Selected quad for the lemma: christian_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
christian_n	baptize_v	church_n	infant_n	1,299	5	9.4082	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A86484	A rejoynder to Master Samuel Eaton and Master Timothy Taylor's reply. Or, an answer to their late book called A defence of sundry positions and scriptures, &c. With some occasionall animadversions on the book called the Congregational way justified. For the satisfaction of all that seek the truth in love, especially for his dearly beloved and longed for, the inhabitants in and neer to Manchester in Lancashire. / Made and published by Richard Hollinworth. Mancuniens.	Hollingworth, Richard, 1607-1656.	1647 (1647)	Wing H2496; Thomason E391_1; ESTC R201545	213,867	259

to Officiate in Gal. 2.9.2 Cor 10.13.14.15.16 as souldiers and watchmen of any regiment to which Ministers 1. Tim 2.3 Isa 62.6 are compa'rd have their severall wards limits and gates which they looke to and take care of yet so as they all are the Souldiers and Watchmen of the whole city and ministers may teach and Governe severall congregations in common by consent of all parties Interessed if it shal be found most for their edification as it is in some reformed churches at this day for all Ministers and officers of the Church are given to the whole church for the gathering and building of it 1. cor 12.28 Ephes 4.11.12 and they are to teach and rule and performe all ministrations with reference to it and the best advantage of it And yet that I may prevent an usuall objection there is difference enough between Apostles and Ordinary Elders for the Apostles were to teach and rule not onely Churches and Flocks but Pastors and Ministers also being men of an higher Order 1 Cor. 12.28 Eph. 4.11 they were immediately called of God Gal 1.1 Infallible in their Doctrine Gal. 1.7.8 5.2 endowed with extraordinary gifts Act 2.1 2 8.18 were enjoyned ordinarily to travell abroad to plant Churches Math 28.19 they might act authoritatively any where without a call or consent and might shake of the dust of their feet against such Ministers or others as did not receive them Math. 10.14 their Commission was irrepealable their limits were large Gal. 2.9 one Apostle had authority over all the Churches whether he were present or absent But a Minister is not of an higher order nor hath power over his Fellow-Ministers nor hath an immediate unrepealable call is not infallible nor in these times extraordinarily gifted he cannot act authoritatively either in an ordinary or occasionall way either inpreaching administring the sacraments or the like without the call or consent of persons Interested 6. You cannot shew any one Elder that was ordeined by those that were only of that particular congregation where he was to officiate byvertue of the said ordination Sect. 5. Lastly if it be unlawfull for unofficed men to ordaine then at least in case a congregation have no Elders the Elders of other congregations must ordaine Elders there or else they can have no ordination without sinfull surpation of Presbyterian Power now for the unlawfullness of unofficed men's ordination of Elders consider first what ordination is It is the solemne setting apart of a Person to a publike church-office so it was voted in the Assembly nemine contradicente or it is in Scripture phrase an appointment of men over some church-business Act 6.3 Imposition of hands the usuall and most approved ceremony of ordination notes 1. a visible designation of persons to be in office 2. a separation of them to God in that office or work Act. 13.1.3 Rom. 1.1.3 a putting of that worke and service upon them as laying hands on the sacrifices did put sin upon them 4. A benediction of them that their labor may be to the glory of God and good of the Church 5. a signification to them in Gods name that his hand is with them in all that they doe in his name and by his Authority to guid strengthen and protect them 2. Let us consider who hath the power and Authority to ordaine viz. Officres only for first The Apostles which did where ever they came leave the Elders and people to the exercise of that right which belonged to them did not leave to non-Elders the power of ordaining though it had been much easier to have writ to the churches that they should ordaine their own Elders then to have come themselves as Act. 14.23 or to have sent Timothy or Titus for that purpose 1. Tim. 5.22 Tit. 1.5 2dly There can no Instance no not one be given in all the New Testament of any Officer upon whom an unofficed man did impose hands in ordaining him 3. They that do ordaine do put some of their worke upon the person ordained but Preaching Baptizing c. Is it not the worke of any non-officed men 4. He that ordaines blesseth him that is ordained and without all contradiction the less is blessed of the greater Heb. 7.7.5 Ordination vou confess is an Act of authority but non-officed men have no rule or authority Cotton Keyes p. 5.6 The two Brethren in their answer to Mr. Herle page 48. do allow that a Church wanting Elders may request the Elders of other Churches to ordaine Elders for her and they that are so requested have a calling to come 7. Your selves say p. 110. It is essentiall that ordination be done by the right Subjectum capax of that ordinance and alledge 1 Tim. 4.14 laying on of hands of the Presbytery Tit. 1.5 Act. 14.23 to which I add Act. 6.2.6 13.1.2.1 Tim. 5.22 2. Tim. 2.2 which texts do not only prove that Ordination is to be done by the right Subjectum capax but also that Elders are that Subjectum capax 8. their being deputed by a Congregation or not deputed varies not the case till it be made to appeare that though no other non-Officer may ordain yet the Church may lawfully depute a man and a man so deputed may lawfully ordaine Where hath the Congregation any charter for this Sect. 6. When I alledge that you tell us that it is a maine Pillar of Popery to proportion the church now to the outward policy in Israell and that Christs faithfullness above Moses consists in as full determination of Gods worship in the New Testament as in the old that we are as strictly tied to the Gospell Patterne as the Jewes were to the old Testament you reply p. 55. The foundation of the Antichristian Hierarchy is laid in the proportion betwixt the Iewish policy the policy of the christian church yet use may be made of the Old Testament where the new is silent do not you conclude Infants must be baptised not because the new expresly saith so but because you find in the old Testament that Infants were circumcised Rejoyn 1. Then the foundation of the Antichristian hierarchy and of Popular ordination is one and the same viz. the proportion between the Iewish church and the christian 2. Your selves confess that the New Testament is not silent in this matter for it shewes say you p. 110 that ordination must be done by the right subjectum capax of it of which I spake in the next precedent Section 3. The covenant of grace to which the controversie of Paedobaptisme hath reference is the same in the old and new Testament but ordination is an Act of Government and policy and you tell us p. 86. That Christ hath not appointed the Iewish Church in matters of Government to be a Patterne to Gospel Churches but that they should be conformed to spirituall Patterns and Precepts left by Christ and his Apostles amongst which this is not to be found that the people may ordaine 4.

tables or love-feasts and is so generally interpreted Acts. 2.42 Acts 20.7 And for teaching and preaching Acts 5.42 contradistinct to preaching in the temple and in publique it being as is by it self evident the Apostles custome to preach both in the temple Synagogues markets court-houses and the like publike places to all promiscuously beleevers and others that would heare and in houses to the beleevers only in their Church-assemblies so that publiquely or in the temple which tearms expound one another and from house to house and in every house note two kinds of Assemblies sc promiscuous meetings and Church-meetings 2. That these were distinct several Congregations and not the same kept successively at several houses may be gathered 1. by the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 duly rendred which signify house by house distributively or in every house as it is translated Acts 5.42 That is not in every house in the city nor in every beleevers house in the city for there were thousands probably of these but in every house designed for a Church-meeting 2. By the opposition the text in Acts 2.46 Makes between their meeting in the temple and their breaking of bread house by house the former its sayd was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with one accord implying they all met together in the temple but distributively in their private houses or Church-meetings for the celebration of the Lords Supper the Iews probably not permitting this new ordinance in the temple and other Church ordinances 3. Learned Mr. Beza on that of Acts. 2.46 Saith that procul dubie the number of Christians at Ierusalem did require that more commodious houses should be chosen for their living together in common as we see the Church in every populous city distributed into several Parishes as the preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sheweth so he And of these several meeting houses we may very fitly understand that of Saul his entring into every house Acts 8.3 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 house by house that is he watched and assaulted them at their meeting times and places and thence halling men and women committing them to prison for into every private house of Christians it cannot be conceived that he entred for them how could the Apostles themselves remain at Ierusalem and escape him as they did v. i. But he entered the ordinary meeting houses which were best known and most noted and where he was likely to meet with them for his purpose by great numbers and both interrupt their exercises and find most occasion against them to punish them he therefore possibly with reference to this confesseth that he persecuted this way Acts 22.4 And is said to make havock of the Church c. 8 3. And to get authority to bind all that call on the name of the Lord Iesus c. 9 14. 4. Mr. Burton an eminent man of your way confesseth that the Christians of that Church were constrained to sever themselves into divers companies to communicate which probably they did every Lords day and consequently they did every Lords day enjoy other ordinances accompanying the Sacrament as preaching prayer singing and yet saith Mr Burton these several companies which we call congregations were but so many branches of one and the same particular Church no properly several Churches but one Church 2. Where there were so many preachers that they could not all nor the most of them be imployed in preaching every Lords day to one particular congregation there was more then one congregation this consequence is good and firm both by reason for God did not ordain preachers to be idle or negligent or to preach seldom but to be instant in season and out of season he appointed not many shepheards over a little flock any by scripture which affirms that the increase of the disciples was the occasion of the encrease of those officers and that there were so many officers in that Church is also evident 12. Apostles Math. 9.35 with 10.1 and 70. disciples Luc. 10. 2. besides Elders mentioned Acts 11.30 as being extant we know not how long before that time and others having immediate commission to preach Luc. 9.60 If those Elders were not the same with the 70. disciples seeing we read not of the institution of any other and if so then there was twelve Apostles answerable to the twelve Princes of the tribs Num. 1.16 and 70 Elders in the Christian Church answerable to the 70 Elders amongst the Jews Num. 11. 16. which could not be imployed in preaching every Lords day in one congregation 3. The Church that prayed for Peter Acts 12. 5. Met many of them in the house of Mary v. 12. and others of them viz. Iames and his bretheren else where v. 17. And yet the text calls them the Church of Jerusalem though met in several places 4. Again it is said that Paul abode in Ierusalem with Peter 15 days Gal. 1.18 And doubtless Peter and he frequented the publique meetings yet he saw no other of the Apostles save Iames the Lords brother he saith not that they were not in Ierusalem but he saw them not which had bin very improbable if not impossible seeing the Apostles were diligent in preaching if there had bin but one Church-meeting in Ierusalem another instance may be given in Samaria where the generallity of the city which had before given heed to Simon Magus imbraced the Gospel in outward profession Acts 8.6 9 10 11 12 14. Now all these m●st needs be more then could orderly in one place receive the Sacrament and they were not baptized into several Churches for then Church and city could not expound one another as the scripture witnesseth and you acknowledg therefore they met ordinarily in several places So now to omit other Instances til a fitter occasion I have given you two Instances in the new Testament of Christians ordinarly meeting in divers places which yet were but one Church properly so called Sect. 3. in Reply p. 14. You say Can you shew that the beleevers of any Christian Church met only at first in one place and afterwards being increased they met not in one place but many places except at sometime of hot persecution Rejoynder 1. Reason teacheth that when a land is Heathenish the conversion of it from Heathenish to Christianity must begin somewhere first it may be one or two or moe are converted and baptized and then as leaven to which the Gospel is compared Mat. 13. It spreadeth further and further some say the first Christian Church in England was planted at Glastenbury by Ioseph of Arimathea and if so then at first beleevers in England meet in one place 2 Of the Jewish Church the thing is evident that they at first were altogether both in the family of Abraham and in the wilderness though they never all met together again after their setlling in the land of Canan 3. I have manifested that the Church of Jerusalem did ordinarily meet in several places and yet you doubt not but that at

know Why do you so strongly assert things and yet leave them naked without the least shew of proof Sect. 2. You Reply p. 17. I Ask what commentator ever sayd that all in every place and Saints in all Achaia expound one another doth 1 Cor. 1.1 compared with 2 Cor. 2.1 Inforce such an exposition you would suggest that he writes to the same Corinthians in the 2. Epistle that he writes to in the first more your scriptures import not and we grant it But the inference you draw is this ergo all in every place and all the Saints in all Achaja are all one a strang consequence If the 2. Epistle be written to the same persons as the first why do ye not expound the subject persons of the second by the subject persons of the first and say though the Saints in all Achaja be mentioned only yet under them the Saints every where in the world are meant Rejoynder 1. I observe you say not no commentator hath sayd so or that you know not any commentator hath sayd so possibly you knew that Reverend and Iudicions Beza Annot in 1 Cor. 1.1 Expounds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 id est in quavis Achaiae Ecclesia asserting also that though this inscription is made properly and specially to the Corinthians yet next it is writen to the rest of the Churches in all Achaja as appears by the beginning of the 2 Epistle as the Epistle to the Galatians was to all the Churches of that nation for that it is not absolutely Cathol●que directed to the Churches in all the world appears saith he by the Inscription and matter of the Epistle Thus he 2. I would suggest not only that the 2. Epistle is written to the same Corinthians that the first as you strangely interpret me but that it is written to the same persons as I plainly expressed my self Corinthians or others 3. I have not read any one that makes so loose an interpretation of the Saints in all Achaja 2 Cor. 1.1 As to say that under them the Saints every where in the world are meant for so they might have bin under the name of the Corinthians alone as wel as under the name of the Romans alone Rom. 1.7 Ephesians alone Gal. 1.1 And that the use of them redounds to all the world as wel as to all Achaia against which I have formerly given some reasons to which I add that the Apostle might have said as wel to the Church of Corinth and to all the Saints in Indea if this Epistle had concerned them being a part of the world or any other province as wel as Achaia Sect. 3. Reply p. 17. The Corinthians not the Achaians had written to Paul c. 7 1. And Paul had received sundry reports concerning them not concerning all the Saints in Achaja for the Cenchreaus had not writ to him nor he heard any thing of them that we read of Chap. 1.11 5.1 And hereupon he writes unto them but because this letter might be of common use and profit and especially to the Saints which bordered next upon them therefore he would have the Achajans their neighbours to peruse it yea the Saints every where to read it in both his Epistles he mentioneth the Corinthians as the proper subject thereof the Achajans he mentioneth in one and the Saints every where in another And he brings them in Collaterally rather then directly it is to the Church of Corinth but with all the Saints in all Achaja and with all that in every place as it were on the by And this is Pareus his exposition upon 1 Cor. 1.2 Rejoynder 1. You first presume that the Epistles are written to the Corinthians only which is the thing denyed and then tel us that the Corinthians had written to Paul and he had heard some reports of the Corinthians but it is evident that those he writes to did write to him and that he had received some reports concerning them but that these were only Corinthians and no other Saints in Achaia to whom he writes and which did write to him and concerning whom he had received some reports you cannot evidence 2. I grant there might be some special aym at the Church of Corinth in some things at least rather then any other Church of Achaia possibly in other things other Saints were more aymed at then the Corinthians and doubtless the Churches then could better tell when this Church or that was more specially aimed at by the Apostles then we which are more ignorant of the then state of those Churches can yet your collection is very sleighty and infirm concerning the bringing the Saints in every place and in all Achaia in collaterally rather then directly Do your selves think that he that in his prayer mentioneth Christ and saith To whom with the Father and the holy Ghost be glory doth give glory to God the father and the holy Ghost collaterally rather then directly if you do think so I hope you wil hold him accursed that useth it the phrase is the same the Reader can apply it Sect. 4. When I answer that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Cor. 11.20 14.23 may fitly be translated in idipsum for the same and in one you reply p. 18. That the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are conjoyned with with the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Cor. 11.20 14.23 and then you say it will not be denyed but that place is principally meant Rejoynder 1. If the Apostle doth write to more Churches then one as is alledged and proved from 1 Cor. 14.34 Then I hope your selves will not interpret this of the identity of place for you hold not as I told you though you blotted it out of my answer that two three or more Churches in the new Testament must consist of no more then may meet in one place 2. You begge the question and would perswade the Reader there is something in the Greek which possibly he understands not to force my assent to your opinion but the words import no more then convenire in unum as the Lords and Commons may be said to do which are but one Parliament though met in two houses and if there be no incongruity of applying the phrase to those which we know do meet in severall places then the Apostle might apply the phrase to the Corinthians though he kn ew that they did meet in severall Assemblies on a day of a publike fast or of thanksgiving all the Churches in Holland yea all in New England may be said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 3. It is at least very probable that the Church of Corinth it self suppose he write to no more was more then one particular congregation for 1. Not onely Crispus the chief Ruler but many of the Corinthians hearing the Word beleeved and were baptized Act. 18.8 And God told Paul that he had much people in that City v. 10. And Paul tarried there a long time which he would not have done if his

ministery had not prospered yea so many were the Christians that the Jews which made insurrection against Paul were driven away and Sosthenes beaten by the Geeks Gall●o the Proconsull was Pauls friend 2. There was a great multitude of teachers as is intimated 1 Cor. 4.15 Though you have 10000 Instructers implyes they had many and they had contentions amongst them one being for one teacher and another for another 1 Cor. 4.6 1 Cor. 11.12 There was also many that had the gift of tongues and of Prophesie 1 Cor. 14.31 And Paul tarried with them a year and six moneths together now it is incongruous there should be so many Pastors Teachers Speakers with tongues Prophets un-imployed at least in part and imployed they all could not be to any purpose in one Congregration Reply p. 18. Except the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 do hold forth a coming together into one place their meeting at all any of them together though in an hundred places will be overthrown If the words do carry any respect to place then seeing it is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the whole Church they will be in force to proove that the whole Church came together into one place Rejoynder Camero that learned Critick saith the words have respect to the unity of the persons not the identity of the place Yet 2. Their meeting at all any of them needs not be overthrown for though this phrase could not uphold it yet other texts of Scripture may 3. Your selves know that James 2.2 and Heb. 10.25 the Texts cited in my Answer do carry respect to place and do import that some met together in one place and some in another place or places and yet do not import the meeting of them all in one place so we say the Parliament comes together The Lords amongst themselves and the Commons amongst themselves not all both Lords and Commons in one house 4. This Phrase or one equivalent may respect place and yet be taken distributively so Joab and Abners men 2 Sam. 2.13 are said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet the holy Ghost intends not to expresse thereby a meeting in one place but exp●●sly overthrows that sense by telling us that they sate one on the one side and the other on the other side of the pool of Gibeon The same word is used of Edom Ishmaelites Moab c. Psal 83.4 5 6. so Kingdomes are said to come together to serve the Lord. Psalm 102.22 Reply p. 18. When these words are found without 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not the sense darkned if not overthrown by such an interpretation shal Acts 2.44 be rendered And all that beleeved were in one thing or mind So they might be though every one were in his own house and none of them together in the same place But how doth it Cohere with the next words and had all things common if they met not together in the same place Rejoynder 1. I cannot see any shaddow of absurdity to say Beleevers were in one or in one mind though it sounds not wel to say Beleevers were in one thing nor know I any but your selves so rendering the text and had all things common it is the language of the holy Ghost Acts 4.32 a place which seems paralel and the multitude of them that beleeved were of one heart and one soul neither sayd any of them that ought he possessed was his own but had all things common Surely you dare not quarrell with the language of the holy Ghost 2. Suppose that this interpretation of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Acts 2.44 Would darken the sense it will not follow that the same interpretation in the texts cited 1 Cor. 11.20 14.23 will darken the sense also the same words may bear one sense in one scripture and yet not necessarily bear the same sense in all other scriptures Reply p. 19. Wil those words in Acts 3.1 Now Peter and Iohn went up together into the temple be wel translated They went up to the temple for the same thing not together in company but for one end then they might go one after another several passages in the story do flatly contradict it and do shew that they ascended together in company one of another into the temple Rejoynd●r 1. If some passages of the story shew that they went together in company do any of them shew that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 proves their going together in company 2. It is untrue that the passages of the story do flatly contradict their meeting in one-ness of business That they went together for the same thing and with one mind your selves wil not deny 3. No one ever sayd that one-ness of mi●d and business doth exclude one-ness of place which is the thing you confute only we say it doth not necessarily include it they might meet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in one mind and to one end and meet more place too and the rather because if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cany any respect to place Peter and Iohn being but two were not capable of meeting distributively in several places as the phrase if it do respect place must of necessity be understood in other texts as hath bin shewed Reply But Acts 4.26 compared with Psal 2.2 Is alledged to confirm the exposition of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To which we answer we see nothing but that the conspirators against Christ met in one place for Psal 2. Saith they took counsel together and how can that be better done then by meting in one place Acts 4.27.5 Saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which without 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies they came together in one place and they might do it easily because all the persons mentioned were in one city and the story makes it plain that the rulers and the people of Israel and Pontius Pilate and the Gentiles gathered together and there is nothing repugnant but that Herod might meet with them especially seeing that we read that Pilate and he were made friends Rejoynder That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may signifie consent of minds in one thing and that Herod Pilate and the Gentiles did agree in one d●sign is as clear as the Sun but that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies their meeting in one place as you assert is improbable 1 Because though I deny not but they might come together yet it cannot be made to appear by the story that ever th●y did come together all at once in one place 2. Suppose they did sometimes meet together do you in good earnest think that the prophesie Psal 2. or the history Acts 4. Of their being gathered together 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was verified of them only in that punctilio of time when all the foresaid persons without exception met together in one place and not any other time The Lords and commons are together sometimes in one house cannot they be sayd to meet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 at any other time but then Sect. 5. Reply p. 19. We