Selected quad for the lemma: sense_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
sense_n	church_n	invisible_a	visible_a	2,874	5	9.2871	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A85949	Vindiciæ vindiciarum: or, A vindication of his Vindication of infant-baptisme, from the exceptions of M. Harrison, in his Pœdo-baptisme oppugned, and from the exceptions of Mr. Tombes, in his chief digressions of his late Apology, from the manner to the matter of his treatises. By Io. Geree M. of Arts, and Preacher of the Word in S. Albanes. Imprimatur, Edm. Calamy.	Geree, John, 1601?-1649.	1646 (1646)	Wing G604; Thomason E363_13; ESTC R201234	35,208	49

priviledge none for their seed But by his leave this will follow unlesse he grant that the promise or Covenant is to Christian Gentiles and their seed too and if he grant that whether the seal of initiation will not follow the Covenant I leave to be weighed by proofs set down in their places And unlesse he grant this priviledge to Christian Gentiles there will follow a partition wall thus far to make distinct conditions of persons under the Gospel contrary to Ephes 2.14 where Christ hath made Jews and Gentiles equall From me M. Tombes proceeds to M. Marshall pag 7. Where he saith the chief difference is whether the ingraffing be into the invisible Church by election and faith as M. Tombes affirmed To which M. Marshall replies that if it be meant of the invisible Church only and all that are ingraffed in the Apostles sense whether Jews and Gentiles are only elect ones Then will he promise never to plead this Scripture more for Infants This motion M. Tombes accepts but in the repetition that the ingraffing is into the invisible Church by election and giving faith he leaves out the word onely wherein the whole emphasis of M. Marshalls offer lyes He tells us again that the same people were ingraffed into the visible Church but the ingraffing is more then that which is into the visible Church by outward profession and Qrdinances But what is this but what M. Marshall and my self have again and again asserted that it s meant of making all to be of the visible Church that professe and those to be of the invisible Church that are elect and truly believe and this is enough to carry the cause that at least the elect Gentiles by ingraffing obtained the visible Church-state of the broken off and so they and their children are in Covenant as the broken off were And therefore I should not be so liberall in my grant as M. Marshall to M. Tombes in this wherein he is an adversary M. Tombes brings many arguments to prove that the ingraffing is meant into the invisible Church by election and faith which I shall examine and discover if he put in the word onely they are too light if not they reach not the question the thing in question only first I will premise an observation That it is an usuall thing in Scripture when it speaks of visible Churches though it is apparant they did consist of good and bad to give attributes that are to be understood only of the elect and invisible part either because of the same profession of goodnes that all make or synechdochically naming the better part for the whole thus in the inscriptions of S. Pauls Epistles All the members of visible Churches are tearmed Saints and peculiarly 1 Thes 1.5 Knowing beloved your election of God So the seven Churches of Asia are tearmed golden candlesticks May we hence truly gather that there were none in any of the Gentile Churches but Saints and that all the Angels and members of the seven Churches of Asia were golden He of Sardis and all that had a name to live and were dead Revel 3.7 Surely no but those things are attributed to visible Churches because of the elect among them yet were not the elect only spoken to or of even so many of the expressions from which M. Tombes argues are peculiar to the elect not that no non-elect persons had among them a standing in the visible Church and not in the invisible but the expressions are used synechdochically the more noble part put for the whole but now to the particulars That the ingraffing is into the invisible Church only 1. Because it is by Gods sole power Rom. 11.23 I answer the ground is weak for no man can give a man power so far to believe as to professe especially one blinded and hardened of God but God alone and was not the visible Church-state of the Jews when all other Nations were without an act of Gods power only nor could it be by man So then also their re-ingraffing though many come to be members of a visible Church only 2. He argues because the ingraffing is called reconciliation opposite to casting away ver 15. which is called breaking off ver 17. But this also is too weak for the casting away and breaking being but a losse of what they had that is visible priviledges the reconciliation might be and in many Gentiles was but a vouchsafing them a visible Church estate no longer to be reputed dogs as they had been 3. He argues from ver 20. By unbelief they were broken but thou standest by faith I answer The elect by faith and profession was both in the invisible and visible Church the formall by appearance of faith stood in mens esteem and as members of the visible Church And to this purpose Calvine part of whose speech you afterward applaud Pracipuè notandum Pauli sermonem non tam ad singulos homines quam ad totum Gentium corpus dirigi in quo multi esse poterant frustra inflat fidem potius profitentes quàm habentes 4. He argues from ver 17. That ingraffing is meant whereby the wilde O live is copartner of the root and fatnes of the Olive tree and then much stir is kept what the root is But I answer If the Olive give fatnes I know no other Olive but he that is the vine into whom all Christian Gentiles were ingraffed by profession and the elect of them by faith really also and hence this expression ver 17. in regard of what in profession and shew belonged to all and in reality was verified of the better part the elect 5. He argues because the breaking off is by blinding but that is weak for then ingraffing may be by illumination to profession which may be without election Heb. 6.4 5 6. 6. He argues because reingraffing brings salvation but that is to some of the ingraffed not all unlesse he thinks at the Jews restauration there shall be none of them formalists and hypocrites 7. He argnes because the ingraffing is by vertue of Gods election his love his gifts of calling ver 30 31 32. But I answer the election love and gifts being such here as belong to bodies or nations it is not such as M. Tombes means which is election unto salvation by faith Sith that belongs not to whole bodies or Nations or not to all of them and so is attributed in regard of the better part 8. Lastly because the ingraffing is the fruit of Gods mercy and breaking off by shutting up in unbelief But neither is this last cogent sith there is generall mercy to make members of a visible Church as well as speciall to make members of the invisible and their unbelief was not only want of saving faith but historicall faith to professe which later if they had had they had not been broken off and therefore they that have it are ingraffed into their rooms to injoy that visible standing which for want of it they

lost Thus M. Tombes his army of arguments are routed and it is to be observed that in all his conclusions he leaves out the word onely which is the binge of the controversy for we not only doe not deny but also positively affirm that in some the ingraffing was by faith and election into the invisible as well as by calling and profession of faith into the visible So M. Marshall pag. 137. and 138. of his defence But where M. Marshall interpre●s it only of bare admission into visible Church-membership excluding the ingraffing into the invisible I professe I cannot finde and therefore believe M. Tombes hath in that imputation wronged him For the places that M. Tombes makes parallell 1 Cor. 12.13 Ephes 3.6 Gal. 3.14 26 28 29. They are so farre in my apprehension from confirming his opinion that they manifestly confirm my observation touching the expressions of Scripture when they speak of the visible Church in which there are good and bad they in regard of the profession of all and the reality in the elect speak as though all were elect but it is by a synechdoche For let M. Tombes tell me doth he think all and every particular person Baptized in Corinth or Galatia were really ingraffed into the body of Christ or had put him on c. Yet this is spoken of all in regard this was true in all in profession and appearance and there were some elect among them of whom it was true really even so we do and are to interpret many phrases urged by him in Rom. 11. in this present businesse The only objection of weight saith M. Tombes is that then some branches of the invisible Church are broken off and so election made revocable and apostacy from grace maintained This is an objection of weight indeed but not the only objection for there is another also as forcible hinted also by me pag. 18. where I affirm that the Apostle speaks not of particular persons but of the body of the Jews and the body of the Gentiles that were Christians collectively received into the room of the Jews broken off and the body of the Gentiles that received Christ by profession were not all elect but good and bad drawn together by the draw-net of the Gospel But how doth he answer the weighty objection 1. He boldly affirms That the breaking off was of the branches that were truly such and of the ingraffing that was truly such into the invisible Church But may we not change the verse and say Pictoribus atque sophistis Quidlibet audendi c. But he brings an allay That by the branches are not meant singular persons but the people why then the people that were ingraffed into the invisible Church were broken off so yet the invisible Church was prevailed against in his sense therefore I know not what help this limitation will doe him That which is said of people in a body must be true in some particulars of that body so if the body of the people truly ingraffed into the invisible Church were broken off this must be true in some singular persons Besides how apparantly crosse is M. Tombes his assertion to the Apostle Rom. 11.1 2. Hath God cast away his people God forbid God hath not cast away his people that he foreknew So you see the people that make the ●nvisible Church are not broken off What M. Tombes addes afterward touching the body of a people which were once the elect people of God and ingrassed into the invisible Church because the generality were such that it 's no errour to say they are broken off from election I say first it is not good sense to say the body of a people is ingrafted into the invisible Church whereas the invisible Church is comprehended under a visible body as chaffe under wheat and to say a Church is broken off from that election which is speciall and to grace which was once elect and from being the invisible Church that was once the invisible Church is sure a most grand errour For speciall election to grace and glory which makes any people of the invisible Church is a foundation of God that remains sure against which the gates of hell cannot prevail The thing which occasioneth M. Tombes his errour is want of consideration of a distinction which M. Tombes very well knowes but thorow eagernes to maintain his tenet as I conceive doth not consider Election is either generall or speciall so is reprobation generall election and reprobation is of bodies or societies and this is only in reference to visible Churches in which is contained the invisible thus God is often said to chuse the Nation of the Iews Deut 4.3 7. 10.15 That is the body of his people to be his visible Church in which indeed was contained the invisible Now opposite to this generall election is generall reprobation whereby a people are cut off or cast out of the honour of being Gods visible kingdom and so without hope to be of the invisible so then the breaking off of the Iews was only from this generall election and their reprobation generall to cease to be Gods visible people But now there is a speciall election of singular persons to be the invisible Church and this is never attributed to a visible body unlesse synechdochically and oft his we deny the broken off to be partakers of or to fall from The Apostle Rom. 11. divides the Church of the Iews into two bodies one the people that God foreknew the other opposite the one were of the invisible the other of the visible Church orly Those opposite were broken off the whole body of them but it is only from what they had to be visible members not from what they had not to wit to be of the invisible and therefore here his argute simile from the river Euphrates will not serve his turne for we enquire not here what the Israelites had been nor have we to doe with the species of Israel but with these numericall branches broken off The numericall branches graffed in mentioned by him for proof pag. 77. from ver 23 24. were not they graffed in his opinion into the invisible Church and then if in the same sense the numericall branches be broken off they be broken off from the invisible Church and then they fell from grace The Apostle shews not there that the branches were broken off from what the species of the people had had in former times but from what they had at the time of breaking off and that was only a visible standing in the Church by vertue of Gods generall election which then they lost and by this distinction of generall and particular election used by Calvin himself lib. 3. cap. 21. instit and Perkins on Revel 2.9 you may see the sense of your authours they speak as you say of the body of Jews and Gentiles and so the election and reprobation which they speak of is generall to be or not to be a

held forth that all infants of believers are so in Covenant with their parents as to have saving graces intayled on them which I say is not onely against Protestants principles but believed by M. Tombes himself not to be M. Marshals meaning from pag. 142. of his examen And then pag. 13. I plainly and distinctly lay open our meaning when we say children are in Covenant with their parents That as it was with the people of Israel by vertue of the Covenant made with Abraham That the fathers with the children became Gods visible Church and so intitled to and enjoyed the visible priviledges of adoption oracles seals Rom. 9 4 5. And the elect among them enjoyed the visible grace which was to be presumed of all in charity till they discovered the contrary So now we conceive that under the Gospel by vertue of the same Covenant into the participation of which Christians are assumed believers with their freedom ●ake up the visible Kingdom of Christ and enjoy outward Church-priviledges And the elect among them enjoy those things in truth which others only have externally and in profession And this is to be presumed of all Infants of believers till they discover the contrary And thus have they right to the seal of initiation And in this sense are you to take the passage quoted by you out of the Directory That the promise is to believers and to their seed c. Thus were my expressions in my vindiciae Now I referre it to the judgement of the learned whether M. Tombes had any cause to complain for want of distinctnes in expression or whether he doth deal ingenuously in taking part of my words pag. 43. of his Apology to make them found harsh and absurd or had cause from my words to question whether making a Covenant were all one with a charitable presumption with such like groundles expressions for want of solid matter of confutation Neither had be ground to say that none would expound the words of the Directory as I doe but he that would make mens words like a nose of wax if he take my exposition whole as I have laid it down above not lamely as he hath unfairly represented it For I conceive the expressions of the Directory were used with reference to the expressions of Scripture Now the expressions in Scripture Gen. 17.7 Rom. 9.4 to whom pertained the Covenants Act. 3.25 Yea are the children of the Covenant must and usually are expounded as I have expounded them And then it s no violent but a charitable yea a rationall interpretation of the words of the Directory to give them that sense which we give to the places of Scripture whence they are drawn The Covenant that the Jews were under none deny to be a Covenant of grace and of a Covenant of grace speak Rom. 9.4 Act. 3.25 and this Covenant being in these places attributed to visible Churches all were under the Covenant that is truly stiled a Covenant of grace But all are not under it in the same sense nor to enjoy thereby priviledges of the same quality but some onely externally and reputatively and enjoy thereby externall Church-priviledges a name to be sons a name to live Revel 3.1 and others to enjoy inward graces really And therefore Infants of believers may be said to be under the Covenant of grace and yet no necessity to take it in that sense that it is in regard of saving graces But in that sense as it would and must have been taken if it had been uttered touching children of believing Jews when I think none would have stumbled at it that they are so under that Covenant that is the Covenant of grace as to be reputed children and to be accounted of Gods visible Church entitled to his seals and other externall Church-priviledges The Argument that M. Tombes urgeth to prove that the words of the Directory mean that children are so under the Covenant of grace as to have a promise of saving grace pag. 42. of his Apology are as strong against the true and necessary interpretation of the Scriptures cited therefore they be but mistakes For Gen. 17.7 is meant of naturall seed not soirituall onely and then God was in one sense the God of Abraham and in another the God of his seed at least some of them M. Tombes confesseth pag. 76. of his Apology that the same word is used in divers senses Rom. 11.17 Joh. 15.2 so that the taking of one word in divers senses in one and the same sentence need not so much offend him And the instruction for doctrine and the instruction for petition may well be thus accorded That those to whom the Covenant of grace doth externally belong for as they are reputed of the visible Church and to have adoption belonging to them Rom 9.4 and so to have right to the seals may by the goodnes of God in blessing his Ordinance be really partakers of the saving graces promised and so enjoy the highest priviledge of the Covenant of grace internally and really But saith M. Tombes the whole series of the direction in the Directory carries the meaning thus to wit that the Covenant that children are under is the Covenant of saving grace I answer It s true that the Covenant that belongs to children is the Covenant of grace but so is the Covenant mentioned Rom. 9.4 Act. 3.25 But the query is in what sense and in what respect they are said to be under this Covenant of grace that is no otherwise then Jewish children were all to receive a visible Church estate to be of Christs visible Kingdom the elect to partake of grace indeed And therefore I see no cause why this part of the doctrine of the Directory should cause disquiet to the Church of God when the offence may be removed by a fair interpretation whereto good reason may lead us and charity binde us I think with M. Tombes that it is great honour to acknowledge and amend errours that are indeed such But this is an honour that I think few will conceive M. Tombes ambitious of not with banding his good counsell to others that shall read his Apology wherein he shall scarce finde any acknowledgement of errour in the manner of handling his controversy though I may boldly say genera singulorum if not singula generum for he tells of one in this Apology pag. 16 that told him his sharpnes was usefull of such as look into Books judged him not a little faulty in the manner of prosecution of this controversy with M. Marshal and others CHAP. V. Wherein my second Argument for Infant Baptisme from Rom. 11.11 12 13 17 18. is cleared from M. Harrisons exceptions TOuching my second Argument drawn from Rom. 11.11 c. M. Harrison first complains that it is confused not syllogisticall It s rare for a man of his quality to complain for want of syllogismes being usually they have the better scope to evade Then he examines my four principles

visible Church and so alterable not that speciall election and reprobation which is more immoveable then heaven and earth of which the question is between you and us And these words of mine will doe you as little good that holines Rom 11.16 is meant of potentiall holines in regard of Gods election for thereby I only understand Gods purpose revealed to take the seed of the Iews to be his visible Chur●● once again and no other sense can it have sith the present 〈◊〉 were so many of them unholy Thus have I answered M. Tombes his large dissertation which I again seriously commend unto him being not a little grieved to see so much ability and industry cast away to darken manifest truth in my apprehension CHAP. VII Wherein my fourth Argument for Infant Baptisme frons Cor. 7.14 is cleared from M. Harrisons exceptions MY fourth Argument ran thus Saints under the Gospel have right to Baptisme Children of believers are Saints Ergo c. Here M. H. puts in again his distinction of visible and invisible Saints But this I put by as before by informing him that known is as much as visible and therefore what a man may challenge because he is visibly so qualified he may challenge if his qualification be known any other way And therefore is a Saint judged to have right to Baptisme as a visible Saint because by something discerneable to sense he is known to be a Saint and then if by evidence from the Word any be known to be Saints they may be Baptized but that Infants are by 1 Cor. 7.14 So unlesse M. Harrisons answer to the minor be more solid then his denyall of the major he must miscarry First M. H. affirms that the holinesse ascribed to children cannot be meant of faeder all holinesse as the Nation of the Jews were holy Gods visible Church having right to Church-priviledges as I expound it Let us hear his reasons 1. Because the wise is said to be sanctified to or by the husband as well as the children the word in the Originall is the same Now he thinks I will not call the unbelieving wife a Saint I answer The unbelieving wife is not said to be sanctified absolutely but in or to the believing husband that is as he confesseth as meats which are not made holy in themselves but to the believer and therefore cannot be called holy But the children are said not to be sanctified to another but to be holy that is in themselves as our Divine answers Bellarmine lib. 1. de Bapt. cap 4. With whom how often doe you symbolize But you say the word in the Originall is the same but that is plainly false for the one is a verb with a proposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that may and do●h signifie an act on the unbeliever in reference to another the other is an Adjective a concrete word that imports a quality inhaerent in the party 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So we want both truth and skill in this assertion that the Originall word is the same And so is the assertion following false also that we must admit many such as the Infidel wife in our Nationall Church for we neither must nor doe admit any but those that professe faith in Christ no more then M. Harrison His second reason is because the unbelieving husband can by generation conveigh no more to his children then to his unbelieving wise But this is just to beg the question which we affirm he barely denies we give reason The Covenant is with fathers and seed not with the husband and his wife and by vertue of that Covenant the father that begetteth conveigheth more to his childe then to his wife But saith he let us seriously consider doth a believer beget a childe as a believer or as a man if as a man then that is born of the flesh is flesh c. I answer Did a Jew beget a childe as a Jew or as a man not as a Iew for then only Iews could beget children Yet did a Iew I hope by vertue of Gods Covenant conveigh to his childe Church-priviledges his childe was a Iew by birth Gal. 2.15 So may a childe by vertue of Gods Covenant be reputed a Christian by birth in regard of Church-priviledges But more closely A man corrupt doth beget children as a man or as a corrupt man not as a corrupt man for then he could not have begotten children had he stood innocent but if as a man whence is his childe corrupt The answer must be by vertue of the Covenant of works under which Adam stood in Paradise as the head of mankinde for breach of which every naturall branch of Adam is now born corrupt Rom. 5.12 So though a believer beget a childe as a man nay more as one of the corrupt issue of Adam and so considered the issue is corrupt yet as the believer is under another Covenant that imparts priviledges to him and his seed his seed may injoy that priviledge which the Covenant contains and so may be reputed holy belonging to the people of God which an Infidels childe is not Next M. H. gives us aj●june interpretation of his own without proof to wit That the children are holy to the believing party as all other dispensations of Gods providence are Whereas here the children are not said to be holy to the parent but absolutely that is in themselves And according to Rom. 8. which he quoteth for proof or illustration things unclean even the sins of the called according to Gods purpose are turned to good to humble them and fit them for more grace and therefore this is too low a sense and reacheth not the Apostles meaning Thus hath he deserted M. Tombes who backt his opinion with some probability that he did errare cum ratione and without any answer to any of our reasons he hath rejected our exposition and proposed one of his own which he hath left to shift for it self without proof Doth this become the considence M. Harrison hath of his ability to defend his tenet against any opponent Touching this place M. Tombes in his Apology addes not much but only one crank he hath with which if every man were as well pleased as himself they would without doubt explode as he saith the exposition of 1 Cor. 7.14 of faederall holines but let us try the validity of it If the reason saith he p. 96. of the lawfulnes of two persons living together in disparity of religion be taken from the vertue of faith in the one party not from the relation of husband and wife as M. Marshalls exposition makes it The medium of the Apostle to prove the lawfulnes of the living of a believing wife with an unbelieving husband will as well prove the lawfulnes of the living of a believing fornicatrix with an unbelieving fornicator I answer if all the reason of the lawfulnes of a believing wife with an unbelieving husband were from the faith of the believer there were