Selected quad for the lemma: water_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
water_n	baptize_v	eunuch_n	philip_n	3,839	5	10.4025	5	false

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

inforce my beliefe that a man must dip or else he doth not baptize Secondly they urge consent to dipping from Johns practice baptizing in Aenen because there was many waters that he might dip them from Philips baptizing the Eunuch and others also who they conclude baptized with dipping To these I answer First the word will not necessarily inforce it That they were baptized is our of question but whether by dipping or sprinkling is questionable for the word may signifie either as I have shewed and the Text doth not determine which by any other expression For as for that of many waters being there some say that it is not meant of a great deep River but of many rivers Piscator and the reason of his choosing that place may be because other places might not so well continue and many other reasons there may be and yet this none that hee might dip them for that might as well have been done in other places and it is said that was the reason without proofe which may be as easily denied as it is affirmed nor is there any such necessity in translating the Preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that it must needs be into Jordan and signifie dipping over head and eares but it may be well enough translated to Jordan I think that if the Eunuch dived over head and eares that Philip did not douze himself so too yet it is said equally of them both they descended 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from the Charet to thewater not into it that they both came 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from the water not out of the water Secondly it is not probable that they dived the parties under water when they baptized them partly because at some times and in some places it was administred in a house and suddenly when there was no thought aforehand to prepare fit instruments as in Cornelius house the Jaylor and his houshold Lydia and her family Acts 10. 16. so that they might have water enough to dive them in partly because it was not easie for a man to take a grown man in his armes and dive him under water Otherwise I see not how the Minister should baptize them but rather they should baptize themselves nor should the administration be ministeriall if the baptized person should not be passive in receiving it Thirdly if they should be wholly dipped into water it will hazard oft some mens lives by being strangled under the water and who can so exactly carry the action as not to doe too much or too little to hold them under too long or not long enough Lastly it is not seemly nor agreeing to common much lesse religious modesty to take them and dip them naked before others nor can I be perswaded that Jesus when he was baptized or any other baptized by John or any body else stripped themselves naked If any shall say they covered their unseemly parts or that it was done in their cloathes I shall say it is as easily denied as affirmed the Scripture gives not the least hint of such a thing which I suppose it would have done if it had been so as in other cases it tells us of Sauls stripping himselfe among the Prophets the executicners of Steven laying their garments at Pauls feet c. Especially it being in so weighty a matter as should concern all ages Again if all their cloathes were on or but some of them then certainly their flesh was not washed as 1 Pet. 3.21 but their cloathes Onely this I shall acknowledge that I see not but dipping consideratis considerandis may be lawfull nor can I say that they that use it doe worse then they that use it not But that it is absolutely necessary or the omission of it maketh baptisme null That sprinkling is unlawfull Antichristian of humane invention c. and that baptisme for administration is invalid evacuateth the death of Christ c. I cannot yeeld I have given some considerations why I think dipping not absolutely necessary I shall adde a few why I think sprinkling with water is unlawfull and that baptisme so administred is true baptisme First because the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 will yeeld it and may be justly so translated and must be so taken in the places by me quoted before to which I might adde more as Mark 7.4 c. Secondly from the types of our spirituall washing which were done by sprinkling as Exod. 12. the sprinkling of the blood of the Lamb Exod. 23. the sprinkling of the Altar Book people Levit. 16. sprinkling the unclean by the water of the red Heifers ashes Num. 19. All which typified unto them the blood of Christ and the application of it unto themselves for their justification and sanctification If sprinkling were then sufficient to them for the same purpose that dipping is now urged I see nothing to hinder but that sprinkling may doe the same now for though that was commanded yet this is not forbidden Thirdly the Prophets foretelling this grace of God communicated unto us by that ordinance and I think this ordinance it selfe is forespoken of therein they doe set it forth by sprinkling as Esa 52.15 My servant shall sprinkle many Nations Esai 44.3 Exek 36.25 I will powre clean water upon you From these Prophesies I conclude that sprinkling or powring on may be justified Fourthly in the new Testament the grace of God is set forth by the very word sprinkling as Heb. 10.22 Having your hearts sprinkled from an evill conscience and your bodies washed with pure water which notes baptisme and this washing as also 1 Cor. 6.11 may be with powring on as the same word is so to be taken Acts 16.33 The same houre hee took them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 washed their mounds which was not with dipping certainly but with powring on So Heb. 12.21.24 To the bloud of sprinkling 1 Pet. 1.2 Elect c. through the sanctification of the Spirit unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ By these expressions certainly the holy Ghost intends to hold out the administration of the signes of Gods grace So that upon these considerations I am well perswaded that though dipping may be lawfull yet sprinkling is not unlawfull and question not but the ordinance administred by sprinkling is as valid as the administring of it by dipping And if they do not forget themselves that condemn sprinkling as Antichristian humane c. they doe and will grant that in some cases it may be lawfull and then it is lawfull in it selfe morally or certainly no case can make it morally lawfull but it is a sin so to doe in what case soever I argue therefore from thence thus Fifthly if sprinkling in some case be lawful then it is not morally unlawfull in it self at all But in some cases sprinkling may be lawfull as where there is but little water Ergo it is not morally unlawful in it self Sixthly I shall adde here the judgement of Chamier Tom. 4. lib. 5.

birth is baptisme and for that cause called the birth of water Joh. 3.5 Tit. 3.5 Therefore by administration of true baptisme the church is is truly stated and constituted in her true being Reply Regeneration and natural birth hold proportion in many things together but not in all yet I will not trouble the discourse there the great mistake is in making baptisme regeneration and that which answereth naturall birth and the places quoted will not prove it For first it will ask more skill then it may bee hee hath to recover them out of the hands of many godly judicious that deny those places to be meant of baptisme but indeed of the new birth or regeneration by the Spirit putting forth the same effects upon the regenerate party that holds some proportion with the effects of water But secondly grant they be meant of baptisme yet it followes not that baptisme is regeneration because in John there is the Spirit also and in Titus Father Son and Holy Ghost and a full work of regeneration wrought afore baptisme and themselves also will necessarily require it before they will baptize any and therefore baptisme is not regeneration being not to be administred but to regenerate persons knowne before to bee so Thirdly it is not therefore called the birth of water but as bread and wine are called the body and bloud of Christ circumcision the covenant the Lamb the Passover as therefore the Lamb or Christ is the Passover circumcision the covenant bread and wine the Lords body and bloud so baptisme is the new birth that is a signe or seale of regeneration and not regeneration it self I dislike the phrase The birth of water Secondly hee argues from the forme of baptisme which is dipping and in that repect called a buriall with Christ Rom. 6.4 betokening our death and refurrection Ergo as the rising out of the grave at the last day is the beginning of our state of glory in our bodily being so the rising out of the water of baptisme is the beginning of our visible state of grace and the beginning of our visible spirituall life is from that day c. Reply First here is the same mistake with the former making baptisme the beginning of the spirituall visible state whereas it is the signe and seale of it onely which they are to have before for doe they baptize a grown person dead or alive If alive then visibly or invisibly in the state of spirituall life not invisibly for himself hath said they must professe their faith first and receive the word Acts 2. else not to baptize any their faith in Christ their union thereby to him their communion with him in death buriall c. are to goe before their baptisme And himselfe saith it betokeneth how it is then the thing it selfe Secondly whereas he makes dipping the form of baptisme he is in a double mistake First it is not the forme but the matter of baptisme Secondly he seemes to conclude sprinkling unlawfull whereas it is lawfull as shall be seen afterward Lastly he makes it a Sacrament of our last resurrection to glory the Text making it expresly a Sacrament of our dying to finne and resurrection to new obedience Thirdly he argues from the end of baptisme which amongst others is to unite them to the visible body of Christ 1 Cor. 12.13 Gal. 3.27.28 Eph. 4.5 6. and to distinguish them from the rest of the world Col. 2.12 with 20. as circumcision did distinguish the Jewes from the Heathens But except baptisme bee administred to beleevers subjects onely capable of such union communion and distinction they cannot have that end effected to be united to the body of Christ and distinguished from the rest of the world Ergo baptisme is to be administred to beleevers for that end Reply They be beleevers first for so himselfe saith but to beleeve is to bee in Christ and by his faith forsaking sinne and the world chuseth God to bee his God and Gods people to bee his people and as by the inward grace this is done effectually invisibly so by actuall profession thereof without which he were not to bee baptized he visibly declareth and effecteth the same ends and is baptized as a signe and seale thereof baptisme there doth not effect those ends but signifie and seale those ends before effected This Argument still laboureth of the former mistake making the signe to be the signe and the thing signified by it Again there are other ends of baptisme besides these as himselfe confesseth and therefore the church may be formed a church before and without these ends to be effected by baptisme one end is to be a signe seale of the covenant which precedes baptisme it selfe and therefore baptisme comes too late to doe that which was done before Last of all Ephes 5.25.27 the party to bee baptized is and must bee a member before because the church is to bee washed not made a church by washing but being a church to be washed A fourth argument he hath is from the not iteration of baptisme it being to be administred but once the Lords Supper often in which respect baptisme is the signe of our birth and initiation the Lords Supper of our growth and conservation in the visible body of Christ and if a man may be conceived to have a being for a time in a visible church without baptisme the signe and Sacrament of his entrance and initiation hee may have a continuance there also and so consequently baptisme needlesse But baptisme is needfull as a means of the beginning of our visible being in the visible body of Christ Ergo without baptisme they have no visible being in the church and so baptisme is the form of it I answer First he saith baptisme is a signe and Sacrament of the beginning of our visible being in the body of Christ then say I it is not the beginning it selfe of our visible being in the body the signe and the thing signified being really distinct the one from the other and the thing signified preceding the signe and seale of it But of this before Secondly he plainly contradicts himselfe in saying it is a signe and Sacrament of our entrance and yet there is no visible being in the church without baptisme Thirdly where he saith If a man may have a being for a time without baptisme then may he have a continuance also it follows not for they had a being in the Jewish state before they were circumcised but circumcision was not needlesse neither should they have continued in that state without circumcision Again as the males had a being and continued members of that church seven dayes so if God had not commanded them to bee circumcised the eighth day but left it to their own wills they should have continued visible members without it alwayes as women did being not commanded Abraham and his family fourteen yeers and they in the wildernesse forty In like manner Gods command makes baptisme necessary for

Last of all there is no more necessity of being baptized with water then of eating the bread and drinking the wine yet it is not allowed to be common but appropriated to Ministers and yet the reason will as well prove commonnesse of this as the other To the fifth humane authority without Scripture is of no force to argue points of Christianity That of Athanasius done in sport is absurd and sheweth the boldnesse of superstition Concerning heretickes baptisme they had Ministeriall calling and therefore it is beside the state of the question Secondly some again stating the question after Antichrists exaltation propound three wayes as professed in the world The first by such as hold a succession of Ministers from Rome or lesse and so of Baptisme A second of Familists and the scattered flock that none may meddle therewith lawfully till there come some extraordinary men and condemning both these A third is holding forth and affirming that any Disciple of Christ in what part of the world soever coming to the Lords way by the Word and Spirit of God preaching that Word of God unto others and converting them he may and ought also to baptize them To prove this they bring three Arguments The first is taken from the re-building of the Temple after the captivity in Babylon by proportion thus As every Israelite then with whom the Lord was and whose spirit the Lord stirred up was commanded to go to build Ezr. 1.3 5. though some were more excellent in the bufinesse then the other so now every spirituall Israelite with whom the Lord is and whose spirit the Lord stirreth up is commanded to go and build the spirituall Temple which they do by begetting men anew by the immortall seed of the Word so making them living stones and then couple them together a spirituall house upon confession of their fins by baptisme In brief an Israelite circumcised in flesh God stirring up his heart was commanded to build the Temple made with hands from the first stone to the last Therefore an Israelite circumcised in heart not baptized in the flesh God stirring him up is to build the Temple made without hands from the first stone to the last Go preach and baptize teaching his Disciples to the end of the world The second Argument If John Baptist being unbaptized himself preached converted and baptized then may any man else do so too but John Baptist unbaptized preached converted and baptized Ergo any man unbaptized may preach convert and baptize The consequence they prove thus All things written afore time were written for our instruction Rom. 15.4 The same God that spake with John in the Wildernesse speaketh now to us in the Scriptures the same word hee spake to John and therefore seeing the Lord hath spoken who shall not preach and practise according to his Word seeing God now speaketh to no particular person one more then another The third is from humane authority Mr. Perkins and others confesse that if a Turk should come to the knowledge of the truth in Turkie he might preach the Word to others and converting them might baptize them though unbaptized himself Now these are their Arguments to which I answer First in generall the apprehension falls in with the Papists determination in the point and herein differ that they hold it may be lawfull for any yea unbaptized in case of necessity and extraordinarily to baptize when no other can be gotten but these hold that any unbaptized may do it in any case at all times and ordinarily nor do their Arguments exclude women whose spirits the Lord may stirup and the instance that the captives returning include them fully for of that sex there were some forward in the work Neh. 3.12 as of old in building the Tabernacle Exod. 35.22 In particular I answer to the first Argument First the consequence is false for the comparison is not of things alike The Temple signified Christs humane nature and Heaven and sometimes it signifies a Believer and not a church-estate as is cleer Joh. 2. calling his body the Temple Heb. 8.2 Chap. 9.1 Chap. 11.24 A Tabernacle more excellent not made with hands nor of this building which were figures of the other and true Tabernacle and Temple which God had builded and not man to argue from the Temple to the Church whereas it was a figure of Christ cannot be allowed Secondly the builders were all Gods visible people in covenant with him and circumcised but the argument speaks of them that are not Gods visible people nor baptized c. therefore not to be admitted to build as Neh. 2.20 Ezr. 4. Thirdly they went up the whole body together to build but they did not all actually build but some workmen only whom God had made able and skilfull the rest of the people incouraged contributed and oversaw the rest Ezr. 3.7 to the 10. So by proportion every one may not every one cannot actually perform this thing only the Carpenters and workmen whom God hath gifted and justly officiated to that purpose the rest must incourage contribute and forward the work according to their place Fourthly they had Gods Word by Cyrus to set them on and being hindred had Haggai and Zachary to presse them to it but these look for no such allowance Besides it is incongrnous to oppose the Temple made with hands to the Church as made without hands and also that the church is wholly made without hands being made by mens endevours yea effecting sometimes no true infallible spirituall stones Last of all it dissolveth and overturneth that institution of Christ Ephes 4.11 Who gave some to be Apostles c. for the gathering and perfecting of the Saints whereas they say every man may doe it and apply at randome that to every man no officer nor baptized person That of Mat. 28. was spoken but to the eleven who were baptized and especiall officers already chosen and set up officers in the church To the second from John Baptist c. the Antecedent affirms John unbaptized but no word of proof given nor one syllable of reason For though it bee not expressed of whom when and where he was baptized nor is there mention of Christs Apostles baptisme yet it follows not that John was not baptized If I shall affirme the contrary viz. that John was baptized and inferre from hence no person unbaptized may baptize for John was baptized and say it is written for our instruction this will not be granted And why might not John baptize himselfe being the beginner of the new Testament as Abraham circumcised himselfe though after some body circumcised did it And if John Hel. or Smith baptized himself first and then baptized others John Baptist might doe it as well as he Or what if God baptized him as he buried Moses Or what if he were baptized in the Jewish church they practising a baptisme to every proselyte to make them members incorporate into the common-wealth of Israel But secondly I deny

therefore propound to consideration what I have observed intending not to say all nor to quote their sayings at large but to give some references only and in this order First I will set down the judgement of single learned men in their writings Secondly the consent of whole assemblies And Thirdly the practice of all churches in all ages First that Infants have been and ought to be baptized receives confirmation from testimony of all ancient Writers which I have been able to take notice of as appeares by these places Justin Mart. in quaestion Orthodox Tertul. lib. de baptismo cap. 18. pag. 225. See Junius notes also upon it pag. 157. Dionysius Areop quoted by Thom. 3. qu. 68. art 9. Origen affirming that the church had it from the Apostles hom 2. in Ps 38 in Levit. hom 8. in 6. ad Rom. Cyprian Epist lib. 3.8 Epist ad Fidum Item Epist in the first Tome of Councels pag. 240. Cyril upon Lev. 8. Syricius epist in first tome of Councels Capit. 1. pag. 493. Hieron lib. 4. in Ezek. 16. Idem lib. 3. contra Pelag. Idem Epist ad Laetam Aug. in Enchirid. cap. 42.43.51.65 In lib. de definit Orthodox fidei cap. 21. de fide ad Petrum cap. 24.27.38 Idem lib. 4. de baptismo contra Donatist cap. 14. and in many other places and against Donatists lib. 4. cap. 23. hee hath these words The baptisme of Infants was not derived from the authority of men nor of Councels but from the tradition and doctrine of the Apostles Greg. Nazian de sacro Lavacro orat 3. Ambros de Abraha lib. 2. cap. 11. Jeron Critobul contra Pelag. lib. 3. c. Secondly the attestation of whole assemblies declare as much not ordaining but bearing witnesse unto it upon speciall occasions as the day and time of the yeer c. when they should be baptized Apostol constitut lib. 6. cap. 15. sub finem pag. 92. Concil Melevitan cap. 2. p. 555. Concil African cap. 77. pap 584. Epist concilii Carthag contra Caelest Pelag. p. 542. Concil Carthag quint. cap. 6. pag. 520. Thirdly the practice of all churches consent hereto In the African churches they used to baptize Infants as Athanasius testifieth Quaest 124. The same was used in the Asian churches as Nazianzen affirmeth And the Magdeburgens in their Centuries observe that in the first hundred yeeres after Christ Infants were baptized nor was it taken notice of in that age that Infants were excluded from baptisme and so continued in all ages to this day and though the Eastern and Western churches separated and did hold severall opinions and rites differing one from another yet neither omitted the baptizing of Infants Among the Eastern and African Christians whereof there are some whole kingdomes and very many in severall kingdomes scattered here and there in companies and divided amongst themselves into eleven observable factions and fractions yet have they all successively holden do hold baptizing Infants with some difference I confesse some not baptizing males afore forty dayes nor females before eightie though they die before some not before except in case of necessity some sooner but none later that I have observed In like manner the Westerne churches have had and have some difference in some rites and ceremonies yet not at all in the point of baptizing Infants And as in the Eastern churches before and after separation from the rest and never yeelding subjection to the Pope of Rome So in the Western it is evident that it was every where and alwayes practised before the exaltation of that Antichrist upon which considerations I count it a defect of modesty and charity to call this practice Antichristian and humane invention and to wave such light of all ages in so weighty and plain a case agreeable to the evidence of former arguments For cloze of the Arguments I shal say this more The first that denied the baptism of Infants and opposed the practice of the churches in this case was one Auxentius an Arrian with his adherents who died about 380. yeers after Christ as Mr. Philpot the martyr of Jesus noteth in an Epistle of his written out of prison to a fellow-prisoner of his about the point so Mr. Fox relateth in his Book of Martyrs ad an 1555. Bullinger after affirmeth the same Tom. 3. serm 8. decad quint. After him the Pelagians and Donatists opposed it against whom Augustin besides others wrote and defended it The Pelagians denied it upon this ground that Infants had no originall sin And in Bernards time one Peter Abilaird amongst many other grosse opinions wherein he saith he was magis Arrius quam Arrius held this also that Infants were not to be baptized Epist 190 c. And it is not unworthy consideration that in the severall ages wherein this practice was gain-said it was by such who in other things were grosly erroneous as most Anabaptists at this day And thus far of my grounds for baptizing Infants I next come to speak of a few things to the manner of baptizing whether it ought to be with dipping and may not be with sprinkling only That dipping hath been in use in some ages and places is out of question and dipping thrice also stories relate but that it was instituted and so belong to the essentials of baptisme I am not convinced For as I would have no man to yeeld to humane apprehensions without Gods Word so unlesse it can be proved from Scriptures I desire I may have the same leave I give others to reserve my faith for divine authority to captivate my faith hereto I observe these things pressed First the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which they say signifies to dip and therefore to baptize is to dip and not to sprinkle many places are brought to this purpose wherein the word is so translated and must be so taken To which I answer The word I grant is so translated and must be so taken in some place but it is not alwayes so translated nor can be so taken as Heb. 9.10 with divers baptismes some of these were with sprinkling Heb. 9.13 compared with Numb 19.11 17 c. 1 Cor. 10.2 They were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea it is not they were dived and dipped into them Mar. 1.8 I baptize you with water but hee shall baptize you with the holy Ghost and with fire now this was not to be dipped with the holy Ghost and with fire but sprinkled as was fore-told And why may it not be translated I sprinkle you with water as well as it must be sprinkled with the holy Ghost powred on you Again Acts 1.5 10.16 in the last places of both clauses it must be understood sprinkling not dipping and why may it not be taken for sprinkled in the two former Howsoever the word is not alwayes to be translated dipped appears by these places but may and must be translated sprinkled and so the force of the word doth not

cap. 2. sect 6. the rather because he is quoted by one as affirming Tom. 1. p. 347. that immersion was changed into aspersion after the time of Gregory 1. which was about 500. years after Christ which if he did then it is cleare he altered his judgement afterward for thus in the place quoted by me he writeth Incertum quando immersio met at a fuit in aspersionem aut unde facto initio c. It is uncertain when dipping was changed into sprinkling or whence it had beginning unlesse it may seeme that 3000. could not be baptized of a few Apostles and that in our dayes if every one should be dipped nor was there sufficient water to douze the Jaylor in the prison if hee was baptized by dipping use sheweth sprinkling to be more meet both in regard of the incommodiousnesse of the season as also in respect of modesty for which cause it is manifest that Deaconesses were imployed in undressing of women nor is the nature of the sacrament thereby altered for seeing all the force of water is in signification by washing certainly it is not much to purpose how much one is washed as in the Supper of the Lord how much one eateth or drinketh for the washing of one part is of the same nature with washing the whole Thus farre he Nor doth the sprinkling of a few drops of water more tend to evacuate Christe death or to nourish this dangerous errour that any should bee hereby occasioned to think that a few drops of Christs blood shed for his people is sufficient to wash away their sins then the eating of a bit of bread and drinking a few drops of wine doth evacuate his death and tend to nourish the same errour and what river may not in this consideration be excepted against or what quantity must it bee limited unto Thus I have run out my thoughts concerning this rite of administring baptisme I come in the next place to consider the administration of baptisme in England and the authority by which baptisme was there administred And I beleeve it is necessary to be resolved that was done by a lawfull power and just authority For though an officer of State doe a thing by vertue of his office and according to law maketh the thing authenticall and of force civilly yet it will not follow that if any private man not in office shall doe the same thing in the same form of words and every way else without any difference that such an act is legall and will be allowed but rather it will expose the doer and for whom such a thing is done to danger of just penalty So in this case and therefore if the authority by which baptisme was there administred be not lawfull and of God I confesse I cannot see how the thing it selfe can be in force and justifiable I adde that all Antichristian power and administrations by it as Antichristian cannot be lawfull And being it selfe an Idoll and humane invention it cannot give being to an ordinance or adde any thing to it but corrupt it and make it rather worse then better The ordination of a Pope or Prelate the presentation of a Patron c. give not the Minister a calling nor are necessary at all to make a man a Minister they corrupt the calling and the purity of it but the essentiall of a caling is from some other power which is necessarily required to make the practise good and authenticall If Johns baptisme was of men certainly it was unlawfull but if of God so it was lawfull and so I say of ours To cleare my selfe here I shall premise these things and so come to the conclusion First a calling may be lawfull and of God and yet corrupted many wayes as first by unfitnesse of persons in regard of their qualifications for the Pharisees sate in Moses chaire Matth. 23. Malac. 2.8 Secondly by the manner of entrance into the calling so the high Priesthood administred by them who took upon them the Kingly dignity many of them also purchasing the Priesthood by mony given to the heathen Kings who often put out one and put in another and whereas the high Priest was to continue during his life yet Caiaphas was high Priest but a yeare Thirdly by their ungodly and wicked acts in it as Elies sonnes Aaron yeelded to the people to make a Calfe and kept a festivall day yet did not these things nullifie the calling of the Priest hood nor did their administrations prove null thereby and invalid In the new Testament the church of Thyatira had corrupted the Ministeriall calling grosly in suffering a woman under colour of a Prophetesse to teach yet did not this destroy the calling of Ministry in that Church but that the calling of Ministry in that Church was lawfull Secondly a Church becomes a Church or a company of men and women become a Church not by usurping the things of God of themselves nor by imitating others in their Church practices as the Edomites Ishmaelites c. or Manasseh the son in law of Sanballat who builded a Temple in mount Gerizim after the fashion of that in Jerusalem or Onias building one in Egypt and in both of them setting up such services as were in Jerusalem but by Gods dispensation and that performed by these two acts First on Gods part sending the word of his grace offering it unto a people thereby opening their eyes and turning them from darknesse to light and taketh hold of them by some effect of his power so that he turns them from Idols to God Secondly from that act he produceth another by that effect of his power whereby such people takes hold on Gods offer and taking him and his Christ to be theirs and submitting themselves unto Christ as their Lord and King yeeld themselves up together in joynt and publike visible profession according to his lawes and ordinances Thirdly such a church thus constituted is a true church and a reall Ecclesiasticall body polity or corporation in it self and so many companies as thus joyn together are so many churches of equall power rights priviledges and jurisdictions nor is any one a mother church unto others but all are sister churches and though civilly the people may be distinguished into many commonwealths and many may be subject unto one yet the severall churches of every subordinate commonwealth are not hereby subject unto the church of the common-wealth to which the rest are subordinate but they remain entirely equall among themselves and all equally subordinate unto Jesus Christ Fourthly such a church or churches so remain still true churches so long as God continues his dispensation towards them and no longer but when God forsakes them and gives them a bill of divorce then they leave off to be a church and not before nor is it in the power of any other church or churches to unchurch any one such church but Christ himself must do that This church or these churches notwithstanding may