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	member_n	visible_a	3,354	5	9.6016	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A41334	A sober reply to the sober answer of Reverend Mr. Cawdrey, to A serious question propounded viz. whether the ministers of England are bound by the word of God to baptise the children of all such parents, which say they believe in Jesus Christ, but are grosly ignorant, scandalous in their conversations, scoffers at godliness, and refuse to submit to church dicipline ... : also, the question of Reverend Mr. Hooker concerning the baptisme of infants : with a post-script to Reverend Mr. Blake / by G.I. Firmin ...	Firmin, Giles, 1614-1697.; Hooker, Thomas, 1586-1647. Covenant of grace opened.	1653 (1653)	Wing F966; ESTC R16401	67,656	64

Church Why doe you not take notice of the word Almost which implies there may be some government without it but it will not go on so strongly nor comfortably but cast what you have said into a Syllogisme and see how I recall it If expliciteness of covenant be requisite to the esse of Church-government ●hen an explicit covenant is requisite to the esse formale of a Church But the Antecedent is true Ergo I see no reason for the Consequence But for Church-government try you what you can doe onely by vertue of their Christianity and implicite Covenant I have tryed it and found it not sufficient but the other I have had good experience of But for Church-convenant a few words First set us heare Apollonius speake who is a Presbyterian Page 17. Concedimus foedus aliquod tacitum seu virtuale esse inter membra unius ●jusdem particularis Ecclesiae externae quo obligantur ad mutua illa officia praestanda quae à membris Ecclesiae visibilis ad particularem suam Ecclesiasticam Communicnem exiguntur quod nempe suis pastoribus corum Curae disciplinae subess●●●undum publicum divinum Cultum frequentare cadem lege jurisdictione Ecc●●●●sticae gubernare velint ex quo foedere etiam jus sibi acquirunt ad illa qua buic particulari Ecclesiae eju●qu membris sint propria altis Eccles●is particularibus nou Comp●tunt This man speakes rationally and those words are worth the observation ex quo foedere jus sibi acquirunt c. so that all the right and power that Officers or particular Churches have over their members arise from this Covenant and this is certaine for suppose one be a Christian and suppose he owne Church-Discipline yet how doe I in particular come to be bound to dispense Baptisme or Lords Supper to him more then any other Minister or how doe I and this Church in particular more then another come to have power over another in respect of Discipline but by his covenanting consenting call it what you will with me and this Church and not with another for else he will say though I doe owne Church Discipline yet who gave you power over me more then another Officer or Church For me to say you dwell in my Barish is a silly answer unlesse it can be proved that Parishes were by divine institution to such an end there are those in my parish that come not to heare me nor ever chose me to be their Officer nor will owne the Church in this time of reforming but I should thinke it absurd to tell them you dwell in this Parish therefore you are bound to heare me c. One word more about Parishes I would put this question it is a practise in England for a Patron to present of late I know where a godly Minister was chosen by the people yet it being a Sequestration the Incumbent dying the gift fell into the hand of the Patron he being an idle companion turned out the godly Minister and put in another that is c. the people with one consent did declare against him and opposed him at his comming yet it seemes because the Law of the Land will have it so this man is he that hath the place but is he therefore their Pastour because he pre●chech in their Parish I thinke it were strange for any man to affirme it and this practise is very common I hope the meere parish doth not make him their Pastour nor the people his Members This is a wofull plague to godly people and teach the way to Separation though it will not justify others where the case is not the same Doctor Ames tells us of a vinculum speciale which he calls Foedus Medul Th●ol cap. 32. and so as no man is rightly admitted into the Church but by confession of Faith and promise of Obedience And this Apollonius ownes pag. 13 14. The Belgick Churches saw something in it Apol. c. 1. p. 9. that it was concluded upon in sixe Synods that those who came to the Lords Supper should promise expresly to be subject to Discipline and had the Chu●ches of England the godly Officers especially made all those who came into their Parishes and would have either Baptisme or Supper to declare their choise of them for their Officers and subjection to all Christs Ordinances they might have had more strength against the Separation indeed they have strength enough against most of them who have owned the Ministers and constantly attended and received the Ordinances from them of which I have spoken elsewhere Further I should much desire that those who oppose the Church-Covenant would lay down a Church-member in his estentiall causes then they teach clearest as for profession Christianity or what you will call this is but the causa materialis of a Church member for it is not Man quâ sio for then all but Man quâ professing as Saint visible that is the materialis causa this then is not the formalis causa for to have the same thing to be Causa materialis formalis respectu ejusdem effecti is strange therefore till I see a better I must say that this Christians consenting or covenanting with this particular Church and these Officers in it to walke according to the Gospell c. is the formall cause of this church-Church-member In some sense we may say the matter doth distinguish things a lump of Gold from a lump of Clay differs materially but one Golden vessel differs not from another but per formam Christians as visible Saints or Churches constituted of such differ materially from all other Societies of Men but how one Church a Golden Candlestick differ from one another but per formam I know not which is this that our Congregationall men speak of Act. 5.13 Of the rest durst none joyne 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what was that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that glewed them to the Church they were not scared from owning of Christ or loving of the Disciples they might hear the Apostles preach c. there was something expressed sure much more now when so many Churches the same word is used of the prodigall Luke 15.15 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Covenant between Master and Servant is the glue that joynes each to other so for ought I know it must be here You tell me Epistle that the relation of Christians one to another is not free but after a sort naturall as that of Father and Child I was there speaking of Church-government how we came to have power c. now it seems by you it is as naturall for any Christian to be under my power in particular and this Church in particular as for a child to be under his Fathers government and I may naturally claim this officiall power over him whether he will choose me or not nay though he declare he will not own me for an officer this is strange Doctrine Is his relation to me

Naturall as I am an officer or free As for the explicitenesse of the Covenant I have seen so much order and comlinesse in Churches by reason of it that if I can ever attaine it I will and so would M Gawdry had he seen what I have seeen in N. England yet I will not null all Churches for want of an explicite Covenant I can distinguish between esse and melius esse M. Hudson shall winde up all Vi●dici Cath. pag. 19. I deny not saith he but mutual consent of persons within such a Vicinity to joyn together constantly in the Ordinances of God under the Inspection of such and such officers is requisite to a particular Congregation Now give me leave to examine a little what you have writ against reverend M. Hooker since the providence of God hath joyned me with so holy and learned a man O that I had his Mantle much of his discourse fals in with mine and so your answers to him serve against me but that part I shall let alone His Question is this Whether persons non confederate Survey part 3. pag. 11 12. and so in our sense not Members of the Church doe entitle their children to the seate of Baptisme being one of the priviledges of the Church their Parents though godly being yet unwilling to come into Church-fellowship You make very great use of these words that persons non Confederate are in his sense no Members of a Church now Sir let me move one question Whether only persons that are in explicite Consederacy are to be esteemed in M Hookers sense Members of a Church if M. Hooker have expressed the contrary as he hath most fully pag. 47 48. of his first part and in Preface pag. 11. where he saith expresly The Faithfull Congregations in England are true Churches then that cannot be M. Hokers sense In pag. 47 48. he shewes how the Covenant is acted after a double manner Explicitely and Implicitely and there shewes how it is acted in the Churches of England Then adds This Mr. R. cannot be ignorant of as our opinion and professed apprehension and I would intreat the Reader to observe once for all that if he meet with such accusations such an accuser is Mr. Cawdrey that we nullifie all Churches besides our owne that upon our grounds received there must be no Churches in the world but in New-England or some few observe this set up lately in Old that we are rigid Separatists c. such bitter clamours a wise meek spirit passeth by them as an unworthy and ungrounded aspersion c. then shewes that Implicite and Explicite are but Adjuncts of the Covenant and in some cases an Implicite Covenant may be sully sufficient could any man living speak more clearly then Mr. Hooker and could any man living speak more perversly then Mr. Caw Epistle to Sob Answ that Mr Hooker deny all Churches where there is not an explicite Covvenant To returne to his question Two things I desire the Reader to observe in it 1. By persons non-Confederate he doth not mean godly Parents that are not confederate explicitely but if they be members of true Churches walking in Church fellowship though there be not an explicite Covenant but implicite Mr. Hooker doth not looke on these as falling under his question so have nothing to doe with such now This is most cleare by what I have alledged out of him Hence there is not one syllable of the word explicite put into the question and afterwards the same page when Mr. Hooker shewes why he inclines to the negative being moved thereto from the nature of the Church-Govenant he doth not say explicite Church-covenant Yet see how Mr. Cawdrey interprets these words that is Diatr 185. indeed the necessity of an explicite Covenant and in page 184. he hath stated the question thus Whether the Infants of Believers not in Covenant explicite with a particular visible Church may be baptized This is none of Master Hooker's question Hence first those arguments which Mr. Cawdrey hath drawne up in his Diatr with Mr. Hooker from the Infants of the godly Membe●s of our Churches here in England they all labour with the disease called Ignoratio Elenthi for he hath changed the question and doth not speake ad idem 2. Hence secondly all that paines Mr. Cawdrey spends to prove that Children may be baptized by vertue of Grandfather or Adoption if he can make it out that they may be so yet if such a Grandfather or person who Adopts be confederate and walk in Church-fellowship though not explicitely Confederated this doth not trouble Mr. Hookers question if that Grandfather or person who Adopts be not Confederate then the question falls upon them indeed not else Mr. Hookers question then concernes onely such godly Parents as are Members of no particular visible Church and being no Members but comming to joyne with a Church now the question will be what explicitenesse may be required 2. The second thing I observe in his question is That the godly Parents are unwilling to come into Church-followship and here lyes the pinch of the question But this plainly implyes That Church fellowship is to be had and this person is required by him to whom be offers his Child to be baptized to joyne in Church fellowship Acts 5.13 There was a Church and joyning to it I doubt not before the Apostles would baptise if Chu●ch fellowship be not to be had then how shall his willingnesse or unwil inguesse be knowne let there be an object bonum or malum which the will should chuse or reject Hence then if there could be no answer else given to what Mr. Ca. urgeth from the Jaylour who was baptised though not confederate this troubles not the question if there were no Church which did require him to joyne in fellowship had there b●en a Church in Philippi and Paul had required him to joyne in fellowship with the Church and the Jaylour would not then indeed Mr. Ca had brought something against Mr. Hooker if Paul would have baptized him But yet Mr. Ca. will force it upon Mr. Hooker that he must mean it of an explicite Confederacy whether he will or no Diatr p. 200. Mr. Stone knew his mind vid. ch 5. yea though he hath expresly spoken to the contrary but what is his ground This. In N. England saith he They refuse to admit either our Members though godly to the Lords Supper or their Children to Baptisme unlesse they enter their express Covenant This is the ground One passage I observe you call the godly Ones our Members but doe you looke on them as your Members who are gone 3000. miles from you never to see you more where you can never have any inspection over them let them walke as they will I am sure they doe not thinke you are their Officers nor doe call you so how then they should be still your Members I cannot tell let therefore Mr. Hooker speak for himselfe

first is fallen yet for you have yeilded the Argument I pray what is the question I must set it downe because of these two answers you give to my two next Arguments which you mightily contemne They doe but say they believe in him when whole conversation manifests the contrary The Q. is Whether is this bare profession of saith in Christ for thousands in England doe but barely say it that they beleeve in him they know nothing of Faith nor of Christ only the Name such a one their Father or some body told them of I gave you some instances before though parents be grossely ignorant scandulous and refuse to subject to Church Discipline sufficient to make a man and continue him a Member of the visible Church The first Argument stands as yet My second Argument was this If this bare profession be sufficient then nonen can be cast out for the vilest sins Heresie c. because he is the same now as when he was admitted You answer The consequence is unsound and the proofe like it you are very nimble methinks but why so unsound for when he was first admitted upon his profession no such scandall appeared but now it doth there he is not the same that he was when admitted To this I say by profession you either meane such a profession as you have mentioned above in this page as I thinke you doe and so you speake not ad idem or if you meane such a profession as the question stared mentions then Sir it is not so for either grosse ignora●ce or scandall did appeare unlesse you meane that just at that time when he came to you and told you he did believe in Christ be did not manifest any scand ●ll to you was not drunke or did not sweare or shew uncleannesse c. just a● that time for so those who come to require Baptisme for their children doe not come drunk or sweare c. in that very instant time but before they cameth y would and when the child is baptised can sweare c. and it s well if divers be not drunk if they have boone companions to joyne with some have been little better So that for all your hast the Argument is sound enought but so is no● your Answer The third Argument you say is like the former very weake I pray leave out ve●y and let weake be ●nought it is possible it will not prove weak What is the Argument A Rebell opposing Christ in his visible Kingdome is not fit to be a Member of it because no subject You answer be is not fit to be admitted if no Member before Sir what is the Q. whether is such a bare profession c. fit to make c. to make a Member then this is not sit your pen hath affirmed but then the Argument is not very weake but very strong to prove one part of the question your selfe acknowledge it in your first words and so you have done before p. 16. but say you he is fit to be continued till tryall of Reformation be past Sir you said above in this page that a bare profession with the mouth that he believes in Jesus Christ though visibly he lives like an Infidell is not sufficient to qualifie a man to be made or continued a Member The question speaks of such a bare profession if you will say a moral conversation though grosly ignorant will sarve the turne there hath beene as good and now are among Infidels and those who doe professe Christ for drunkennesse swearing c. uncleannesse lying stealing disobedience to parents when growne up c. are as bad and worse then Infidels Indians will shame them so that the sufficiency of his professton is not that which doth continue him a Church menber but the Churches continuance or impotency if the Church went about to reforme and could not as in the time of the Hierarchie if it be the sufficiency of his profession keepes him in for ought I know you may let him alone when power is in your hand to cast him out Most of this page is spoken to before Page 18. only to two propositions as you call them of mine You answer That which constitutes a Church continues a Church if then a bare profession be not sufficient to make a Member nor is it enough to continue a man a Member of a Church You answer both Propositions are faulty the Minor for we have proved that a profession of faith nothing appearing to the contrary will constitute a Member and so a Church of many Members though all Hypocrites But Sir the profession of faith you speake of here is not the profession of faith the question speaks of for the question speakes of such a profession as hath grosse ignorance or open scandall appeating therefore you speak not ad idem For all Hypocriter there is as M. Car●wright saith difference between Tares and Acorns Goats and Swine The Major is faulty say you because more is required to a first Admission Page 19. then to a Continuance in the Church as is evident in men of yeares converted from Infidels a personall profes●ion of faith is necessary to such but their children are admitted and continued without it Sir you should have proved that more is required to the Admission then the Continuance of the same person speake ad idem there should seeme rather that more is required to Continuance then Admission for being longer under means he should have attained more in that time then he had when first admitted You say children are admitted and continu●d without personall profession I grant it but admitted it seemes they are and surely that is because they are reputed in the parents for visible Saints 1 Cor. 7. but now Holy sit matter for a Church let them continue such as they were reputed to be at their admission and it is well enough no more shall be required Or it there be any difference it is this more is required to their continuance for they to their admission were required to be but visible Saints by vertue of their parents reputed such for their sakes but for their continuance they must when growne up manifest actually they are such or else be cast out so more is required for Continuance then Admission and so your proposition is false For your last clause in that Paragraph there is another way to reforme a constituted Church but corrupted then first to constitute a Church viz. Discipline I know not what sense to make of it I supposed there was some ●●our in the Printer but I finde no Errata printed and so cannot tell what to say to it I said let Discipline be exercised and so the Churches reduced to their first constitution viz. to be such as Churches ought to be I●perceive your next heads are to oppose this you have no Government settled you may have it if you will as I said before parties refuse to submit to it say you then