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
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

body of the Jewish nation were the posterity of Abraham according to the flesh were commanded to be circumcised as so in the covenant and otherwise could not have been of the Jewish Church They were not to bring their sacrifices to the Temple nor eat the Passeover therefore these were legally in the covenant though but the posterity of Abraham according to the flesh yet none of the uncircumsion might before Christs time partake of those priviledges though they did believe The difference therefore was very great Reply That the Jewish Nation was Abrahams posterity according to the flesh who knowes not yet that they were thereby of the Church is not true and that they were in covenant before and Church-members is certain though he affirm the contrary never so often without any proof at all for circumcision followes the covenant at Church state being a sign of it doth not go before it as is evident in Abrahams case and his families as also in Isaacs case and all following him who were not circumcised at the 8th day but as in the covenant before and how could a Jew being uncircumcised be cut off from his people and despise Gods covenant if he had not interest in that estate before And were not those many hundred in Abrahams family and all proselytes after in the covenant and of the Church though not of Abrahams posterity in the flesh This is not required therefore to make them of the Jewish Church nor was it sufficient to be Abrahams posterity and circumcised to make them in the covenant and in the Church and no more required as in Esau's case and the rest of Abrahams children by Ketura where hee saith they were legally in the covenant though but Abrahams posterity I reply More was required of them to be in the covenant then to be Abrahams posterity in the flesh even to be the Lords to have Abrahams faith wrought in them without which they could not be or continue in the covenant If he mean by legally in the covenant they were in a legall covenant a covenant of works it is contrary to the Scriptures Galat. 3.17 18. Now was there any such covenant dispensed unto them by God But if he mean they were in the same covenant we have but legally being perverted by them contrary to the doctrine of God he grants what I said and contradicts himselfe Further he saith none uncircumcised before Christs time may partake in those priviledges though they did beleeve Reply It is not true For Enoch Noah Melchisedec and many others were partakers of some of them before circumcision was instituted and all they in the wildernesse during the fourty years travell there Though therefore the difference was very great in many circumstances yet it was the same in substance which is that I said A third consideration he hath is this No Gentiles are Abrahams seed at all but by beleeving the righteousnesse of faith although he be the child of beleeving parents Reply First I deny it For the infants of beleeving Gentiles in covenant are Abrahams seed though they doe not actually beleeve as the infants of Proselytes Gentiles before Christ were Abrahams seed with their beleeving parents Secondly none of the Jewish parents or children were Abrahams seed but by actually beleeving the righteousnesse of faith or under the promise of God to work it in them Rom. 9.6 8. But what is this to the disproof of my Argument That the covenant with Abraham then and now is the same I see not a word to that purpose A fourth consideration he thus sets downe None of the Jewes themselves Abrahams naturall seed and partakers of all the orders of the Old Testament by vertue of that naturall relation could bee admitted to be baptized but upon manifestation of faith Therefore the covenant before and this since is not the same Reply First all Abrahams naturall seed were not partakers of all ordinances of the old Testament by vertue of that relation as Esaus posterity nor was that relation necessary for then no Proselyte could have enjoyed them Secondly the natural posterity of Abraham did partake of those ordinances by vertue of the covenant or their actuall faith and therefore enjoyed them no longer then their covenant and faith continued Thirdly it followeth not that the covenant now and then is not the same because the Jewes of yeares were not baptized without manifestation of their faith for the difference onely is circumstantiall viz. the manifestation of their faith in Christ the Messiah now come which before they beleeved should come nor will he ever prove that the infants of those Jewes beleeving and baptized were not also baptized with their parents And this of his considerations to my second Reason my third Reason followeth The standing of the Jewes and of us Gentiles in the grace of God is the same with Abrahams therefore the Covenant is the same To this he answereth First distinguishing of the word Grace which is taken saith he particularly for the covenant of life generally for any effect of Gods goodnesse whereby he freely communicateth any benefits unto the sonnes of men which must needs be by grace seeing no man deserveth any thing Secondly he applieth this distinction and saith that if grace be taken in the first sense and particularly for the covenant of everlasting life unto free justification hee denieth that the Jewes were required to manifest their interest therein before they could be admitted to stand members of the Jewish visible Church state as all both Jews and Gentiles must now since the death of Christ and yet none saved but by grace in this first sense But if grace be taken in the latter and more generall sense for some effect of Gods goodnesse communicated freely to any in any kinde of benefit then he granteth that the Iewes stood under the same grace of God with Abraham and had circumcision and other ordinances to lead them to Christ to come yea to be born of their seed according to the flesh And in these respects the Jewes standing was the same with Abrahams and these respects are spoken of by Mary Luke 1.54 55. and Zachary Luke 1.72 73 Rep. First the distinction is not necessary for though in a general sense any thing from God may be called a grace as it is a free gift of God to them them that never deserve it yet in this discourse and usually in the Scriptures it is not used in this larger sense Secondly to make those priviledges of the Jewes to be but effects of common grace he wrongeth the grace of God as dispensing nothing more of particular favour to the Jewes then to the Gentiles though they had more and larger matters then the Gentiles Yet being from common grace it alters not the state of them under Gods grace from the Heathens whom in this case God leaveth not without witnesse of himself Thirdly in that he saith the Jewes had circumcision and other Ordinances leading them to Christ and

of the manner of administration as I have shewed before a Kingdome is not to be taken there in the sense that it is here in Matthew it ceased to them but was not dissolved in it self nor in respect of others to whom it was given not another Kingdome and Church estate given to others diverse from that but the very same So Matth. 22.1 c. the marriage Supper in one and the same continued all the time of that church estate before Christ and in these churches since Christ They were invited and called from time to time but they would not come at last they were therfore destroyed the Gentiles called in their stead therfore that then and this now was but one covenant and the same church estate the form of it then and now the same which then was an outward and visible covenant acted between God and the people mutually and therefore this same is the forme of churches now Having passed through the Argument which I gathered out of the old Testament I next added some others and first from Mat. 18.20 where the word used in the Greek is commonly used for church assembling or Synagoguising taken from the Jewes whose assemblies and places of assembling were called Synagogues John 20 10. Acts 4.21 11.26 13.44 14.27 20.7 1 Cor. 5.4 11.18 c. and other places many though some by him set downe are misquoted His answere hereto was this that the assembling of persons meerly in the Scripture was not the cause of that denomination nor will any Scripture prove that that name Church is given to a company of unbaptized persons but the assembling of a company of persons baptized in Christs name is the reason why they are denominated a true visible Church Rep. I grant that according to the intent of the question that the assembling of a company of men unbaptized is not the occasion why they are denominated a church yet the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is generally applied to a company of unbaptized persons as Act. 19.31.39.41 thrice together but that a church so meeting is of baptized persons yet the reason why a company of baptized persons meeting together is called a Church is truely and onely because they meet together and that not accidentally for so many thousands meet together in one place because they constantly meet together in one place by agreement to performe the solemne duties which they are bound to perform to God and each other Such a meeting together is that which onely giveth them the denomination of a Church nor is baptisme any reason of their meeting together for then all baptized persons must meet together in one place nor could this or that company bee called a church for that reason much lesse severall companies churches if there were nothing else added Matth. 18.19 Whatsoever two of you shall agree together in where the word agree is properly by a consent manifested by concurring voyces and paction so used Matth. 20.2.13 To say no more to this though I might say much more because I am not privie to my selfe that it was used by me I come to the next reason which was That whatsoever maketh a man a member of a church or no member that makes a company of men to be a church or no church there is the same reason of the whole that there is of every part but the making or unmaking or restoring a man to bee a member is by a covenant acted Esay 56.4 6. Ergo that is the form of the church His answer grants that the covenant of God is the ground upon which the church and every member thereof is stated but hee denies that a covenant acted to become one another doe form the church or member either nor doth Esa 56.4 5. prove any such thing but onely that the Eunuch or stranger that took hold of Gods covenant that is were circumcised and performed the duties which they were thereby bound to performe Gal. 5.3 should have a place in his house not by acting a covenant and neglecting circumcision Reply What he saith here hath been said before and answered and I am confident that he cannot make good what hee grants that a Church is grounded upon Gods covenant and thereby stated but in this sense I speak of a covenant acted by beleevers between God and them which he alwayes leaves out and between themselves and therefore a covenant acted doth form the church or membership thereof Esay 56. doth prove it sufficiently where the Lord saith If an Eunuch or stranger shall take hold of and embrace my covenant that is shall submit themselves to enter into covenant with me taking me to be their God and becomming one of my people by joyning themselves to me and them thereby and receive circumcision as a seale thereof and doe my works shall have a place in my house whereas he expoundeth the covenant to be circumcision hee doth but run in a common mistake it being but a signe seale of the covenant and cannot be the covenant it selfe no more then a signeor seale of a thing can be the thing it selfe that it signifieth and sealeth and is not onely an errour in religion but against manifest reason too But of this often before though therefore they were to be circumcised yet that was the first thing before which there was nothing acted visibly and that they did not first make some outward profession and expression of being one with them and having their God to be theirs will never be proved by him and if he will not yeeld the contrary by what is and hath been said let him bee content that other men be of another judgement and have his leave to be quiet or else convince me of his calling hee hath to deale in such matters as he doth with arrogancy enough He addeth not by acting a covenant neglecting circumcision I grant it and so also not by acting a covenant or circumcision and neglecting sacrifices c. but acting a covenant doth form the church and giveth them right to circumcision and the rest which must be added or else they will be found despisers of Gods covenant which they had made whereby they were bound to observe circumcision and all other appointments of God before they were circumcised as is manifest in all them that lived before Abrahams dayes and in Abrahams dayes by Gods expressing himselfe to Abraham Gen. 12 13.15 chapters which was before hee was circumcised As for that Gal. 5.3 it hath been fully answered before and therefore I omit it My next reason was taken from the comparison of a church with a Candlestick Rev. 1.12.20 such as is the forme of a candlestick such by proportion is the form of a church as the matter signifies the matter of a church proportionally but the form of the candlestick is the joyning together of the shaft and branches signifying the uniting together of many members and Christ which cannot be but by agreement

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