Selected quad for the lemma: ground_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
ground_n	believe_v	church_n	infallible_a	3,076	5	10.3460	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A90658	A reply to a confutation of some grounds for infants baptisme: as also, concerning the form of a church, put forth against mee by one Thomas Lamb. Hereunto is added, a discourse of the verity and validity of infants baptisme, wherein I endeavour to clear it in it self: as also in the ministery administrating it, and the manner of administration, by sprinkling, and not dipping; with sundry other particulars handled herein. / By George Philips of Watertown in New England.	Phillips, George, 1593-1644.	1645 (1645)	Wing P2026; Thomason E287_4; ESTC R200088	141,673	168

they were broken off by unbeliefe which necessarily implyes that either they had not been cut off if they had beleeved and so were not types or else if types they should have been cut off though they had beleeved Two Objections he raises First Were they not under unbeliefe before and he answereth yes no doubt Secondly Why were they not broken off before and why then He answereth because till Christ came they were in the Covenant and a true Church typically by being circumcised and observing the ceremonies of the Law This is his answer I reply to both First They were in unbeliefe before Secondly most of them were broken off many hundred yeares before as the ten Tribes in Hezekiahs dayes And God said Lo-ammi no peaple Hos 1.6.8 And Lo-ruhamah no mercy I will no more have mercy upon them but will utterly take them away But I will have mercy upon the house of Judah these ceased before Christ was come and therefore are not a type and so that no reason of their continuance But thirdly The Scriptures give us a true reason besides the former Rom. 11. why any of them continued till Christ came and were not cut off before First Because a remnant of them were to be saved Isa 1.9 Mat. 24.22 Secondly Because Christ was to come of them according to the flesh and borne under the Law Gal. 4. which he could not have been if the Church estate had been disanulled Thirdly Because they were to be rejected for casting off Christ Zach. 11.10 to 15. Mat. 21.33 to the end and 22.1 At last he comes to his inference from all this discourse and concludeth the Covenant then and now is not the same that was typicall in the fleshly seed and this of spirituall seed and not typicall To this I have replyed enough Secondly The standing of them in that Church and Covenant was by Circumcision and observing the rites of the Law the standing in this Covenant and Church is by faith and Baptisme and so upon different grounds I reply First Circumcision and observing of Rites being not the Covenant but additions to the Covenant and profession of Faith and Baptisme also being not the Covenant but additions the Covenant may be the same though the circumstances differ As the covenant made with Abraham till Moses and after to Moses and the people though to the latter were many additions which were not in the former Secondly their standing then and our standing now is the same in substance though much differing in circumstances viz. faith in Gods covenant this is cleare Rom. 11.20 they were cut off by unbeliefe thou standest by faith if they continue not in unbeliefe they shall be ingraffed again v. 23. We stand by faith and so should they have done if they had beleeved and shall stand again when they shall beleeve They were cut off for unbeleefe and we shall be cut off for unbeleefe if we give way to it their falling and ours from Gods covenant and the Church estate our standing and theirs in the covenant and the Church-estate is not upon different but the same grounds Thirdly if the covenant under Christ be the same with that before Christ then by the same right Abraham and his posterity possessed the Church estate then and circumcision by the same right they might possesse the Church estate and Baptisme now But they could not possesse the Church estate Baptisme now by the same right they possessed it Ergo. I answer they might and that right was and is partly the grace of God offered and partly their acceptance of that grace by faith working by love though I might deny the consequence for that the covenant may be the same and yet in some respect the right to be a member in the one and in the other might not be the same But I have said enough before to cleare my Argument and to make it good notwithstanding any thing in his answer against it In his further proceeding in this Argnment he granteth two things First the covenant of God makes a Church then and now a Church being nothing else but a people in covenant with God and that as the covenant whereby a Church is made differs so the Church differs which is made by that Covenant but the covenant then and the covenant now differs therefore the Church differs for the covenant which made them a Church was Gods taking them being circumcised to participate of all those outward meanes which leads to Christ who was to come That covenant which makes a Church now is Gods admitting men to be baptized making profession of faith in Christ I reply in one word I consent that the Church then and now is made by a covenant Secondly I say that circumcision was not baptisme is not the covenant but signes and seals of the covenant circumcision then baptisme now Thirdly that the covenant then was God would bee their God justifying and sanctifying them through his Sonne whom he would send if they would beleeve in him and the same is the covenant now Fourthly the signe and the seale of it then was circumcision whereby God confirmed hee would circumcise their hearts in his Sonne by cutting away their sinnes in justifying and sanctifying the signe and seale of it now is washing with water c. whereby God confirmes he will wash away their guilt and stain of sinne Fifthly the people then that were of years did restipulate and make profession of faith in Christ before circumcised And let any one shew me any one of Abrahams family or one Proselyte ever after that was admitted into the Church estate without some restipulation which is necessary in the nature of a covenant and subjection to God his righteousnes so circumcised without it In a word then as the covenant differs the Church made by it differs if the covenant differ essentially then the Church differs essentially but if the covenant differ but circumstantially then the Church differs circumstantially and not essentially And so much is cleare as I said unto which also himselfe consenteth in the next passage granting it as that Christ is and ever was the Mediator and meanes of salvation both before and since Christs coming dispensed by the covenant of God Christ being called the Covenant Isai 42.6 In whom also the promises are Yea Amen 2 Cor. 11.18 It is true that he saith that the outward meanes of making Christ known doth depend differently upon his being yet to come and upon his being come the one being more dark and carnall the other more plain and spirituall and therefore the participation of these means doe make the state of the participants to differ but this difference is not in regard of the thing it selfe but in regard of the manner of the thing more darke and more cleare doe not change the thing or make it diverse but onely circumstantially the substance is the same the circumstances differ And thus much all his eight differences

by Christs coming To which I answer though they offered sacrifices before Abrahams dayes and they after Abrahams dayes circumcised yet before Moses time God manifested not his will in a testamentary dispensation nor can we properly say that those were abolished by Christs coming being removed before by Moses at least altered by a new institution nor were the sacrifices of Melchisedec nor his Priesthood abolished which was before Moses as was Aarons but unto Melchisedec our Saviour succeeded so that these exceptions might well have been spared seeing the doctrine contained in the Propositions is sound and wholesome and the contrary unsound and hurtfull yet before I go from this Proposition let mee commend this unto you all that the reason why they would weaken this Proposition is because they would maintain that opinion that the Covenant made with Abraham was a carnall covenant and of the flesh applying all those Scriptures that speake by way of derogation hither when as they are spoken of the old Testament and not of this period from Abraham which was the everlasting Covenant of God continued with Jewes and now to us Gentiles and the same for ever and so my Proposition is not answred nor refuted To the fourth of childrens capacity to receive all grace necessary to union with Christ and justification to life thereby as well as men of yeers hee yeeldeth only denying it to be manifest to us which this or that nor of Believers children more then Infidels I answer I grant it we cannot conclude it of this or that but of all alike yet otherwise of Believers children then of the Infants of Infidels for as Infidell parents are without God in the world so their children are also and we have no ground to think an Infidell man or woman is elected of God adopted c. and so wee can judge no better of their children but as the faith of the parents professed is a sufficient ground to me to think according to the rule that he belongs to God so Gods taking hold of a Believers childe to be his as he doth and we shall shew it afterward is a sufficient ground to me to think a Believers child to be justified and sanctified which though I may be mistaken and my judgement in this case is not infallible yet it is as much as I can have of any man of yeeres of whose state I cannot judge infallibly To the fifth where I say Baptisme is not the first grace but a second being a seal of the righteousnesse of faith as circumcision of old Rom. 4.11 which must be presupposed or else baptisme not to be administred he answereth that it is well to be heeded of all especially those that maintain Infants Baptisme having no ground to conclude that Infants have a first grace Rom. 4.11 will prove no such thing it will only prove circumcision was in the nature of it a seal of the righteousnesse of faith and did seal it to Abrham that had faith but not to them that had no faith nor was it a ground why wee should presuppose faith in all upon whom it was administred or why it was administred To this I reply 1. Baptisme is not the first grace but something precedes it to which Baptisme is added as a seal and if children have not some former grace to which Baptisme doth seal then I cannot see that they are to be baptized This former grace though many other things might be expressed yet having so plain a Scripture I rest in it is this righteousnesse of faith which what ground we have to conclude children have I shall labour to cleer under these distinctions First the righteousnesse of faith is to be considered either as it is dispensed by God in an offer or as it is received by them to whom it is offered Secondly in applying this offer God makes some partakers of it before the seal is put to as in Abraham the men of yeers in his house and Proselytes at least in our judgement some he makes partakers of it at the time of sealing both concurring some after and some never at all 3. That circumcision was not in the nature of it but by institution and Baptisme is the seal of this grace and is to be attended either on Gods part or ours On Gods part signifying and confirming that hee will make good his offer on our part that wee believe this offer and abide in it And to apply all God offered Abraham the righteousnesse of faith he believed God sealed and Abraham both again God continued the dispensation of this offer to Esau and Jacob and so all Infants of the Jewes after was willing to bestow it upon them God sets his seal to confirm he is willing Esau had not the rites before nor was it conferred at that time nor ever after and so it was with most of the Jewes as is cleer in them in the wildernesse who had it not before nor at the time nor ever after for the Gospell was preached unto them but they believed it not and so it profited nothing yet they were circumcised Infants though they had no faith before nor then nor ever after what was then the former grace that this seal was set to nothing in them but the offer of righteousnesse on Gods part which he said and sealed he was willing to bestow on them so I conclude the like in Baptisme The seal now of the righteousnesse of faith and that there is the same former grace in Infants now that was in Infants then namely the continuance of the dispensation of Gods offer of righteousnesse with which their fathers at first closed and were partakers of and which was one speciall ground why those Infants were circumcised and is now a ground of Infants baptizing and though many then were not and many now are not partakers of that grace offered and sealed yet that doth not make it no grace but on Gods part offered and sealed it is the same without alteration that it is to them who receive it and the difference lieth only in the subjects for I suppose no man will deny but God offered unto Ismael the righteousnesse of faith and that he shall be punished for refusing of it and so the rest of the Jewes that sleighted Gods grace so offered nor will any affirm that Simon Magus and others had not the offer of righteousnesse made unto them but they that refused shall surely perish for it as they Acts 13.38 Further it is not right which is said of them that circumcision to them was a sign only and to this end administred to distinguish them and to interest them in those Lawes and Ordinances c. which were means to typifie and lead to Christ that was to come wherein they were to be trained up For though this were one end yet not only nor all for as it was a sign distinguishing so it was a sign of justification and that God would thereby circumcise their hearts yea it

one Gal. 1.6 and was preached to Abraham Gal. 3.8 Rom. 4.11 and to the Jewes in the wildernesse Heb. 3. 4. and in Davids time Heb. 4.7 from Psal 95. and during their whole state Rom. 9.31 10.2 This Gospel is now preached to us Heb. 4.2 Therefore the covenant is the same in all and it is an injurious thing to Gods grace and utterly against the Scriptures to affirm that that covenant was of nature in the flesh and of earthly things This is of grace in the spirit and of heavenly things And as little understanding doe they shew in Gods word that say Gods covenant was in their flesh because circumcision outward was in their flesh For though God calls it his covenant yet it is not but the signe of it as he after expresseth and outward baptisme is no lesse on the flesh then it and so may be called Gods covenant on the flesh Secondly if Abraham be the Father of the Jewes and Gentiles equally as he beleeves the righteousnesse of faith and they his children equally as so beleeving and no otherwise then the covenant is the same But Abraham is the father of Jewes and Gentiles equally as he beleeves and they his children equally as so beleeving Rom. 4.11 12 16 17 23 24. Gal. 3.7 9 26.29 Therefore the covenant is the same By beleeving I mean the profession of Faith Thirdly the standing of the Jewes under the grace of God was the same with Abraham as is cleare from Gods often expressing himselfe to be the God of their Fathers Abraham c. and dispensing himselfe according to the covenant made with Abraham c and to his posterity Exod. 2.24 2 Reg. 13.23 And their praying to the Lord to remember his covenant made with Abraham c. acknowledging the accomplishment of it to them Luke 2.54 and 72.74 And let not any say it was a covenant of giving the Land of Canaan For if that were all why did David so long after Joshuah possesse them of Canaan when they had rest there yet still provoke them in his time to enter into Gods rest lest they should be shut out as their Fathers were in the wildernesse as the Apostle argueth Heb. 3.4 was this the land of Canaan unlesse as a type was it not Christ and Gods free grace Now our standing is the same with the Jewes as is evident Matth. 21.4 chap. 22.1 2. That the Infants of the Jewes were then in the covenant will not be denied That Infants are now in the covenant whose parents professe the faith I prove thus 1. Else the covenant was not the same with the former but another But it is the same with the former and not another diverse from that as I have proved Ergo c. Else the state of the grace of God should bee straitned and made of lesse extent by Christs comming then it was before whereas it is more enlarged and of greater extent 3. If Infants be not now in the covenant as well as then either it is because God hath excluded them expresly or there was something more in the persons of beleevers then then now to interest Infants in it But God hath no where expresly excluded them nor was there any thing in the persons then more then now to interest them Therefore Infants are now in the covenant as then 4. If Jewes and Gentiles bee incorporated into one body in Christ and the Jewes Infants were in the body before and so continued then so must the infants of Christian Gentiles be now But the Gentiles and Jewes be incorporate into one body in Christ by the Gentiles being made neere and Citizens which they were not before as the Jewes were but strangers and farre off Ephes 2.11 13 20. 3.6 and the Jewes Infants were and continued in that body therefore so are the Infants of beleeving Gentiles 3. Infants should now be baptized as then they were circumcised To cleare it further I adde these considerations 1. Else the covenant was not the same then and now nor Infants in it now as then which I have proved to be otherwise 2. If they have the thing and substance they cannot be denyed the signe and circumstance if the first grace then the second and confirming But Infants have the thing and substance for they have the same covenant and the Kingdome of heaven which was taken from the Jewes of which Infants were subjects as well as elder men is now given to the Gentiles Therefore as Peter Acts 10. so say I Who can forbid water that Infants should not be baptized as well as men of years seeing they are subjects of the Kingdome as well as they 3. Else there should be no difference between the Infants of Gentiles beleeving Pagans and Infidels as there was before between the Jews Infants and the Gentiles which as it is uncomfortable without just ground to say so so it is contrary to the word of God which affirmeth that the Infants of beleeving Gentiles are holy and not as the Infants of Infidels which are profane This is manifest 1 Cor. 7.14 where the Apostle resolving this scruple Whether a beleever might continue to cohabite and enjoy marriage-fellowship with an Infidell yoke-fellow and not be polluted and he affirming it cleareth his affirmation by three Arguments 1. First from the priviledge of the state of grace to a beleever himselfe that being by faith pure himselfe all things are pure to him and so the society of marriage with an Infidell And this to be so hee cleareth viz. That an Infidell is sanctified to a beleeving yoke-mate 2. From a priviledge of the state of grace to their children that they themselves being pure by faith their children are thereby born pure of them and holy in that estate which could not be if the society of marriage was polluted This is the true meaning of the words yet what holinesse is here meant hath troubled men who have travelled with variety in expounding or torturing these few words Some will have them understood politically and that two wayes 1. In respect of the present children born of them which could not be legitimate if their marriage was not lawfull 2. In respect of those children they might have by others if they should forsake this marriage and betake them to another those children would be bastards Some ceremonially of uncleannesse of children begotten in time of the womans disease and are holy when the Infidell partie forbears that time which is absurd and groundlesse Some take it religiously But here they differ some will have it to mean future holinesse which the Parent by cohabitation may make the child partaker of either obtaining it may bee baptized or by counsell when they come to age But if they forsake the Infidell party then the children will remain in infidelity still Others take it for present holinesse yet not in one sense for some conceive thus That the beleever abiding and gaining the Infidell party the children