Selected quad for the lemma: church_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
church_n	communion_n	hold_v	schism_n	2,955	5	9.8292	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A94166	A Christian, sober & plain exercitation on the two grand practicall controversies of these times; infant baptism and singing of psalms Wherein all the scriptures on both sides are recited, opened and argued, with brevity and tenderness: and whatever hath been largely discussed by others, briefly contracted in a special method for the edification of the saints. By Cuthbert Sidenham, teacher to a church of Christ in Newcastle upon Tine.	Sydenham, Cuthbert, 1622-1654.	1653 (1653)	Wing S6291; Thomason E1443_1; ESTC R209635	113,076	235

signe of it and so cannot come under the common rule this I conceive sufficient to be spoken as to that consideration there onely remaines that question which will easily be answered on the former grounds if they prove true as they are demonstrated The Lord give a blessing to these considerations on your heart CHAP. XX. That Baptisme doth not forme a Church SO much doe our opposites advance Baptisme that they make it the only constitutive principle of a Gospel Church by which men enter into the Church and are made visible Members onely by its administration and in their owne method But we shall soon dethrone that position by the authority and force of Scripture and rationall argumentation Onely in generall I doubt our Divines have unwittingly given them too much ground to affirme as they doe calling it an entrance into the Church an initiating Ordinance seale and by their practice of late to set the Font nigh the Church porch though I would not much stand upon it how proper it is to call it an initiating Ordinance a phrase I have used in this discourse Pro forma without it be because it is the first seale to be administred in the Order of Sacraments but it will be easily proved that Baptisme gives no essence or being either to a Church or membership 1. Because a man must be a member and of a Church ere he can be Baptized according to the Gospell rule 2. Sacraments are Ordinances to be administred in the Church and to the Church which supposeth the existence of the Church before thus 1 Cor. 12. 28. Eph. 4.11 12 13. the Lord hath set in and given all officers to the Church if so Sacraments which must be administred by officers if rightly 3. A Church may be without Baptisme and yet be as true and as reall a Church as the Isralites were so long in the wildernesse without Circumcision which was as much an initiating Ordinance as ever Baptisme was now nothing can be without its forme and exist 4. That cannot be the forme of a Church or make a man a Member which remaines the same and untouched after excommunication whereby a man is cut off from membership at present but now though the Church may take away his membership they cannot his Baptisme which is the same still and is not lost 5. For this is an absolute rule that that which gives the forme or being to a Church it must cease when the Church ceaseth or when a Member ceaseth to be a Member it must cease with it and that must be renewed as often as membership is renewed and so one must be Baptized againe as often as he renewes Membership this is most absurd yet must follow from such a principle 6. Baptisme is a signe and seale therefore gives no being to any thing but confirmes it It is a consequent act and supposeth something pre-existent Obj. As for that place they so much stand on Act. 2.41 As many as received the word gladly were Baptized and there was added that day about 3000. soules hence they say they were added by Baptisme Sol. The words say not they were added by Baptisme but puts a full point or stop after that sentence as many as gladly received the word were Baptized There that sentence ends And the Apostle goes on a new account and saith there were added that day 3000. soules but doth not at all shew the manner of their adding so that these words are rather a recapitulation and summing up the number of Church Members added that day then any description of the way of their taking into the Church as if one should say he had 3000 l. in gold added to his estate he only shews it is so but not how he came to have that added so it must be here and the former reasons prove the impossibility of such an interpretation 2. Obj. There is one place more urged to prove Baptisme to be the forme of a Church and that which makes a Member which is 1 Cor. 12.13 We are all Baptized into one body there Baptisme onely embodyes members Sol. To which I answer first The Apostle speakes there primarily of this Baptisme of the Spirit not of water So by one Spirit we are Baptized into one Body not so much of Baptisme by water But secondly grant it to be meant of Baptisme by water yet it proves nothing that Baptisme is the forme of that body which hath its matter and forme holinesse and union before Baptisme baptized into one body doth not here shew the essentiall constitution of a Church but the confirmed union For first we are said in Gal. 3.27 to be Baptized into Christ now none will conjecture that Baptisme gives the forme of union with Christ but onely seales it so into one body may be as to the unity of communion in the same body 2. The phrase of Baptizing into or in one body shews the body existent and in perfect being before else we could not be Baptized in a body or into a body for when one is Baptized first into what body is he and the second and third incorporated untill a body be compleat they cannot be said to be Baptized into it or in it therefore Baptisme cannot constitute the forme of a Church which is this body saying we are Baptized into it that is to hold union and communion with such a body 3. This argument is inserted more to prevent Schisme then to expresse the way of first embodying or constitution of Churches as the whole context demonstrates 4. It is the same reason with the Lords Supper and we may as well be said as to the first constitution to constitute Churches by that Sacrament as by Baptisme 1 Cor. 10.16 17. The cup of blessing we blesse is it not the Communion of the blood of Christ the bread that we break is it not the Communion of the body of Christ for we being many are one bread and one body for we are all partakers of that one bread So that we may as well be said to be gathered into a Church by the Lords Supper as by Baptisme for by it we are made one body and one Spirit But lastly if Baptisme doth essentially constitute a Church and is its forme then all who are Baptized are reall Members of the Church and must have all priviledges be they never so loose and vaine for they have the essentiall qualification and the perfect form and what will any desire more and strange consequences must needs follow you may make whom you will Members and make them Members before they are Members and Baptize into a body before there is a body or any knowledge of what frame the body is you may Baptize and have no Church for they may never come into Union and Communion who are Biptized upon these termes and then no Church can be constituted for who shall Baptize first for he must have an extraordinary Commission for he can have no ordinary delegation untill

remnant at this present time according to the election of grace whereof Paul was one therefore it must be from the visible Church they were broken off But here the Arminians and Pelagians agree with these that are against Infant-baptism as they do in many other opinions Mr. Tombes hath nothing to say in his Examen of Mr. Marshals Sermon to avoid this absurdity but only this pag. 64. The meaning is not saith he of some of the branches in the invisible Church but as when our Saviour Christ using the same similitude saies Joh. 15.2 Every branch in me not bearing fruit he taketh away The meaning is not that any branch in him could be fruitless or taken away but he calleth that a branch in him which was so in appearance so the Apostle speaking of branches broken off means it not of such as were truly so but so in appearance Thus far he Which is a granting of what he denies for to be a branch in appearance is only to be a visible branch and no branch that is meerly in appearance so and not really is one of the invisible Church nor can ever be said to be broken from it but only from his visible state which he hath but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 15 16. as a branch in outward priviledges and seeming graces 2. The breaking off c. it was of the Jewish Nation of the collective body though not of every individual and therefore it must needs be from the visible Church for as a Nation they were a Church and the whole Nation was cast away and rejected now as a Nation they were not all members of the invisible Church ver 7 8. with ver 17. 3. It 's a visible breaking off therefore cannot be from the invisible Church ver 3 4 5. 17 18 19. For as Mr. Baxter well observes There can be no visible removing from an invisible term 4. It 's a breaking off the naturall branches so he cals the Jews Now the body of the Jewish Church were not naturall branches in a spiritual sense for they believed not as Abraham did but only called so as they were naturally descended from his loyns and were members of the visible Church and first partakers of the outward priviledges of the Covenant made with him Thus the Apostle distinguisheth of the body of the Jewish Nation Rom. 9. where after he had reckoned up all the priviledges of the Israelites in general ver 4. Who are Israelites to whom pertains the adoption and the glory and the Covenants c. making way by this to shew the sadness of their rejection in ver the 6. to prevent the same Objection the Apostle in this Chapter saith They are not all Israel which are of Israel that is not all spiritual though all natural brances and these priviledges did visibly belong to all As for that distinction of Abrahams being a natural and a spiritual Father it may go for currant until they come to apply it and then it is most vain for all that came from Abraham as a natural Father had a title to all these priviledges forementioned which belonged to the visible Church until they did degenerate and cast themselves out as Ishmael and Esau c. But of this formerly Lastly If they were broken off from the invisible Church it must be either from union with Christ or communion with Christ and his Spirit for this is the true definition of the invisible Church that in it souls have real union and communion with God in Christ through the Spirit but none of the Jews that were broken off had such a union or communion and therefore could not be broken off from it But so far they may be said to be broken off from the invisible Church as by remote consequence as they were excluded from all the means of grace and the Ordinances which are the usual waies and methods of God to bring souls into communion with himself 2. Let us consider what is meant by the first fruits and the lump and the root and the branches There be many opinions concerning this especially two must be debated some think it Christ as these that follow Origen and the allegorical Fathers Ego aliam sanctam radicem nescio nisi Dominum nostrum Origen But that firstly and primarily by the first fruits and the lump and the root and the branches cannot be meant Christ neither personally nor mystically is most clear if we consider 1. Jesus Christ was not the first fruits in regard of the whole lump of the Jewish Nation and so cannot answer to the first similitude 2. Jesus Christ cannot be said to be root unto these which were cast away no branches really in him are cut off but so were they for that place of the 15th of John v. 2. which seemeth to speak of some branches which are in Christ and yet are taken away for not bearing fruit it may be better read and according to the Syriack thus Every branch that brings not forth fruit in me he takes away that is that do bring forth some seeming fruit but not as in Christ as root and principle 3. In ver 24. the Jews when they shall be called it 's said They shall be graffed into their own Olive Now Christ is not properly their own Olive but so is Abraham c. 4. The Jews are said as formerly to be natural branches of this root but so they were not of Christ but Christ was a natural branch from that stock Rom. 9.5 Whose are the Fathers of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came Mr. Tombes himself ingenuously confesseth this pag. 67. of his Examen That by the root cannot be meant Christ and gives us the hint of another argument from those expressions v. 24. of some branches wild 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to nature and of ingraffing in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 contrary to nature into this Olive he concludes the root cannot be Christ for Christ hath no natural or preternatural branches in him all are wild ere they be ingraffed into him as a living root And the other expression v. 18. of our not bearing the root but the root us if we boast against the Jews doth evidently demonstrate that the root here is not properly meant of Christ though he be the eternal root of all spiritual happiness set forth gloriously in many other places of Scripture Others by the root mean the Covenant But the best and most genuine sense is to interpret it of Abraham with whom and with his seed as so many branches the Covenant was made and by which both the root and the branches were made holy And this answers fully to both the similitudes For 1. It 's an allusion to the Legal rights about the first fruits which were to be offered up to God and by that all the whole mass all the fruits that came after were accounted holy Thus Abraham was the first fruits of the Jews he believing first and being in