Selected quad for the lemma: world_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
world_n	conversion_n	grace_n	primary_n	36	3	16.2874	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A81720	A boundary to the Holy Mount, or a barre against free admission to the Lords Supper. In answer to an humble vindication of free admission to the Lords Supper. Published by Mr. Humphrey minister of Froome in Somersetshire. Which humble vindication, though it profess much of piety and conscience, yet upon due triall and examination, is found worthy of suspension, if not of a greater censure. By Roger Drake minister of Peters Cheap London.	R. D. (Roger Drake), 1608-1669.	1653 (1653)	Wing D2129; Thomason E1314_2; ESTC R209198	85,461	218

the whole hoast of Gods Israel His first grand Argument pag. 59. is this That the Sacraments and all Ordinances are primarily and properly means of grace and but in a remote sense means of conversion or confirmation for this grace we receive in the use of them converts some and strengthens others and this grace received in the Sacrament works in the unregenerate for their conversion Answ Is not here prime stuff worthy of a Doctor in Cathedrâ but to answer distinctly I must first premise that here he speaks not of relative but absolute not of externall but internall or inherent grace for otherwise the Ordinances are means of justification and adoption as well as of holinesse of which last yet he must be understood This premised I answer 1. That if the Ordinances be primarily means of grace they must needs be primarily means of conversion and confirmation since primary conversion is nothing else but grace at first infused and primary confirmation is degrees of the same grace superadded For further cleering whereof and that all the world may see how M. H. instead of informing would blinde and baffle the incautelous or injudicious Reader we must understand there is a two-fold conversion one primary when God converts and changes the heart by creating grace therein and so making it a new and soft heart Ezek. 36.26 turning the Wolf into a Lamb c. The other secondary when by vertue of grace inherent assisted by grace externall we turn our selves from sin to God Ezek. 18.31 32. Now since there is no inherent grace but it s formally and not only efficiently converting or confirming its impossible initiall grace should be wrought but conversion which is a change of principles must needs be wrought immediatly also and it s as impossible degrees of grace should be superadded but thereby formally confirmation must be wrought Is not the change from death to life greater then from a principle of life to an act of life Now the first infusion of grace is a change from death to life and is solely Gods act wherein the creature is meerly passive 2 Cor. 4.6 as the dark Chaos was to the light Gen. 1.2 3. And this is Gods converting of us or habituall conversion Our converting of our selves which is M. Humphry his sole conversion is nothing but a reflecting of the beam upon the Sonne of righteousnesse and in a manner nothing to the former work of divine conversion this we call actuall conversion as habituall sanctification is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 actuall sanctification 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 His assertion then is false That the Ordinances are remotely means of conversion for if the Ordinances be primarily means of converting grace they must needs be primarily means of conversion since grace infused is primary conversion but grace acting is secondary conversion The same I might say of confirmation also in proportion Secondly It cannot be proved that actuall receiving is either primarily or secondarily a means of converting grace and therefore will certainly prejudice but cannot benefit an unconverted person Thirdly How absurd is the last clause This grace received in the Sacrament works in the unregenerate for their conversion For 1. How is he unregenerate who hath received grace which formally regenerates him 2. How can a man be regenerate and yet at the same instant unconverted yet if Mr. Humphrey his Doctrine be true this will follow since a man is regenerated by the habits of grace infused which not only in order of nature but also in order of time may precede the acts of grace it being not necessary that grace present should act immediately or at all times Now since Mr. H. his conversion is nothing but the acting of grace and the habit of grace infused may in time precede the act and there is no conversion before the act of grace doth it not hence necessarily follow that a man may be regenerated and yet at the same instant of time unconverted that is at the same time in a state of nature as unconverted and yet in a state of grace as regenerated But how absurd and dissonant is this to true Divinity His second grand Argument is drawn from a distinction of conversion which he makes double 1. Outward from Heathenism to the profession of Christianity He will not say the Sacrament is such a converting Ordinance 2. An effectuall conversion from profession to the truth of grace and thus the Sacrament as a visible Word doth convert instrumentally as well as the Word preached the Spirit being the principall cause of conversion in both Ordinances c. And in the close of pag. 60. he appeals to experience for the converting power of the Sacrament This is the substance of that Paragraph Answ It s sooner said then proved that the Sacrament hath converted any 2. Though it should be granted that some parts of it did convert what is M. H. his cause the better unless he prove that actuall receiving doth convert 3. That the Sacrament should convert onely to truth of grace and yet not convert to outward profession is as absurd as that the Word preached should convert only to outward profession and not to truth of grace Let Mr. H. shew me one Scripture 1. Why Heathen may not be present at the Sacrament as well as at the Word preached 2. Why the visible Word may not convert to the form as well as to the power of godliness why it should do the greater and not the lesser We expect not dictates but proof and Argument to convince us of this new Light In the third place he descants though to little purpose about the Sacraments converting not intentionally but occasionally c. To which we briefly answer That whatever other parts of the Sacrament may do yet actuall receiving converts neither occasionally nor intentionally and therefore unconverted persons ought not to receive because this Sacramentall action cannot benefit but prejudice them Rep. Unregenerate men are dead in sin and bread must not be given to dead men c. This Mr. H. makes to he a fancy 2. Opposes that if any bread could recover life that bread might be given to a dead man and such is the bread in the Sacrament c. 3. That if we may give Aqua vitae to dying men then we may give Calix vitae to dead Christians c. Answ 1. It s no wonder if strong fancies metamorphize what they please into a fancy 2. Sacramentall receiving in the Lords Supper notes a vitall act which a dead man cannot put forth and be the bread never so quickning upon Mr. H. his supposition if a dead man cannot receive it it will not quicken him as the best Physick will not cure if a living man will not or cannot receive it Taking and eating in the Sacrament note not a passive but an active receiving and therefore do not beget but presuppose life which life grant it may be wrought by other Sacramentall actions proves only