which is the covenant of grace and Ishmael is expiesly excluded Gen. 17. 19 20 21. and he grants himself None but the children of Isaac were children of the promise nor were the Jewes who were broken off because of their own unbelief Romans 11. 20. comprehended in the covenant of Grace Romans 9. 8. proves cleerly that the Covenant made to Abraham and his seed as it was a covenant of Evangelical grace was not made to all his natural seed and so not to any of his natural seed because they were by natural generation of him but because elect of God And it is false which Mr. Vaughan saith The children of Isaac he should have said Isaac and after him Jacob are not called children of the promise in regard of any peremptory election or aesignation to faith and salvation For the contrary is manifest from verses 11 12 13. Nor is it any thing contrary to the absolute decree of reprobation that Paul lamented desired and prayed for the Israelites but his lamentation doth rather prove it that they were rejected and desires and prayers may be even for that which may not be as when Christ prayed to have the cup passe from him His reasons why the children of Isaac are called children of the promise are not to his purpose but against him For 1. He doth thereby tacitly imply that none but the children of Isaac were children of the promise and therefore none but they in the Covenant of grace 2. If the reasons of the children of Isaac their being called children of the promise were the inheritance of Canaan and the descent of Christ then only Jacob was a child of the promise not Esau and so it remains the Covenant Gen. 17. 7. was not made to all the circumcised nor they by circumcision admitted into the Covenant Gen. 17. 3. After his explication it is cleer that 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 believers and their children contrary to what he said before 4. After this doctrine none are now children of the promise sith there are none that inherit Canaan according to that promise nor from whom Christ descends and then if the promise be the same with the covenant of grace none are now admitted into the same Covenant and consequently none to be baptized according to Mr. Vaughans reasoning What he saith he might have added That if none but the elect and faithful can be admitted into the Covenant there is no subject left for the ordinance of baptism I deny it It goes upon this mistake that none are to be admitted but those that are admitted into the Covenant of grace and known to be so Whereas persons that are disciples and believers by profession at least are to be admitted to baptism and no other ordinarily whether they be admitted into the Covenant of Grace or not Nor are we to baptize upon A judgement of Charity of thinking no evil for then we must baptize Turks infants as well as Christians nor upon a faith in the seed or the parents

I finde is the grace of God said to be either physically or morally conferred by the Circumcision of each person rightly circumcised 2. It supposeth if infants be not baptized the grace of God is straiter in the New Testament than in the old But that is false For the grace of God is as much without Sacraments as with it Above two thousand years before Abrham was circumcised there was neither Circnmcision nor Baptism of infants nor any other Sacrament instead thereof Shall we say that Gods grace was straiter before Abrahams time than since As bad as the Schoolmen were who gave too much to Sacraments yet they held that the grace of God is not tied to Sacraments That question from Heb. 8. 6. How were it a better Covenant if all poor infants that were in Covenant under the Law were out of Covenant under the Gospel runs upon these common mistakes that to be circumcised or baptized is all one as to be in covenant all that were in covenant were to be circnmcised or baptized all that were not were out of covenant that the reason of the circumcising or baptizing a person is his being in covenant which are all false as I have proved Exam. Part. 3. Sect. 1. Letter to Mr. Baily Sect. 3. Antipaed Part. 1. Sect. 5. and shall Part. 3. in many Sections if God permit And to the question I answer from the next words Heb. 8. 6. the new Covenant is a better Covenant because it is established on better promises though it were imagined never a poor infant as he childishly speaks which yet I do dot conceive were in Covenant The next from Tit. 2. 11. supposeth If infants be not to be baptized the grace of God appears not to them which is of no force unless that popish conceit obtain that by it and not without it Gods grace appears to all But this is false and not in the Text Irenaeus words are not that Christ was a little one that little ones might be baptized from his example for then he would have been baptized in infancy whereas he was not baptized till about thirty years of age We need not deny Christs Redemption of infants because we deny their Baptism there 's no such connexion between them His saying of little ones that they were the first Martyrs that suffered for Christ is false For how were they Martyrs who testified nothing concerning Christ That of the Collect in the Common Prayer book on Innocents day that they witnessed onely by dying is vain For dying without some other expression doth not witness nor did they suffer for Christ whom they knew not but because of Herods beastly rage This speech of Mr. Cragg smels rank of the Common Prayer Book superstition in keeping Innocents day which it seems Mr. Cragg yet retains But is nothing to the proof of his major nor any thing hitherto alleged That which he saith last hath most shew of proof that Baptism came in place of Circumcision the Apostle clears it Col. 2. 11 12. Ye are circumcised with Circumcision made without hands How is that buried with him in Baptism but it is not true that he saith ye are circumcised with Circumcision made without hands in that ye are buried with him in Baptism these are predicated of the same persons and so were conjoyned but yet not so as to express how that the former was done by the latter no more than by that which follows that therein they were raised by the faith of the operation of God who raised Christ from the dead yea it had been false so expounded for how could it be true that they were circumcised without hands in that they were buried in Baptism with hands Nor if this were granted were it true that it is cleared by the Apostle that Baptism comes in the room of Circumcision For there is not a word to that end yea the scope is to prove that we have all in Christ without Circumcision as v. 10. c. shew and that Christ came in the place of Circumcision and the rest of the Jewish Ceremonies as v. 17. is expressed And therefore the Apostle asserts the contrary that no Rite but Christ came in the room of Circumcision If any ask why is v. 12. added I have answered formerly and the answer is not gainsaid by M. Marshall that it is to shew how persons come to be in Christ and so to be compleat in him which he usually ascribeth to Faith and Baptism Gal. 3. 26 27. Rom. 6. 3 4 5. and they are put together Col. 2. 12. so that if Baptism be conceived thence to succeed Circumcision Faith also is said to succeed it which is more agreeable to the expressions Gal. 3. 23 25. I add the Circumcision mentioned Col. 2. 11. is either Circumcision made without hands or Christs personal Circumcision therefore if the placing of Baptism after v. 12. prove its succession to Circumcision it proves onely its succession to that made without hands which was not the Ceremony commanded Gen. 17. or to Christs Circumcision not to the common Circumcision of others Yet were a succession granted this proves not it must be in Baptism as in Circumcision without a like command as I prove Antipaed Part. 2. Sect. 2 3. No more than because the Ministers of the Gospel succeed the Priests of the Law doth it follow the Ministers children must be Ministers anointed c. as it was in the Law So that Mr. Craggs irresistible argument is as easily blown away as a feather And I hardly imagine any Anabaptist so called to be so weak but that he is able to answer it by telling Mr. Cragg that his first Proposition is false unless there were the like command to baptize infants as there was to circumcise them If the third argument arise thence it hath its answer thence that it is frivolous talk in Mr. Cragg to speak as if denying infants Baptism were putting out of the Covenant disfranchizing and circumcising supposed being in Covenant was a seal of the covenant of grace His proof that the Gospel puts not infants out of the Covenant is true of the elect infants and the covenant of grace expressed in the Gospel And yet his proofs are silly New born babes desire milk little childeren are humble and are proposed herein as paterns to us therefore they are in Covenant whereas this is as true of infidels children as of Christians and therefore proves the one in Covenant as well the other and both these acts of little childeren are onely natural not virtuous and so give not evidence of their being in covenant nor doth the Gospel give them large commendations beyond them of riper years making them the Rule of our perfection For there is neither commendation of them 1 Pet. 2. 2. nor Matth. 18. 3. nor making them the rule of our perfection any more than Sheep and Doves Matth. 10. 16. but onely those virtuous qualities which are resembled by their natural qualities

and spit against the Sun That the text Isai. 54. 13. is not meant of infants of believing parents as such but of such as having heard and learned of the Father come to Christ is plain from those words of our Saviour John 6. 45. alleged here by Mr. Cragg himself as expounding the Prophet The seventh argument is All that have faith may be baptized But some infants have faith Therefore some infants may be baptized But 1. the major is not true of faith onely in seed or act secret and not made known 2. Mr. Cragg alters the Conclusion which should have been That all infants of believers may be baptized But then he durst not avouch the minor that they all have saith at least in semine the contrary being manifest from Scripture and experience He proves his minor 1. From Matth. 18. where he saith Christ expresly calls them believers But Christ calls not little children in age believers ver. 6. it had been ridiculous to threaten so heavy a doom to the offending of little children in age who are offended with none so much as Nurses for dressing or chiding them when they cry but the Apostles and other Christian disciples are there meant 2. They are said to receive the Kingdome of God Mark 10. that is the grace of God remission of sins and life eternal now the Kingdome is not received but by faith in Christ But onely elect infants dying do receive the Kingdom either by faith in the seed not in the act or by faith in the act secret only and yet are not to be baptized till they make profession not are all or any children of believers as theirs elect 3. Saith Mr. Cragg They please God therefore Christ blesseth them but without faith it is impossible to please God Answ. The like argument is urged by the Remonstrants at the Synod at Dort It is impossible to please God without faith therefore election which supposeth pleasing of God presupposeth faith The answer is that Heb. 11. 6. the pleasing of God is meant of the works as Enoch pleased God walking with him and so infants please not God and therefore may be without faith not of the persons in which sense infants may please God that is be beloved with a love of benevolence though not of delight without faith 4. Faith must be allowed them or not salvation for faith purifyeth the heart Acts 15. 9. and no unclean thing shall enter into heaven Answ. Faith in the seed is sufficient to make them clean which is not denyed may be in infants though neither Isai. 65. 20. sayes any such thing and Austins words express nothing but his own conceit according to the language of his time but faith in seed or act unknown doth not intitle to baptism The eighth Argument was answered before by denying the major and minor and his calling those that expound 1 Cor. 7. 14. of legitimation gross Anabaptists doth but involve Melancthon Camerarius Musculus c. in the same censure and that it is no bastard as Dr. Featley called it but a genuine exposition is demonstrated at large in my Anti-paedobaptism first part and t is granted That Pagans children are holy in the Apostles sense if lawfully begotten for the sanctifiedness of the yoke-fellow and holiness of the children is not ascribed to the faith of the one parent but to the conjugal relation between them Rom. 11. 16. The first fruits and root are Abraham not every believer The lump and branches are Abrahams children by election and faith not every believers nor all Abrahams natural children and the holiness is meant of saving holiness not meer outward visible holiness The breaking off and grassing in Rom. 11. 17. are meant of the invisible Church in which sense Parents and children are not broken off or graffed in together See my Anti. paedobap first part Nineth Argument tells us Of dangerous absurdities if infants should be out of Covenant under the Gospel But this is not all one as to be baptized we may grant them to be in the Covenant of grace and yet not to be baptized and to be baptized and yet not in the Covenant of grace But let us view the absurdities First Infants saith he would be losers by Christs comming and 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 Parents with Children to baptism Answ. 1. I rather think that by being not admitted to Circumcision the condition of Parents and Children is the better by Christs comming sith as Mr. Cragg teacheth here page 100. Circumcision is the yoke Acts 15. 10. of which the Apostle saith Neither we nor our Fathers were able to bear it and is so farr from being the seal of the Covenant of Grace that they are Mr. Craggs own words Circumcision was the seal or ordinance by which the Jews were bound to observe the doctrine and the Law meaning of Moses 2. But were it imagined a pure Evangelical privilege yet sure it is not such a privilege but Parents and Children did well without it afore Abrahams time and all the females from Abrahams daies till Christs I suppose what ever privilege it were it was abundantly recompensed by Christs comming without infant-baptism except a meer empty title of visible Church-membership which yet will not stand them so much in stead as to admit them to the Lords Supper be such an inestimable treasure as is not recompensed with the glory of the Gospel now exhibited to spiritual persons in spiritual benefits by the Spirit instead of the carnall Promises Ordinances and Church-state of the Law The second is answered already though infants be not baptized Grace is larger under the Gospel being extended to believers in all nations then under the Law to the Israelites and some few Proselytes The third is a speech that hath neither truth nor sobriety of expression nor proof it is but a bugbear to affright the ignorant people to make use of such as he is and to make odious them that will not baptize infants as counting them as vile as the children of Turks Tartars or Canniballs even as they make them odious that will not burie their dead as not affording them Christian burial though they are buried as Christ was without a Priest but burying as dogs But we know how to put a difference between Believers and Pagans children in regard of the love God bears to us some promises he hath made to us concerning them the hopefullnesse of them by reason of prayers education example society confirmed by many experiences that are comfortable all which things we should be contented with and not complain for want of an imaginary privilege which is indeed no privilege but a dammage to our children I for my part look upon the children of believers unsprinkled as precious and rather more hopeful than those that are And I think Mr. Cragg as hard a conceit as he hath

Law they are in Covenant under the Gospel whereas the meliority of the Covenant is not placed in the extent to the sort of persons for then it should be extended to more sorts than the Covenant of the Law was but to the meliority of the promises which were of better things or better terms then the promises of the Law but not to any other than elect and true believers and so not to infants as the natural seed of believers And for that which he saith This unchurcheth the one half of Christendome and leaves them no ordinary means of salvation if he mean by Christendome all that are commonly called Christians I grant it if the infants be the one half of them and their unchurching be in respect of visible Church-membership but count it no absurdity nor do know what ordinary means of salvation he conceives they are left without except baptism which I take not to be an ordinary means of salvation without faith and therefore think it no inconvenience to say that infants are without ordinary means of salvation which are the preaching the word c. yet are saved by the election of God redemption of Christ and work of his Spirit What I said that the Covenant under the Gospel was made onely with the spiritual seed of Abraham was right and determined so Rom. 4. 11 12 16. Rom. 9. 7 8. Gal. 3. 29. John 8. 39. c. Nor is it true because the partition wall is broken down therefore there is the same Covenant national to the natural seed of believers as was to Abraham but that therefore as the Apostle speaks Ephes. 3. 6. The Gentiles to wit believing Gentiles Rom. 1. 16. should be fellowheirs and of the same body and partakers of his promise in Christ by the Gospel Nor is it ture That the Gospel Covenant is made with the whole visible Church as the Gospel Covenant is expressed Heb. 8. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12. And if I denied the Major pag. 29. in the first argument I confess I was mistaken through inadvertency whether by reason of Mr. Craggs fast speaking or some humane infirmity or some other occuirence now not remembred I cannot tell But I deny the Minor understood of the Gospel Covenant Heb. 8. 10. and the whole visible Church being taken without any Synecdoche for every visible Churchmember But I perceive by Mr. Craggs words page 30. If the Church in regard of outward administration of Ordinances which is the question were only the elect c. that the terms Church and Covenant were so ambiguously used by him that I knew not how to conceive of his meaning and his fast speaking would not permit me deliberately to consider his words and therefore no marvel I desired liberty to explain my self and to enquire into Mr. Craggs meaning it being impossible for me otherwise to answer appositely and to make the disputation profitable for finding out truth As for that which Mr. Cragg saith That it was the question whether the Church in regard of outward administration of Ordinances were onely the elect it doth untruly suggest as if I so conceived who though I hold the Church invisible are the elect onely and that the Gospel Covenant of grace Heb. 8. 10 11 12. is made to them only yet have still granted that the Church visible consists of others than elect persons and that outward ordinances may lawfully be administred to them upon their profession of faith in Christ But Mr. Cragg by confounding these terms to be in Covenant to be subjects of baptism c. misleads unwary hearers and readers The next text Mr. Cragg brought was Isaiah 49. 22. whence he would prove that Infants should be Churchmembers under the Gospel To which my answer was at first though it was otherwise taken that it is a prophecy that the Gentiles should bring back the Jewes not only infants but others from captivity which the words before verse 19 20 21. and after verse 24 25. do plainly evince and this is given as the meaning by the New Annotations made by Mr. Gataker who doth on verse 23. say it was fulfilled in those Persian Potentates Cyrus Artaxerxes Darius Ahasuerus Nor is there in the Contents of the Chapter which Mr. Cragg without ground makes the judgement of the Church of England any thing to the contrary but the words which are 18. The ample restauration of the Church 24. The powerfull deliverance out of the Captivity do rather confirm this If any people laughed at this they shewed their ignorance and Mr. Cragg shewed his heedlessness when he said That it was an addition to the text that the Gentiles should bring the lewes when the very distinction of thy children from the Gentiles shews it meant of the Jewes otherwise it should have been their children in the third person not thine in the second nor can it be meant of Gods children as his for then it should be mine in the first person for God speaks those words Though I deny not but the words may be accommodated to the times of the Gospel but not to Mr. Craggs purpose of bringing infants to baptism which hath no colour from the text Which appears by considering Mr. Craggs answer to my questions put forth needfully to cleer the text For 1. if by standard be meant baptism which the Scripture never calls Gods standard and the bringing should be to baptism then the sense should be that Supreme Magistrates as Kings and Queens should bringinfants in their arms and carrythem on shoulders to baptism which no story ever mentions to have been done and is too srivolous to be made the matter of that prophecy 2. The terms nursing Fathers and nursing Mothers shew it to be a Metaphor wch Mr. Cragg granting though it follow not that nothing could be gathered from it yet it follows that Mr. Craggs application which is according to the proper sense of the words is not right What I said that it was fulfilled in Hesters time I said rightly and Mr. Gataker before me in those Annotations of his which are taken for the most incomparably learned and Hester as a Queen among the Gentiles might well be stiled a nursing mother to the Jewes I will not trouble my self to examine Mr. Craggs dictates but refer the Reader to the notes of Mr. Gataker As for what I said that though it should be understood of the times of the Gospel yet it might be meant of grown men perswaded by the preaching of the Gospel as Junius in his Annot. was true Nor doth the bringing in the bosome being a Metaphor prove they were infants And if so the Church is spoken to and the children were both the Gentiles children and yet thy children that is the Churches And so there 's no interfering in my words The next text was Isaiah 65. 20. in reading which Mr. Cragg left out those words nor an old man that hath not filled his daies nor would read them nor the words