Selected quad for the lemma: reason_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
reason_n	baptism_n	circumcision_n	infant_n	2,369	5	9.6980	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A85949	Vindiciæ vindiciarum: or, A vindication of his Vindication of infant-baptisme, from the exceptions of M. Harrison, in his Pœdo-baptisme oppugned, and from the exceptions of Mr. Tombes, in his chief digressions of his late Apology, from the manner to the matter of his treatises. By Io. Geree M. of Arts, and Preacher of the Word in S. Albanes. Imprimatur, Edm. Calamy.	Geree, John, 1601?-1649.	1646 (1646)	Wing G604; Thomason E363_13; ESTC R201234	35,208	49

some strength in this consequence but that we make not all the reason for the scruple was in the Corinthians whether notwithstanding their lawfull marriage they might lawfully live together yes saith the Apostle the unbeliever in the use of marriage for so it must be understood is sanctified to the believer else c. so that marriage is the ground-work which satisfied not their consciences for so were they Ezra 9. 10. Yet was the holy seed polluted but now saith the Apostle the unbeliever is sanctified to the believer c. So then the parties that may lawfully live together on this ground are supposed to be man and wife And his major proposition must be That man and wife may lawfully dwell together whereof one is sanctified to the other and so his fornicators will be excluded not concluded He saith it is not necessary to insert being husband and wife sith the sanctification is not ascribed by him to the relation between them but to the faith of the one But I answer this is no good ground for though the marriage be no cause of this sanctification yet it is a ground supposed to make the Apostles resolution true and on that ground it is made There 's two things required to satisfie spirituall conscience in the use of a thing First that it be lawfull in it self Secondly that it be holy to us The former is common to heathens and Christians in morall things The last is the peculiar of believers if either be wanting conscience is defiled and will be disquieted Now the sanctification here to quiet their consciences is an addition to the law of marriage common with them to heathens and so we ought not to sever the later from the former which the Apostle supposed So this new argument is overthrown without denying bastards to be faederally holy where I should not have M. Tombes an adversary CHAP. VIII Wherein my fourth argument is made good for Infant-Baptisme from Col. 2.11 12. MY fourth argument for Infant-Baptisme was To whom circumcision doth agree Baptisme doth agree circumcision doth agree to Infants Ergo. The major is proved because Baptisme doth succeed circumcision in the same place state and signification in the new administration that circumcision had in the old Col. 2.11 12. Here M. Harrison first denies that circumcision and Baptisme do seal the same Covenant I answer circumcision was a seal of the Covenant made with Abraham and that is the same made with us Christians or else how can we by faith be made children of Abraham And how could the Prophet argue from the Covenant made with Abraham that Christians are justified by faith not the works of the law as he doth Gal. 3.16 17. unlesse we had the same Covenant and of our Covenant Baptisme is the seal 2. He denies circumcision to be the seal of remission of sin But doth not the Apostle say that circumcision was the seal of the righteousnes of faith and that implies remission of sins as he plainly shews in bringing as proofs of justification by faith Psal 32.1 Blessed is the man whose sins are forgiven Rom. 4 6 7 8 9 10 11. M. H. answers it was to Abraham the seal of the righteousnes of faith but that was peculiar to him Wherein again whether of ignorance or of choise ipse viderit he jumps with Bellarmine against Protestant Divines Bel. lib. 1. de sacr in grem cap. 17. But as our Divines answer Bellarmine thus he enervates the Apostles argument from Abrahams example to us which is not argumentative in any thing peculiar to Abraham Secondly I would know of M. Har. if circumcision did not seal righteousnes of faith except to Abraham what it did seal to proselytes Title to Canaan they had none seal a blanke it must not therefore it sealed the righteousnes of faith Again there being in a Sacrament an outward signe and an inward grace and that under the old Testament as well as the new as Protestants maintain against Papists I would know of him whether the circumcision of the heart Deut. 30.6 Rom. 2.29 Col. 2.11 were not the grace answering the signe in circumcision and whether that did not import the putting away the filth of nature by justification and regeneration and so included remission of sins M. H. proceeds If I mean that as circumcision was a Sacrament of the old Testament Baptisme of the new c. I answer I mean as I say Baptisme was the Sacrament of initiation under the New as circumcision under the Old and therefore as the one was set to all seleable within Covenant so the other Yet will it not hence follow that children must therefore have the Lords Supper because that is the Sacrament of growth To the place Col. 2.11 12. M. H. saith it doth no more prove Baptisme to succeed circumcision then Noahs Ark or the red Sea But he might have seen my answer to M. Tombes that there is not the same reason of these for circumcision was an Ordinance in ordinary use of the same nature vertue and state that Baptisme in being the Jews Sacrament of initiation and so is more properly said to be succeeded by Baptisme But M. H. saith that the Apostle speaks of circumcision to shew the Colossians that they were compleat in Christ by regeneration c. I answer that 's true but that 's not all the Apostle shews they needed not the elements of the world whereof circumcision was one and why not only because they had spirituall circumcision but had it sealed by Baptisme So Baptisme is in the same state and supplies the use of circumcision to seal and apply Christ to justification and regeneration and this is a manifest proof of my collection from Col. 2.11 12. and more to the purpose then M. H. hath or can answer For that proof of yours that circumcision and Baptisme were not to be applied to the same subject because John the Baptist would not Baptise those that were circumcised without further qualification I have answered already to M. Tombes in pag. 10. It was because Baptisme is a seal in a new administration and so parties to be Baptised were to be under the new administration as well as in Covenant And therefore neither Iohn the Baptist nor the Apostles did Baptise Jews till by their doctrine they were brought under the new administration Thus it appears what a feeble answerer M. H. is still found CHAP. IX Wherein my fifth Argument for Infant-Baptisme because the grace of the new Testament is not lesse then under the Old MY fifth argument was framed thus If Children of Christian parents be excluded from the Covenant and seal of initiation whereby their separation from the world is manifested then are the priviledges under the new Testament lesse then under the old But this is not to be affirmed Ergo. M. H. returns answer by a long fetch about premising three things 1. That the Covenant made with the fleshly seed as such under the old

verses and observed the condition I would have known it to be a branch of the Covenant made upon mount Sinai But I tell him more truly that if he had considered the matter of the promise he might have seen cleerly that it is a Gospel promise because it imports renovation by Gods spirit which Christ works on Christians under and by vertue of the Gospel Covenant Col. 2.10 11 12. Yea it imports the very same thing with that in Jer. 31.33 which M. H. here confesseth to be a Gospel Covenant Neither will his argument from the condition hinder for he should know that there was a double Covenant proposed to the Jews as is apparant Gal. 4.17 the one of grace begun to Abraham the other at mount Sinai 430 years after and this later is stiled by Divines faedus subserviens as he might have learned from M. Tombes pag. 102. A Covenant subservient to that of grace by discovering sin and misery and so need of Christ to draw or drive us to him So though God in the beginning speak after the phrase of the Law that was but to make way for the promise in the Gospel which he addes in the close above temporary blessings But now let us see what he saith to Acts 2.39 He boldly affirms that the promise to children is onely with reference to calling and so holds forth no more priviledge to a Christians then to the childe of a Turk This is boldly asserted but with little proof and with how little truth may thus appear 1. The promise mentioned must needs relate to some particular promise left upon record in the Word else Peter had spoken out of his own head which the Apostles neither did nor might doe Mat. 28.20 Act. 26.22 2. The articlé 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the promise notes some eminent promise and from the scope of the Sermon that promise is evident to be a branch of the Covenan● of grace 3. That this promise did in a peculiar manner belong to the Jews and to their children That is they and their children were of those to whom the Covenant did primarily belong and to the Gentiles secondarily when God should call them according to that Gen. 12.3 So then the promise belonged to the Jews and to their children They and their children were children of the Covenant in act and in regard of outward right as it is Act. 3.25 26. To them pertained the Adoption and the Covenants Rom. 9.4 And so shall the Gentiles when called as Zacheus in joy the priviledges of the children of Abraham And thus the Apostle laid before them a good ground of comfort to finde pardon upon repentance because by their present Church-state they and their children were children of the Covenant which God would make good and upon repentance accept them so then here is a priviledge of children quâ children to be children of the Covenant else they are to no purpose nor with good sense here mentioned and that can be no other then to be faederati with their parents which all confesse in some sense to be so under the old Testament according to which dispensation the Apostle there speaks But by the way pag 7. M. Har. drops us a distinction The Gospel Covenant saith he may be extended to persons visibly or invisibly and he denies Infants to be visibly within the Covenant But I answer if he mean by visibly knownly or that which we know to be so by evidence of Scripture then I say Infants are known to be within the Gospel Covenant with their parents which I have proved by those testimonies that yet speak aloud for all his gag which was either too short or too weak but if by visible be means that which is known to the eie only then his positions are false For why should not any demonstrations to reason evidencing a persons being within Covenant be as good a ground for Baptisme as those that are ocular only As for that which he saith that Infants before Baptisme are not of the visible Church by confession of all Whence he would gather a contradiction in my words pag 7. It s but a weak fancy for all but Anabaptists acknowledge Infants of Church-members to be of the visible Church in regard of right and so the seal may be challenged for them as well as for those grown up that are converted to whom the Covenant belongs Baptisme being a seal to confirm that right which we are supposed to have in and by the Covenant And thus I have done with M. Harrisons reply to my first argument CHAP. IIII. Wherein the Argument for Infants Baptisme from their being confederates with their parents is cleared from exceptions taken against it by M. Tombes in his Apology pag 40. 47. and the expression of the directory vindicated BEfore I passe to the second argument I shall think it needfull to examine some things published by M. Tombes in his late Apology to puzzle this argument drawn from those places that shew children to be confederates with their parents pag. 40. to 47. Where M. Tombes affirms that the argument which M. Marshall D. Homes and M. Geree being for Baptizing Infants is either a tautology or equivocation The proof he promiseth he eafter when he shall have liberty to examine their intangled discourses Great words but how just I shall shew in my own particular which will be a clearing of my brethren also Having pag. 10. produced the place Gen. 17.7 I will establish my Covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting Covenant to be a God unto thee and thy seed after thee To finde out the meaning of this place I inquire first what the priviledge is Secondly what the extent of it is For the matter of the priviledge I shew out of Calvin that the Church was setled in Abrahams family and the Israelites Abrahams posterity became the house and sheepfold of God and had the priviledge of adoption belonging to them in common Rom. 9.4 To whom pertained the adoption And so by a birth-priviledge they were severed from others Gal. 2.15 we who are Jews by nature But now among those that had this priviledge of common adoption to be reputed children there were alwaies to be some separated by the secret election of God made partakers of sanctifying and saving graces and so really the children of God In comparison of whom the other I sratlites are sometimes spoken of as no sennes of Abraham Rom. 9.6 7. though externally they were the children of the Kingdom and in reference to the Gentiles are so stiled Cant. 8.11 12. So then the priviledge is that he would be a God to Abraham and all the seed in regard of externall denomination and internall priviledges of a visible Church and to the elect in regard of spirituall Adoption grace and glory After pag. 12. I examining M. Tombes his exammation of M. Marshals second conclusion which M. Tombes desputes against as though it