Selected quad for the lemma: work_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
work_n	abraham_n	faith_n	grace_n	5,747	5	6.4027	4	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

admonishing and excommunicating resides our Saviour saith he hath determined to be Disciples as Disciples Why then are women to doe all this sure they cannot doe this without speaking which is not permitted to them in the Church yet M. H. will not deny women to be Disciples For the person to declare it saies he it must be him whom the Chruch shall elect as he saith appears from 1 Cor. 5.4 5. In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ when ye are gathered together and my spirit with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ To deliver such an one to Satan And now what expresse testimony is here for the person declaring Just none at all yea indeed that one person declare the sentence in the name of the rest is an act of order to which we are led by the light of nature to avoid confusion For the persons to be excommunicated he findes he saith two sorts 1. Persons after admonition persisting in scandalous sin But first he must know that we read of no admonition appointed to be used to the incestuous person whence some gather that some sins are so grosse that they deserve excommunicanon ipso facto Secondly he should remember the difference that is about enumerating scandalous sins and how that is to be determined by way of collection Secondly he addes such as after pains taken with them to convince them persist peremptory in holding and maintaining Haeresies * Tit. 3.10 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i.e. Qui novas sibi eligit opiniones cum sundamento salutis pugnantes easque mordicùs defendit Pasor Graec. Lexic Now M. Har. can be content to consult with flesh and blood when he thinks it makes for him for he brings a sentence out of Pasor where saies he observe c. As though his observations were out of the text when they are but out of Pasers exposition I thought he would not have grounded his followers faith on mans authority But what are his observations 1. They must be fundamentall errours but as a Zanch. in 4. praecep able men as Pasor distinguish haeresies into such as are fundamentall and such as are not fundamentall 2. They must be obstinately asserted That is after the first and second admonition 3. They must appear to arise from choise not weaknes but this is a weak observation as though what were of weaknesse could not be of choice Whereas many chuse many things out of weaknes and therefore this was but a poor collection to exempt from censure the grossest haereticks Arrians Antiscripturists c. If they hold these damnable Haeresies unlesse forsooth it appear they doe it out of pravity of heart and affection they shall not be obnoxious to excommunication That is they shall not injoy that remedy to cure their infirmities Is this sound Divinity Thus I have cleared my second thing premised from his exceptions But I must now a little look back and take notice of some passages not only false but foul that have slipt from M. H. pag. 3. Where he tells us that the writings of Moses and the Prophets were as their Covenant was at least the administrations of their Covenant faulty imperfect at the best abstracted from the writings and administrations of the new Covenant Were the writings of Moses and the Prophets faulty and imperfect without the writings and administrations of the new Testament Then they were so till the new Testament was written and the administration of it instituted And what is this but to exclude all under the old Testament from compleat means of salvation and so from salvation it self which how false horrid uncharitable and popish is it Popish I say for if this be true the Saints of the old Testament could not enter into blisse till Christ were exh bited and so must be imagined to be in some limbo Nay how apparantly contradictory is his assertion to many dictates of the holy Ghost Psal 19.7 The Law of the Lord is perfect converting the soul Prov. 30.5 Psal 12.6 Every word of God is pure 2 Tim. 3.15 16. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God c 2 Pet. 1.21 Prophecy came not in old time by the will of man but holy men spake as they were moved by the holy Ghost and can these writings be faulty Is not this to charge the holy Ghost foolishly which is no lesse then blasphemy He saith also that it could not be said of Moses thou hast the words of aternall life as of Christ Joh. 6.68 I confesse the Lord hath somewhat peculiar above the servant But were not the Scriptures of the old Testament the words of life yea of eternall life what then became of those that had no other means of salvation or what thinks he of that Spirit of our Saviour Iohn 5.39 But M. H. urgeth Heb. 8. 8 9. where finding fault with them he said behold the daies come saith the Lord when I will make a new Covenant with the house of Iudah not according to the Covenant c. But the Covenant there faulted is the Covenant of works the condition whereof was the Law given on mount Sinai which typified the Covenant of works Gal. 4 24. But had the Jews no other Covenant thinks he but that Had they not promises and tipes holding forth Christ Had not Abraham the Gospel preached to him Gal. 3 8. Did not Moses know and suffer for Christ Heb. 11.26 Esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches M. H. should therefore have considered that not all that was revealed by Moses and the Prophets was faulted but the Covenant of works only They had the Cnvenant of grace also which God promised at the exhibition of Christ to reveal more clearly and dispence the grace of it more plentifully and this M. H. might learn if he were as willing to receive instruction from expositours on such places as this as he was from Pasor on Tit. 3.10 My third thing premised was to take the state of the question as M. Martiall stated it In which M. H. r. saith he shall freely joyn issue Though he saith that it is a strange fallacy of the times to Baptize all infants and to undertake the defence of Baptizing some onely Nay afterwards he saith I Baptize more then I am able to make good But the truth is the stating of the question touching children of believers is neither a fallacy nor flowes it from disability but to distinguish controversies and facilitate the dispute for he knowes well enough that these are distinct disputes whether children of any believers are to be Baptized and what profession of faith doth make a man so to be reputed a believer as to convey this priviledge to his children And the former controversy being ended this later may have its due place and therefore what M. H. dictates here about fallacy or disability is indeed fallacious adfaciendum populum My fourth thing premised that I must have liberty to chuse and order mine own weapons M. Har. count●reasonable