Selected quad for the lemma: christian_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
christian_n	believer_n	church_n	visible_a	1,349	5	9.2573	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A86484	A rejoynder to Master Samuel Eaton and Master Timothy Taylor's reply. Or, an answer to their late book called A defence of sundry positions and scriptures, &c. With some occasionall animadversions on the book called the Congregational way justified. For the satisfaction of all that seek the truth in love, especially for his dearly beloved and longed for, the inhabitants in and neer to Manchester in Lancashire. / Made and published by Richard Hollinworth. Mancuniens.	Hollingworth, Richard, 1607-1656.	1647 (1647)	Wing H2496; Thomason E391_1; ESTC R201545	213,867	259

express themselves for these reasons 1. The Church is not one member but many viz. not one sort of members but composed of variety as hath bin said Chap 4. Hence the Church is described as an organical body of divers members Rom. 12.4 5. And if all were one member that is beleevers only then where were the body A corporation an army properly so called doth consist of governers as wel as governed 2. Word Sacraments censures yea all sacred worships you say may be observed to belong to the Church but none but professed Anabaptists and Morellians hold that Christians united without officers have power to preach and to administer Sacraments or censures 3. The Churches we read of in Scripture were organical Churches yea those by you spoken of Acts 9.31 might be such for ought appears they were edified how but by officers which elsewhere you say were given for their edification Ephes 4.11 or by ordinances by the word and Sacraments which they could not regularly enjoy without out officers if you mean by prayer reading hearing conference this you wil acknowledg they might have had without enchurching 4. That the Apostles taught Christians to unite themselves together without officers and to call themselves a Church or do any any act of Church-power or that they planted Churches any other wayes then to convert many Christians in a City and to ordain Elders over them it cannot be shewed 5. As for Amesius his definition of a Church if it be to your mind I am sure it is not in your usual language for he speaks of communion of Saints which you use to distinguish from Church-communion if Church-communion be not included then you in effect tell us p. 39. that such a bond wil not make them a Church and if Church-communion be included how Church-communion in Sacraments and censures can be lawfully had without officers and what that is I cannot see 6. A man may have a priviledg to choose a wife and yet not be an husband nor she a wife till they be married a free State may have a priviledg to choose a King yet they cannot be a Kingdom till they have chosen him so it may be the priv●l●dg of the people to choose their officers and yet not be a Church properly so called till they have them for it is their priviledg to be a Church together yet they are not a Church before they are one Lastly it is a contradiction to say the Apostles planted Churches and yet those Churches were without officers for the Apostles that planted them were officers of them if they had no other Sect. 2. Reply p. 46. You grant that the Church Act. 2. had no ordinary officers for none were then appointed Act. 14.23 shews they were Churches before the Apostle ordained Elders in them Rejoyn 1. You take full as much as I granted and possibly I granted more then I needed but I in a Parenthesis which you leave out spake of the 70 which might be ordinary officers or extraordinary and their commission might be in force or no for ought I determined but it is as like they were Elders of that Church as no seeing Act. 11.30 we read of Elders in that Church as extant we know not how long before that time and we read not of the institution of any officers amongst them save the 12 Apostles 70 Disciple and 7 Deacons 2. In the first plantation of Churches the Elders that planted them must needs be before the plantation and the spiritual fathers before their children 3. Acts 14.23 proves not your assertion for Apostoles and Apostolick men did ordain Elders in some Churches where Elders were before yea they joyned with Elders in the ordaining of other Elders as 1 Tim. 4.14 cum 2 Tim. 1.5 and 1 Tim. 15.22 cum Acts 20.28 Acts 19. Yet grant they were without Elders that only proves that they were called by the name of Church and so are officers sometimes so called as distinguished from the members but neither of them are properly called by the name of Church Sect. 3. Reply p. 46. And though there were general Elders yet neither these nor any other Elders do ingredi essentiam Ecclesiarum nor is it any formal reason why a company of beleevers are a Church because they have Elders then their priviledg to choose their officers would be when they have them and they cannot choose them when they want them for then they are not a Church and so can have no such power and this is uncomfort able for the death of an officer might be the unchurching of a people members mentioned apart from the officers are called the Church Act. 20.28 Phil. 1.1 Rejoyn 1. Though they were general officers yet as I told you they were Elders particularly of the Church of Jerusalem and acted therein as Elders for that Church then was the universal Church the Apostles or 70 had no present exercise of their pastoral authority any where but there they did preach administer Sacraments ordain there and only there Can a regiment complain of want of a Colonel May it not rather say it hath a good one if a faithful and wise General which hath no other soldiers but that regiment become a Colonel to it 2. I suppose your selves dare not assert that the Church of Ierusalem was then an incompleat Church and yet you account every Church wanting officers to be an incompleat Church 3. If officers be not essential to a visible Church properly so called then neither authoritative preaching the Word dispensation of Sacraments and discipline are not essential to such a Church or they are in the hand of Church-members 4. Concerning the unchurching of a people by the death of an officer 1. You say Pos 2. that 7 or 8 may make a Church What if 4 or 5 of these dye and leave but two or three What if the men dye and leave the women These that are best make not a Church 2. The Pastor may dye and yet the Church not dissolved at his death they may have other officers if they have none at present but the shepherd being smitton the sheep are scattered yet they may have ere long In an elective Kingdom if the King dye the Kingdom is actually dissolved till another King be set up 3. If all the officers of a Church do dye this doth not so un church it as to deprive them of Gods love nor divorce them from God or from the ordinances in other Congregations but only so that for the present they are uncapable of the Sacraments and other Church-ordinances amongst themselves till others be set over them and this you must needs acknowledg 5. Acts 20.28 Phil. 1.1 will give no certain satisfaction for 1. It is granted that the name Church may be given to officers or to people as distinguished from one another as also you acknowledg that the word Covenant is sometimes taken for Gods part to man sometimes for mans part to God but when it is properly

there are an hundred or a thousand Churches I affirm it is a far greater absurdity for Churches is a term used in the Old as well as in the New Testament for particular assemblies meeting for the worship of God as hath been shewed but Sions is a term not read in the Old or New Testament as your selves do silently confesse for though you be put upon that work yet you do not shew it Sect. 4. When I ask whether you have not found God present in our assemblies have not you by faith closed with the promises of God in the use of ordinances amongst us You grant that God is present with us in our assemblies nor dare you deny though you do not expresly grant it that he hath promised his presence to us or that you sometimes did by faith close with the promises in ordinances amongst us 2. But you assert that God is most present vouchsafeth a speciall presence with his people gathered into a body compacted together in an instituted Congregational Church which you call the order of the Gospel the way of Christ concerning which I demand 1. Have both of you and your Members since your entrance into the Church-way felt such a speciall presence of Christ in ordinances as none of you did before 2. If your way be not the way of Christ and the order of the Gospel is not then the conceit of a greater and more speciall presence of Christ in your way a strong delusion As when men fall off from your Congregations to Antinomianisme Libertinisme Familisme or but rigid Separation they perswade themselves you know that they haue a greater and more speciall presence of Christ after they have left you then when they were with you If I have solidly answered your Book which I leave almighty God and ingenious impartiall Saints to judge of then your way is not the order of the Gospel nor the way of Christ 3. That God might give his presence though there be some error you grant alledging Rev. 2.1 with Rev. 2.14.20 and afterwards you say He vouchsafeth a speciall presence amongst such Churches Rev. 2.1 So then God not only might but he doth give his presence yea his especiall presence to such Churches as have not only some error but grosse error for all the seven Churches of Asia were golden candlesticks and God walked in the midst viz. equally neer to each of them notwithstanding Balaamites Nicolaitans Jezebelians many that had a name to live and were dead many that had defiled their garments viz. were visibly wicked many lukewarme c. were amongst them only Philadelphia had nothing reprehensible by which Mr. Brightman who so long since prophesied of these times conceives the Church of Scotland to be typified by the Spirit of God will you say that all the 7 Churches were alike in the way of Christ in the order of the Gospel or will you revoke your own speech that Christ was specially present with them Surely if God should not vouchsafe his speciall presence where there are some errors and grosse ones too your Churches should not have it Sect. 5. Whereas Mat. 18.20 is alledged to prove that Christ hath promised his speciall presence to a Congregationall church above all other societies and persons I answered 1. That Christ in that place promised his presence to those which are not a Church even to two or three which will not make a Church 2. That faithfull people though women whether Church-members or no are not to be excluded from this promise though they make not a Congregationall church And 3. That Christs presence is promised to the Apostles and their successors the Elders Mat. 28.20 and to the assemblies of Sion or Churches jointly as well as severally Isa 4.5 Rev. 2.1 21.22 23. 22.3 4 5. To which you reply p. 73. There is a figure in the number a certain number put for an uncertain two or three are put for a few the Paucity that may be in a Church shall be no obstacle of his presence Pareus upon these words It is an argument that the judgement of the Church shall be ratified because Christ himself will be present as supreme Judge to ratifie it it is also a generall promise of the presence of the grace of Christ in his Church be it great or small Now surely say you we shall lesse doubt of our exposition having so learned and well-approved a Commentator to stand by us in it Rejoynd 1. What is that figure and where is it found v. 17. or v. 20. or both If not both how doth it appear that the one is literall and the other figurative Mr. Cotton saith Way p. 53. that those two or three are not considered as a Church-body but as a sufficient number of witnesses to joyn with the brother offended Mr. Voyes another N. E. man saith those two or three do refer to the Preshyterie and so you may well doubt of your exposition having such godly learned Divines of your own way against you in it 3. I durst appeal to you whether you would interpret two or three in v. 7. two or three v. 20. after a different manner if it were not as you conceive for the advantage of your cause 4. It is too familiar a thing with you to alledge one or two Commentators interpreting a Text thus or so whereas your selves know that if the controversie between you and me should be determined by the major part of the godliest and learnedest Commentators your part would be nothing nor are you ignorant that even godly men writing against the Papists and being then not in fear of contrary errors did write lesse cautelously then otherwise they would have done CHAP. XXV Who are without in the Apostles sense 1 COR. 5. Sect. 1. I Said that those without of whom the Apostle speaks were unbelievers Pagans and Heathens without Christ without visible profession of Christianity for so I meant and out of the universall visible Church as well as out of a particular Church To which you reply that those without whom the Apostle had not to do with stand in opposition to those within the Church of Corinth Rejoynd It is harsh to say that the members of the church of Jerusalem Rome c. should be without to them that were of Corinth or that a visible Christian not joyned to some particular Church should be excluded out of the universall Church Paul Act. 9. and the Eunuch Act. 8. were of the visible Church before they were joyned to any particular Congregation It Paul had converted those women Act. 16. which could not have been brought into an organicall congregation they might have been baptized and so counted within the Church A man may be detained by violence from joyning driven away by persecution incommunicated it may be unjustly in which case he is not a member of a particular church it were hard therefore to say he is without the visible church They that are without are

opposed to any man that is called a Brother but all Christians in Scripture-phrase are called brethren whether they be of the same or of severall congregations yea though one should be unjoyned to any congregation as Paul whom Ananias calleth brother Saul Act. 9 17. And the Apostle writing to severall churches wills them to love as brethren to love the brotherhood 1 Pet. 2.17 3.8 Lastly they are here said to be without which Paul had not to do with by judging them but of this more afterwards Sect. 2. But you reply If this exposition of yours be true then the judgement of the Church of Corinth did extend to the lands-end of Christianity to the confines of Paganisme and consequently any one Church hath power to judge any Believer in the world for he saith Do not ye judge them that are within V. 12. Rejoynd Nothing so for Ye there is to be understood of the Corinthians as members in part of the universall visible church 1 Cor. 12.27 28. Your selves tell us p. 65. that the Epistles do respect persons according to their capacities so this judging those that are within respects only the church of Corinth suppose he writes only to one church for we would not mingle questions lest we should darken the light according to her capacity viz. You judge all within your limits all of the city of Corinth the Cenchrean church all within that town and other Churches pari ratione authoritate within theirs So ye are Gods husbandry and Gods building 1 Cor. 3.9 that is ye are part of Gods husbandry of Gods building So 1 Cor. 12.27 Ye are the body of Christ viz. as he immediately by way of correction doth interpret himselfe Members in part And in 1 Cor. 3.21 22. he saith all things are yours Paul Apollos Cephas Now Paul and Cephas were officers of all churches his meaning therefore is that they are yours viz. yours amongst others and All things are yours viz. all things belong to the Universall church of which the Apostles were properly officers and to you as members And so it is no more but this Ye are amongst those that judge them that are within So Calvin and Beza might have written to one or two English Bishops and said You silence all Nonconformists and yet might well enough have been understood that they had but silenced all within their Diocesses and other Bishops had done the like in theirs Sect. 3. Reply p. 74. Suppose the Apostle had known a member of the Church of Corinth whatever he appeared outwardly in the frame of his conversation to be indeed without God and in a state of enmity with God if this man had committed a grosse sin might not the Apostle have judged such a one to be excommunicated and why should a Church-unbeliever be subject to the Apostles judgement and an Heathenish unbeliever exempt from it if Church-membership did not make the one obnoxious to that judgement more then the other Rejoynd 1. By your argument p. 36. he ought not to be excommunicated for you say Excommunication supposeth men to be alive in the judgement of charity but such a one as is known to be without Christ is not supposed to be alive 2. We assert that if he have committed some grosse sinne and appear to the Church obstinate therein he may be excommunicated though he be supposed to be truly ingrafted into Christ 3. I dare not say that one known by the Apostle to be without Christ which hath committed some grosse sinne as heresie adultery or some other work of the flesh Gal. 5. if he being admonished do heare the Church and submit himself ought to be excommunicated Tit. 3.10 Mat. 18.17 A member of the visible Church though indeed without Christ and so discerned by an Apostle cannot be judged to be without Christ in foro ecclesiastico he appearing as you put the case outwardly otherwise in the frame of his conversation 4. I never said nor thought but a man must be within the Church before the Apostle could excommunicate him yet it hence follows not that he must be within this or that particular church or within the Church in your sense Of I'resbyterian calculation I shall speak in the last Section Sect. 4. When I urge that the Apostle opposeth fornicators of the world and fornicators that are brethren You reply that Persecution in the Primitive times was levied against those which did joyne themselves to the Churches or otherwise visibly as Paul at his first conversion by preaching declared themselves to be Christs disciples That the brother opposed to the fornicators of the world is not be that by the internall and invisible grace of faith is a brother and dare not ●●enly professe Christ but a named and professed brother Fervicators of this world are to be understood of it as it stands in opposition to the visible Church Rejoynd The Apostle forbad them to eat not only with scandalous Church-members but with all Brethren not those which are brethren only in foro Dei conscientiae suae by the internall and invisible grace of faith whereof it is impossible the Church should take notice De non existentibus non apparentibus eadem est ratio But those that were brethren in foro ecclesiae did make profession of Christianity were called brethren and yet were scandalous I am not so senslesse as to think that the Church was bound to take notice of the internall invisible and unprofessed grace of faith in a mans heart why do you so largely disprove it 2. A man may be a brother that is a Christian and disciple of Christ as Paul was it is your own instance at his first conversion before any such enchurching yea every visible Christian is so for by priority of nature every Christian is first of the universall visible Church and so in that respect called a brother and secondarily of a particular congregation An Heathen is not first converted into this or that or the other Congregation but first into the Church catholique then into this or that Congregation Now the Apostle saith not if any man that is called a brother and is a member of a particular Congregation with such a one eat not but you contrary to the rule Non restringendum ubi lex non restringit say if a man be called a brother and be not of a particular congregation he is without as well as an Heathen and the Church hath no power to censure him nor doth the Apostle forbid us to eat with such an one And so you make scandalous Church-membership not scandalous professorship of Christianity to be the formall objective cause of our separation and withdrawing from them Sect. 5. When I say Without are dogs sorcerers Rev. 12.15 such as Paul had not to do with What have I to do c. v. 12. And yet he had to do with all Christians by his illimited Apostolique power whether they belong to that or any other Congregation on no

such as God judgeth or are loft to the immediate judgement of God You reply p. 76. There might be dogs in the Apostolique churches as well as without Phil. 3.2 and with such dogs Paul had to do A strange speech to proceed from you who elsewhere maintain that the Apostolick Churches did consist of visible Saints and that Paul in the judgement of charity did thinke all the Philippians to be Saints Phil. 1.7 and if I grant that there might be dogges as well within the Churches as without what gaine you by it you further reply that Paul had to doe with the dogges of the Gentiles he received a Key of knowledge to open the Kingdome of Heaven to beleevers and to bind them that would not repent and beleeve under the guilt of impenitency but Paul had nothing to do to judge with the judgement mentioned in this place viz. by the Ministery of the Church of Corinth those that were without the combination of that Church the Apostles had received no such Power to judge those persons to excommunication by the Ministry of a Church that were never in fellowship with the Church Rejoynd 1. Master Cotton tels us that the key of knowledge saving knowledge or which is all one the key of faith is common to all beleevers and he distinguisheth it from the key of Power Cot. keyes p. 6.7 but it may be this is not the key of knowledge you mean but you have made another 2. Paul opening the Kingdome of Heaven to the Gentiles in case they would beleeve and repent and binding them under the guilt of impenitency and obstinacy if they would not repent though you prove not that her did so bind any Gentiles was done by Doctrine not by Discipline by preaching not by censures of which this 1 Cor. 5. evidently speaks Had Paul any thing to doe to judge or censure the Heathens to be excommunicated which were never within the universall or particular Church 3 Paul had not to doe indeed to excommunicate out of the Church them that were never in the Church for that is impossible how can hee bee excommunicated that is not within the universall visible Church for excommunication is a casting out of the Church not out of the invisible Church for that cannot bee nor out of a particular visible Church onely but out of the universall visible Church as Baptisme doth admit into it so excommunication doth cast out of it and as they may be received to Baptisme and not admitted into a particular Church as Saul and the Eunuch so they may be excommunicated though they were not set Members of a particular Congregation but if they were never within the universall Church they cannot be cast out of it for that imployes a contradiction 4. The judgement mentioned in this place is not the judgement of Paul by the Ministery of the Church of Corinth as you assert for hee doth expressely distinguish them what have I to do Do not yee judge Paul saith not what have you to do to judge nor what have wee to doe to judge for so it may seeme that he included the judgement of Corinth with his owne but what have I to doe c. Now though the Church of Corinth could onely judge those that were within her limits as other Churches could also within theirs and therefore might judge the Incestuous Person suppose hee was one of them and lived amongst them yet the Apostle did deliver to Sathan Hymeneus and Philetus without the Ministery of any Church that wee read of and certainly the Apostle had Power to judge all Christians all of the universall visible Church whether within a particular Congregation or no for which I alledged the Authoritie of the Elders of New England in the marginal citation which you leave out Sect. 6. Reply p. 77. Such Persons though for their Crimes they may be subject to the judgement of the Civil Magistrate yet in respect of Ecclesiasticall judgement they are left to the immediate judgement of God else by whom shall beleevers not joyned to any particular Congregation be judged why shall this Congregational Classicall Provincial National Church judge them rather then that may they be judged by all or any one they stand no more related to one then to another which are members of none at all where shall the fault be charged if judgement be not passed if a Church may judge one out of the combination why not 1000.10000 Yet we are farre from judging those beneevers in England and Scotland which are not joyned in our way to a particular Congregation therefore to be altogether out of Church combination and not crpable of the Ecclesiasticall judgement of their Churches Rejoynd Every Christian is to be accountable to the Church or Churches where he doth reside and that Congregation or classis of Congregations is to receive him to such Ordinances as he is meet for and to censure him if he doe offend As in the time of the Law if a man was found slaine the next city must expiate the Murther if the Murtherer was not known Deut. 21.1 2 3. or punish him if knowne for first It is the duty of every Christian to joine to that particular Church of God where hee doth reside on neere unto him and those with whom hee doth reside are to admonish him so to doe but if he shall obstinately refuse they may order that the brethren of those Churches should not eate nor have familiar society with such an offender 2. Members of that Congregation or classis of Congregations within which an Heretick or Scandalous man doth reside are in most danger to be infected with Heresie or Scandall You will say hee hath not consented to be of that Congregation and therefore is not subject to her judgement I Answer 1. If it bee his sin he hath not joyned then one sinne cannot free another from being censured If a Malefactor at an Assize shall refuse to be tryed by God and the Bench or by God and the Countrey shall hee therefore bee left to the immediate judgements of God 2. It may be hee hath consented to it 1. In Parliament hee and we all are included which hath set bounds and limits 2. Hee possibly was borne and baptized in it and 3. It may be hee received the Sacrament in it frequents prayer and preaching there or at least 4. hee voluntary sits downe in that Parish or Vicinity the inhabitants whereof by Law or custome in generall consent of Ministers and Members doe belong to that Congregation and so may bee interpreted to have consented in his deeds though in words he deny it A Cambridge man that dwels within the City of London doth by deeds professe he is a Londoner though in words he may deny it no Christian dwelling in Corinth could escape the censure of the Church of Corinth by pretending to be of the Church or Cenchrea 2. If there should yet be a question what Congregation should judge such an