Selected quad for the lemma: earth_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
earth_n	church_n	invisible_a	visible_a	3,670	5	9.2967	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A89619	Divinity-knots vnloosed or a cleare discovery of truth; by resolving many doubts, according to scripture, orthodox divines, and sound reason, so as weake capacities may receive satisfaction therein. To which purpose, a number of points are explained by familiar simile's. A treatise intended specially for the instruction of young Christians in Rothstorne parish in Cheshire: but published for a further extent of the benefit thereof, to the Israel of God. By Adam Martindale, one of the meanest labourers in the Lords harvest.	Martindale, Adam, 1623-1686.	1649 (1649)	Wing M856; Thomason E1352_2; ESTC R209407	38,259	96

side SWEARE NOT AT ALL b Mat. 5.34 and ABOVE ALL THINGS MY BRETHREN SWEARE NOT c Jam. 5.12 Resol Very well for the sense is Sweare not at all by the Creature Not by Heaven Earth Jerusalem or thine head saith Christ d Mat. 9.34 c. Not by Heaven Earth or any other Oath saith the Apostle James c Jam. 5.12 The generall expression Sweare not at all must be expounded by the particulars enumerated Others say the Scribes and Pharisees taught It was lawfull to sweare in their ordinary Communication so they were not perjured and Christ heads himselfe against their Doctrine forbidding swearing in ordinary course to which James subscribeth in the place quoted Both expositions are agreeable to sound doctrine though they cannot both be sense of the places But that Christ should forbid all swearing cannot be the sense of it for God himselfe appointed an Oath to decide controversies Exod. 22.7 c. 1 Kin. 8.31 Ezra 10.5 Nehe. 5.12 13.25 Isa 65.16 2 Cor. 1.23 Heb. 6.16 2 Cor. 11.31 which being neither typicall nor grounded on speciall reason peculiar to those times but of common equity concerning us as well in the dayes of the Gospell cannot be abrogated Compare the Scriptures in the Margent CHAP. XIV Of the Church and Communion of Saints 59. Doubt WHethr is there such a thing as an universall visible Church Resol The Church wherein God hath set Apostles 1 Cor. 12.28 can be no other Vniversall it must needs be because comprehending universall Officers and it can neither be the invisible on Earth nor the tryumphant for Apostles as such belong to neither of them though as Saints they doe for Judas was an Apostle a Mat. 10.2 3 4. but appertained neither to the invisible Church on Earth nor the tryumphant in Heaven b Joh. 17.12 Acts 1.16 60 Doubt How is it possible that Beleevers through the World should hold Communion when they are of so many different opinions Resol Diversity of opinion is a great enemy to Communion and therefore it should be our desire and endeavour to be all of one heart and judgement c 1 Cor. 1.10 Yet it is possible Communion may be held in the maine amongst those which are not of one mind in all things d Phil. 3.15 16. CHAP. XV. Of the Sacraments 61. Doubt HOw can Infants be capable of Baptism when the Scripture no where commands it nor tels of any that were Baptized Resol Though the Scripture lay downe neither Precept nor President in expresse tearmes a Doctrine that may be proved by undenyable Scripture-consequence may not be rejected Christ overthrew the opinion of the Sadduces by Scripture a Mat. 22.29 to 34. although he alleadged nothing expresly against their errour but onely by way of consequence Howbeit the confutation was so cleare that the multitude understood and admired it his enemies were put to silence and a fresh party prepared themselves to give an onset 62. Doubt Yet methinkes a matter of so great importance and so much contended for should be proved by one place at least of expresse Scripture Resol Though the least part of Gospell-truth is worthy to be contended for so it be in love and modesty and the delay of Baptisme without just cause is a sleighting of Gods gracious tender yet the dispute being onely concerning a circumstance of time we account it nothing so weighty as if it concerned the substance and essence of Baptisme Neverthelesse it cannot be denyed but even weightier matter then Baptisme it selfe are not to be found in expresse tearmes in the Scripture The Mystery concerning Trinity of Persons in Unity of Essence is no where read Totidem verbis as we say in the Word of God howbeit it is sufficiently proved 1 John 5.7 and no lesse then blasphemy to deny it Neither is it said in any place expresly that the holy Ghost is God though undenyably proved 1 Cor. 3.16 Acts 5.3 4. Or how doth it appeare that Women did or ought to receive the Lords Supper Or that the Son of a Beleever being a growne person was or ought to be Baptized which notwithstanding our opposers hold and practice They must not answer me that whole Families were baptized among whom it is probable there were some such for it may be easily replyed It is as probable that in some of the Families mentioned there was at least one Infant or person in minority which if we shall suppose seeing the whole Family was baptized it must needs be baptized also which they will in no wise grant though it be the more probable of the two 63. Doubt I shall say nothing concerning the Trinity or of the Deity of the holy Ghost your selfe having proved them both sufficiently though I confesse onely by strong consequence not in expresse tearmes which I never before observed but to me the Scripture is plaine enough that Women may receive the Lords Supper because they may examine themselves b 1 Cor. 11 28. and we read of Women that have had Faith Repentance Knowledge and Charity as well as men And as easie is it to prove that a Beleevers Son when himselfe is a Beleever must be baptized seeing Faith makes capable c Mark 16.16 but I finde not the like proofe for Pedobaptisme Resol Mistake me not I did not deny the things you plead for onely I say they cannot be found in expresse tearmes but must be made out by consequence and this you shall finde is equally strong for Pedobaptisme as for them which to satisfie your doubt I shall briefly shew you in these few Arguments 1. Argument Disciples are to be Baptized Beleevers Children are Disciples Ergo They are to be Baptized That Disciples are to be Baptized no man can doubt that understands Matth. 28.19 which Scripture is most naturally rendred * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Go disciple all Natinos baptizing them c. And those which deny the lawfulnesse of Childrens baptisme doe not onely acknowledge this but urge it much against us as supposing that Infants cannot be Disciples And therefore all the stresse of the argument lyeth in the proofe of the Minor which may be done thus Peter blaming such as urged Circumcision and observance of Moses Law hath this passage d Acts 15.10 Why tempt yee God to put a yoake on the neck of the Disciples c. To the understanding whereof you must note that the false Teachers taught the Brethren that they must be Circumcised because of the Law of Moses commanding it e Acts 15.1 for no other Law could bind them to it and this Law did not onely require that adult persons but that all their Males eight days old should be circumcised f Gen. 17.12 So that these Patrons of Circumcision must needs lay this unsupportable yoak as well on Beleevers Children as Beleevers themselves and yet they are all called Disciples I conclude therfore seeing Christ commands that Disciples must

be if one beleeving Parent should so sanctifie the other that the Seed should be internally holy Not the second Viz. Conjugall or Marriage holinesse and if the Apostle had onely meant such Children were lawfully begot in Wedlock not adulterously or in Fornication for he makes such an opposition between uncleanesse and this holinesse as will not admit this interpretation Else saith he were your Children uncleane but now they are holy Uncleannesse and holinesse are here opposed so that if by holy he meane onely lawfully begotten uncleane must needs signifie unlawfully begotten And then the Apostle saith thus much in effect that when neither party beleeveth they live and beget Children in adultery or fornication but this cannot be his meaning for it is not true Marriage being honourable and a bed undefiled not to Belevers onely but to all men a Heb. 13.4 It remaineth then that they be Covenant-wise or federally holy or set apart to God For the Lord having taken a beleever and his seed into Covenant with himselfe b Gen. 17.7 as before though his Wife be an unbeleever her infidelity cannot make Gods Covenant ineffectuall For further proofe let us view againe that Scripture in the second of Acts Vers 39. The promise is to you and TO YOVR CHILDREN This is spoken to Evangelicall repenting Parents and agrees to all such Add hereunto that many absurdities and those no small ones will follow if we deny Children because such to be uncapable of the externall Covenant as Absurdity 1 First That we have lost by the comming of Christ for before he came in the flesh if a Gentile had joyned himselfe to the Jewish Church he had taken hold of the Covenant for himselfe and his Seed but now onely for himselfe and is not a mans tenure much worsned if he formerly held to him and his heyres for ever and now onely for terme of life Surely the clearenesse of dispensation and freedome from burdensome Ceremonies appertaining to the Covenant of grace cannot make nmends for this losse A man had better undergoe many inconveniences with his owne Land then to have a morec ommodious piece for terme of life only Absurdity 2 Secondly The whole blessing of Abraham should not then come on the Gentiles according to Gal. 3.14 but onely part of it for his priviledges were not personall only but hereditary i.e. belonging to his Seed Absurdity 3 Thirdly Christ should be lesse kind to his Church now then when he was on the Earth for then he acknowledged that Infants were not debarred for their infancy from the Covenant but saith Of such is the Kingdome of Heaven c Mat. 19.13 Mark 10.14 Luk. 18.15 I know some may answer when Christ saith of such he meaneth not Children but such as they are Viz. such as are harmelesse humble and meek like them But the reply is easie that he intended to take in both for the Originall word * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is here translated such when it is referred to a patterne doth not exclude but include it I can give you many instances where the word must needs be so taken where Christ sayth Who so shall receive one SVCH Child in my Name receiveth me d Mat. 18.5 were it not ridiculous to say Christs intent was to tell them that if they received any other Child like that in his Name they received him but if they received that very Child which he shewed them they received him not It is sayd John 4.23 That the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth for the Father seeketh SVCH to worship him Here the word such cannot signifie such as are onely like to them that worship in spirit and truth for such counterfeits are hypocrites whose service God abhors but they that doe so worship Compare also the first Verse of the second Chapter to the Romans with the second Verse of the same and you shall see that such things are the same things In the same sense this word is taken in sundry other places e Mat 9.8 Act. 16.24 Gal. 5.23 Thinke withall what reason you can give why Christ should be so angry as Mark telleth us he was f Mark 10.14 The Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 importeth indignation or grievous vexation of spirit and so is used Mat. 20.24 26.8 Mark 10.41 14.4 Luk. 13.14 when his Disciples rebuked them that brought Children to him that he should pray over them g Mat. 19.13 Was this the sole cause Viz. that they were like those that belong to him in conditions Then wheresoever the like vertues are found they that hold them forth must also be admitted and Christ would have been displeased had they been rebuked And upon this ground as Master Cotten rightly affirmeth Christ might as well have sayd Suffer Doves and Lambs to come to me for of such that is such meek and harmelesse ones as they are is the Kingdome of Heaven But surely that opinion would savour strongly of the idle that should set Christ in a posture of readinesse to receive Doves or Lambs to pray over them and to be displeased with his Disciples had they rebuked such as brought them which yet he must have done had he been uniforme in his working according to reason * This is cleare to him that understands the axiome A quateus ad omne valet consequentia and those imitable vertues the sole cause why he received them 65. Doubt There is a great deale of reason in that which you say and I acknowledge my selfe much engaged to you for condiscending to my capacity in avoyding tearmes of Art as much as may be But I observe you made much use of Acts 2.39 and I doubt whether it can carry all the weight you lay on it for there be no lesse then three strong exceptions against it Exception 1 First All to whom Peter spake were Jewes by Nation to whom indeed this promise belonged Keepe you to Beleevers in Abrahams line and you may say to them The promise is to you and to your Children but you cannot affirme the same of others for there is no such promise Exception 2 Secondly Others expound the place thus The promise is to you if you repent and to your Children and to those that are afarre off that is Gentiles even so many as the Lord our God shall call if they repent Or thus whosoever God calleth be it your selves your Children or any of the Gentiles to them the promise belongeth Exception 3 Thirdly Some affirme this is no the promise of Gen. 17. as you seeme to take it but of Joel 2. which the speech concerneth all along this Chapter and the sense is The promise Viz. of extraordinary gifts of the spirit to speake to people of strange languages in their Mother tongues as wee doe this day is to you and to your Children and to as many as are afar off even as many as the Lord our