Selected quad for the lemma: duty_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
duty_n	church_n	true_a	visible_a	1,038	5	9.2291	5	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

and he proceedeth to disprove setting downe a Proposition and the proofes of it that I alledged The Proposition is this An outward covenant acted between God and a company of beleevers to be one anothers and for the like among themselves is the form of the visible church I cannot say these were my expressions yet I shall justifie the Proposition That a visible Covenant according to my former distinction is the form of a visible church His answer to this is That the covenant of God makes the church but that any can be concluded to have an outward being in the covenant of the Gospel now without baptisme hee denieth requires me to prove it and saith he hath proved the contrary before To which with my answer to it I referre you Hee goeth on and saith Whereas I say a company of beleevers acting a covenant to become one anothers amongst themselves to be the form of the church He answereth By the same reason if without baptisme at present they may receive the forme of the church without administration of the Gospel for the future which he conceives will be absurd to affirm Reply First the administrations of the Gospel doe not concurre to the forme of the church and therefore she hath her forme without them nor could she bee partaker of them but being a church first They are necessary for her well-being not her being And if shee should neglect the administration of the Gospel and administer the contrary yet she should be a church still by her first constitution till God cast her off which without question in time hee will doe though she doe but neglect his Secondly a church receives her form to be a church for administrations sake and to enjoy those administrations to bee exercised therein according to Gods word and therefore shee will not be wanting to her self herein If I shall say If baptisme be the form of a church then by the same reason shee may receive the forme without all administration of the Gospel for the future I conceive it would be absurd to affirm it There is nothing in what hee said therefore worth answering And the same hath been said and answered before Secondly he saith God hath appointed no such thing for men to act such a covenant for any such end and therefore so to doe is will-worship invention of man and in Gods worship plain superstition and flat breach of the second commandement and therefore if it be the form of a Church it is a superstitious church which is so formed by such a superstitious action Reply I grant all humane inventions in Gods worship are sinfull superstitious and flat breaches of the second commandement and added to Gods worship doe pollute the same But secondly it doth not disanull a church that some inventions of men are joyned which ought not to be to Gods worship nor doe I thinke that himselfe thinkes as he saith that God hath not appointed men to act such a covenant for any such end because he hath said many times and granted a few lines before these words that the covenant of God makes the church Now a covenant of God is that which is acted between him and beleevers outwardly with whom he first makes it any other I suppose he understood not by it and so continued in by them following till God cut them off If thus then suppose it should be a mistake to say to become one anothers also that cannot so alter the covenant as to make it superstitious or a humane invention And when they baptize a man in yeares will they not first require him to take God in Christ to be his God and to submit to him in all things c. And is not this a covenant acted and the end of it to be to form him a church-member What invention of man is in this But if the proofe be found good this will be found his mistake so to say and therefore I shall stay till we come to them Thirdly he saith A covenant acted by beleevers to become one anothers cannot be a forme of a true visible church because it may be with ignorance both of the nature and duties of a true church as is proved by presupposing it to be the forme of the church before Baptisme Reply First I see no force in this reason for none ought to be ignorant of the nature and duties of a true church before they bee joyned but to be well catechised first nor is there any colour of reason to prove that such may be ignorant as are joyned by a covenant by presupposing it to bee the form of the Church before baptisme Secondly a covenant acted by beleevers and baptizing them are not supposed to be so distant in time as that they may not goe together but the covenant must proceed in order of nature and time baptisme being but the seale of it and is but an idoll with out it the covenant making them capable of baptisme and nothing else and baptisme being a visible and outward seale it must needs be an outward and visible covenant to which it is added and so maketh a member to be a formed member The Scriptures quoted by him 1 Cor. 1.15 c. to prove that all their externall relations must flow from their relation and union in baptisme are absurdly alledged and there is no relation and union in baptisme but by way of signification and confirmation The union must goe before if they doe not professe faith in Christ whereby they are united unto Christ before baptized they must not be baptized as himselfe hath often said and is truth But to come to the proofes I added to my proposition the first he saith was this If the Kingdome of heaven that is the Church state that we now have be the same that the Jewes had then if such a covenant as I have above expressed was the forme of that Church it is the form of ours now But the Kingdome of heaven that is the visible Church state that wee now have is the same they had Ergo If such a covenant was the forme of that church it is also the form of these now And the form of the Jewish Church was such a covenant Ergo. He answereth first If the Church state then and now bee not the same then the form of that is not the form of this and so my Argument grounded upon an IF is nothing But the Church state then constituted of a naturall seed was not that we have now constituted of a spirituall seed Ergo. Reply In denying the Church state then and now to bee the same he flatly contradicteth the Scripture Mat. 21.33 43. where it is clear that the Vineyard and Kingdome of heaven being the Church state they possessed is threatned to be taken away and given to other nations It is the same Vineyard and Kingdome taken away and given Secondly it is a grosse mistake to say that they were a Church stated of Abrahams natural seed

of the manner of administration as I have shewed before a Kingdome is not to be taken there in the sense that it is here in Matthew it ceased to them but was not dissolved in it self nor in respect of others to whom it was given not another Kingdome and Church estate given to others diverse from that but the very same So Matth. 22.1 c. the marriage Supper in one and the same continued all the time of that church estate before Christ and in these churches since Christ They were invited and called from time to time but they would not come at last they were therfore destroyed the Gentiles called in their stead therfore that then and this now was but one covenant and the same church estate the form of it then and now the same which then was an outward and visible covenant acted between God and the people mutually and therefore this same is the forme of churches now Having passed through the Argument which I gathered out of the old Testament I next added some others and first from Mat. 18.20 where the word used in the Greek is commonly used for church assembling or Synagoguising taken from the Jewes whose assemblies and places of assembling were called Synagogues John 20 10. Acts 4.21 11.26 13.44 14.27 20.7 1 Cor. 5.4 11.18 c. and other places many though some by him set downe are misquoted His answere hereto was this that the assembling of persons meerly in the Scripture was not the cause of that denomination nor will any Scripture prove that that name Church is given to a company of unbaptized persons but the assembling of a company of persons baptized in Christs name is the reason why they are denominated a true visible Church Rep. I grant that according to the intent of the question that the assembling of a company of men unbaptized is not the occasion why they are denominated a church yet the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is generally applied to a company of unbaptized persons as Act. 19.31.39.41 thrice together but that a church so meeting is of baptized persons yet the reason why a company of baptized persons meeting together is called a Church is truely and onely because they meet together and that not accidentally for so many thousands meet together in one place because they constantly meet together in one place by agreement to performe the solemne duties which they are bound to perform to God and each other Such a meeting together is that which onely giveth them the denomination of a Church nor is baptisme any reason of their meeting together for then all baptized persons must meet together in one place nor could this or that company bee called a church for that reason much lesse severall companies churches if there were nothing else added Matth. 18.19 Whatsoever two of you shall agree together in where the word agree is properly by a consent manifested by concurring voyces and paction so used Matth. 20.2.13 To say no more to this though I might say much more because I am not privie to my selfe that it was used by me I come to the next reason which was That whatsoever maketh a man a member of a church or no member that makes a company of men to be a church or no church there is the same reason of the whole that there is of every part but the making or unmaking or restoring a man to bee a member is by a covenant acted Esay 56.4 6. Ergo that is the form of the church His answer grants that the covenant of God is the ground upon which the church and every member thereof is stated but hee denies that a covenant acted to become one another doe form the church or member either nor doth Esa 56.4 5. prove any such thing but onely that the Eunuch or stranger that took hold of Gods covenant that is were circumcised and performed the duties which they were thereby bound to performe Gal. 5.3 should have a place in his house not by acting a covenant and neglecting circumcision Reply What he saith here hath been said before and answered and I am confident that he cannot make good what hee grants that a Church is grounded upon Gods covenant and thereby stated but in this sense I speak of a covenant acted by beleevers between God and them which he alwayes leaves out and between themselves and therefore a covenant acted doth form the church or membership thereof Esay 56. doth prove it sufficiently where the Lord saith If an Eunuch or stranger shall take hold of and embrace my covenant that is shall submit themselves to enter into covenant with me taking me to be their God and becomming one of my people by joyning themselves to me and them thereby and receive circumcision as a seale thereof and doe my works shall have a place in my house whereas he expoundeth the covenant to be circumcision hee doth but run in a common mistake it being but a signe seale of the covenant and cannot be the covenant it selfe no more then a signeor seale of a thing can be the thing it selfe that it signifieth and sealeth and is not onely an errour in religion but against manifest reason too But of this often before though therefore they were to be circumcised yet that was the first thing before which there was nothing acted visibly and that they did not first make some outward profession and expression of being one with them and having their God to be theirs will never be proved by him and if he will not yeeld the contrary by what is and hath been said let him bee content that other men be of another judgement and have his leave to be quiet or else convince me of his calling hee hath to deale in such matters as he doth with arrogancy enough He addeth not by acting a covenant neglecting circumcision I grant it and so also not by acting a covenant or circumcision and neglecting sacrifices c. but acting a covenant doth form the church and giveth them right to circumcision and the rest which must be added or else they will be found despisers of Gods covenant which they had made whereby they were bound to observe circumcision and all other appointments of God before they were circumcised as is manifest in all them that lived before Abrahams dayes and in Abrahams dayes by Gods expressing himselfe to Abraham Gen. 12 13.15 chapters which was before hee was circumcised As for that Gal. 5.3 it hath been fully answered before and therefore I omit it My next reason was taken from the comparison of a church with a Candlestick Rev. 1.12.20 such as is the forme of a candlestick such by proportion is the form of a church as the matter signifies the matter of a church proportionally but the form of the candlestick is the joyning together of the shaft and branches signifying the uniting together of many members and Christ which cannot be but by agreement