Selected quad for the lemma: nation_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
nation_n	abraham_n	covenant_n	jew_n	1,304	5	7.0788	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A82508	A defence of sundry positions, and Scriptures alledged to justifie the Congregationall-way; charged at first to be weak therein, impertinent, and unsufficient; by R.H. M. A. of Magd. Col. Cambr. in his examination of them; but upon further examination, cleerly manifested to be sufficient, pertinent, and full of power. / By [brace] Samuel Eaton, teacher, and Timothy Taylor, pastor [brace] of [brace] the church in Duckenfield, in Cheshire. Published according to order.	Eaton, Samuel, 1596?-1665.; Taylor, Timothy, 1611 or 12-1681.	1645 (1645)	Wing E118; Thomason E308_27; ESTC R200391	116,862	145

ingaged to perform such duties so is any covenant The covenants in Scripture were no such covenants they were applied to Israel and to the Gentiles that should joyn to Israel and appropriated to them also So that they were a separated people from other Nations by covenant Exod. 12.47 48. the Passeover was a service which all the house of Israel was ingaged to perform together and all that would joyn to them and by circumcision they became one people with them but no stranger might partake with them so that the Jewes by the Covenant of God were to serve God rather with this people then with that That a covenant makes a Church with appropriation to this or that Pastor is denied for we hold it a consequent priviledge of a Church whether constituted by verball covenant or not to choose their own Pastor therefore the Church is first before it hath a Pastor this is confessed by your self page 13. if it were not so the Church would be dissolved at the death of the Pastor there is a covenant between the Pastor and people but it is emergent and groweth out and proceeds from the Covenant among the people the people must first be one before they can agree in one to choose their Pastor with whom they afterwards enter into covenant There was a covenant with Abraham and his house by vertue of which Israel was the Lords people in Egypt before there were any Pastors to be over them therefore Church-covenant there was in Scripture without application to Pastors And it was so in the Wildernesse also at the first before Aaron and his sons were chosen To be Gods people Answer and Gods Church is not all one in your sense Forty Believers of no Church or of forty severall Churches are the Lords people but they are not an instituted Church To be one people unto God Reply in a professed solemn way which is done by entring into covenant with God and to be a Church is all one Now this is that which is asserted from Deut. 29.12 13. That thou shouldest enter into covenant with the Lord thy God that be may establish thee this day for a people or one people to himself in a professed way So by the Covenant of circumcision for so it was called because it was the seal of it the Seehemites were to become one people to God and to the seed of Jacob Gen. 34.15 16. No Covenant in Scripture was at the founding of the Jewish Church Answer nor of the Christian Church nor at the adding any members to them neither did they make a Church more truly a Church or politique Society or more truly members but did make them or shew them to be more pure and holy servants of God even as when single persons or families do covenant with God 1. If there were no covenant at the founding of the Jewish church Reply how comes it that all that entred into the Iewish Church of the proselyted Gentiles entred by the Seal of the Covenant which was Circumcision doth not the way of augmentation of the Church shew the way of the first constitution thereof So it may be spoken of Christian Churches why are converted Heathens and the Infants of Church-members brought into the Church by baptisme which is a Church-ordinance and the seal of the Covenant of grace and of that part of it principally which respects Church-society 2. How do those which were many become one among themselves and distinct from all other bodies of the same kinde as Corinth was one in it self and distinct from Cenchrea for parishbounds were not then on foot so that the members of one were not the members of the other nor the Officers of one the officers of the other if there be nothing that knits them together among themselves and divides them asunder from others and if any thing combine them what can it be but some agreement or covenant expresse or implicit Why must circumcision the seal of the Covenant be used to make the Sechemites one people with Jacobs family if Jacobs family or Isaak's or Abrabam's before that were one unto all holy Church-worships among themselves without covenant 3. Did the joyning of the believing Gentiles to the family of Abraham by circumcision make them no more truly members of the church of Israel then they were before only make them and shew them to be more pure and holy servants of God were they not accounted after circumcision of the Jewes Common-wealth and were invested into all the Jewes spirituall priviledges which they had no right to before though they were converted persons and Gods servants 4. We conceive that Abraham and his family were not in Church state and professedly and openly separated from the world till the Covenant in Gen. 17. at which time by a mark in his flesh he was distinguished from all the nations and became Gods houshold if this be so then Church state is founded in Covenant if it be otherwise let it appear that he was in Church state before that time and we shall look out for a Covenant before that time That which induceth us thus to thinke is 1. Because we reade nothing of Abrahams family that they were a professed people unto God before that time 2. We reade not of any Symbole of Church state by which Abrabam and his family were separated from the rest of the world before circumcision which was a token in their flesh to distinguish them from the nations round about them 3. This distinguished him and his family not from the world alone but from other believers of his time Melchisedeck and Lot which though holy men yet not in his state nor had his priviledges But this Argument from circumcision is encountred with in your answer that followes The Covenant in Gen. 17. is taken only for Gods part of the Covenant Answer or his promise to Abraham Gal. 3.16 17. not for mans part to God While you charge us of mis-interpreting the Scriptures Reply it stands you upon to be wary that your self run not into that error Paul Gal. 3.16 with vers 8. as Peter Acts 3.25 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rendered well there and in thy seed seems to make use of the promise of God made to Abraham and his seed in the Covenant Gen. 12.3 and 22.16.18 The Apostle there had no occasion to speak of the restipulation on Abrahams part and in Gen. 17.1.9 't is manifest that that Covenant was reciprocall as Junius and Pareus do observe upon that place but you check your self as if overbold and therefore say Indeed Answer receiving of circumcision doth import a Covenant on Abrahams part or consent to the Covenant as baptisme also doth but it is held they were in Church state before they had right to circumcision therefore you should shew they made a Covenant before circumcision Circumcision being but the sign and seal of the covenant betwixt God and Abraham doth argue necessarily that there was a covenant before Reply of

which to affirme were slat against the Scripture Acts 2.47 If there were no more Beleevers in Ephesus then twelve as there was Answer viz Aquila and Priscilla which knew no more then Johns Baptisme Acts 18.26 with 24.25 if not others yet there were more in ferusalem then an hundred and twenty even five hundred brethren at once c 1 Cor. 15.6 First though Aquila and Priscilla were at Ephesus Reply yet they were but sojourners there as they were also in many other places sometimes at Rome sometimes at Corinth as appeares from Acts 18.2 Rom. 16.3 But to what place they did belong is not certain Secondly your five hundred brethren at Jerusalem is as slightly collected from 1 Cor. 15.6 For 1. doth the Apostle say that he was seen of those five hundred in Jerusalem He shewed himselfe in Galilee and some other places as well as in Jerusalem 2. Though the place of manifesting himselfe might be Jerusalem must the persons therefore be of Jerusalem Why not appertaining unto Judea Or suppose of Jerusalem why might they not be dispersed before Christs ascension For present afterwards when they chose an Apostle they were not which was yet a Church action and without doubt the major part of the Church would have been present at it Adam and Noah with their Families Answer if they were Churches they were but Domesticall Churches not Congregationall Domesticall Churches enjoying Congregationall Ordinances Reply and congregationall Churches are not divers species of Churches neither doe they differ in their nature or kind but in quantity as one Congregation differeth from another as one small Countrey Chappell differeth from a numerous Towne Church What will ye make of Christ and his Disciples Answer a Church distinct from the Jewish You know Christ did not make a new Church or gather men into it but lived and died a member of the Jewish Church d Answer to to 32. q. p. 14. Had they been called a Church as some housholds are in the new Testament e Phile. 2. witnes T.W. to W.R. you had had some more pretext and yet they are but a Domesticall Church c. 1. Whether Christ died a member of the Jewish Church Reply is questionable But that he gathered certain persons to him and that he instituted Baptisme and the Supper amongst them is most certain which were Ordinances of the Gospel Church and he either thereby prepared them for or laid the foundation of a Gospel Church before his death For immediatly after his ascension they were a Gospel Church as appeareth from Acts 1.14 15. 2. For the denomination of Church we passe not much whether we meet with it or not provided that we find the reality of a Church among any persons 3. Many Domesticall Churches may be in one Congregationall in your sense but not in ours We deny and put you to prove that two or three converted in a Family enjoying some Christian Ordinances but no Church Ordinances are called a Church It is an Argument you will not own Answer seven eight twelve may make a Domesticall Church therefore they may make a Congregationall We acknowledge not any such distinction of Congregationall Church Reply and Domesticall as you presse after But say That the foundation of a Congregationall Church may be laid in one Family and may spread unto many It may be laid in seven or eight and may grow up to an hundred or a thousand or to as many as can meet together constantly unto edification in one place The Church in Abrahams Family was the same which was in the Families of all his sonnes and in the Families of their children after them which afterwards grew up into a nation And though the Gospel Church is not now Nationall as the Jewish was yet a congregation of many Families may spring out of a Church of one Family more easily then a Nation did formerly And if seven eight or twelve may not make a congregationall Church in our apprehension what have you been consuting all this while If seven or eight may make a Church Answer then two hundred persons in a Citie may well make twenty distinct Churches and by consequence so many Independent Judieatures First this collection is made to bring an Odium upon congregationall Churches but it may be thus retorted foure or five in a house may make a family therefore three hundred in an house may make sixtie distinct families Foure or five in a family may make a Domestick Church say you then three hundred in a family may make sixty Domestick Churches two thousand in a Field may make an Army therefore two hundred thousand in a Field may make ten distinct Armies under so many independent Generals Secondly we have declared our selves before that seven or eight may make a Church in the first foundation and whilst there are no more persons fitted and that as more in that place shall be converted the Church of them is to be increased And we are utterly against the unnecessary multiplication of Churches as conceiving such small Churches inconsistent to Christs ends which is edification by Pastors Teachers Ruling Elders Deacons which he hath given to his Church But that a Church of seven or eight should require so many Officers or be able to maintain them we cannot understand And we perceive from the patternes presented in the New Testament that Churches in cities which at first were small grew great by the daily addition of others to them Acts 1.14.15 with Acts 2.41 19.7 8 9 with 18 19 20. Acts 20.17.28 So that we would not have beleevers of one citie be of so many Churches if one congregation will conveniently hold them except there be some eminent reason for it But though there should be many Churches consisting of a few members yet without Officers amongst them we doe not assert them to be Independent Judicatures POSITION III. A visible Church in the new Testament consists of no more in number then may meet in one place in one Congegation The like you have Answer to 32 q p. 9. 1 Corinth 11.20 14.23 If you seek for Congregations meeting for prayer hearing the Word Answer Sacraments in one place or that they were called by the name of Church or that all Beleevers in some Cities and Countries when they might did meet in one place I will not contend We plead for congregations meeting together Reply not for prayer hearing the Word Sacraments alone but for the executing of censures also 1 Cor. 5.4 which you leave out as if Church censures belonged not to congregations as those Ordinances you mention do And we say that there is no sacred Worship or Institution prescribed in the Gospel which may not be observed to have been exercised in or appertained unto the congregations And these congregations are called Churches in the Scripture And further we say not onely that all beleevers in some cities did meet together in one place but that there can no instance be

every one of them and the whole is the flock of each amongst them and each of them hath as full power over the assemblies that he never saw as over that from which he came and which sent him as in the representative civill body every Knight and Buegesse hath the care of the kingdome upon him and each hath equall authority of inspection and decision of matters concerning cities and countries which hee knowes not as of those whence hee came Now if it be so the Question is whether each be not a Passor to every purpose as well as unto one And whether hee be not to feed by doctrine as well as by the rod of discipline all such assemblies which are under his charge Which thing is yet impossible to be done And what warrant there is of non-residencie with the flock unto purposes that do most concern the flock seeing themselves are Christs Ministers and substitutes and have not power of appointing Ministers and substitutes under them and what ground there is why they must joyntly rule all the assemblies but severally teach each man the congregation to which he is designed without care of the rest Or if there be any such combination of assemblies in a Nation what is there to warrant it more then the combination of all Christian assemblies in the world represented in an oecumenicall councell the members of which must be universall Pastors having power over and care of all churches under them For if a Congregationall church must depend upon a Nationall church as the lesser upon the greater then a Nationall church must depend upon the universall as the lesser upon the greater For look what a Nation is to a Congregation that the universall is to a Nation and if Nations may be independent of the universall Congregations may be independent of the Nationall And if an universall visible instituted church be acknowledged why are there not universall representative conventions What a defect is this in Christendome And what a fault that all Christian nations do not endeavour it But we conceive that they are so farre from the endeavouring it that if there were any such though they might make use of them for advice yet they would be loth to subject themselves to the binding decrees of them Nor say wee that the Scriptures do mention a Nationall church Answer for the supreme Magistrate was an enemy to Christian Religion and Regis ad exemplum c. Believers it is like were not so many as to beare the name of a Land or Nation nor could they have liberty safely to meet in Nationall Synods Shew mee a Nation of Magistrates and people converted and I will shew you a Nationall church Ultra posse non est esse whether Nationall churches be lawfull or unlawfull 1. Reply You might have said Shew me a Nation of Magistrates and people converted and I will shew you a Nationall Christian church framed like the Jewish church with one Nationall Bishop over it one Nationall Cathedrall in it c. for so would Prelaticall men and the Pope himself argue No one Nation was converted then and therefore there could be no Nationall Pastor Many nations were not converted then therefore there could be no universall Pastor But what hinders but that there might be afterwards when a Nation and when the world should come to be converted 2. Though there was no Nation converted wholly and therefore as you say no nationall church could be yet Christs will and minde in that matter might easily have been dictated in the Scriptures had he intended any such Church afterwards as Moses tells the Jewes Deut. 12.8 9 10. That they should not do when they should come to Canaan every man what he listeth as they did in the Wildernesse but there should be a place appointed and thither should they bring their offerings and tythes and though there were not Nations converted yet there were so many in a Nation converted as made many Assemblies In little Judea there were Congregations and why together with the Church at Jerusalem might there not have been a Diocesan or Classicall Church There were enough converted for such a purpose But shew the sootsleps of a Diocesan or Classicall Church and it shall serve the turn then wee will yeeld there might in time be a Nationall Arguments taken from the appellation of the word Church Answer or Churches are very unsatisfactory because of the various acceptations of the words Kahal Gnedah Ecclesia Synagoga which we sometimes translate Church but should alwayes translate Convocation or Congregation a company called out or gathered together In this answer you labour to overthrow our Argument Reply for Congregationall churches setched from the appellation of the Apostle when he speaks of Countries and Provinces where more Congregations were he calls them perpetually churches in the plurall number and not church by these suggestions rather then arguments 1. That the words Kahal Gnedah Ecclesia Synagoga should alwayes be translated Convocation a company called out or gathered together if this be yeelded wherein it will advantage you we know not A nationall Convocation or Congregation or gathering together will sound harsher then a nationall Church for every one knows that we have no Nationall Congregation in England But 2. You suggest The English word church Saxon Cyrick and Scots Kirk Answer are derived from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Cambd. Rem or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Sr. Hen. Spelm. which as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth the place of meeting Hence we reade of robbers of Churches or Temples Acts 19.37 Kahal whence our English word call is sometimes Metonymically understood of the place The Heathen enter into the Sanctuary which God hath forbidden to enter into the Church Lam. 1.10 with Deut. 23.3 Nehem. 13.1 To come together 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is if it be rightly translated to come together in one place and so Ecclesia is opposed to the buildings or houses in which they did eat and drink 1 Cor. 11.19 20 21 22. Synagoga is evidently taken for the place of meeting Luke 7.5 Acts 18.7 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the proper signification Reply is appertaining to the Lord and may more properly relate to people appertaining to the Lord then to place because the people do more appertain to the Lord then the place 2. Though Kahal once perhaps and Synagoga oftener may be understood of the place yet Ecclesia never That place in Acts 19.37 is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 robbers of Temples not Churches That place in 1 Cor. 11.18 When yee come together 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not to be rendered in one place Pareus upon those words utterly denies it And there is good reason why they should rather be referred to the people as a church then to the place For the meaning is when yee meet in the church when yee meet as the church that is to perform Church-work For they

judicatories and appeals such ought to have the judging Church in the dayes of the Gospel This main hypothesis upon which the strength of all depends is unsound For 1. It is necessary that the judging Church in the times of the Gospel should be conformed to spirituall precepts and patterns left us by Christ and his Apostles but Christ hath not appointed the Jewish church in matter of government to be a pattern to Gospel Churches For if so then are not the Churches that are of Presbyterian complexion to be understood in this place for there is a vast difference betwixt your Churches and the Jewish Church For First there is disparity in the manner of the calling of persons for Synods are made up of men chosen and sent forth by particular Churches but the Sanhedrin did not consist of chosen men sent out by the Synagogues but of Priests and Levites which the Synagogues did neither choose nor send forth Secondly there is disparity in matter of power In the Jewish Sanhedrin the chief Priest was chief by vertue of Office 2 Chron. 19.11 but in the Classicall Way all are equall in point of Office Thirdly in respect of the causes judged the Sanhedrin dealt with matters of civill nature Deut. 21.5 but Synods only with Ecclesiasticall Fourthly in respect of the time of judicature The Sanhedrin was a standing constant court but Classicall Provinciall Nationall and Oecumenicall Synods meet but once in a moneth once in half a yeer once in twelve moneths or it may be not once in many ages is an Oecumenicall Synod gathered and so those appeals that are made from a Nationall are in little hope to finde relief from an Oecumenicall Synod 2. If it were necessary that Church-government in the times of the Gospel should beare conformity with the Jewish Government then they must not only have graduall judicatories and appeals but they must have First a stated Oecumenicall judicature constantly to judge all hard controversies between blood and blood plea and plea stroke and stroke into all Churches in the world Secondly that this stated Oecumenicall judicature must have some stated place which God should choose Deut. 17.8 that so appellants might know whither to repaire for redresse of their grievances Thirdly that there must be one chief by vertue of office over all met in this universall court 2 Chron. 19.4 That he that shall do presumptuously and will not hearken to that Catholike councell that man must die Deut. 17.12 3. There may be good reason rendered why the Synagogues should be under a Juperiour judicatory and the same cause there is why Congregationall-churches should be under a Superiour judicatory The Synagogues were parts of a church that had not power to dispence all Gods Ordinances amongst themselves and were branches of a politick Nationall-church endued with power of government as Nationall The Promise and Covenant of God extended to the whole Nation But there is no such power of government left to every or to any Nation in the world neither are particular Congregations parts of a Church as the Synagogues of the Jewes were but they are entire and compleat Churches and may transact all Gods Ordinances walking in truth and peace amongst themselves otherwise all Gods Ordinances could not be transacted unlesse a whole Nation were converted and brought into Church-society This Gospel was writ principally for the Jews some say in Hebrew Answer c. Admitting the Proposition were true Reply which yet we have much cause to doubt of may not Congregationall men that are Christians use this place aright in applying it to Congregationall churches because the whole Gospel was writ principally for the Jews Certainly the undiscernible strength of this reason at least by us will levie war against the Presbyterians except they will professe themselves Jews for applying this place to Presbyterian Churches The Epistles to the Hebrews and James were writ principally for the Jewes and yet Christians that are Gentiles may make a right use of them In it the spirit of God useth much the language and dialect of the old Testament Answer in which Kahal and Ecclesia with the Seventy do sometimes signifie the company of Elders as well as the body of the people a Nationall Church with graduall judicatories and appeals as well as a particular assembly We cannot but despaire of ever seeing the premises delivered of the conclusion Reply Let it be granted that Kahal c. signifies in the old Testament sometimes a company of Elders sometimes the People sometimes a Nationall sometimes a Congregationall Church yet it will not follow that the Congregationall men in applying Mat. 18.17 to the Congregationall Church have offered any violence to the Text. For it will not follow Kahal sometimes signifies a Nationall Church in the old Testament no though to make it more strong you adde that the Spirit useth much the language and dialect of the old Testament I say it will not follow therefore it signifies a Nationall Church in Matth. 18.17 for the Spirit may use by your own confession the language and dialoct of the old Testament and yet it may be understood of a particular Assembly Neither will it follow Kahal sometime in the old Testament Ergo Ecclesia signifies a company of Elders Ergo it signifies a company of Elders in Matth. 18.17 Now there is not a word in the Text Answer to shew either that the Church is not here taken for the Presbyterie but for the People seeing when Christ saith whatsoever ye shall binde c. he speaks to the Disciples vers 1. or Apostles which are elsewhere said to have the power of binding and loosing Matth. 16.19 Joh. 20.23 and were not ordinary Believers but Elders 1 Pet. 5.1 or that it is meant of a parcular Congregation without graduall judicatories and appeals c. These are the Premises Reply but how shall we do to get the conclusion willingly to follow these Premises which must be this Ergo when the Congregationall men affirm that the particular Congregation is the Church to which God hath given the power of government and urge Matth. 18. to prove the exercise of such power by the Church aforesaid they abuse that Text. For the Congregationall men may very securely affirm that those words Tell the Church send the offended Brother to the Congregationall Church in the time of the Gospel even as they sent the Jewés to the Sanhedrin whilest that was in force and yet not send him to the people as they stand in opposition to the Presbyterie which are the most noble organicall parts of the integrally perfect Church For we do not seat the power of the Keys in the people as they are contradistinguished to their Elders but in the whole Church by a most wise and divine dispersion of power unto the dissimilar parts of the Church according to their severall capacities For as the Elders have an authoritative power so the people have a power of liberty in point of