Selected quad for the lemma: nature_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
nature_n	faith_n	grace_n	justification_n	2,638	5	9.1538	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A47399	[The ax laid to the root, or, One blow more at the foundation of infant baptism and church-membership containing an exposition of that metaphorical text of Holy Scripture, Mat. 3, 10].	Keach, Benjamin, 1640-1704.	1693 (1693)	Wing K48_pt2; ESTC R20690	57,342	56

and primary End of it he proves not for the direct and more immediate End and Design thereof we have proved was something else although we grant it was a dark Sign Type or Figure of that they speak of viz. to discover the Corruption of Nature by sin and the Mortification thereof and so also did most of the Ceremonies of the Law but doth it therefore follow those Ceremonies and so Circumcision did not appertain to that Ministration of the Covenant of Works God gave by Moses to the People of Israel which is abrogated and done away Must the Shadow or Sign be part of the Substance or belong or appertain to the Substance Wherefore as Mr. Cary well saith until they can prove the Sinai Covenant and Ceremonial Law c. not to be in their own Nature a Covenant of Works this which they object here has nothing in it since Sacrifices the Passover c. as well as Circumcision were Types of Christ and other Gospel-Mysteries likewise and indeed Mr. Flavel seems to me to run upon a Mistake all along in his Answer to Mr. Cary as if the latter makes no distinction between Adam's Covenant of Works and those after Administrations of the same Old Covenant for Mr. Cary I am satisfied means no more than what I have said viz. That they agree in Nature and Quality tho' Adam had Life and Justification by his own perfect Obedience unto that Law or Covenant while he stood and it was given to him to that end yet God gave not the Sinai Covenant which required perfect Obedience to the end Man might be thereby justified nor was it possible he could since he had sinned and lost his power to obey but that Law contains a clear Transcript of the first Law and so of the Holiness of God and of that Righteousness Man originally had and lost and of the Impossibility of his being justified without such a compleat and perfect Righteousness but the Law as written in the two Tables was given in Mercy upon the Score or Account I have mentioned to Israel in Subserviency to the Gospel and to it was annexed the Ceremonies to shew that a plenary Satisfaction must be made for the breach of God's Holy Law and that this must be by Blood tho' not by blood of Bulls or Goats but they might have understood that by them the Sacrifice and Blood of Christ was figured could they have seen to the end or purport of them Therefore the true Distinction lies here viz. Both are the first Covenant of Works both shew Man must live and sin not if he would be justified in God's sight the first in Man's Innocency answered the end of a Covenant of Works the second Administration thereof could not give Life nor was it given to that end but it answered the end for which God gave it and so much to this Objection Obj. 13. You cannot deny but Circumcision sealed the Righteousness of Faith to Abraham and how can you prove a Seal of the Covenant of Works can be applied to such a use and service Thus Mr. Flavel p. 234. Answ. 1. I answer first who of us say that Circumcision was a Seal of the Covenant of Works there is a great difference between a Seal of a Covenant and that which was given as a Sign or Token of that legal and external Covenant God made with all Abraham's natural Seed as such a●d that Circumcision was such a Sign we have before shewed as also of their having the Covenant or Law of Mount Sinai and Land of Canaan given to them c. 2. But that Circumcision was a Seal of that Faith Abraham himself had not being yet Circumcised and that he should be the Father of all that believe Paul possibly affirms Rom. 4.16 and yet it might well be of use to him also as a Sign or Token of those other Covenant Rights and Blessings granted to his natural Off-spring is evident 3. And from hence we have proved that Circumcision could not be so a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith to any other Person or Persons none having the like Faith before they were Circumcised as Abraham had nor were they made common Fathers to all true Believers whether Iews or Gentiles Obj. 14. Where the Covenant of Circumcision is by the Apostle contra-distinguished to the Covenant of Faith Rom. 4.13 the Law in that place is put strictly for the pure Law of Nature and metatypically signified the Works of the Law p. 235. Answ. 1. I suppose no Man besides Mr. Flavel ever asserted such a thing as this is I would know how Circumcision a meer positive Precept came to be a part of the Pure Law of Nature for 't is evident that the Law Paul contra-distinguisheth from the Righteousness of Faith had Circumcision in it or else the same Apostle needed not to have taken such pains to have distinguished between Circumcision and the Righteousness of Faith and had Circumcision appertained to the Righteousness of Faith or been a Gospel Covenant why doth he exclude it with the Law from being so counted read v. 10 11 12 13. 2. The Law therefore of which the Apostle speaks is that Ministration of the Law given to Israel of which Circumcision was part and so of the like Nature and Quality with it and both contra-distinguished to the Covenant of Grace or to the Righteousness of Faith And that the Law here is put strictly for the pure Law of Nature is wholly without Reason Proof or Demonstration what Law doth the Apostle speak of in the preceding Chapters and also in this see chap. 3.1 2. is it not that he calls the Oracles of God or Lively Oracles Act. 7.38 given on Mount Sinai The Law of Nature and the written Law contained in the two Tables are all one and the same Law as to the Substance of them they are materially the same tho' not formally both convinced of Sin both bring Sinners under Guilt and Condemnation and so that all Mouths may be stopped and all the World become guilty before God Rom. 3 19. both are a Rule to walk by both Witnesses for God but neither of them can give Life nor justifie the Sinner in the sight of God v. 20. Therefore neither of them are any part of the Covenant of Grace for if one of them is a part of it both of them are if the Law of Nature be not so the Law written in the Tables of Stone was not so yet the Iews had the Advantage of the Gentiles because their Law was wrote in far more legible Characters than the dimm Law of Nature Rom. 3.2 as well as in many other respects Obj. The denying Baptism to Infants hinders the Progress of the Christian Religion 1. That Principle which hinders the Progress of the Christian Religion can be no Christian Doctrine but the denying Baptism to Infants hinders the Progress of the Christian Religion therefore such a Principle can be no Christian Doctrine this is Mr. Rothwell's

not by our Obedience to God shew forth his Grace in us as well as our Duty of Obedience to him what New Divinity is this Wonder O Heavens Obj. If commanded then the performance of it externally could not make a Change upon their State and Relation towards God any more than the performance of any other Duty Much less could it when not commanded Pag. 45. 1. Answ. Because a Confession of Sin can't make a Change upon our State or Relation to God Must we not make an External Confession of that which God's Spirit hath wrought Internally upon our Souls Or must an External Confession of Sin make a Change and so all other Duties or else not be performed by us 2. It seems to me by your unfound Expressions as if you conceive that an External Confession could make a Change upon our State and Relation to God whereas that makes no Change but only discovers or makes known what a blessed Change the Grace of God hath wrought or made on the Soul Besides it is not Universally true i. e. because a thing is commanded it can't make a Change for sometimes a Command is attended with Power to change the Soul c. Iohn 6.28 Obj. If this say you had been a commanded Duty viz. a Confession of Sin to qualifie them for Baptism then they must not be admitted upon the Account of their being the Children of Abraham nor as the Children of the Promise but the Promise ceases which is notoriously false Rom. 15.8 Pag. 45. 1. Answ. We do not say a bare verbal Confession qualifies any Person for Baptism but inward Grace or Truth Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ this is the only Qualification which ought to be in all the Subjects of Baptism and this Faith must be made manifest by the Confession of the Mouth and the holy Fruits of the Life Hence Iohn required not only a bare verbal Confession which might hold-forth or signifie their Repentance but also saith he You must bring forth Fruits meet for Repentance Don't think to say you have sinned or barely to acknowledge your Iniquities is all I look for No your Lives must make it manifest to me you are changed or regenerated if you would as true Subjects partake of my Baptism for of such my Master's Kingdom is to consist of whose way I am come to prepare i. e. to make ready such a People for him to build his Chnrch with 2. As to your other Reason viz. if a Confession be necessary then their being the Children of Abraham and Children of the Promise was made to cease c. You hit it in that for their being the Seed of Abraham according to the Flesh could give them no Right to Gospel Baptism Iohn plainly told them the very same thing for the Gospel has put an End to the Jewish Covenant Right of Admission of Church-Members the Text you mention Rom. 15.8 where 't is said Christ was a Minister of the Circumcision you strangely mistake the Place Christ did not confirm Circumcision nor Infants Right to Church Membership the Holy Ghost means no more then that Christ was a Minister of the Jews as well as of the Gentiles or of the Circumcision as of the Uncircumcision and so speak our Annotators on the place and as to the Promise ceasing see what St. Paul saith Rom. 9.6 Tho' the carnal Seed of Abraham as such are now rejected yet the Promise of God is not made of none Effect For saith he They are not all Israel which are of Israel Neither because they are the Seed of Abraham are they all Children v. 7. That is they which are the Children of the Flesh these are not the Children of God but the Children of the Promise are counted for the Seed v. 8. Can't you see from hence who are the Seed of the Promise Even none else but such who are begotten and born of the Spirit or are in Christ Gal. 3.29 So that what you say is notoriously false Your 9th Reason is the same with the part of your 8th Obj. You say in the tenth and last Place then the Command of Christ that Infants must come to him was and must be null and void Mark 10.13.14.15 Or be a fresh Warrant for their coming to him if John had cast them out Pag. 45. 1. Answ. We deny there was ever any Command of Christ for Infants to be brought or to come to Christ to be baptized 2. That Text in Mark 10.13 14. proves no such thing as you conclude it doth they were brought to Christ 't is true that he might put his hands upon them which was the way he used when he healed People of their bodily Diseases therefore you say right since Iohn or rather Jesus Christ hath cast out the natural Seed of Abraham and the old Covenant too as well as the old Covenant-seed Infant Church-Membership is made null and void unless there had been a fresh Warrant for their Admission i. e. they must be brought in and made Members by an Appointment of Christ or by a new Institution or they must not be admitted at all for the old Covenant-right we have proved is gone for ever As to what you speak in Pag. 32. about the Habit of Grace is nothing to the Purpose these are your words viz. Obj. And if the habit cannot constitute us Members the Acts or Exercise of it can never do it Answ. You do not attempt to prove Infants as such either before Baptism or in being baptized have the Habit of Grace I have shewed in my Answer to Mr. Rothwell that it can't be proved that Infante as such have the Habit of Faith or of Grace neither before nor in Baptism if they had doubtless those Habits would appear some way or another but they do not appear therefore they have no such Habits infused into them all are born in Sin and are Children of Wrath by Nature and Baptism doth not convey Grace nor infuse any sacred Habits What tho' God in a miraculous manner hath sanctified some Infants in the Womb and may sanctifie such Infants that die who are in the Election of Grace do's it from thence follow that all Infants as such or all Infant of Believers as such are so sanctified We read of one Animal that spoke must all Animals speak therefore If you could prove Infants had Grace in the Habit or that it appears they are regenerated you had said something to excuse their inability or disability to make a verbal Confession tho' not so much as you think 't is the Act of Faith that must demonstrate the Habit to us or the Fruits or Product of Grace that those Habits are in those Subjects Christ commands to be baptized non apparentium non existentium eadem est ration they must act must believe must repent or must be actually discipled that Baptism doth belong unto tho' I deny not but that where the Habit of one Grace ●s there is the Habit of every Grace

Mr. Cary as if it was impossible for the Saints to be under the Covenant of Works under the former Dispensation and yet in the Covenant of Grace for I would know Whether or not they were not at that time under the Ministration of that Covenant but what tho' no sooner did they believe in Christ the Promised Seed but they were delivered from the Curse of the Law Nor is this any strange Thing For are not all now in these Days under the Dispensation of the Gospel yet untill Men and Women believe in Christ they abide still under the Curse of the Law of the First Covenant for Christ is not the end of the Law to all the World so as some erroneously assert i. e. all are justified in God's sight from the Curse of the Law but he is only the end of the Law touching Righteousness to every one that beleiveth to them and to no other Adult Person Therefore Men might be under the outward Dispensation of the Law of Works and yet through Faith be Justified and also others may be and are now under the Dispensation of the Gospel and yet for not believing in Christ be Condemned and under the Curse of the Law For the Gospel is not the Cause of our Sickness but our Cure none believing is the refusal of the Medicine So that there 's no Reason for him to say because we assert this That the Godly under that Dispensation hung mid-way betwixt Life and Death Justification and Condemnation and after Death mid-way betwixt Heaven and Hell p. 180. Therefore as all that lived under the Dispensation of the Law or Covenant of Works were saved by Faith in the Promise of Christ or by the Covenant of Grace Abraham saith our Saviour saw my Day and was glad so without Faith or Interest in Christ such that live under the Dispensation of the Gospel cannot be saved nor are they delivered from the Curse of the Law or Covenant of Works Therefore to conclude with this 't is evident the Covenant of Works though but one as to the substance of it yet there was several Ministrations of it as it was given also upon different Ends and Designs by the Lord And therefore because the said Covenant of Works was first given to Adam by vertue of which he was accepted and justified in his Innocency Could not God give forth a Second Addition Ministration or Transcript of his Righteousness and Holy Law requiring perfect Obedience though not to Justification yet to aggravate their Sin and so to their just Condemnation And doth not the Apostle assert the same Thing Rom. 3.19 20. compared with Rom. 7.13 Gal. 3.19 But saith Bishop Usher Quest. Doth not God wrong to Men to require of him that he is not able to perform Answ. He Answers No for God made Man so that he might have performed it but he by Sin spoiled himself and Posterity of those Gifts Therefore To proceed I do affirm That always generally when the Apostle speaks of the Old Covenant or Covenant of Works he passes by in silence the Covenant made with Adam and more immediately and directly applies it unto the Sinai Covenant and to that of Circumcision as all careful Readers who read the Epistles to the Romans Galatians and to the Hebrews may clearly find And farther to evince the Truth we contend for 't is evident That although there is and ever was but one Covenant of Grace yet nothing is more plain then that there were several distinct Additions of it altho' we say the Promise or Gospel Covenant was one and the same in all Ages in respect of the Things promised with the Nature and Quality thereof which is a free and absolute Covenant without Works or Conditions of foreseen Acts of Obedience or Righteousness done by the Creature whatsoever Rom. 4.5 The Substance and Essential Part of this Gospel Covenant as to the Promises of it is Christ Faith a New Heart Regeneration Remission of Sins Sanctification Perseverance and everlasting Life Yet this Evangelical Covenant had divers Forms Additions or Transcripts of it which signified those Things and the various Sanctions by which it was given forth and confirmed To Adam the Promise of it was under the Name Of the Seed of the Woman bruising the Head of the Serpent To Enoch Noah c. in other Terms To Abraham under the Name of His Seed in whom all the Nations of the Earth should be blessed To Moses by the Name of A great Prophet among his Brethren and it was signified also unto him under dark Shadows and Sacrifices Unto David under the Name of A Successour in his Kingdom To other Prophets more clearer still made known Unto as a Child is born a Woman shall compass a Man a New Covenant I will make c In the New Testament in plain Words We all with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord 2 Cor. 3.18 But now because there were so many Additions or Ministrations of the Gospel or New Covenant Doth it follow there are so many New Covenants This being so Mr. Flavel hath done nothing to remove Mr. Cary's Arguments but they stand firm For he says not That the Sinai Ministration of the Covenant of Works was ordained to justifie Mankind nor was it possible it could after a Man had sinned and yet in its Nature an absolute Covenant of Works or do for Life or Perish The Man that doeth these Things shall live in them Obj. 9. Circumcision could not oblige the Iews in its own Nature to keep the whole Law because Paul Circumcised Timothy If in the very Nature of the Act it had bound Timothy to keep the Law for Iustification how could it have been Paul's Liberty so to do saith Mr. Flavel which he asserts it was Gal. 2.3 4. p. 226. Answ. 1. That Circumcision did oblige the Jews to keep the whole Law is evident Gal. 5.3 and as I hinted before our Learned Annotators on the said place speak the same Thing positively Take more largely their very Words They were obliged to one Part of the Law they must be obliged to all other Parts of it besides that Circumcision was an owning and professing Subjection to the whole Law c. Obj. But did not the Fathers then by being Circumcised acknowledge themselves Debtors to the Law he Answers Yes they did acknowledge themselves bound to the observation of it and to endure upon the breaking of it the Curse of it but they were discharged from that Obligation by believing in Christ who was made a Curse for them that he might redeem them from the Curse of the Law Thus Pool's Annotations 2. But as to Paul's Circumcising Timothy it was when he knew Circumcision was abolished and therefore it could not oblige him Paul well knew to keep the Law Sith no Law in its own Nature can oblige any Person according to the Nature and Quality of it when 't is abrogated and in no force tho' he saw