Selected quad for the lemma: law_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
law_n	world_n	worship_n	write_v	123	3	4.9894	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A80622	The grounds and ends of the baptisme of the children of the faithfull. Opened in a familiar discourse by way of a dialogue, or brotherly conference. / By the learned and faithfull minister of Christ, John Cotton, teacher of the Church of Boston in New-England.	Cotton, John, 1584-1652.; Goodwin, Thomas, 1600-1680.	1646 (1646)	Wing C6436; Thomason E356_16; ESTC R201141	171,314	214

of them For when hee saith the unbeleeving yoak-fellow is sanctified hee doth not leave it so without a limitation or restriction but saith hee or shee is sanctified in the beleever or to the beleever and that limiteth the sense to the beleevers use But when hee speaketh of children hee doth not speake with such limitation they are holy to the beleever but positively they are holy Now the difference is manifest and great betwene these two to bee sanctified to a beleever and to bee holy for example It may truely bee said all afflictions and Persecution it selfe are sanctified to a beleever but it cannot therefore bee said that affliction yea persecution is holy yea wee may bee bold to say that even the falls of Gods children are sanctified unto them I meane their falls into sinne yet wee may not say that their falls into sinne are holy No scripture language alloweth any thing to bee called holy but that which is holy either by imputation from Christ or regeneration from the Spirit or separation unto God from uncleannesse to his holy worship Search the Scripture you will not finde it otherwise neither is it otherwise in this place For else the Apostle might as well have said thus The children by the unbeleeving wife are sanctified in the beleeving husband and the children by the unbeleeving husband are sanctified in the beleeving wife else were your unbeleeving yoak-fellows uncleane but now they are holy But do you thinke the holy Spirit of God would ever call infidells Idolaters holy But suppose as some of your books would have it that the Apostle did acknowledge unbeleeving yoak-fellowes to bee holy is there not then a two-fold holinesse mentioned in the Text the one not in the thing it self but to anothers use the other of the thing in it selfe Is it not then sinne to confound these two for all one which God hath distinguished I deny not but this is true in a part Silvester that there is twofold holinesse here spoken of For the holinesse of the children is not onely such a relative holinesse as to one anothers use as the unbeleever to the beleevers use and no more but the holinesse of children resteth in themselves as the subjects thereof by nature being begotten and borne in that lawfull honorable way of marriage by Gods appointment and so holy cleane in opposition to such as are begotten and brought forth in a way of uncleannesse as adultery fornication and the like This kinde of holinesse which you speake of Silvanus resting in the children by being begotten and borne in that lawfull and honourable way of marriage hath beene refuted above The Scripture acknowledgeth no such holinesse as proceedeth from lawfull and honourable marriage If there were such an holnesse the children of married infidels were holy as well as the children of Christians But the Apostle here speaketh of such an holinesse as would not bee found in children unlesse one of the Parents at least were a beleever to speake of holinesse since the fall in children whereof they are subjects by nature is strange language in Christian eares you might as well speak of prophanenes of grace as of holinesse by nature The holy Ghost is the proper subject of holinesse and the proper cause of all holinesse in the creature so that nothing ought to bee called holy but what hee either maketh or calleth holy But it will never bee found that the holy Ghost ever imparted either the nature or name of holinesse to any because they were begotten in lawfull marriage and not in whoredome Besides if this were the meaning of the Apostle to prove that beleevers might lawfully keepe their unbeleeving yoak-fellowes because the children which they had by them were begotten in lawfull marriage the Apostle had not thereby cleared nor removed the scruple of the Corinthians but rather aggravated it For they might as justly doubt of their lawfull cohabitation with their children as with their infidell wives The same grounds which puts them to scruple the one did as justly move them to scruple the other so that to expound the Apostle this way doth not cleare the scruple but rather double is It seemeth to mee otherwise to expound the Apostle this way Silvester is the onely way for the clearing of the scruple of the Corinthians which befell them by reason of an Epistle which the Apostle wrote to them before in 1 Cor. 5.9 where he so pressed them from having any Communion or fellowship with any uncleane person in the worship of God that they understood him to condemne also civill commerce with the world upon which they questioned the lawfull retaining of their unbeleeving husbands and wives and to have communion with them in Society And so much the more as having an example of the like nature in the law Ezsa 10.7 About which thing that neare relation of husband and wife in their civil commerce they wrote to the Apostle for information 1 Cor. 7.1 And questioned not their children Whereby it appeareth they held it lawfull to retaine their children To which the Apostle answereth from a double ground thus 1. In that all things are said to be sanctified to such as beleeve as Tit. 1.15 and so the unbeleeving wife to the beleeving husband you may lawfully therefore live together in that comfortable estate and society of marriage which God hath ordained for man and wife to abide in 2. If you judge your selves to live in such a way of uncleannesse upon which you must now part then your children so begotten are uncleane and to be put away also But in that you hold it lawfull to retaine your children and not to put them away though you beleeve and they doe not then much more the unbeleeving parents as aforesaid who bare them For if the effect bee holy then must the cause also be holy which produceth the same which is Gods holy Ordinance of marriage and not the holy Covenant of grace Silvanus Whether the scruple of the Corinthians about cohabitation with their unbeleeving yoak-fellowes did arise from the Apostles former letter or not it is not plainly expressed in the Text But of the two it may be gathered from the Text rather not then yes For if their scruple had risen from the Apostles former advice not to keepe company with Fornicators whether bodily or spirituall hee had fully answered that scruple before in the fifth Chapter For there hee expoundeth himselfe not to speake of the fornicators of the world but of the Church v. 10.11 and for the fornicators of the Church hee doth forbid Communion with them not onely in the worship of God as you would have him understood but even in familiar civill converse With such a one as is a brother and a fornicator or the like I have written to you no not to eat with him v. 11. where not to eat is not meant not to eat the Lords Supper for that is the highest

doth not regard nor esteeme the outward washing of the flesh 1 Pet. 3.21 So neither was the circumcision of the flesh without circumcision of the heart of any account before God either before Christ or since It was not only so adjudged in Pauls time in the New Testament that Circumcision of the flesh was nothing without Circumcision of the heart but also in Ieremies time in the Old Testament For Ieremy threatneth ●hat God will punish the circumcised with the uncircumcised Egypt Edom Ammon and Moab with Iudah for all these Nations are uncircumcised al the house of Israel are uncircumcised in heart Ier. 9.25 26. It hath been said of old shall a man make Gods to himself and they are no Gods So may it be said in some proportion shall a man make differences to himself to turn him off from the way of God and they are no differences To the third there is as little difference in that as in the former for as the seale of that Covenant confirmed faith in things to come but the seale of this confirmes faith in things already done so the seale of that Covenant confirmed the faith of Abraham in the righteousnesse of faith which he had already received and the faith of those that were in Canaan of the possession of it And our Baptisme sealeth up to us mortification of sin deliverance out of affliction resurrection of the body whereof some are yet to come in part some wholly The like may bee said of the other Ordinances of the Covenant But what is it to the purpose what if sundry ordinances of the Covenant as it was dispensed in the old Testament confirmed faith in things to come and what if the Ordinances of the New Testament confirmed faith in things past yet what is this to argue that children of believing Parents are excluded from the Covenant of grace in the new testament though not in the Old To the fourth when you say that Covenant was Nationall and admitted all of the Nation to the seales thereof But this personall and admitteth of none but such as believe This difference is founded in an untruth for it is untrue that the Covenant given to Abraham was Nationall it was rather domesticall at first and did not comprehend the whole Nation of any of Abrahams seed till Iacobs time And Iacob speaketh of his blessing which was a proper adjunct and peculiar priviledge of the Covenant that it did exceed the blessing and so the Covenant of his progenitors Gen. 49.26 For whereas in Abrahams house though Isaac was received to the blessing of continuance in the Covenant yet Ismael and the seed of Keturah were excluded and in Isaac's house though Iacob inherited the blessing yet Esau was excluded yet in Iacobs family all his sonnes were received to the blessing of continuance under the outward dispensation of the Covenant and not themselves onely but all their posterity the whole twelve Tribes which proceeded from them Now it is not said in Scripture that the blessing of Jacob is come upon the Gentiles for then none of our posterity might cut themselves off from the outwa●d dispensation of the Covenant and then our Covenant would be Nationall and admit all of the Nation to the seales thereof but the Scripture saith that the blessing of Abraham and so the Covenant of Abraham is come upon the Gentiles Gal. 3.14 that is upon the believing Gentiles and their seed whereby it commeth to passe that believing Gentiles and their Infant-seed are admitted to the Covenant and to the seale of the Covenant as Abraham and his Infant seed were But if when they bee growne up to yeares they shall grow to mocke and sleight the Covenant as Ismael and Esau did then they and their seed are cast out of the Covenant and that keepeth the Covenant from being national And so it was in Abrahams time so it is now When you say this Covenant with us is personall and admitteth onely of such as believe It hath been refuted above and this truth cleared that upon the faith of the Parents the grace of the Covenant is promised also unto their seed And if the Covenant did admit onely of such as believe then the faith whereby we believe were not given to any by Covenant Whereas it hath been shown above that faith and the saving knowledge of God by faith and the writing of the Law of faith as well as of love in our hearts is given by Covenant Jer. 31.33.34 Your fifth difference is like the rest devised in your own imagination not founded in Scripture That Covenant say you begot children after the flesh but this onely begets children after the Spirit and onely approveth of such as are begotten and born from above c. Answ Doe you any where read in Scripture that the Covenant of Abraham approved of any then more then now but such as are begotten from above Did not Abraham and Israel of old renounce the owning and acknowledgement of such children of theirs as were degenerate from their faith and obedience Esay 63.16 When you say that that Covenant begot children after the flesh doe you not meane that men under that Covenant begot children after the flesh And if that be your meaning doe you thinke it is not so now that men under the Covenant of grace now in the dayes of the New Testament as well as in the Old doe beget children after the flesh It is true those believing Parents who doe beget children by believing the Promise and Covenant of grace to them and to their children they doe bring forth and bring up spirituall children or as you call it children after the Spirit But so did Abraham and other faithfull parents in the Old Testament as well as now The places which you quote out of Ier. 31. Ezek 36. Heb. 8. Ioh. 3.5 6. doe neither prove your assertion nor disprove ours but rather approve it For in Ier. 31. the Law of faith and saving knowledge is written in our hearts by the Covenant so it is now in the New Testament and so it was in the Old In Ezek. 36. God takes away the heart of stone and gives an heart of flesh and a new spirit so hee doth now to his chosen and so he did then Numb 14.24 The place in the Heb. 8. is the same with that in Ieremy 31. That in Iohn 3.5 6. argueth that none born of flesh can enter into the kingdome of heaven but are carnall and fleshly But thus it was in the Old Testament as well as in the New there is no difference in this point Your sixth difference is that that Covenant with Abraham and his posterity before Christ comprehended a civill state and a worldly government with the like carnall subjects for the service of the same But this Covenant now under Christ comprehendeth onely a spirituall state and an heavenly government with the like spirituall subjects of this also Answ 1. The Civill State and worldly

Christ himself speaketh of branches in him the true vine the fat olive tree which yet bare no fruit in him and so are cut off from him cast out and wither John 15.2 6. And such branches though they were in Christ by the fellowship of the Church and by the Spirit conveying from Christ common graces to them yet they were never elect in him to everlasting life nor united to him by a lively faith For if they had been so in him they had never been cut off from him It is true the Covenant of grace was not to all the seed of Abraham without exception that is to such of the seed as rejected the Covenant or the faith of it as Ismael and Esau did in riper years But the Covenant was to all the infant seed of Abraham without exception and to all the infants of his believing seed And the seale of the Covenant was in like sort dispensed to them all without exception to Ismael as well as to Isaac to Esau as well as to Jacob. Yet neverthelesse it will not therefore follow that some of the seed of Abraham were comprehended in the Covenant and admitted to the seale thereof in one sense whom God excepted against in another sense For hee excepted not against the infant seed of Abraham or his family in any sense but onely against the seed apostate in elder yeares In respect of which Apostacy which God fore-knoweth all the non-elect seed of Abraham will fall into though God receive all the infant-seed of Abrahams family that is of the Church into the fellowship of the Covenant and of the seale thereof yet he giveth a peculiar blessing to the elect seed even the sure mercies of his Covenant Esa 55.2 And though you say that between these two seeds God ever held forth a distinction in all generations from Adam to Christ yet that distinction was onely this the seed of all the flesh and the seed of the promise Rom. 9.8 But he excluded neither of them in their infancy from the Covenant or from the seale of it Indeed the children of the promise being the elect of God God hath not onely given his Covenant to them and the seale thereof but hath also established it unto them for ever But the seed of the flesh though the Lord gave his Covenant even unto them also and the seal therof yet he hath not established it unto them for ever whence afterward it commeth to passe that they reject the Covenant and the faith of it But when you further say that Christ hath put an end to the type and to the flesh and to all priviledges thereunto belonging so that now all is laid up in Christ onely for such as believe and for that end quote 2 Cor. 5.16 Phil. 3.3 4 5. It is readily granted you that Christ hath put an end to all types and to fleshly Ordinances and to the purifying of the flesh by the Ceremonies of the Law Heb. 7.16 9.13 But that Christ hath put an end to all priviledges either of the Covenant or of the seale of the Covenant to the seed of believers there is no word in the New Testament that teacheth us any such doctrine the places alledged opened above by me prove the contrary and those alledged by you will not make good what you say for the place in 2 Cor. 5.16 that a man regenerate knoweth no man after the flesh argueth onely thus much that a man in Christ resteth in no outward priviledges no not in seeing and knowing Christ in the flesh nor in eating and drinking in his presence nor in hearing him preach in their streets but in the spirituall and lively fellowship of his death and resurrection which maketh him whosoever knoweth Christ a new Creature And so say we too and so it was with the faithfull in the Old Testament as well as in the New It was not the outward participation of the Covenant nor of the seale of it that a sincere Israelite could rest in but in the grace of the Covenant and Circumcision of the heart in the Spirit not in the Letter But this doth not at all argue that the children of the faithfull who are yet in the flesh are not partakers of the Covenant of grace nor of the seale of it now in the New Testament as well as they were in the Old But only argueth that though before regeneration men are apt to rest and boast in the outward Letter of priviledges and Ordinances yet after regeneration they doe not acknowledge such things as their comfort and confidence John Baptist endeavoured to beat off the Jews from resting in such outward priviledges Matth. 3.9 And so did the Prophets before Christ Jerem. 9.25 26. as well as Paul after him both in this place of the Corinthians and that other which you quote out of Phil. 3.3 4 5. When you say that now all is laid up in Christ onely for such as believe If you meane all spirituall blessings of life and salvation you say true but nothing to the question For so it was in the Old Testament as well as now But as it was then the seed of believers partaked of the outward dispensation of the Covenant and of the seale of it so is it still unlesse you could shew us some Scripture whereby they are more excluded now then in the old Testament Silvester Now first in Christ by faith and then to the Covenant and priviledges thereof Gal. 3.29 None by the Gospel are approved to be the seed of Abraham but onely such as walke in the steps of his faith For as none invisibly before God are by him approved at all to have right to any priviledges of grace but onely as he looketh upon them in his Son no more are there any before man visibly to be approved of so as to have right to the same but as they appeare to be in Christ by some effect of faith declaring the same And so much the more in that God excludeth all from his holy Covenant so as to have right in the outward dispensation thereof but onely such as believe Rom. 11.20 Heb. 3.18 4.1 2 3. 11.5 6. Rom. 9.7 8. Gal. 3.22 26 29. Silvanus Surely in the old Testament the children of believers had first Christ by Covenant and then faith also to receive him For in the Covenant with Abraham when God gave himselfe to be a God to him and his seed the Father gave himselfe to bee their Father the Son to be their Redeemer the holy Ghost to bee their Sanctifier when yet the children were unborn without life and therefore without faith And surely in the New Testament God hath not changed this order of his blessings For in rehearsing the Covenant which continueth in the New Testament he giveth the writing of the law in their hearts by Covenant Heb. 8.10 Amongst which laws surely the law of faith is one and indeed the chiefe of all other laws And therefore

it is not as you say first faith and then to the Covenant but first the Covenant and then faith written and wrought in their hearts by his Spirit to fulfill his Covenant The place which you quote in Gal. 3.29 doth not prove that none are the seed of Abraham save those that be in Christ by faith But that those who be in Christ by faith they are that seed of Abraham who partake in the sure mercies of the Covenant who are therefore called heires according to promise The faithfull seed of Abraham they onely partake in the sure mercies of the Covenant so it is now in the New Testament and so it was and no otherwise in the Old But that doth not at all hinder but that all the seed of Abraham though yet destitute of faith in their own persons have right to the outward dispensation of the Covenant and to the seale of it When you say none are approved by the Gospel to be the seed of Abraham but onely such as walke in the steps of his faith the place whereto you alude is in Rom. 4.12 which only holdeth forth that such as walke in the steps of the faith of Abraham they are the seed of Abraham who are justified in the sight of God for Abraham himselfe was so justified And thus it is in the new Testament and thus also it was in the Old And yet Abraham then had and so have the faithfull now other seed who are partakers of the covenant and of the seale of the covenant and yet are not justified for want of faith You say none invisibly before God are by him approved at all to have right to any priviledge of grace but onely as he looketh upon them in his Son no more are there any before men visibly to be approved of so as to have right to the same This saying that none have right to any priviledge of grace before God but as he looketh upon them in his Son it is true rightly understood but nothing availing to your purpose If you mean by grace saving grace it is true none have right to any priviledge of saving grace but as God looketh at them in his Son either by faith or by election unto faith If you meane by grace the outward dispensation of the covenant of grace and of the seal thereof it is true none have right to any priviledge of the covenant or of the seale of it but as they are in Christ either by faith or by election unto faith or by their fellowship with the church whereof Christ is the head In which respect all the members of the church and their seed are in Christ as branches in the vine or olive and may be cut off from him for want of faith to make them fruitfull in him But what avayleth this to your purpose Thus it is in the new Testament and thus it was in the Old But when you say none have right to the same but as they appeare to be in Christ by some effect of faith declaring the same This you cannot make good from Scripture light For though you say that God excludeth all from his holy covenant so as to have right in the outward dispensation thereof but onely such as believe And to prove that you alledge many Scriptures yet none of them beare witnesse to any such matter All the Scriptures which you alledge will easily prove one of these two things both which we willingly grant First that some branches in Christ were broken off from Christ though not through want of faith but yet through infidelity rejecting the faith of Christ either in themselves or in their parents Secondly that through faith wee receive the spirituall saving blessings of the covenant and through want of faith fall short of them both which are everlasting truths as well before Christ as since To runne over all your places briefly that you may see how your Leaders mis-leade both themselves and you In Rom. 11.20 it is said the Jewes were broken off through unbeliefe So the word is translated but the true sense of it is through infidelity and so the same word is translated 2 Cor. 6.15 What part hath a believer with an infidell The meaning of that place in the Romans is the Jews were broken off from Christ and from their church-estate and Covenant in him by their professed infidelity their open rejection of Christ and his righteousnesse and that not out of ignorance but out of wilfull obstinacy against the light of the gospel revealed to them For the Apostles still kept communion with them as with a church a people in covenant with God notwithstanding their want of faith in Christ yea notwithstanding their crucifying of Christ untill they wilfully obstinately rejected and persecuted the Gospel of grace and the righteousnesse of it Acts 13.45 46. And persisting therein then indeed they were broken off but yet this argueth that they were in Christ before or else how could they now be broken off Your next place is quoted out of Heb. 3.18 where the Israelites are said to fall short of their entrance into Canaan because of their unbeliefe the word is as before because of their infidelity For it is not likely that all the Israelites who wanted saving faith were kept out of Canaan Acban who troubled Israel doth not appeare to be a true believer But the body of them who were kept out of Canaan had carryed themselves like infidels they thought scorne of the land of promise and preferred Pagan Egypt before it And therefore for rejecting the promise and the faith of it were justly rejected from entring into Canaan But what maketh this to the purpose in hand how doth this prove that in the Gospel God excludeth all from his holy Covenant and from right in the outward dispensation of it save onely such as believe For all these were in the Covenant and had been circumcised in Egypt and so had the priviledge of the outward dispensation therof though they believed not Besides this concerned the times of the Old Testament of which your selfe and your leaders confesse that the outward dispensation of the Covenant and of the s●ales of it pertained not onely to the spirituall b●lieving seed but to the carnall also Your next place in Heb. 4.1 2 3. proveth only that such as do not mixe the word with faith will fall short of entring into Gods rest So it was in the Old Testament as well as in the New And the Apostle himselfe doth so expresse it The Word saith he which was preached to them to wit the Israelites in the old Testament did not profit them because it was not mixed with faith in them that heard it From whence he also argueth that neither will the Word preached to us now profit us if it be not mixed with faith But what maketh this to prove that God excludeth all from the outward dispensation of his holy Covenant but onely such as believe Is it all