Selected quad for the lemma: christian_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
christian_n	call_v	church_n	congregation_n	1,735	5	9.2238	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

the world if he could and demand any Ordinances yet Member of no particular Church so let this man walke as disorderly as he will as the latitude sometimes you give of a Church-Member will allow a man to be bad enough in this Towne or another Towne he have owned no particular Church onely the Catholike what hath this particular Church to doe to meddle with him more then any other wee must have Catholike Church-Officers to cast him out who are such not onely actu primo but actu secundo which you say no Minister is to another that is not of his particular Congregation unlesse he be Called to it but to be sure this man will never call you to it who then can give you a Call so that this man cannot come to be reformed and yet he may goe up and downe to any Church I am a Christian therefore give me the Ordinances excommunicated I am not for none can excommunicate him unlesse all the Officers of the Churches in the world should meet to cast him out If you say Which you affirm Diatr 194. Where he first came to be baptized of that particular Church he is a Member and that Officer hath power c. No Sir I cannot believe this doctrine that my baptizing of another makes him member to our particular Church I have had three of my children baptized by Ministers who never looked on me as member to their Church though I dwelt in the Town I have done the same for others being called to it yet none of my members Your selfe acknowledge Baptisme doth not make a member of a visible Church Revie Mr. Hooker c. ● then not of this particular visible Church If you say So you express your mind pag. 194. Diat But a Christian must not doe thus he must joyne to a particular Church the question is not what he must doe but what he will doe will not you baptize his child or him unlesse he will joyne If not you have said enough 3. To be a Church-member seemes to be more then a Christian i. e. a Christian member of such a Society and w●●king under such a policy and that policy suppose Officers You say there is no essentiall Homogeneall Church existing without Officers mentioned in the Scripture it is a fancy you saye and repeat it againe Review Master Hooker pag. 75 77. opposing Mr. Hooker a Church-member then must be under Officers under such a policie as in the Catholike Church but how that can be unlesse he be a member of some particular Church which is a member of the Catholike as you say I know not the Catholique Church hath no policy extra ecclesias particulares The hardest matter is the Apostles baptizing which is often abledged this makes me doubtfull on the other side onely these thoughts I have bad 1. They had such power as we have none they could exercise their power any where without any call Paul was an Actuall Officer to the Jaylour and so other Apostles where they came hence they could reach them in case of irregular walking without a second Call but so much cannot we 2. I doe not remember they baptized any single persons but such as were members of the Jewish Church which was a Gospel-Church under ceremonies For others they baptized so many at once for ought I can see that might lay the foundation of a particular Church the Jaylour Act. 16. 32. how many were in his house I know not He and all his house believed in God So Cornelius there was company enough to begin a particular Church for ought I can see though how many its uncertaine Paul and Puer Officers to these In beginnings some things may be extraordinary as were they Officers extraordinary I easily see difficulties In N. E. if one or two Indians should seeme to be converted but because their language cannot joyne to an English Church should now the Minister delay to baptize him but then there is this also if these two or one should prove vile and scandalous what shall that Minister doe with him other scruples about this I could cast in but it concernes not my question The next fault you finde is That requiring an explicite covenant to such a Church I seeme not only to contradict my selfe but also to unchurch most of our English Churches Here I must stay a while having occasion given to looke back into your Epistle What doe I heare of contradictions againe you have a strange Art in finding out contradictions but how come this about it seemes I require an explicite Covenant But Sir are you sure the word explicite is in the definition nay you are sure t is not Can there be no Covenant in a Church but explicite I suppose yes and I suppose you thinke so also so doe Appollonius we will heare him speake presently is this fai●e dealing to force a word upon me when I have clearely before expressed my selse another way I am farre enough then from contradictions or from unchurching the faithfull Congregations of England though they have not an expl●●● Covenant your selfe p. 25. mention the externall Covenant of the Church but what you meane by it I know not You are a passage in my Boistle which is this Some Ministers scorne the notion that an explic●ie Covenant is the forme of a Church visible and some professours are so rigid for it that without it they deny all Churches of the latter sort is Mr. Hooker say you Sir you wrong him exceedingly and I wonder a man of your grace should doe thus when he hath so expresly declared his minde to the concrary to your knowledge the next words you mention shew as much and in his Epistle p. 11. he speaks as plainesy But of him anon That passage shall cleare me from making no Churches but where there is an explicite Covenant I saw in some Congregations where there were both visible and reall Saints as we may judge when the Lords Supper was to be administred some professours would not joyne in the Ordinance for want of that so farre as I could learne supposing they were not in a right Church-way Now this I could not approve of since there were so many Christians to depart from the Ordinance upon such a ground In my owne Congregation I thus practise Some of other Parishes have desired to joyne with us at the Lords Supper if we have not knowne them well I have desired them to bring a Testimony from their Minister and they have done so Others whom we knew well I have not desired it but admitted these to the Lords Supper yet they were under no explicite Covenant but an implicite Covenant I knew they closed with their Pastors in their Churches If need had beene I would have baptized their children had they brought them to me I hope now you are convinced Afterward you say againe I recall it because I said that this expliciteness is almost essentiall to the government of the

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-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