Selected quad for the lemma: scripture_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
scripture_n	apostle_n	call_v	prophet_n	2,783	5	6.3476	4	false

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

put out against me before that Judge as he seems to be bold in troubling the world with it And so passing the Epistle I come to the Book it self wherein I shall endeavour by Gods good help to justifie what he takes upon him to confute and follow him step by step accordingly as he goeth along letting passe his Preamble only I can say hee speaks not truth in saying a Writing written by Georg. Phil. came to his hand and subscribed by him as Pastor of Watertown when as I writ it not and what I writ was not subscribed by me at all and therefore let him that sent it and himself take it betwixt them and see whether they may not justly repent of so speaking But to proceed hee sets down some Propositions which it seems that Writing expressed for the clearing of the Arguments To the first and second wherof hee saith nothing and therefore according to the second yeelds that though there be no expresse literall commands for Infants baptisme in the Scriptures nor example yet if by just consequence from thence it can be proved and cleered that is as sufficient as if it were literally commanded To the third Proposition about the tender of happinesse to man two wayes dispensed First to the first Adam and all man-kind by the law and works the other to the second Adam and all the elect in him which being one eternall covenant from the first promulgation for ever in substance yet varied by divers circumstances in a fourfold period manifested first from Adam to Abraham called the Promise secondly from Abraham to Moses in a visible outward covenant thirdly from Moses to Christ called the old Testament the fourth from Christ to the end called the new Testament To this I say hee hath divers exceptions and of such weight in his apprehension that he is not able to forbeare my person and calling as that I am not worthy the name of a Pastor and it doth very ill agree to mee as the doctrine delivered in this Proposition doth declare being not wholesome food but a barren wildernesse or rather hurtfull effecting nothing but noysome diseases and tending to death In answer whereunto in a word I freely acknowledge my self not worthy the name of a Pastor and that it very ill agrees to mee and many reasons there are which force me so to acknowledge though the censure of this Confuter makes me not think so at all nor the doctrine there delivered by me which is good and wholesome whatsoever hee saith to the contrary if that be wholesome that is contained in Gods sacred Scriptures as I shall cleer by and by But let all take notice of this that for a man to leave his cause and fall upon mens persons or callings it is an argument of a bad cause or a corrupted heart or both for I suppose hee will not challenge universall authority and who made him a Judge over me in regard of his own private I confesse he hath liberty to judge of what I say or any other and if I had written to him he might rightly have answered nor should I have taken it ill if hee had written to me about them I think I should have taken it well but the man will be a Judge over me and that without as much as a word of intination that I had offended him first but hee saith hee must have leave to tell me so As concerning his exceptions they are so weak and of no value as he must give me leave to tell you all that the name of a wise and reasonable man doth not or very ill agree to him and be your selves Judges For first he put an if If I limit reprobates from the tender of happinesse made to the second Adam and all the elect in him hee conceives I erre because they could not then be said to refuse the call of God c. but if I did not so limit it what then will he confesse he did ill to blot the paper with such needlesse suppositions Or that he wanted charity to think that I never read those Scriptures by him alledged and many others as also that of Heb. 3. 4.2 To the second exception against the third period when I said that a vail of shadowes were drawn over the Covenant he saith it was not a vail simply but because Christ contained under them was not understood by the Jewes which rested in the deed done To which I answer that I did not say a vail simply but it was a vail and so the Scriptures Col. 2.16 Hebr. 9.1.8 c. Ezr. 10.1 2 Cor. 3.13 c. where the Apostle speaks of a double vail one upon Moses face signifying the obscurity of the ministerie which in the ministery of the new Testament is done away another upon their hearts which remaineth unto this day upon them and upon too many other but that shall be taken away when they turn to the Lord so that it was a vail and a vail simply so that he might well have spared those two and not said hee had many there remaining but two which are not many To the third exception and fourth whereas I said that the Scriptures speaking of the old Testament of the abolishing of the old Testament are to be understood of that dispensation from Moses time to Christs and the opposition made in the Scriptures between the old and new is of those two times from Moses to Christ and from Christ afterwards and not of the former hee sees no reason why I should so conclude I confesse so great is our sinfull nature we think that to be good reason that is not so and judge not that reason that is but I may see a reason why I so conclude though he sees it not and if I thought he would see it I should set it down but if he will not yet some may for their sakes therefore this is the reason yea more then reason why I so conclude First the Scriptures mention two an old and new Testament Secondly the Scriptures expresse the old to be that from Moses to Christ and the new that from Christ and after as I hope any will see cleerly by viewing these places Exod. 24.4.8 Heb. 9.15 to 24. Jer. 31.31 c. Heb. 8.6.8 to the end Heb. 12.18 to the end 2 Cor. 3.16 c. and the whole course of the Apostles dispute in removing the Law Tabernacle Service Priesthood c. which hee calls the old and establishing Christ and the true Tabernacle and limiting his whole discourse to these two cleers it to me beyond exception and this is the reason grounded upon these Scriptures and other considerations why I said as I did He further saith that the two first periods are the old Testament as well as that of Moses time till Christ and first because they offered sacrifices till Abraham and then they circumcised till Moses and secondly because those sacrifices before Moses time and circumcision then used are abolished

inforce my beliefe that a man must dip or else he doth not baptize Secondly they urge consent to dipping from Johns practice baptizing in Aenen because there was many waters that he might dip them from Philips baptizing the Eunuch and others also who they conclude baptized with dipping To these I answer First the word will not necessarily inforce it That they were baptized is our of question but whether by dipping or sprinkling is questionable for the word may signifie either as I have shewed and the Text doth not determine which by any other expression For as for that of many waters being there some say that it is not meant of a great deep River but of many rivers Piscator and the reason of his choosing that place may be because other places might not so well continue and many other reasons there may be and yet this none that hee might dip them for that might as well have been done in other places and it is said that was the reason without proofe which may be as easily denied as it is affirmed nor is there any such necessity in translating the Preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that it must needs be into Jordan and signifie dipping over head and eares but it may be well enough translated to Jordan I think that if the Eunuch dived over head and eares that Philip did not douze himself so too yet it is said equally of them both they descended 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from the Charet to thewater not into it that they both came 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from the water not out of the water Secondly it is not probable that they dived the parties under water when they baptized them partly because at some times and in some places it was administred in a house and suddenly when there was no thought aforehand to prepare fit instruments as in Cornelius house the Jaylor and his houshold Lydia and her family Acts 10. 16. so that they might have water enough to dive them in partly because it was not easie for a man to take a grown man in his armes and dive him under water Otherwise I see not how the Minister should baptize them but rather they should baptize themselves nor should the administration be ministeriall if the baptized person should not be passive in receiving it Thirdly if they should be wholly dipped into water it will hazard oft some mens lives by being strangled under the water and who can so exactly carry the action as not to doe too much or too little to hold them under too long or not long enough Lastly it is not seemly nor agreeing to common much lesse religious modesty to take them and dip them naked before others nor can I be perswaded that Jesus when he was baptized or any other baptized by John or any body else stripped themselves naked If any shall say they covered their unseemly parts or that it was done in their cloathes I shall say it is as easily denied as affirmed the Scripture gives not the least hint of such a thing which I suppose it would have done if it had been so as in other cases it tells us of Sauls stripping himselfe among the Prophets the executicners of Steven laying their garments at Pauls feet c. Especially it being in so weighty a matter as should concern all ages Again if all their cloathes were on or but some of them then certainly their flesh was not washed as 1 Pet. 3.21 but their cloathes Onely this I shall acknowledge that I see not but dipping consideratis considerandis may be lawfull nor can I say that they that use it doe worse then they that use it not But that it is absolutely necessary or the omission of it maketh baptisme null That sprinkling is unlawfull Antichristian of humane invention c. and that baptisme for administration is invalid evacuateth the death of Christ c. I cannot yeeld I have given some considerations why I think dipping not absolutely necessary I shall adde a few why I think sprinkling with water is unlawfull and that baptisme so administred is true baptisme First because the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 will yeeld it and may be justly so translated and must be so taken in the places by me quoted before to which I might adde more as Mark 7.4 c. Secondly from the types of our spirituall washing which were done by sprinkling as Exod. 12. the sprinkling of the blood of the Lamb Exod. 23. the sprinkling of the Altar Book people Levit. 16. sprinkling the unclean by the water of the red Heifers ashes Num. 19. All which typified unto them the blood of Christ and the application of it unto themselves for their justification and sanctification If sprinkling were then sufficient to them for the same purpose that dipping is now urged I see nothing to hinder but that sprinkling may doe the same now for though that was commanded yet this is not forbidden Thirdly the Prophets foretelling this grace of God communicated unto us by that ordinance and I think this ordinance it selfe is forespoken of therein they doe set it forth by sprinkling as Esa 52.15 My servant shall sprinkle many Nations Esai 44.3 Exek 36.25 I will powre clean water upon you From these Prophesies I conclude that sprinkling or powring on may be justified Fourthly in the new Testament the grace of God is set forth by the very word sprinkling as Heb. 10.22 Having your hearts sprinkled from an evill conscience and your bodies washed with pure water which notes baptisme and this washing as also 1 Cor. 6.11 may be with powring on as the same word is so to be taken Acts 16.33 The same houre hee took them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 washed their mounds which was not with dipping certainly but with powring on So Heb. 12.21.24 To the bloud of sprinkling 1 Pet. 1.2 Elect c. through the sanctification of the Spirit unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ By these expressions certainly the holy Ghost intends to hold out the administration of the signes of Gods grace So that upon these considerations I am well perswaded that though dipping may be lawfull yet sprinkling is not unlawfull and question not but the ordinance administred by sprinkling is as valid as the administring of it by dipping And if they do not forget themselves that condemn sprinkling as Antichristian humane c. they doe and will grant that in some cases it may be lawfull and then it is lawfull in it selfe morally or certainly no case can make it morally lawfull but it is a sin so to doe in what case soever I argue therefore from thence thus Fifthly if sprinkling in some case be lawful then it is not morally unlawfull in it self at all But in some cases sprinkling may be lawfull as where there is but little water Ergo it is not morally unlawful in it self Sixthly I shall adde here the judgement of Chamier Tom. 4. lib. 5.

much degenerate and be defiled in their doctrine and government desperately corrupted with error and sinfull practices as the Jews before Christ commonly and most of all in Christs dayes after Christ the churches of Corinth Galatia the churches of Asia Rev. 2. and 3. c. yet till Christ remove the candlestick and come himself and unchurch them they still abide churches of Christ and are so to be acknowledged of all Fifthly such as the state of the church is such is the state of the Ministry of that church and administration and so long as the true church remains a true church so long the ministry remains a true ministry and all the divine institutions authenticall administrations and truly the Lords ordinances notwithstanding the mixture of humane devices with them making the commandments of God of none effect through their traditions To cleer all these in each particular by the light of divine revelation would require a larger discourse then I intend and not so difficult as tedious I doubt not but any truly judicious considering the state of churches in the old and new Testament will yeeld without any other travell what is here set down and that the church ministry and administrations stand and fall together To come then to the question I affirm that if there be true churches in England then there is a lawfull ministry there and true authenticall administrations But there are true churches there Ergo there is a lawfull ministry there and authenticall administration The Consequent is cleer because it is the true being of a church that giveth being to the truth of ministry and ordinances and not the ordinances that give being to a church Lot any company set up preaching and administer the Sacraments I so call them for discourse sake that will not make that company to be a church but because they are not a church therefore they are not Gods ordinances The antecedent that there are true churches in England I prove thus If the true visible state of Christs Church be to abide from his time unto the end of the world as it must Dan. 7. Luke 1.33 Mat. 16.16 18.18.20 28.19 20. 1 Cor. 11. Heb. 12.29 c. then it is in England and places of like consideration that it hath continued in some other places of the world But it hath not continued in any other places of the world it will be gratefull to all that desire truth if any man can shew where also in England and places of like consideration hath Christs visible church continued Again if there be no other churches in the world nor have bin for many hundred yeers but those that are infected with Papisme that is the dominion of the Pope and traditional doctrine or reformed churches and England amongst others then either the churches infected with Papisme are the true visible churches of Christ or the reformed But there are no other churches in the world nor have been for many hundred yeers but those that are infected with Papisme or the reformed Ergo the one or the other must be the true visible churches of Christ But notwithstanding those that are infected with Papisme few grant it as now they stand Ergo the reformed and England amongst others Further if Antichrist must fit in the Temple of God 2 Thes 2.4 and the courts of the Temple be given unto the Antichristian Gentiles for a certain time Rev. 11.1 to 15. to tread under foot then there was a true church-estate where he sate and whilest he sate there and the true measured Temple whose courts he treads under foot nor can there be Antichrist unlesse there be the Temple and courts thereof where he is And if Antichrist ever sate in England then there was the Temple of God there before he sate in it and whilest he sate in it as also in other reformed churches The Temple or church is the subject wherein hee must sit The Antichristian seat is not the subject nor constitutes it but is an accident vitiating the subject the removing thereof Antichristianity doth not destroy the subject or make it cease to be but changeth it into a better state I shall adde this If ever there were true churches constituted in England then they remain so still or God hath by some manifest act unchurched them unlesse therefore they that deny true ministry in England and baptisme there can and do prove that churches were never constituted there or make good some manifest act of God unchurching them sutable to such acts of his in Scriptures in the like cases and whereby wee may cleerly discern the like effects all that can be said to disprove the lawfulnesse of ministry there or to prove the unlawfulnesse of administrations there so far as they are prescribed in the word will not be available And yet I shall be content to speak a little farther of the church-estate and ministry in England And concerning churches it is to be considered that a companny become or are a church either by conversion and initiall constitution or by continuance of the same constituted churches successively by propagation of members who all are born in the church-state and under the covenant of God and belong unto the church and are a church successively so long as God shall continue his begun dispensation even as well and as fully as the first and though in respect of the numericall members they are not the same yet truly they are the same in kinde Rom. 11.16 1 Cor. 7.14 Gal. 2.15 even as man continues the same in kind from the first man though not the same in number so the church-estate continued from Adams time till Abrahams in the world by succession of generations So the Jewes continued a church from Abrahams time till Christs Secondly the way to prove churches to have had true constitution is no way to be attained but either by Scriptures or humane testimony By Scriptures we may take notice of many churches planted in Judea Syria Galatia Achaia Macedonia c. and by name Rome Corinth Cenchrea Philip Coloss Thessal Ephes Smyrna c. of any other by name I know not That the Apostle preached from Jerusalem to Illyricum and that hee mentions his coming into Italy by Spain is evident but whether any churches were planted there or no divine records manifest not And as cleer it is that those churches mentioned in Scriptures are destroyed nor can wee by Scriptures prove the continuance of Christs visible Kingdome in the world for many hundred yeeres upward but in Rome which few will plead for to have any truth of church-estate and I see no need of proving any such thing in this case So that by Scripture testimony I know not where we may cast our eys to look upon any Church now or for many yeers past existent By humane testimony we may take notice of the Gospel preached in many places and amongst other in Britain by Apostolicall authority where the Word hath ever continued since