Selected quad for the lemma: work_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
work_n	covenant_n	grace_n	mediator_n	4,478	5	11.2745	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A96995	The covenants plea for infants: or, The covenant of free grace, pleading the divine right of Christian infants unto the seale of holy baptisme. Against the rusticke sophistry, and wicked cavillations of sacrilegious Anabaptists: being the summe of certaine sermons had in the parish-church of Cranham, neere the city of Gloucester, in Gloucester-shire, with the exceptions of certaine Anabaptists against the foresaid sermons, and the authors answers thereunto. Very seasonable for weake consciences in these unsettled times of schisme and apostacie. By Thomas Wynell minister of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.	Wynell, Thomas, b. 1599 or 1600.	1642 (1642)	Wing W3778; Thomason E115_17; ESTC R8440	86,631	137

the children of the Jewes were holy by vertue of the holy Covenant with their parents so also are the children of the Gentiles holy by vertue of the same holy Covenant with their parents an argument never too often to be inculcated And now having spoken of that text of 1 Cor. 7.14 already in our former discourse we will say some what for the sense and meaning of Rom. 11.16 which text must needs bee understood and meant of Abraham and his branches only Now the question is who are meant by Abrahams branches Well the point there to prove is that as Abrahams children among the Jewes were partakers of the priuiledges of the Covenant so among the Gentiles children engrafted into Abraham are partakers of the Covenant as well as the naturall branches of Abraham the Jewes And hence I inferred that as the Jewes receiving the faith of Abraham were circumcised so Gentiles receiving the faith of Abraham are to be baptized And as the Jewes that were not internally and inherently godly as long as they did not renounce Abrahams faith had a right to circumcision so the children of the Gentiles receiving the faith of Abraham were by Baptisme as Jewes by circumcision to bee admitted into the enjoyment of the priviledges of the Christian Church Peter tels the Jewes that the promise is unto them and their children Acts 2.39 Now the promise was not made to their seed because they did beleeve but the seed did beleeve because they were under the promise viz. I will be thy God and the God of thy seed If this must be restrained thus viz. I will be thy God and the God of thy seed too when thy seed shall beleeve then no more is promised to this seed then to the seed of the Gentiles for when the seed of any Gentile should make prosession of his faith in the Messias he was to be circumcised as well as the seed of Abraham But more was due by this promise to the seed of Abraham then to the seed of a Gentile therefore the seed of Abraham was under the promise in a peculiar manner and not the seed of a Gentile uncircumcised yea among the Jewes a parent who was orthodoxall in judgement albeit he shewed no proofe of justifying faith in his life yet he was put under the Covenant for him and his seed And the children of such had as much right to circumcision as the children of David So then externall subjection to the doctrine of faith doth entitle the parent and his seed to the right of the externall benefit of the Covenant The summe is that as Jewes were born Jewes so the seale of circumcision was their due not to put them under the Covenant but to seale up the Covenant under which they were borne So say I Christians children are borne Christians and a right to the Covenant is not given them by Baptisme but that right which they had by birth is put under seale The very Covenant under which a Christian Infant is born stands good unto him and bindes him to faith obedience and so albeit Anabaptists like so many enraged devills doe what in them lies to cancell the hand-writing of Almighty God by withholding Gods owne seale from Infants of Christian parents upon whom Hee hath engraven His Covenant and written His promises of grace and mercy by virtue of their being born of such parents A wickednesse so heinous so horrible so full of impiety and hellish cruelty that I want a parallel I want words to expresse it unto my reader yet Gods Covenant I say stands good unto them Now the Lord make you to understand what I have written and give you a sight of your wickednesse And thus you have my first reason vindicated Which is that Infants of Christians are Christians borne and therefore are to be baptized in their infancy The second Reason Anabaptist Againe your second reason is that children are capable of Baptisine and your ground is from circumcision Because children were circumcised therefore they may be baptized in their infancy Answer If children because borne under the Covenant before Christs incarnation were therefore capable of the initiall seale even by the sentence of Almighty God because born under that Covenant then children of Christians borne under the same Covenant of grace since Christs incarnation are capable of the initiall seale and 't is their due by virtue of their Christian birth-right Now that the Covenant before Christ with the Jewes and since Christ with the Christians is the same Covenant namely A Covenant which concernes mans deliverance from misery by sinne and mans restitution unto happinesse by Jesus Christ we have shewed before we will now instance only in three things Viz. 1. The Covenant of God with the Jewes before Christ caused the godly in Covenant to seek for immortality after death in heaven as their country and abiding city for ever Heb. 11.13 14 15 16. Acts 26.6 7 8. 2. All the ministrations of Gods Covenant with the Iewes tended to the debasement of nature and to the advancement of Gods free grace in the whole work of mans Redemption though in types 3. All the promises that God made to the Iewes looked towards Iesus Christ as the only Mediatour in whom all Gods promises are yea and Amen 2 Cor. 1.20 cum Heb. 13.8 and Gen. 3.15 Christ was the subject of Moses and the Prophets writings Job 1.45 And the Iewes were justified in the sight of God by the same righteousnesse of faith as we Gentiles are justified by Rom. 4.3.13 And this justification hath essentiall connexion with eternall salvation Rom. 5.9 10. And is not our Covenant the same for substance reducible to these three heads Quest Why then is the Covenant said to bee a better Covenant and established upon better promises Heb. 8.6 Ans It 's better only in regard of the ministration and permanency of which wee shall bee necessitated to speak more fully afterwards in due place Now if the Covenant be the same and the manifestation of this Covenant upon persons unto the Church bee the Churches warrant to minister the initiall seale unto them then if the Covenant manifested by God unto the Church to be upon Infants of persons in Covenant under the law was their warrant to administer the initiall seale that there God did appoint to be used then the like manifestation is a warrant for us to administer the initiall seale unto Infants under the Gospell whose parents are in Covenant But let 's consider your exceptions against this reason Anabaptist But we deny the sufficiency of this reason to prove Infants Baptisme and that upon this ground 1. They differ in the institution 2. In the signes 3. In the subjects 1. They differ in the Institution for the Institution of circumcision was that infants should be circumcised even all Abrahams lineall seed as well the seed of the bond woman as the free but the Institution of Baptisme is that they should first be taught

of the Ordinances the same as the mortification of the flesh and the renuing of the creature to Gods Image in Jesus Christ 6. The subject's the same as a people in Covenant with God to yeeld obedience to the faith 7. The end Cujus the same as the glory of Gods mercy to His Elect and the unexcuse of the Reprobate 8. Finally the end Cui the same as Good workes here in this life and the immortality of the soule and eternall blessednesse in the life to come Onely Gods manner of ministring Christ unto man for his eternall salvation is diverse according to the diversitie of Christ state viz. as not incarnate and to come or incarnate and already come and so the ministration is diverse in the Ordinances of Grace Before Christ was come in the flesh all the Ordinances of Grace directed the eyes of the faithfull unto Christ to be exhibited for their salvation redemption And therefore all the Ordinances of grace must needs be typicall And this did quiet their consciences and filled their hearts with joy And since Christ is come all the Ordinances of Grace serve to confirme the faithfull in this point and minister Christ exhibited in the flesh unto us And this causes us to rest in Him for Redemption and salvation and to expect no other Saviour Now if Infants under the typicall ministration of Christ were capable of the initiall seale of this Covenant because borne under this Covenant in their very infancie when they could declare no right they had unto it but their birth then Infants of Christians under the Gospel borne under the same Covenant of Grace are capable of the present initiall seale of this Covenant though they can shew no right they have unto it but their being born of such parents as are Christians The manifestation of faith is no more requisite to the administration of Baptisme unto such as are borne Christians than it was to the administration of Circumcision unto such as were born Jews But as such as were made Jewes had Circumcision administred unto them because they testified faith in the Messias and such as were borne Jewes had it by birth as children of parents in covenant So such as are made Christians are to have Baptisme ministred unto them upon the testimony of their faith but such as are borne Christians are to have it by birth as children of parents in Covenant with God and of his houshold and family For as it was a rule of old that nemo circumcidendus quà Infans or quà adultus but quatenus foederatus So now nemo baptizandus quà infans or quà adultus but quatenus foederatus Now if infants of Christians appeare unto us to be foederati as they do then we are to administer baptisme unto them in their infancie Baptisme herein answering to Circumcision And so the fond quaere of the Anabaptists is groundlesse What say they shall we seale a blanke But this question implies this blasphemie namely that Gods written Covenant is a blanke for Gods covenant is written upon the children of parents in covenant as Christian parents are in covenant And if so then their infants are in covenant otherwise the parents are not in covenant For though it follows not children are in covenant with God therefore their parents are in covenant with God for Abraham was in covenant with God but his father Terah was not yet it follows undeniably parents are in Covenant with God therfore their Infants are in Covenant with God Now then the Infants of Christian parents have the Covenant of Grace written upon them by birth because children of such parents And because their being in Covenant in their infancy appeares unto the Church therefore the Church is to baptize them in their infancy for when persons appeare unto the Church to be in Gods Covenant of Grace then the Church is to put the Covenant under seale unto them and t is their due and the Churches duty And so in the businesse of paedo-baptisme wee are not to looke to the righteousnesse inherent in the parents nor to the righteousnesse in the infant for of neither of these can we have certaine and infallible knowledge but to the righteousnesse of the Covenant or to the free grace of God in Christ as Rom. 4.11 where Circumcision is called the seale of the righteousnesse of faith And therefore the seale of imputative righteousnesse And hence is the grosse mistake of our Anabaptists They thinke that the efficacy of Baptisme is grounded on the practicall righteousnesse of the creature manifested in words or works which stinkes of Popery all over but orthodox Christians in the businesse of paedo-baptisme doe look to Gods Covenant of free Grace and so present their children unto Gods mercy and Fatherly love in Jesus Christ our Righteousnesse Covenant and attonement And albeit our infants have no inherent righteousnesse manifested unto us by their words or actions yet God hath righteousnesse to be imputed by vertue of His Covenant of Grace saying I will be thy God and the God of their seed in their generations And therefore we dedicate our children unto God in their infancy by Baptisme Now our Popish Anabaptists cannot endure to heare of Circumcision as if that should be to the Jewes before Christs incarnation the same with baptisme unto Christians since Oh they labour to cry downe this as the grossest absurdity that ever was uttered by the tongues of men But this is no new thing for the old heretiques heretofore did lead upstart punies in the right way how to fasten themselves to their owne errors and Popish pride But I pray what difference between these two save in the outward ceremony For was not Circumcision as sacrament of entrance into the true Church of God before Christs incarnation And is not Baptisme the same unto us Christians since Christs Ascension Why doth the Apostle call baptized Christians circumcised Christians and Baptisme by the name of Circumcision Col. 2.11 14. Was not Circumcision a seale of the same justifying faith as Baptisme is now unto us Rom. 4.11 And in a word did not Circumcision signifie the mortification of the flesh and the renewing of the mind and so bind over the Jewes unto the obedience of Gods will Rom. 2.28 29. Gal. 3.21 And doth not Baptisme the same now Rom. 6.3 11. 1 Pet. 3.21 Now shew us any substantiall difference between these two Sacraments for if there bee no substantiall difference then without controversy there is a substantiall union You say there is a wide difference for the one was the cutting off of the fore-skin of the flesh and the other is a washing with water So say we but this difference is but ceremoniall but as an initiall seale how differ they or in any other spirituall effect necessary unto salvation When we look upon Sacraments we doe not look upon them by halves as you Anabaptists doe and detaine our senses in the bodily part of them We look upon

conscience can well dispense withall as appeares by your usuall practice and whether you turne to us or New-England you must turne from your owne way Our agreement is such that we are all one in the point of Paedo-baptisme against you We in this Land hold that children of all baptized parents are baptizable in their infancie by vertue of the Covenant of Grace under which such children were borne as children of all circumcised parents were circumcisable in their infancie by vertue of the same Covenant of Grace under which they were borne and this is the opinion and practice of all reformed Churches that I know as the French Scottish Dutch High and Low c. But what they doe in New-England I know not The Records of their Church orders and tenents are not in print But they which say they follow New-England way will not baptize all children of beleevers neither except they be in their Covenant Except beleevers enter into their Covenant they shall have no commons with them at the Lords table neither shall their children be baptized by them But their warrant for this practice we desire to see for we think it unjust and impious that persons under Gods Covenant of Grace should be deprived of gods seales which he hath inseparably annexed unto that Covenant And moreover for them to deny baptisme unto children of baptized parents I see no reason though such parents are vitious in their lives as long as such parents remaine within the Church and are orthodox all in the faith I am sure that the children of the Jewes whose parents were profane in life were not kept backe from the Sacrament of circumcision for that cause And the reason is because that Covenant was the Covenant of Grace and not of Workes There are two Covenants that God hath made with men viz. the Covenant of Workes and the Covenant of Grace And of these Covenants there were two heads namely the first Adam and the second Adam With the first Adam God did strike a Covenant of Workes and Adam the head of this body in Covenant did transgresse and so destroyed the Covenant and thereby deprived himselfe and all his members of the priviledges thereof and so death entred upon all m●n in that all had sinned in their Head With the second Adam viz. Christ God did strike a Covenant of Grace and Christ the head of his body in this Covenant remaines just and the justifier of his members and therefore his members cannot be deprived of the priviledges of this Covenant for the default of immediate parents Now for th●se men in this way as they say of New-England to put a stop unto the Covenant of Grace in denying baptisme unto children of baptized parents I see no warrant For first This practice destroyes the nature of this Covenant For the parents by their miscarriage have broken the Covenant of Workes but not the Covenant of Grace this remaines entire in Christ who is the head of the children borne under this Covenant And these children though by naturall generation they are the off-spring of such wicked parents yet by reason of the Covenant under which they were borne they are the children of the Covenant This practice then is a presumption of an higher nature than these men are aware off And albeit their intent be a reformation yet the meanes is diabolicall Secondly This practice doth vertually accuse Christ the Head as a violater of this Covenant of Grace for as long as the Head remaines just and the justifier of his members his members are not to be debarred of their priviledges whereof under the Gospell Baptisme is the first And the vitious carriage of immediate parents can no more exclude a childe from Baptisme now than could formerly the vitious carriage of Jewish parents exclude their children from the priviledge of Circumcision Now some to evade this say that the Church of the Jewes was a Nationall Chruch but the Church of England is not so But this is but a meere shift to evade what they cannot answer for Proselytes who were not of that Nation were to have their children circumcised and circumcision was enjoyned and practised before the Jewes were a Nationall Church even when and while they were a Family-Church But to the point I say that the Church of the Jewes was a Nationall Church in some things after a peculiar manner as First God had tyed himselfe to remaine with that Nation by his Ordinances of grace untill Shiloh came Secondly that Nation was once a yeare in the representative body thereof to meet at one common place viz. at Hierusalem about the worship of God by divine appointment Now God hath not tyed himselfe to the Church of England for any set terme of time nor is there by divine appointment any set place of worship for the whole Nation to meet in once a yeare about the worship of God But thirdly the Church of the Jewes was a Nationall Church because the whole Nation had received the Doctrine and Covenant of grace and in this sense I hope England is a Nationall Church And if in this sense the Church of England be a Nationall Church that 's as much as I require But surely these men have some other meaning when they say that the Church of the Jewes was a Nationall Church and the Church of England is not than as yet they dare to utter though among them you shall seldome finde a man tongue-tyed Their meaning is that the whole Nation of the Jewes pell-mell were by course to be admitted to the priviledges of that typicall ministration and so the children of vitious parents too because of that Nation but under the Gospell since Christ onely the children of godly parents are to be sealed into Gods peculiar by baptisme and others are not and here they would bring in their Covenant as the forme of the Church But the children of the Jewes were not circumcised because of that Nation but because of gods Covenant with that Nation And so our children are not to be baptized because of such a Nation but because of Gods Covenant with such a Nation and the children of all baptized parents are borne under Gods Covenant of grace and whether their parents be vitious or religious in life the childes title stands good to the Covenant The religious lives of his parents being workes doe not entitle him to the Covenant and initiall seale thereof And the vitious life of parents baptized being workes cannot make voyde the childes title to the Covenant and initiall seale thereof For his title unto the Covenant and initiall seale thereof lies in Christ who remaines just and the justifier of his members and the elect seed may passe through the loynes of vitious parents and often doe whereas godly parents may have reprobates to their children If then these men have any thing to object against Christ as a violater of the Covenant of Grace let them say on and they shall bee answered but

if nothing how dare they deny the initiall seale of this Covenant unto the children of this Covenant Now many honest-hearted Christians carried away with the faire shew of these men doe not see the high iniquity of this practice 3. The practice of debarring infants of baptized parents from baptisme for the loose lives of their parents is no better than high sacriledge For such children being not Pagans borne out of the Church but Christians borne within the Church and of the holy seed borne I say under the Covenant of Grace are therefore to have as their birth-right that Covenant under which they were borne put under seale unto them For the miscarriage of the parents cannot deprive the children of their portion in Gods Covenant of Grace seeing workes are not the ground of that right of theirs but Gods free grace in Christ and the childe hath as primitive a right unto this Covenant as the parent For the words of the Covenant are I will be they God and the God of thy seed after thee in their generations And therefore however vitious parents are to bee kept backe from the Lords Supper for their reformation yet their infants cannot be kept backe from Baptisme and so put a stop unto the Covenant of Grace where God puts none Fourthly and lastly as this is a new way so it 's grounded upon new-Divinity which none of the orthodox Divines in the Church of England were ever principled in in the Schooles of the Prophets for if that the personall sinne of the immediate parent be a barre against insants baptisme then there are more sins imputed besides the first sinne of Adam but there is no other sinne imputed but onely the first sinne of Adam And thus you see that I am as great an adversary against those whose practises doe any way oppugne the nature of the Covenant of Grace as I am against you For my purpose is to maintaine the quarrell of Gods Covenant against all opposers as 't is my duty and office and I hope my Brethren and Fathers in the Universities and in the Countrey will assoord me their pious ayde and assistance And that all good Christians will beseech God at the Throne of Grace to carry on His owne worke in me and in all that shall endeavour to hold forth the Truth of God unto His people that godly hearts and tender consciences may not bee mis-led by the good words and faire speeches of Satans agents And for you that are carried away into this way of re-baptizing the Lord give you to see where you are And for those of the Separation the Lord shew them wherein they doe exceed for their wayes are not right before the Lord nor justifiable by His Word And now for you to say that you will turne neither to us nor to those of New-England unlesse you see better grounds We must tell you that you must bring better exceptions against the grounds that wee have laid for Paedo-baptisme or else we must conclude that you blaspheme the Name of God in desiring his helpe for to strengthen you in your way Anabaptist Againe you alleadge the qualisications of some men that hold against as which you say are as good as any of the Anabaptists and as loving is one another as any of the other side But this we confesse may be But Sir this doth ill appeare sometimes for there be some of your coate that are ready to bite and devoure one another for a small triste many times and that good men too for which they are too blame Answer To what end I alleaged the qualifications of good men you may see in my fourth reason and what doth all this prove But that good men yea Ministers sometimes have their failings for which you say well they are too blame But what This is one of your expletives to fill up your paper and to make your answerer work Anabaptist Nay you said further that they were as humble as the proudest Anabaptist of them all Now S● you did well to compare the best of your selves to the worst of them For wee account him that is proudest to bee the worst man of them And you compare your humble men with our proud men but we passe by this and take it only to be your mistake in the heat of your expressions and not any way to bee the meaning of your intentions Answer If I said any such thing I was mightily overseen indeed for Anabaptists are all so proud as if each particular strove for the supremacy And I was much mistaken in you also for I thought you had been truly burthened in conscience and would only have alleadged such things as might have tended to the satisfaction of conscience about paedo-baptisme but now I see nothing but scorning and sleighting of what you cannot ●●fell I pray pardon me this mistake too But it should seem that this merry passage is none of the arguments you build your faith upon but passe it by as a null and judge it a mistake in the heat of expressions as wee judge of your baptizing in Severne to bee a null and mistake in the heat of your fiery zeale and therefore you chose so cold a season and so great a river to allay it Anabaptist Further you demand of us where we can bring any example of any Church gathered that did deny Infants Baptisme But we will quickly answer you that we have no example of any Church gathered or ungathered that did baptize their Infants And so your question is frivolous and as you said to us wee returne the like to you where the Holy Ghost hath no tongue wee will have no eare Answer You say no Church gathered or ungathered doth baptize Infants but ere now you speak of reformed Churches and here no Church baptizeth Infants Your meaning is that Baptisme is the forme of a Church and so no Baptisme no Church and Baptisme of Infants is no Baptisme as though you were members of no Church till you were baptized If of no Church then no members of Christ and so dying not to be saved but haply I mistake your meaning You confesse that you can bring no example of any gathered Church in the new Testament that did deny Baptisme unto Infants whose parents were baptized and in the state of Christianity Neither doth the Holy Ghost any where in the new Testament either expressely or by necessary deduction deny Baptisme unto such children And therefore Anabaptists in denying Baptisme unto children of baptized parents are not therein led by the Spirit of God The Holy Ghost speakes expressely that children even of one beleeving parent are Saints 1 Cor. 7.14 and no such thing was predicated of any Gentiles children before faith in Christ put that honour upon them and yet many yea most of them borne in wedlock And Lamb your Master doth acknowledge the married spoken off 1 Cor. 7.14 to bee married nay lawfully married before faith came to make either their marriage