Selected quad for the lemma: word_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
word_n ceremonial_a law_n moral_a 3,536 5 9.8204 5 false
View all documents for the selected quad

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

There is 1 snippet containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

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