Selected quad for the lemma: doctrine_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
doctrine_n	church_n	faith_n	reform_a	2,175	5	9.7280	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A29082	A confutation of the Dutch-Arminian tenent of universal redemption with relation in special unto certain sectaries in England : by name, the Morians or Revelators, with others tracing them, who hold that Christ died for all men, good and bad / by Theoph. Brabourne.	Brabourne, Theophilus, b. 1590.	1651 (1651)	Wing B4089; ESTC R37451	38,222	107

A CONFUTATION of the DUTCH-ARMINIAN TENENT of Universal Redemption With Relation in special unto certain Sectaries in ENGLAND By name the Morians or Revelators with others tracing them who hold That Christ died for all men good and bad By THEOPH BRABOURN Matth. 7.6 Give ye not that which is holy to dogs neither cast ye your pearls before swine LONDON Printed by WILL. BENTLEY Anno Domini 1651. To the READER THis ensuing Discource Christian Reader lying by me and fitted for the Press but with thoughts never to have it Printed so long as I live my mind is now altered very lately upon this occation Finding by sad experience that this Dutch-ARMINIAN Tenent of Universal Redemption hath of late invaded our English Nation and infected the minds and perverted the judgement of many who pretend highest for God and godliness I could not but alter my thoughts and resolve to publish this Discource if it may be to prevent the further growth and spreading of it There is a Sect of Revelators or Manifestators called Morians of one MORE dwelling near Wisbech who with his Disciples about eight or nine years since were orthodox in this point with us but since finding this new light of Universal Redemption to be a notable means to further an other and more ancient new light which formerly he had received and taught namely his doctrine of Free-grace as he calls it presently he set abroach this Universal Redemption among his Disciples of and from whom as I suppose our Independents of later time have borrowed this light for of late some of them are not ashamed to teach and preach it publickly offering Christ and the benefits of his death to dogs and swine to the worst of men saying Come Whoremaster come Drunkard the work is wrought for you believe it c. and they may as well say Come Rascal come Rogue come Tag and Rag believe it Christ died for you all Thus they fear not to give Christ that Pearl and Holy thing unto dogs and swine Their new Arminian light hath taught them to give the Childrens bread to dogs Not long since some of the Bishops were tainted with this Error and how odious were they for it in the eyes of these very men but now themselves are infected with the same Error and it is become a lovely Truth and what have these men to say for this Error more than the Bishops had surely if so much yet nothing more unless it be this that it is a bright beam of new light arisen to them of late and notably tending to their new doctrine of Free grace as they call it and that the spirit hath taught it them but remember that there is a Spirit of Truth and a spirit of Error 1. John 4.6 and so I end THEO BRABOURN A CONFUTATION of the ARMINIAN Tenent of Universal Redemption IN handling this Controversie I shall first propound sundrie Arguments against it Secondly I shall make answer unto the Texts alleadged by Arminians for proof of their Tenent Thirdly I shall confute a common Answer of theirs given to a notable Objection of ours And Fourthly I shall confute their distinction of Impetration and Application I begin with the first of these and these are my Arguments against it ARGUM. I. If Christ forbade his ministers to give or deliver his Word and Sacrament concerning his death unto all men as unto unbelieving impenitent scandalous and wicked men Then Christ did not give or deliver himself to death for all men or then Christ died not for all men The reason hereof is this If Christ had given himself to death for all men good and bad then would he have his ministers to do so too in delivering the Word and Sacrament and it is against reason to think that Christ should give himself for all men and forbid his ministers to give him to all men or to some men so there is the same reason of both Now if he forbade his ministers to deliver his Word and Sacrament unto all men unto wicked and impenitent men then surely he did not deliver himself to death for all men For 1. It is absurd to think that a ministers Commission in delivering the Word and Sacrament concerning Christs death should be of less extent than Christ his death is of as that his Cōmission should extend but to some men onely when Christ his death extends to all men wherefore if his Commission be but unto some men onely then Christ his death is not to or for all men but to and for some men onely 2. The Word and Sacrament concerning Christ his death are signs representing Christs death unto us now the sign and the thing signified by it must be of equal extent as if the sign belong but unto some men onely then Christ his death the thing signified by it belongs not unto all men but unto some men onely 3. If Christ would not permit his ministers to give the bread and wine in the Sacrament which is the lesser unto all men then much less would he give himself which is the greater unto all men If he forbade his ministers to give his bread and wine unto all men muchless would he give his life his own bodie and bloud for all men if he denied the Sign unto wicked and impenitent persons then much more would he denie there the thing signified which is his pretious bodie and bloud so much for my proposition But Christ forbade his ministers to give or deliver his Word and Sacrament concerning his death unto all men as unto unbelieving impenitent scandalous and wicked men This my assumption I thus prove first concerning the Sacrament 1. It is the doctrine both of our own and other reformed Churches that Christ would not have the Sacrament of the Lords supper given by the minister unto unbelievers impenitent scandalous and wicked men 2. Philip would not give the Sacrament of Baptism unto the Eunuch but upon the condition of his faith first Acts 8.37 S. Paul would not have the Lords supper given unto the incestuous person 1. Corinth 5.1 5 13. nor unto impenitent wicked men as not unto fornicatours idolaters drunkards railers nor extortioners 1. Cor. 5.11 and see Matth. 18.17 So much for the Sacrament next for the Word 2. Concerning the Word Christ would not have the word concerning his death given or delivered by his ministers unto unbelievers impenitent scandalous and wicked men which I thus prove In the Sacrament of the Lords Supper the Minister delivers the bread with these words of Christ This is my bodie which is broken for thee the which words are according to Christs institution 1. Cor. 11.24 Luke 22.19 now forasmuch as Christ would not have impenitent wicked persons admitted to the Lords Supper he would not have his ministers deliver unto them this his word concerning his death This is my bodie which is broken for thee so Christs minister may not say to a wicked man Christ died for thee Yet if