Selected quad for the lemma: christian_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
christian_n	call_v	church_n	congregation_n	1,735	5	9.2238	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A79028	Two solemne covenants made between God and man: viz. [brace] the covenant of workes, and the covenant of grace. [brace] Clearly laid open, distinguished, and vindicated from many dangerous opinions; the right knowledge of which [sic] will be very profitable to all those that have escaped the first, and are confirmed in the second at the Sacrament. January 15. 1646. Imprimatur. John Downame.	Calamy, Edmund, 1600-1666.	1647 (1647)	Wing C268; Thomason E373_6; ESTC R201327	30,224	34

clear manifestation of Christ might remaine by preaching the Gospell but if he mean that the morall law that was given with blacknesse and darknesse as he saith Heb. 12.18 this I deny for it is a rule of Saints and Angels eternally Psal 109.80.103.20 so much in answer to his differences now let us see what uses he makes of these differences In the use of his first difference he saith if the first covenant was made when Israel returned out of Aegypt then all actuall sin is not against the first covenant as some think for then it should be made with all nations which he denyes from that text Psal 147.19 20. and to be made before it was and to be still in being whereas he saith it is done away I answer the first covenant being that of works was made with the whole race of mankind in Adam and while he stood all stood but when he fell all the world became guilty before God Rom. 3.19 for in Adam all dye ver 15.22 sin and death passed upon all by his sin Rom. 5.12 then the first covenant was made before Israels going out of Aegypt and all mankind are born under it and all actuall sin is against it only when it was given as a rule of life in the hand of a mediator it did more nearly concern them and not to other nations till they have it all in writing as israel had which may answer that text Psal 147.19.20 but then he denyes that all sin is done away by Christ and yet by and by he saith all those sacrifices were not sufficient to do it they must look beyond all those things to Christ and yet in his sixt difference he said the blood of calves and goates was the blood of the covenant then he saith some hold that unbelief is the only sin against the new covenant and he hath nothing to the contrary therefore I passe on to the use of his second difference where he saith if the first covenant was made with Israel after the flesh and the second with Israel after the spirit then to affirme that Infants are holy by their parents believing is to hold forth still a covenant in the flesh which he understands is to deny Christ to be come in the flesh I answer he that denyes the doctrine of Christs Apostles denyes Christ but he denyes the doctrine of Paul who saith if but one of the parents be a beleever the children are holy 1 Cor. 7.14 then in all wise mens judgment James Pope denyes Christ to be come in the flesh to this he saith we are to mind the scope of the place which was to answer a doubt to wit whether a beleeving husband might dwell with an unbelieving wife his answer is they may for else the children were unclean as under the first covenant but see how this man contradicts himself now he saith the Heathens were under the first covenant which lie denyed before from that text Psal 147.19 20. then he seems to grant it a thing out of question that if believers children dwell with their parents then they are holy but if the Anabaptists grant this why will they not baptize those that dwell with their believing parents but the truth is this when the husband was converted to the Christian faith and not the wife or the wife and not the husband and so baptized it seems this was their great question shall my children be baptized the answer is secretly implyed they may for though thy husband or thy wife be an Infidell yet being made one flesh by marriage with a Christian they are sanctified to a holy use so the children being holy by this means they are and ought to be baptized now this is not a reall holinesse but only set a part as the Elements from a common to a holy use to enjoy the ordinances of the visible Church and Ismaels posterity being out of the Church were the seed of the flesh Gal. 4.29 and those in the visible Church may be thus called holy that is taken from a common to a holy use as members of the visible Church although they have not reall holinesse and by vertue of this holinesse their children have a right to the visible ordinances in the publike worship of the Christian Church then he runs into a large degression but I do not list to follow him then he saith to hold a nation as England Scotland Germany c. to be the Church of God in covenant denyes Christ to be come in the flesh and so is Antichristian but I say again to deny Christ to be come in the flesh is Judaisme but not Antichristianisme again if Christ sent out his Apostles to teach and baptize or disciple whole nations then he that opposeth this is Antichrist for he opposeth all that is called God 2 Thes 2.4 but here this man opposeth Christ in his work to disciple and bring in nations to the Christian Church Ergo he is Antichrist the major proposition none will deny and the minor is proved in denying any nation as England and Scotland who have received the Christan faith to be the Church of God but he saith the Jewes being under the old covenant were but one Church and when the Christian Church was set up there were many Churches even in Judea 1 Thes 2.14 I answer the severall Congregations in Israel before Christ be called Congregations but being put together it is called a Congregation for both these Psal 74.2.4 and so in the new testament Churches make a Church Rev. 2.1.7 then if he oppose a nationall Church is rather Antichristian then they which plead for it against factions The use of this 3. difference if the conditions of the first covenant was do this and live then this shewes us the reason why God dealt so sharply with them in outward things when they sinned against him because it was according to the conditions of his covenant with them I answer those that are still under Adams covenant are still liable to all kind of punishments whether Jewes or Christians yet it will not follow that all who are punished in outward things are still under that covenant of works although they may and are still under the Law given at Mount Sinai yet not as a covenant but as a rule of life and for sin against it may be punished in outward things in love to reclaime them from their sinne Then he saith the people of the new covenant live to doe and not doe to live they do not act to be kept in Gods favour that so they may acknowledge to the praise of God that all is of grace election Rom. 11.5 6. and Christ dyed Heb. 2.9 and justified Titus 3.7 to believe Acts 18.27 and hope 2 Thes 2.16 and saved Ephe. 2.8.9 all of grace to the praise of the glory of his grace Ephe. 1.6 all these I grant are of grace but to say we may not act to be kept in Gods favor is not at all