Selected quad for the lemma: saint_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
saint_n	call_v	church_n	corinth_n	2,165	5	11.4080	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

following which he sets forth to be between those two states agree to also they being not substantiall but accidentall differences yet so as they are not to be distinctly limited to one time in respect of the substance and things themselves and the effects thereof for all that he saith belongs to the new Testament were communicated unto many of them under the Old as Moses Aaron and all the elect of God and none of them are made good to many in the New But on the contrary all that is spoken by him of the Old may bee verified of men in the New as experience witnesseth the Scriptures affirm Gal. 4.29 The fault why all did not enjoy all these priviledges in the new Testament dispensed under shadowes in the Old being in themselves 2 Cor. 3.13.14 Heb. 3.7.8.22.4.2 8.8 and many now deprive themselves of these priviledges Heb. 4.1 and attaine to no more then they in the Old to establish their owne righteousnesse onely Rom. 10.3 And therefore as none are to be admitted to the priviledges of the new Testament or Gospel now but such as are sutable though many prove otherwise So none ought to have been admitted nor were in the Old Testament the same Gospel preached unto them and the new Testament shadowed under the old to enjoy the priviledges of the Old shadowing the priviledges of the New but such as were sutable even such as are required in the New though few of them proved such with this difference they were to beleeve in Christ to come to whom the Law and shadowes directed them we are to beleeve in Christ already come to whom the Ordinances doe direct us And therefore what he further repeateth having said the same all before that whosoever circumcised themselves and their Males and observed the Rites of the Law they and their children though Proselytes were the seed fleshly seed too for so he saith all this time and in that covenant and of that Church But now onely such as beleeve in Christ and be thereby regenerated are the seed and in this covenant and of the Church might well have been spared and have been answered before yet seeing hee addeth six other reasons to prove this latter clearly proving as he saith I shall bee willing to follow him And he saith First beleevers regenerate onely are in this Covenant and of this Church because none of the naturall seed of Abraham are in this Covenant by vertue of naturall relation though they remained in the Jewish Churches till Christs death But their being in the Churches by naturall relation then ceased as the Church ceased I reply First I have shewed that their standing in that Covenant and Church was not by fleshly relation but by spirituall who were counted for the seed Rom. 9.8 2dly Those few that were added to the Gospel Church were not cut off as the rest but remained naturall branches still in their owne Olive tree and what naturall relation they had they put not off and when the rest be added the Apostle saith the naturall branches shall bee ingraffed into their own stock For if the root be holy the branches will be so too Rom. 11.16 17.24 3dly The Scriptures by him quoted prove not the thing he alledgeth them for Acts 10.28 Rom. 9.8 Gal. 3.7 9 28 29. 4.28 His second Reason The Gentiles have no naturall relation to become his seed by and therefore their infants cannot become the seed of Abraham by being the seed of a beleever but must beleeve themselves otherwise they cannot be partakers in the Covenant made with Abraham Reply First there needs no such relation naturall nor were the Jewes as naturall seed onely without faith counted for the seed Rom. 9.8 Secondly the Gentiles Proselytes need not that naturall relation before to be in the covenant then but were ingraffed into the body by faith and therby their Infants Thirdly all now are not children of promise but many alwayes are deceivers and deceived as many then but not all only this may be noted that he yeeldeth that Believers now are partakers of the covenant of Abraham and therefore that then and now is the same And yet in the next and his third Reason hee denies the covenant under Christ to be the same with that which was made with Abraham because the three thousand converts Acts 2. when they were baptized did not baptize their Infants this he saith is plain Acts 2.41 and 8.12 where it is they that gladly received the Word were baptized they and they only which the Infants could not do Reply In the old Testament they that submitted themselves to the Jewish covenant and would take their God to be theirs were circumcised but Infants could not do that yet they were circumcised Secondly it is not said they were baptized and then it is not a perfect relation Reply It followeth not for all is not written that was done they might be baptized though it is not said they were For were not Christs Apostles baptized yet it is not written where when or who baptized them it is no argument to say it was not done because it is not set down but take it for granted their Infants were not baptized then which yet I will not grant for some considerations I shall afterward set down in another place doth this difference make that the covenant with Abraham and now is not the same It is not the same in this respect as all can be concluded which is but a circumstantiall difference The fourth Reason followeth if Paul and others writing to the visible Churches calls them Saints faithfull Brethren the Sons of God by adoption Rom. 16 c. and the Prophets notwithstanding they were led by the same Spirit were wont to speake otherwise of the visible Church of the Jewes as Isa 1.16 Jer. 1.2 Ezek. 3.4.4.12 Chap. 16.48.51 then naturall Infants were not in the covenant and of the Churches which the Apostles wrote unto as they were in that covenant and of that Church the Prophets spake to But Paul calls them Saints and the Prophets the other sinners yea grievous sinners and bids them wash themselves c. therefore naturall Infants were not in the Churches which the Apostle wrote unto as they were in the Jewes Reply I deny the consequence in the Reason as no way following and the proofe of it as invalid For as the Apostles do call the Churches Saints c. and the Prophets the Jewes sinners in the places alledged yet in other places the Scriptures call those sinners Saints Believers Brethren adopted c. as in many places may be made evident one or two may be enough Exod. 19.6 A kingdome of Priests a holy nation Deut. 33.2 3. Psal 22.22 and 122.8 Rom. 9.3 4. c. And the Apostle 2 Thes 2. calls them sinners carnall bids them repent c. to whom they wrote unto as Saints as Galat. Corinth where were many grosse things and sinfully amisse and most of the

others unto them Now a Church I conceive to be an institution of it whereby a company of men and women called by the word of Gods grace and some work of Gods Spirit upon them doe joyn themselves unto the Lord and one to another by entring into covenant with the Lord to have him to be the God of them theirs and they and theirs to be the Lords and his Christs as also one with another to meet together to worship God for his glory their mutuall edification to life according to Gods revealed will Now as I tie no man to my expressions so I shall be willing to learn of any that shall help me to a better understanding in this point yet in this description all the causes concurre The efficient an institution of Christ with the instrumentall the Word in some effects upon their hearts the materiall a company of men and women so called and from thence Saints and beleevers the formall joyning themselves to the Lord and one with another by entring into covenant whereof there are two branches one called Zach. 11. The staffe of beauty taking the Lord to be the God of them and theirs and giving up themselves and theirs to be the Lords the other called The staffe of bonds or brotherhood and both the covenant the finall to meet together to glorifie God the supreme and edifie one another to life with the meanes worshipping God according to his own appointment revealed in his word onely I would be understood of a Church in the constituting of it which is continued in the same state by succession till the Lord the efficient dischurch them But to proceed this confuter next saith That I make this quaere Whether baptisme be not the form of a church and answering No giving reasons of my deniall I affirm a covenant acted is the form of it To all which he answereth first in generall And here he distinguisheth between the form and the thing formed and saith That a Church being an Assembly the form or fashion thereof is the relation that every member possesseth from Christ their head and each with other wherby every law and service is communicable and executed concluding that neither a covenant or baptisme is the form of a Church but baptisme of a beleever is an instrumentall meanes by which a Church is made partaker of that forme which it hath as by which it becomes a Church Further that the instrumentall meanes of the being of a Church both of matter and form is by consent of love issuing forth from the covenant of grace made in and from our Lord through one Spirit one Faith one Baptisme Ephes 4.4 5. And if any of these be wanting and be not supplied the Church can have no visible existence and being From whence it followeth though baptisme bee not the form of a Church yet being an essentiall meanes and the last too of the visible Church where true baptisme is wanting there can be no true visible Church Reply First to let passe his distinction onely this I say that he confoundeth forme and figure as one thing which are divers For water in a round glasse or square hath this or that figure or fashion but it is not the forme whereby water is water and not another thing and therefore form differs from figure and fashion Secondly whereas he denieth a covenant or baptisme either to be a Churches form he contradicteth what he said before in his answer to my first argument to prove the covenant before Christ and after to be the same It is true said he that the coventnt of God maketh the Church both in the time of the Law and Gospel too and a Church is nothing but a people in covenant with God That saying of his here and there cannot be both true Thirdly he saith that the form of the Church is that relation that each member possesseth from Christ the head and each with other which is by consent of love Reply First the relation that each member possesseth from Christ the head and each the other is either internall as Spirit Faith Love or externall the manifestation of these as they are internall they cannot be the form of an externall visible church as they are manifested outwardly they cannot make the churches form because they may manifest these graces and yet be no church nor members of a visible and this particular church And indeed they are neither matter nor form though hee makes them both but the manifestation of these maketh them to be fit matter for a church which yet cannot be a church without the form added to the matter and that is a covenant or as he calleth it a consent which indeed is a covenant by which alone every Law and Service is communicable and excecuted Last of all he saith that consent of love from one Spirit Faith and Baptisme are essentially necessary meanes of the being of a church for matter and forme Ephes 4.4 5. And if any of these bee wanting then there can be no visible church Reply First in making all these to concurre to the matter and form of the church as meanes thereof hee necessarily yeeldeth the form and matter to be something else differing from them all Secondly he confounds baptisme with faith and love which are internall graces unlesse he means the externall profession of them flowing from the covenant of grace which if he doe then I conceive he yeelds as much as I require that in a covenant or mutuall engagement of all parties and one main part by profession of faith and love through one spirit without which a covenant cannot be in the state we speak of it Thirdly that of Ephes 4. intends not to describe the forme of a church but perswades to unity by a sevenfold unity that they are already church-members were all partakers of Lastly if baptisme may be wanting for a time and yet a beleever essentially a church-member as Abraham and his many males and females were before circumcised for the space of at least 14. yeares between the covenant and circumcision and therefore doth not concurre to the constitution of a churches matter and form but for the confirmation of a church constituted in matter and forme before And when a man of yeares is baptized in a church is the baptized a visible Saint or no If yea for he may be no reall Saint then his baptisme doth not give him matter and forme but hee hath both before or else hee ought not to be baptized And thus much to his generall discourse In particular he goeth on and saith First as it is in natural birth so it is in spirituall but in naturall birth we have the beginning of our natural being among the world and in the affairs of this life by our birth from our parents therefore wee have the beginning of our spirituall and visible being among the church as in the affaires of life eternall by our spirituall birth and this spirituall

Epistles to the seven Churches Rev. 2. 3. Therefore there is no difference in those Churches the Apostles wrote to and that the Prophets spake to and naturall Infants may be in the covenant and of the Churches now as they were before Christ notwithstanding The fifth argument is the same with the first and second and therefore was then answered The sixth is taken from Hebr. 9.8 where from Jer. 31. the Apostle saith Behold I will make a new covenant with the house of Judah not like the covenant I made with your fathers when I brought them out of the land of Egypt c. where he notes that the principall difference is in the subjects of the covenant and let it be noted that therefore it is not in the covenant it self in his proceeding hee notes two differences the first in the writing of the Law which in the former state was in a table of stone not in their hearts as without which they might not be the house of Israel in the latter the law is written in their hearts Reply First that this difference falls not in the time from Abraham to Moses as is cleer for Jeremiah expresseth the time of their coming out of Egypt and then that time began whence the difference between that state and this must arise nor was the Law written before that time in tables of stone and therefore either Abraham and all those following to Moses had no Law at all or it was written in their hearts and indeed so it was as well as it is now written in any of our hearts but it is not written in all now but only in such as belong to Gods election and so it was then and therefore there is no difference betwixt that period and this under Christ in the writing of the Law nor in the subjects Secondly the promise that God made to Abraham continued to all till Moses time and then was not abolished but continued still to them till Christ as is evident the Gospell being preached to them in the wildernesse Heb. 3. and to them in Canaan Psal 95. the Gospel and the Promise are taken for the same Gal. 3.8.18 and fince contimued to the Gentile Churches and this promise is the covenant which is one in all times Again this is to be attended that the Apostle speaks not of the Covenant but of the Testament as is cleer by his whole discourse in the 8. and 9. Chapt. where he speaks of one and the same thing in all and it is of a Testament and therefore Jeremiah speaks of a Testament also And therefore though it be commonly translated covenant yet it should be testament at least covenant should be understood testament This testament in both places is twofold the first from their coming out of Egypt till Christ the second from Christ ever after the first is called the old and is antiquated or done away the second called the new is established and remains Nor are the times of the old and new Testament so to be attended in the differences as if they under that had not the Law written in their hearts many of them and all should it being their sin that it was not or that these under the new Testament had every one of them the Law written in their hearts many of them alwayes being destitute of the grace of God through their own default so that the difference made by him is none at all all the elect then having the law written in their hearts as well as in tables of stone and none but the elect having it now written in their hearts the reprobate having it then and now written but in tables of stone for the Gospel abolisheth not the Law and ten words but establisheth it rather Rom. 3. last The other difference he makes is from the effects of the Law then and now in the former many of them were destitute of the knowledge of God At the first Infants circumcised the eighth day and therefore were to learn God in Christ afterward coming to yeers but in the latter all do know God from the least to the greatest have the Law written in their hearts possesse remission of sin in so much that it is a great shame for the Church of Corinth that any of them should be destitute of the knowledge of God 1 Cor. 15.34 which could not be if Infants were the subjects of this covenant and Church therefore the covenant since Christ is not the same with that before Christ Reply First he grants that some then had the knowledge of God though many had it not but why had they it not Did hee not give them his Spirit to write it in their hearts which now writeth it in whose hearts it is written if hee knew it not let him reade Nehem. 9.20 Isa 63.10 Acts 7.51 And to say all know God now is contrary to experience and Scriptures and that in one of the first and eminent Churches as his quotation sheweth 1 Cor. 15. Secondly God promiseth then and now to write this Law in mens hearts offereth himself to do it by his Spirit giveth all means necessary thereto then and now but they did not all then they do not all now know God because they resist his Spirit in the means There were then false Prophets there are now false teachers who then led away and now seduce many but all the elect then and fince obtained though the rest were justly hardened Thirdly it is a great shame that any in the Church of Corinth or any else under the new Testament know not God and so it was before and they were alwayes blamed for it which therefore they might and ought to have had else why blamed Or were they blamed because Infants were then in the Church and knew not God Were they not blamed for their own want of knowledge though their Infants were uncapable And may not wee now be blamed if they know not God because Infants be in the Church as he concludes The covenant therefore with Abraham and after till Christ and now since is the same in substance though it differ much in circumstances it being the same Law there written in stone and now in flesh which was written in many mens hearts then as now it is but not in all mens hearts now no more then before though it ought to have been in all then and now should be and is only their own fault then and now in whom it was and is not written and they all justly perish for want thereof The difference lies not therefore in Gods dispensation the matter dispensed or the subjects to whom it is dispensed but in the manner and measure of dispensing then more darkly now more cleerly then more sparingly now more fully Heb. 1.1 And this shall suffice for reply to what he said against my first argument Next hee comes to my proofes and first the Antecedent or Assumption That the covenant made with Abraham and his posterity before Christ and