Selected quad for the lemma: church_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
church_n	cause_n	just_a	separation_n	3,235	5	9.9864	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A62868	Felo de se, or, Mr. Richard Baxter's self-destroying manifested in twenty arguments against infant-baptism / gathered out of his own writing, in his second disputation of right to sacraments by John Tombes.	Tombes, John, 1603?-1676.	1659 (1659)	Wing T1806; ESTC R33836	48,674	44

the Son by which they cry Abba Father So Tit. 3. 5 6 7. According to his mercy he saved us by the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost which he shed on us c. that being Justified by his Grace we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life The heirs then are regenerate justified and have the hope of eternal life So Ephes. 3. 6. The Gentiles being made fellow-heirs and of the same body are partakers of the promise in Christ by the Gospel even the unsearchable riches of Christ Heb. 6. 17. The heirs of promise have their salvation confirmed by Gods oath And Heb. 1. 14. they are called the heirs of salvation And Heb. 11. 6. 9. It is true justified believers that have that title and James 2. 7. They are called heirs of the promised Kingdom and 1. Pet. 3. 7. they are called coheirs of the same grace of life So that to be heirs in the first and proper notion is to be Sons that have title to the inheritance of glory and therefore to be heirs in the second analogical notion is to be such as seem such by profession of that Faith which hath the promise of that glory The last title that I mentioned in the Argument was Justified Paul calleth all the baptized Church of Corinth Justified None that profess not a justified Faith are called Justified therefore none such should be baptized The major I proved to Master Blake out of 1 Cor. 6. 11. Ye are washed ye are sanctified ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God Master Blake doth not at all deny the major or the sense of the Text alledged to prove it but darkly in generals intimateth a denial of the minor silently passing over that particular title justified as if he durst not be seen to take notice of it I confess its sad that good men should be so unfaithful to the truth which is so precious and is not their own and which they should do nothing against as Master Baxter hath done but all they can for it Having gon thus far about titles let me add another the title Regenerate Christ hath instituted no baptism but what is to be a sign of present regeneration But to men that profess not a justifying faith it cannot be administred as a sign of present regeneration therefore he hath instituted no baptism to be administred to such The major I have proved already in the first Argument and its plain in John 3. 5. Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God And so in Tit. 3. 5. where it is called the laver of regeneration In both which though I am of their minde that think that the sign is put for the thing signified yet it may thence plainly appear what is the thing signified even regeneration or the new birth Yea so commonly was this acknowledged by all the Church of Christ that there is nothing more common in the writings of the Fathers then to take the terms regenerate illuminate c. and baptized as signifying the same thing or at least spoken of the same person which occasioned one of our late Antiquaries so stifly to plead that regeneration in Scripture signifyeth meer baptism and that all the baptized are regenerate I grant that it oft falls out that baptism being misapplied sealeth not regeneration at present and that the same person may afterward be regenerate and his remembred baptism may be of use to him for the confirmation of his faith But this is not the institutes commanded use of it to be so administred at first if the party profess not saving faith though this review of it is a duty where it was so abused at first The minor I shall take for granted while regeneration in Scripture stands so connexed to salvation I know no regenerate ones but the justified or those that profess to have a justifying faith nor hath he proved any more Pag. 118. Argum. 11. All that are meet subjects for baptism are after their baptism without any further inward qualification at least without any other species of saith meet subjects for the Lords Supper But no Infant is a meet subject for the Lords Supper as is acknowledged therefore no Infant is a meet subject for baptism Or thus Those whom we may baptize we may also admit to the Lords Supper But we may admit no Infants to the Lords Supper as is acknowledged by baptizers of Infants therefore we may baptize no Infants The major Master Blake will easily grant me and if any other deny it I prove it thus 1. It is the same covenant that both Sacrament seal one for initiation the other for confirmation and growth in grace therefore the same saith that qualifieth for the one doth sufficiently qualifie for the other for the same covenant hath the same condition 2. They are the same benefits that are conferred in baptism and the Lords Supper to the worthy receiver Therefore the same qualification is necessary for the reception The antecedents is commonly granted Baptism uniteth to Christ and giveth us himself first and with himself the pardon of all past sins c. The Lords Supper by confirmation giveth us the same things it is the giving of Christ himself who saith by his Minister Take Eat Drink offering himself to us under the signs and commanding us to take himself by faith as we take the signs by the outward parts He giveth us the pardon of sin sealed and procured by his body broken and his blood shed 3. A member of Christs Church against whom no accusation may be brought from some contradiction of his first profession must be admitted to the Lords Supper but the new baptized may be ordinarily such therefore if he can but say I am a baptized person he hath a sufficient principal title to the Lords Supper Coram Ecclesia before the Church I mean such as we must admit though some actual preparation be necessary unless he be proved to have disabled his claim on that account either by nulling and reverting that profession or by giving just cause of questioning it 4. The Church hath ever from the Apostles dayes till now without question admitted the new baptized at age to the Lords Supper without requiring any new species of faith to intitle them to it I take the major therefore as past denial I must confess as much as I am against separation I never intend to have communion with Master Blakes congregation if they profess not saving repentance and faith And if he exact not such a profession I say still he makes foul work in the Church and when such foul work shall be voluntarily maintained and the word of God abused for the defilement of the Church and ordinances of God it is a greater scandal to the weak and to the schismsticks and a greater reproach to the Church and sadder case to

considerate men then the too common pollutions of others which are meerly through negligence but not justified and defended Let Master Baxters own words judge him who makes the same foul work in the Ordinance of baptism by admitting Infants to it upon a Parents or Proparents as he terms them profession when all his proofs of the necessity of profession to go before baptism are of the profession of the party himself to be baptized and this device of a Parents or Proparents profession instead of the Infants is his own invention that hath not any intimation in Scripture and by his own proofs makes Infants capable of the Lords Supper and perverts the nature of Sacraments which his own words do fully express thus Pag. 123 124. The first Argument of Master Gillespies 20. is from the nature of Sacraments which are to signifie that we have already faith in Christ remission of sin by him and union with him The sense of the argument is That seeing Sacraments according to Christs institution are confirming signs presupposing the thing signified both on our part and on Gods therefore none should use them that have not first the thing signified by them Though I undertake not to defend all the Arguments that other men use in this case yet this doth so much concern the cause of baptism which I am now debating that I shall give you this reply to it What Divines are there that deny the Sacraments to be mutual signs and seals signifying our part as well as Gods And how ill do you wrong the Church of God by seeking to make men believe that these things are new and strange If it be so to you it is a pity that it is so but sure you have seen Master Gataker's Books against Doctor Ward and Davenant wherein you have multitudes of sentences recited out of our Protestant Divines that affi●m this which you call new It is indeed their most common Doctrine that the Sacrament doth presuppose remission of sins and our faith and that they are instituted to signifie these as in being It is the common Protestant Doctrine that Sacraments do solemnize and publickly own and confirm the mutual covenant already entred in heart as a King is Crowned a Souldier Listed a Man and Woman maried after professed consent So that the sign is causal as to the consummation and delivery as a Key or Twig and Turff in giving possession but consequential to the contract as privately made and the right given thereby so that the soul is supposed to consent to have Christ as offered first which is saving faith and then by receiving him Sacramentally delivered to make publick profession of that consent and publickly to receive his sealed remission Master Cobbet cited by you might well say that primarily the Sacrament is Gods seal but did he say that it is onely his and not secondarily ours And in the next words you do in effect own part of the Doctrine your self which you have thus wondered at as new and strange saying I confess it is a Symbol of our profession of faith If you mean as you speak taking profession properly then 1. you yield that the Sacrament is our symbol and so declareth or signifieth our action as well as Gods 2. And it is not onely a sign of our profession but a professing sign and therefore a sign of the thing professed for the external sign is to declare the internal acts of the mind which without signs others cannot know As therefore the words and outwards actions 〈◊〉 ●wo distinct signs of the same internal acts so are they two wayes of profess●●● My signal actions do not signifie my words which are plainer signs the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and therefore need not darker to express them but they both expre 〈…〉 mind So that they are not only symbols of our professi●● as you spea 〈…〉 t professing symbols 3. And if so then they must be signs and professions of those internal acts which correspond with them The Fourth Argument of Master Gillespy is from Rom. 4. 11. Circumcision was a seal of that righteousness of faith therefore so is baptism therefore it belongeth onely to justified believers He that maketh it the instituted nature or use of circumcision to be a seal of righteousness of faith which the person had before doth make his circumcision a proof of his foregoing righteousness of faith Pag. 133. You cannot shew where ever the wicked are commanded to communicate with the Church in the Sacrament but in this order First to be converted and repent and so baptized and so communicate Gillespy Aarons rod blossoming pag. 514 515. The assumption that baptism it self is not a regenerating ordinance I prove thus 1. Because we read of no Persons baptized by the Apostles except such as did profess faith in Christ gladly received the word and in whom some begun work of the Spirit of grace did appear I say not that it really was in all but somewhat of it did appear in all Baptism even of the aged must necessarily precede the Lords Supper Pag. 144. My Twelfth Argument is from Matth. 22. 12. Friend how camest thou in hither not having on a wedding garment and he was speechless To come in hither is to come into the Church of Christ By the wedding garment is undoubtedly meant sincerity of true faith and repentance so that I may hence argue If God will accuse and condemn men for coming into his Church or the communion of Saints without sincere faith and repentance then it is not the appointed use of baptism to initiate those that profess not sincere faith and repentance But Infants profess not sincere faith and repentance as is manifest by sense therefore it is not the appointed use of baptism to initiate Infants Pag. 145. The Thirteenth Argument is this We must baptize none that profess not themselves Christians But no Infants profess themselves Christians as is manifest by sense therefore we must baptize no Infants The major is certain because it is the use of baptism to be our solemn listing sign into Christs Army our initiating sign and the solemnization of our mariage to Christ and professing sign that we are Christians and we do in it dedicate and deliver up our selves to him in this relation as his own So that in baptism we do not onely promise to be Christians but profess that we are so already in heart and now would be solemnly admitted among the number of Christians the minor I prove thus 1. No man is truely a Christian that is not truly a Disciple of Christ that is plain Act. 11. 26. No man is truly a Disciple of Christ that doth not profess a saving faith and repentance therefore no man that doth not so profess is truly a Christian The minor I prove thus No man is truly a Disciple of Christ that doth not profess to forsake all contrary Masters or Teachers and to take Christ for his chief Teacher consenting to learn of him the way