Selected quad for the lemma: sense_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
sense_n	faith_n	justification_n	justify_v	7,231	5	9.1878	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

which hath oft already been gainsaid by me Gods intention in entring into covenant with them was to have them all spirituall hee constituted them not a church as a naturall seed but as spirituall and if all were not spirituall it was their sinne And all now in Church estate are not spirituall many are carnall And the Jewes still remain naturall branches to be graffed in again though not as naturall seed but as beleeving c. Secondly he saith where I said A covenant acted by beleevers amongst themselves to become one anothers to be the forme of the Church and here arguing from the state of the Jewes to prove this form which did never form themselves so in so doing I overthrow my selfe and argue from my proofe to overthrow my principle Reply First let all observe that he constantly leaves out a part of my words and that of greatest weight viz. A covenant acted between God and themselves though I adde these words also Secondly I say the Jewes were formed a Church estate and only by such a covenant and this will bee evident by clearing those foure particulars I brought to prove that part of my argument The first is this The entrance into it with Abraham his family and seed was by a covenant acted visibly and outwardly This was that which distinguished them and made them differ from other people and whereby they became the Lords and the Lord theirs This was a visible and outward covenant because the seale of it was outward and visible and Ishmael and Esau were in it and reprobates as well as elect and this covenant was made with Abraham and his family at least 14 yeares before they were circumcised Gen. 17. that being but the renewall of the covenant made before onely let this be noted that Abraham and his family were all this time in covenant and a called people and so a church visibly formed for no man can think that he his were all that time under that covenant without a form A foederall form they had certainly that is a church forme and circumcision did not put the foederall form upon them but was added for confirmation on both parts Yet his answer is that this proves not the forme of the church to be such a covenant as is by me expressed acted by a company of beleevers to become one anothers For Abraham and his feed reprobates and elect enter into it now Abraham was but one believer Ishmael his seed who entred in with him was a reprobate Reply First it was a covenant acted between God and Abraham and his family because they were signed and sealed to the covenant fourteen yeers after Secondly though reprobates and elect were in the covenant yet that doth not disprove a covenant acted by believers to be the form of a church seeing many reprobates do believe for a time I do not mean they are known to be so but many prove so afterward and himself doth confesse that they have not infallible judgement but may be and many times are deceived and if hee should not confesse yet the Scriptures cleer it in Simon Magus case Judas c. Thirdly though Abraham was but one believer and Ishmael a reprobate yet they might joyn together in covenant because at first Ishmael was but an Infant and not presently known to be a reprobate and more then Ishmael entred into the first covenant as Sarah his wife and above three hundred males who therefore had the seal of the covenant set upon them which could not have been if they had not been in covenant Where I said circumcision was not the covenant but the token of it Gen. 17.11 He answereth it was not only a token of it but a part of the covenant it self being that whereby the parties were bound to keep the whole Law Gal. 5.3 and therefore God said Let every man childe be circumcised and hee that was not brake Gods covenant therefore the covenant here spoken of was such as was entred into by circumcision but not such as was acted by believers and so to be the form of the church Reply I deny circumcision to be a part of the covenant as without which the covenant is not intire and a reall formall covenant else Abraham Sarah and his family were not in the covenant all these fourteen yeers before circumcision he grants it is a sign of the covenant and I will grant him that as the signe of the thing may be a part of the thing signified so may circumcision be a part of the covenant and no otherwise and as a seal is a part of the thing sealed and not else and though it be called covenant oftentimes yet it is by impropriety of speech As in the Lords Supper bread and wine are called the body and blood of the Lord and baptisme regeneration because they signifie and seal those things to faith which are signified by them where hee saith the parties were bound thereby to keep the whole Law Gal. 5.3 it is a grosse mistake for it did seal to the righteousnesse of faith and not to the righteousnesse of the Law nor bound them more nor otherwise to fulfill the Law then baptisme doth us now It 's true the Apostle saith as much but First he speaks it in respect of the times then and after not with respect to times before Secondly hee speaks it in a certain sense that is when men make it an ingredient unto justification they that do so renounce justification by Christ alone and seek to be justified by their own righteousnesse and so they are bound to fulfill the whole Law or never to be justified how else could Paul circumcise Timothy Act. 16. Would he do that then which he condemneth here or did it oblige others otherwise then it did Timothy or David Isaiah c. It was Gods ordinance and institution it bound them to no such thing but that arose from their corrupt understanding of the things turning the covenant of grace into a covenant of works unto themselves and the same may be said of baptisme now Let this therefore be attended that God did never dispense a covenant of works to the Jewes but it was a covenant of grace and circumcision the signe and seal of it and not the covenant it selfe and the covenant was acted between God and Abraham and his family and seed believers they and theirs to be the Lords and to take God to be the God of them and theirs and so to become one anothers in the Lord whereby they were made the people of God and a visible church truly constituted My second particular was this the establishment of it in the plains of Moab but this establishment was by a covenant acted Deut. 26.17 18. and 29.10 15. In which God avouched them to be his people and they avouched him to be their God and their young children also with them nor could circumcision be the covenant here nor part of it or ingredient into it because

things succeed one another many wayes and there is not the same consideration of all things that succeed one another The sense that I intended it in is this That baptisme succeeds circumcision by Gods institution as a signe of Gods covenant and a seal of the righteousnesse of faith held forth in the covenant and if baptisme succeeds circumcision in this sense as it doth then necessarily followeth that look who were subjects of the covenant then and received the seal of it under those fignes administred the same subjects are now in the covenant and are to receive the seal of it under these signs administred unlesse therefore it can be proved that God by some manifest word hath excluded Infants now the consequence cannot be denied and the argument fully concluded Secondly the instance that he brings to shew the inconsequence of this by the inconsequence of them are not paralleled and subject to exceptions that this will not admit of As first the Gospel succeeds the Law therefore Aarons sons are to be Ministers of the Gospel as they were then of the Law Reply This comparisons suits not the Law and the Gospel succeed one another not as circumcision and baptisme nor will it follow because baptisme succeeded circumcision therefore Infants are to be baptized as they were circumcised so the Gospel succeeds the Law Ergo Aarons sons are to succeed themselves under the Gospel For I do not say cirumcision succeeds circumcision but thus it will follow As then there were sacrifices and services and none but Aarons sons might not administer so now no man must administer these services appointed but such as are called as Aaron was His second that circumcision was administred to grown males that had no faith is false as I have shewne before more then once nor were females excluded then from circumcision no more then they were excluded from the covenant but should have been circumcised if they had been capable as the males that females had the inward circumcision cannot be denied and whether they had not something analogicall to the outward may be questioned although it be not expressed Last of all it is true that the Lords Supper succeeds the Passeover but that all Infants did eat the Passeover with the rest will be denied many being not naturally capable by reason of age and none but such as were able to understand the nature of the ordinance might partake of it as now none but such inay partake in the Lords Supper and therefore they were required to instruct their children in the nature and use of the ordinance and although every family were to eat a Lamb together in a house yet after they were setled in the Land they were to eat it at Jerusalem and it was to be killed at the Tabernacle first Deut. 16.6 7. Nor was every family bound to eat it alone if they were too many or too few they were to have so many and no more nor might any uncircumcised or unclean or apostate eat thereof and females might although not circumcised for there are many objections to be made against these instances that cannot lie against the consequence of my Proposition A second answer hee gives is this The body of the Jewes were subjects of circumcision according to the Law even when Christ dyed yet the same were not subjects of baptisme according to the Gospel till they gladly received the Word Acts 2.4 Reply First they were not circumcised before but as they gladly received the Word and thereupon circumcised and their Infants with them by vertue of Gods promise Secondly it is true no Jewes of yeeres were baptized till they received the Word but that was not because any might be circumcised before without receiving the Word but because of the change of the manner of adminstration of one and the same word in a different manner as the parents receiving the Word under that dispensation they were circumcised and their Infants with them so now parents receiving the Word are to be baptized and their Infants with them His third answer is this as baptisme succeeds circumcision so the command and subject of baptisme succeeds the subject and command of circumcision the command of circumcision was of males only and that on the eighth day the Proseylte must circumcise all his males although they have no faith the females must not be circumcised although they have never so much faith but the commandment of baptisme is only of Disciples men and women a description of whom yee may see Luke 14.26.27.33 therefore the consequence followeth not Reply First it is the command of God that sanctifieth circumcision and baptisme in their severall times to be administred Secondly Gods command must sanctifie the subjects to whom they are to be administred and therefore to circumcise any then or baptize any now but such as God commands is a sinfull error Thirdly it is not the command of circumcising why wee baptize any but a command of baptizing them why they are baptized and therefore the commandment of baptizing being not to baptize at any set time wee do not baptize any on the eighth day as they circumcised wee likewise baptize females the command including them though they were not circumcised being not capable of it as I said Fourthly Then the case is this Whether Gods command be to baptize Infants now as it was to circcumise Infants then this he denies upon this ground circumcision was not administred unto them as Disciples but Disciples only are now to be baptized and a Disciple is hee that denies himself father c. takes up his crosse daily and followes Christ Luke 14.26 But then they that did none of these yea Proselytes and their males were circumcised though they did not believe Reply First that Proselytes and their males were cirumcised though neither he nor they believed hath been often said but never proved nor ever can be and I have shewed the contrary Secondly That none are to be baptized now but Disciples I grant it but I say also none but Disciples were then circumeised as is evident from the description of a Disciple Luke 14. For whatsoever is required of any to be a Disciple agrees to them then as may be seen Psal 44.22 with Rom. 8.36 Psal 45.10 Heb. 11.8 with this Luke 14. Gen. 4.8 with John 1.3.18 Gen. 21.9 with Gal. 4.29 where the Apostle saith as it was then so it is now and as it is now so was it then and therefore there is no difference in that respect although the word was not then used yet the matter being common we may make the word common also and if all were not true Disciples then but many degenerated so it is now also Thirdly Disciples are now and were then of two sorts First such as begun when God as I may so say first set up his School in in any place as Abraham and his grown males Heb. 11 c. taking in their Infants with them for upon this condition

which he only seemed to have and no faith Christ c. can be said to remain being neither believer nor baptized nor member indeed because hee forsaking the grounds and ends of his baptisme he forsaketh baptisme which was administred upon these grounds and for these ends Fourthly hee that by the renewall of his repentance returneth to his faith again by which hee is to be restored to communion with the church again after excommunication returneth thereby to his baptisme and membership again Reply Granting the first Proposition that faith possesseth a man of Christ c. and likewise this in the second that some have faith in Christ c. really and saving in the truth of all but where he saith some have but seeming faith and yet baptized c. and seem to have Christ baptisme and membership but have none in truth I deny that these are seeming unlesse as opposed to saving spirituall and supernaturall thus indeed many have not nor can any have these things but only elect persons and so their saith and all is seeming But faith considered in it self it is certaine that many have that faith they professe they have as the devills and do believe as they say they do nor do I think that if a man knew one to be a reprobate unlesse in the case of fin unto death yet having and professing faith hee is not to be rejected without some speciall word of God Thus Abraham and Isaac circumcised Ishmael and Esau though they knew before they were reprobates And our Saviour put Judas into Apostleship when he knew what hee was to the full Secondly a man having such a faith is in Christ in a sense John 15. hath baptisme and church-membership indeed and in the truth of it though not spiritually and savingly I cannot say these are all or any of them seeming but in opposition to saving so they seem to be indeed but are not Heb. 6.4.9 they are really enlightened they tast of the heavenly gift and fall away and perish for ever but they had no part in those as accompanying salvation these are distinct one from another The one sort are acquired by naturall powers and are morall only those will never save them the other are infused spirituall supernaturall and alwayes accompany salvation To the third Proposition I say that a believer to salvation excommunicate for some sin is not deprived of the faith he had but that he is cut off from membership and so from baptisme if it be the form of his membership it is most certain as much as the other is and it is more then a seeming to be cut off being ratified in heaven his everlasting estate remaining with God inalterable and he that seemed to have saving faith c. but had not is not deprived of that faith he had by excommunication nor cut off otherwise from his baptisme and membership then the former in foro humano being things that hee had as really as the former though not of the same kinde nor to the same benefit And if all were but seeming in the Refuters sense certainly his excommunication will be but seeming roo and doth this seem to be a seemly thing to speak thus of the things of God To the fourth he that by repentance returneth to his faith again that is in true meaning to an intire standing in the profession of faith returns to his baptisme and membership again I grant that by renewall of repentance hee is to be restored from under the censure unto communion with the church again And hence I gather that faith and repentance professed are the means whereby hee was stated in the covenant and membership and therefore now required of him again to set him in his former state and not baptisme which certainly would have been under some prejudice by excommunication and must have been cleered as well as his profession if that had constituted his membership especially if he had but seeming faith baptisme and membership before for let mee put this case which certainly may and sometimes doth fall out that a seeming believer having seeming baptisme c. to speak his language is excommunicated and so is cut off from all that he only seemed to have he had no baptisme and membership indeed but seemed to have and from all that is really and wholly cut off nothing remaines this penson was not before really converted but under the state of censure he is really converted and gives full satisfaction to the church shall he be restored to his seeming baptisme and membership that he had before by his seeming faith rather he cannot be restored to that seeming state because he saith nothing remains Or shall hee have a new membership and reall in the truth of it for his reall faith and repentance but this must be by a new reall baptizing the former not remaining and therefore though repentance of him that was a true believer recovers his former standing in the covenant and so his baptisme which he was not really deprived of yet it must needs be that he that did not truly believe being now really converted can not receive his former seeming baptisme nor were it worth the recovering by his repentance but must have a reall baptisme added to him for his reall faith instead of that seeming baptisme that he had by his seeming faith The truth is neither true believer nor seeming as he speaks have either of them their baptisme taken away by censure but both their memberships really and not seemingly and by repentance are restored to their former rights and membership That therefore that must be to make a man a member and the destruction whereof makes a man no member and the renewing wherof must be to restore him to be a member again that is the form of a church-member and so of a church but baptisme doth not make a man a visible member nor is baptisme nullified to make him no member but remains still true baptisme nor is it to be renewed to restore him to his membership again therefore baptisme is not the form of the church For to make a thing to cease to be that it was must necessarily be by taking away of the form by which it was that it was for so long as that form remains you cannot make the thing to be any other or not that it was but in making a member no member there is a destruction of that form whereby he was a member that is a reall casting him out from being the Lords or having the Lord to be his and to be delivered up to Satan likewise a casting him out from being one of Gods people to be of the world again as Demas and the contrary hereunto must be reacted to restore a member Therefore this alone is the forme of a member and so of a Church And this is no other thing but a Covenant acted as before I described therefore a Covenant is the form of the Church This I affirmed