Selected quad for the lemma: heaven_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
heaven_n	church_n	earth_n	militant_a	5,036	5	12.4963	5	true

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 church-estate when they die if it cease not before Secondly this or that true visible church may die and none succeed them and then the visible church ceaseth for ever the outward covenant also and baptisme the seal of it ceaseth and that not only to the outward view but to our faith also For I suppose none have so much faith as to believe that a company of dead men and ceasing to be are a visible church in covenant and baptized that they were such may be believed but that they are such and hold their relation still with the visible church by their baptisme as members thereof is but his dream as any that are dead and saved may be accounted a part of a church it is of the church predestinate from all ages from the beginning to the end a part whereof are in heaven triumphant and a part on earth militant and otherwise to make them in heaven a part of any church or of this or that visible church is but a devised thing Nor doth it follow that this or that visible church ceasing and none surviving Ergo the visible Church of Christ ceaseth so this his exception might have been spared Nor doth his answer cleer his Proposition from it but it is wholly overthrown thereby A second exception is this persons may seem to be true members of a visible church and yet not be so and may shew themselves not to be afterwards and so the church may cease He answereth that when such do manifest themselves what they are they declare thereby that they never were in covenant nor church at all nor baptized So the church thereby cease not to be by being dissolved but they are discovered never to have been in that covenant nor church and so never were baptized 1 Joh. 2.19 Reply This exception savoureth of himself but briefly where hypocrites discover themselves to be such they thereby declare they never were of the number of Gods elect and so not in the covenanted visible church and baptized as the elect of God but that they were not truly members of that visible church to which they belonged in the covenant and truly baptized is not true but crosse to Scriptures affirming such to be branches in the Vine Joh. 15. or else now cut off and members of the church as in the Epistles to the churches in Asia c. And if such an hypocrite after his discovery should repent and be truly converted then he must be joyned to the church not by restoring but by a new covenant and be new baptized having no covenant baptisme or membership before for that place 1 John 2.19 it doth not say they went out from us because they were not with us for how could they have gone out from them if not with them and really with them or else they seemingly went out from them but because they were not of us that they might be made manifest that they were not of us the Text therefore doth not deny them to be truly members with them visibly but they were not true members of them so that all hee hath said doth not wave the exception From all which it doth appeare that baptisme even of God himself cannot be the form of a church but only it is a seal of the covenant by which the church is constituted it is constituted by participation and visibly by visible participation and that is only by visible and outward acting to subjection in the covenant the continuance also in a church is by the continuance of the manifestation of the same participation possessed their visilbe profession of subjection to the covenant therefore baptisme of believers is not the constitution of church visible but a covenant acted as from all these four particulars I argued gathered up into this summe If a covenant acted by believers was the form of the visible church before Christ then it is the form of visible churches since Christ but the first is true as will appeare by all these four particulars therefore also the latter This he answereth by denying both Antecedent and Consequent his Reason against the Antecedent is because if God himself was not the form of the church of the old Testament much lesse can it be said that an outward covenant acted by the people of Israel was the form of the church as is manifested by what is above said his Reason of denying the Consequent is least of all nor doth it prove such a thing to form the churches now Reply This Reason of denying the Antecedent is not reasonable for what was the covenant of God himselfe but an outward covenant acted between God and the people of Israel I know no other covenant of God but that which he made with Abraham between Abraham and his seed and himselfe which was also continued to his posterity and that covenant was acted between God and them and one with another and so the form of that Church is evident from the former four particulars considered together notwithstanding all that he hath said to the contrary The covenant God made with Abraham his family and seed was an outward acted covenant the renewall of which by them in the plains of Moab was such so was that in Asa's Josiah's Nehemiah's dayes all these were outward and visible covenants acted outwardly Of this covenant under which the Jewes stood doth Zacharias speak Zach. 11.10.14 This Zachary shewes how it was in two branches the staffe of Beauty acted betwixt God and them and the staffe of Bonds acted between themselves to be a brotherhood by which title a Christian Church is frequently stiled in the new Testament by all which it appeares that it was such a covenant spoken off by which they were Gods people and church and by the dissolution whereof they were no Church Besides there was a visible Church from Adams restitution till Abrahams time by their profession of faith in Gods righteousnesse and neither circumcision nor baptisme yet a true constituted visible Church out of which Cain was ejected and cast out The consequent from hence is this That a covenant outwardly acted by beleevers with God and one another is the form of the visible Churches in the new Testament because it was the form of the Church before Christ and there can bee but one form of one and the same thing as a man grown and a child is but the same man and hath the same form that makes him a man now when he is grown that he had when he was a child Even so the church before Christ is compared to a child under age and churches since Christ to grown men Gal. 4.1 c. Further to prove that we have the same Church-estate not in number but in kind I alledged Matth. 21.43 where it is said The Kingdome of Heaven shall be taken from them and given to another Nation that Church estate was not dissolved but taken away from them Heb. 12. speakes not of the covenant as Church estate but

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

prove that it is the form of a church now Reply He denies not what I affirmed to wit that they could not stand in a right and pure church estate without renewall of their covenant hee denies that they could not stand in a church state without it and great difference there is between a church and no church a pure and impure church he saith nothing therefore to what I said and proved yet I am willing to heare what he saith First they were a church before and I say so too but much degenerated and much transgressing the covenant Secondly he saith they did no more then they were bound to doe by their circumcision Reply I have answered that Gal. 5. before that it did not engage them to keep the whole Law it being the seale of the righteousnesse of Faith nor did the seale bind them to any thing but as in relation to the covenant which onely bound them Hence Levit. 26. where God threatned to send a sword to avenge thequarrell of his covenant he did not plead with them about circumcision but for not beleeving circumcision of the heart as Jerem. 9. last and testifying their faith by obedience and so they did now mend this by attending to the covenant and thereby setting themselves visibly in a right church state again which therefore proves that the forme of the church was a visible covenant for that which makes a church impure to be pure according to the right constitution that is it which gives it the constitution but the renewall of the covenant maketh an impure church pure according to the right constitution Ergo the covenant giveth it a constitution Again if failing in the covenant causeth a true church to bee otherwise then according to constitution then the covenant gives her her constitution But the first is true Ergo the latter and circumcision the seal remains the same without any alteration As in mens covenants the seale annexed remains the same though the covenant to which it is adjoyned may in many things be violated My fourth and last particular to prove a covenant acted by them as beleevers was the forme of the Jewish church was this That which being taken away made that church cease to bee a church that was the form of that church But the dissolving of their covenant made that church cease to be a church Ergo. The first Proposition he meddles not with and I raise it on this ground That nothing can cease to be that hath a being but by annihilating the matter and form of its being nor can any thing cease to be that it is but by taking away that form of it whereby it is such a thing rather then another And therefore if any thing cease to be that it was it must be by taking away the form of it The second Proposition that the dissolving of their covenant made that church cease to be a church which I cleared from Zach. 11.10 14. take a view and you may see it clearly the chapter declares the rejection of the Jewes from being a church no man can deny it and that at Christs time and for rejecting of him and upon their rejection they ceased to be a visible church and Gods people as they had been First therefore it is to be observed how God will effect this that they shall be no church nor his people and that is by breaking his covenant with them vers 10. That I may break my covenant which I had made with this people Secondly this covenant had two branches one the staffe of Beauty and this is the covenant between God and them mutually called Beauty because God making a covenant with them did adorne them with all excellencie and comelinesse whereby they became beautifull above other people Ezek. 16.8 c. yea in the eyes of the Heathen v. 14. which could not be circumcision nor any invisible covenant but outward and visible The other branch of the covenant is called Bonds and that is the covenant on their parts one with another whereby they joyned together in a brotherhood to worship God called Bonds because they were thereby knit and bound together to be a compact body and brotherhood Ecclesiasticall Thirdly that God by breaking these two staves did break his covenant with them and thereby they ceased to be his visible people and a brotherhood amongst themselves all these are evidently foretold in the Text and accomplished after our Saviour his death when they were wholly rejected of God and never since enjoyed that estate From whence it followeth plainly that their constitution in that Church estate was by that covenant which being disanulled their Church estate and constitution is altogether annihilated Now let us see what hee answers to this reason First hee saith the covenant of Gods grace is eternall the Kingdome or Church state that comes by it cannot be shaken Heb. 12.28 baptisme the fruit of it a church constituted by it remaines eternally John 11.26 He that beleeves in Christ shall never die Reply First I grant that the covenant of grace is eternall and that as well in the time before Christ as since but I speak of it as it is made with men in which respect though it bee eternall in it selfe yet it is not eternall to all that it is made with but may and doth cease to this or that man to this or that Church Secondly the Kingdome shaken and that cannot be shaken is not the covenant of grace applied to the Jews or Gentiles but the manner of administration of one and the same covenant in it selfe but from the divers administration of it one way to them the old Testament another way to us now the new Testament the former is shaken and removed and changed into this that cannot be shaken or changed but shall remain till Christs coming 1 Cor. 15. yet this or that church may be shaken out of it and many have been and that this shaking is meant of the former manner of administration only is evident by the Scripture it self and not of the covenant else the covenant with them was not the eternall covenant of grace but a covenant of another nature this particular church therefore may be disanulled yet the covenant remains eternall and unshaken Again the kingdome of Heaven is taken two wayes in Scripture First as before for the manner of administration of the covenant and so it may be and hath been shaken and of this Heb. 12. Secondly for the church-estate and the covenant of grace by laying hold whereon a people became a church This can never be shaken so as that there should not be a visible church visibly in covenant with God and of this Matth. 21.43 which may be taken from one company and given to another as from the Jewes to the Gentiles but never cease to be with one people or other hells gate being not able to prevail against it Matth. 16. Thirdly baptisme the fruit of it or church-estate by partaking