Selected quad for the lemma: sense_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
sense_n	apostle_n	speak_v	word_n	3,803	5	4.2444	3	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A96326	The right method for the proving of infant-baptism. With some reflections on some late tracts against infant-baptism. / By Joseph Whiston, Minister of the Gospel.	Whiston, Joseph, d. 1690.	1690 (1690)	Wing W1695; ESTC R201364	36,822	72

abstractly by themselves do not make such a full clear and convincing discovery of the Mind of our Lord Christ in this Matter as to set this Practice above all rational Doubts There is undoubtedly much yea very much Weight in them especially when added as a farther Confirmation of what is pleaded from this Covenant and let any Baptists pretend what they will they never have nor will be able to answer some of those Arguments Mr. Baxter hath urged from that 1 Cor. 7.14 But this I was saying in order to a full Establishment of this Practice 't is absolutely necessary that a Foundation be laid where I have laid it viz. in the fore-mentioned Covenant But more particularly that this Foundation may be surely laid as I have done so all others ingaging in the same Cause must do these five things 1. It must be solidly proved that this Covenant is not the Old Covenant which the Apostle tells is done away but that it is the Covenant of Grace that very Covenant under which Believers still are And I fear not falling under the Censure of over-Confidence in the Minds or Judgments of judicious and unbiassed Persons if I say this is fully done already See among others my Answer to Mr. Cox p. 95 to the 139. with the places there referred unto where I have demonstrated these three Positions 1. That God in those Transactions with Abraham recorded Gen. 12. at the beginning did not make or establish the Covenant of Grace with him My meaning is he did not then compleat the Covenant of Grace with him This I grant that God did then begin to deal with Abraham with reference to his establishing his Covenant with him did as it were draw the first Lines of that Covenent he intended afterwards in a more formal express manner to enter with him Hence the Apostle Peter telling the Jews that they were the Children of the Covenant cites one Promise then made to Abraham Acts 3.26 2. That the Covenant recorded in Gen. 17.7 is not the Old Covenant nor had any reference or relation thereunto 3. That that Covenant is the Covenant of Grace the same which Believers are still under And would our Opposers satisfy the World in their Judgments and Practice they ought to return solid and satisfactory Answers to those Arguments pleaded in Confirmation of each of those Positions their Silence wherein renders all their Discourses utterly insignificant in the Judgment of all Men of a competent Understanding Alas can they think a loose Discourse however filled up with Scripture-Quotations can be of any use to such Persons so long as those Arguments remain unanswered And it seems strange to me that Men of any Judgment Gravity or Conscience should recommend to the World any Discourses so excessively defective in that regard in the Management of the Cause they plead It being evinced and demonstrated past all rational Contradiction that this Covenant is not the Old Covenant said to be done away but the Covenant of Grace The most copious Harangue of Words how many Scriptures soever are alledged therein signifieth nothing save only to shew how tenacious Men are of Error and how they will wrest and pervert the Scriptures to confirm themselves and others therein when once embraced by them But it may be some will say There are two Treatises the one of Mr. Grantham's the other of Mr. Philip Cary's wherein there are several irrefragable Arguments to prove the contrary viz. That that Covenant is not the Covenant of Grace To that I answer It is true that there are such Books abroad but so long as those Arguments remain unanswered here is only the opposing of Arguments to Arguments and which are the most valid and demonstrative possibly Men of weaker Capacities are not able to determine to the Satisfaction of their own Consciences Hence such Methods of Procedure serve only to confirm those that are before resolved and puzzle weak consciencious Christians that are sincerely inquiring after Truth I shall only add that the Arguments I have laid down are unanswerable is undoubted to me the sure-footing they have in the Scriptures of Truth assures me of that neither is the Silence of our Adversaries after their so long Presentation to publick View any small Addition to that Assurance I shall now try whether those Arguments laid down by the two fore-mentioned Authors be so or no. To begin first with those laid down by Mr. Grantham he attempts to prove two things 1. That Circumcision was not a Gospel-Ordinance 2. That that Covenant recorded Gen. 17.7 is not a Covenant of Grace For the 1. What he means by a Gospel-Ordinance is to me difficult to determine and therefore I shall only declare what I mean by a Gospel-Ordinance and in brief I mean an Ordinance or Act of Worship instituted in the Covenant of Grace having an immediate and direct Respect thereunto for the Confirmation obtaining or conveying the Good therein promised Now let us see the strength of his Arguments and they are these three 1. That which could profit no Man except he kept the whole Law was no Gospel-Ordinance but Circumcision could profit no Man except he kept the whole Law Ergo c. And he cites Rom. 2.25 for the Proof of his Minor Proposition Before I answer to either part of his Argument I must distinguish of these two Terms Law and Keep Thus by Law may be meant either the Moral Law and that taken in a strict and proper Sense as the Law or Covenant of Works the Sum of which the Holy Ghost reduces to a Do this and live Or 2. That Term Law may intend the whole Revealed Will of God concerning Man's Duty and then under this Term Law we are to include both the Moral Ceremonial and Judicial Law and that in their utmost Extent and Latitude 2. For that Term Keep it may be meant either of a perfect sinless keeping so as the Persons so keeping the Law shall live therein according to that of the Apostle Gal. 3.12 Or 2. It may be meant of a sincere and upright Keeping so as not willingly or wilfully to fail in doing any thing required or doing any thing so bidden Now if Mr. Grantham takes these Terms in the first Sense which in case he doth Law here can only refer to or be understood of the Moral Law and that as a Law of Works seeing God never required of or expected from his People a perfect sinless Obedience to the Ceremonial Law no nor to the Moral Law as the Rule of that Obedience he requires of his People And then I deny the Minor Proposition and say those words of the Apostle prove it not and my Reason is because the Apostle there speaks of the Law as considered under another Notion and of another manner of keeping than is intended by Mr. Grantham But 2. If Mr. Grantham understood these Terms Law and Keeping in the latter Sense then I deny the Major Proposition and affirm on the other

hand that that take it of Circumcision in particular might be and was a Gospel-Ordinance which yet would not profit Men except they kept the whole Law seeing it might and did profit them who did so keep the Law Thus the Apostle affirms it did profit them that kept the Law What is here said of Circumcision may be alike said of Baptism It profits not those that keep not the Law in the latter Sense before-mentioned but as for those that do so keep the Law it doth profit them No Ordinance will profit any Men in case of their failing in that Obedience indispensably required in the Covenant they are under which is no Argument at all that it is no Gospel-Ordinance Gospel-Ordinances will not profit Men as of themselves in case they are Hypocrites and do not walk up to that Profession they make which is all that the Apostle intends in that place 2. His second Argument is this If Circumcision bound Men to keep the whole Law then it was no Gospel-Ordinance c. Before I return an Answer to this Argument I shall premise that by Law in Gal. 5.3 which he cites to prove his Assumption we are as I suppose is granted on all hands to understand the Mosaical Law the Law given by Moses at Mount Sinai and that in the utmost Latitude and Extent of it Now this Law may be considered two ways 1. As given by God to the People of Israel 2. As after misinterpreted and misunderstood by them 1. As given by God it had only a Subserviency to the Covenant of Grace and answerably as in it there was a Revival of the Law given to Adam in Innocency so there were various Sacrifices and Ceremonial Observations anew instituted that so the People seeing the Exactness and Severity of the Law and finding their own Inability so to perform it as to live therein they might be engaged to flee unto Christ and take hold of the Covenant of Grace confirmed as the Apostle speaks Gal. 3.17 in him whereunto they were guided by the Sacrifices and those other Ceremonial Observations Hence the Law is said to have been a School-Master to bring them unto Christ Gal. 3.24 whether we read as in our Translation or only a School-Master unto Christ it is all one seeing a School-Master it was Now take the Law as thus given by God himself and Keeping in the latter Sense before-mentioned I grant his Assumption but deny the Consequence in the Major Proposition and affirm That tho Circumcision did bind Men to keep the whole Law during its continuance in the Church yet it might be and was a Gospel-Ordinance and supposing the Apostle only intends this Term Law in this Sense yet he might justly argue against Circumcision as laying them under this Obligation to keep the Law because there was now a change and alteration in the Law The whole Ceremonial Law was abrogated and laid aside and for them to put themselves under an Obligation to keep a Law that was now abrogated was sinful and would have deprived them of any Benefit by Christ tho they obliged themselves to keep it in that Sense in which the Jews under the first Testament were bound to keep it and their keeping of it was acceptable to God and profitable to themselves 2. Take the Law as misinterpreted and misunderstood by the Jews viz. as tho it had been a Law through their meer keeping of which they should be saved without the Mediation of Christ as it is evident they did so understand it then I deny the Assumption and affirm that Circumcision never bound any Man so to keep the Law and then the Apostle in arguing against Circumcision deals with the Galatians according to that false Notion of the Law they had imbibed from their false Teachers and tells them that in case they were circumcised that is as obliging themselves to the Law in the Sense now mentioned they would be Debtors to do the whole Law not only uprightly and sincerely but to do absolutely all things written therein seeing neither their Sacrifices nor Ceremonial Observations appointed in that Law would yield them any Relief in case of their failing to do all things written in the whole Law and their returning and adhering to the Law in this sense would deprive them of any Benefit by Christ And thus I judg we are to understand the Apostle in that place So that take the Apostle's Sense which way we will the Argument is of no force Take the Sense the former way then the Consequence is unsound if we take his Sense the latter way the Antecedent is false And a greater Absurdity can hardly be vented by Men than to say That God ever designed Circumcision as an Obligation unto the Jews thus to keep the Law or any part of it But 3. His third Argument is this That which was always in comparison of the Gospel a weak and beggarly Element was never a Gospel-Ordinance but Circumcision was such Ergo c. Answ Here I shall positively deny the Consequence in the Major Proposition and affirm That that might be in the Apostle's Sense said to be a weak and beggarly Element which yet during the First-Testament-Administration might be a Gospel-Ordinance Will Mr. G. say That the Jews had no Gospel-Ordinances Yet all their Ordinances come within the compass of these weak and beggarly Elements Take it of the Passover surely that was a Gospel-Ordinance and yet one of these weak and beggarly Elements But to hasten As a close of this and to make way to what follows I shall offer this one Argument to prove That Circumcision was a Gospel-Ordinance it is this If Circumcision was the Token of the Covenant of Grace and as such a Representation and Seal to those to whom it was applied of those great Gospel-Blessings Righteousness Interest in God and Sanctification then it was a Gospel-Ordinance but the former is true therefore the latter I am aware Mr. G. will deny the Assumption but I prove it thus If that Covenant Gen. 17.7 be the Covenant of Grace and Circumcision was the Token of that Covenant and as such a Representation and Seal to those to whom it was applied of those forementioned Gospel-Blessings then it was a Gospel-Ordinance The Minor or Assumption in both Arguments consists in two Branches both which I know will be denied But it is the former Branch that at present falls under our Consideration and supposing that be sufficiently proved the latter will hardly meet with any opposition Now that being already demonstrated I shall at present add no more only consider what Mr. G. hath said to prove the contrary That that Covenant is not the Covenant of Grace but the Old Covenant or that Covenant said by the Apostle to be done away and this he saith will appear three ways 1. From the recital of the Covenant it self 2. From the Nature of Circumcision and chiefly because the Covenant of Grace was not peculiar to Abraham and