Selected quad for the lemma: faith_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
faith_n	covenant_n	sacrament_n	seal_n	4,627	5	9.5821	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A80160	Responsoria bipartita, sive vindiciæ suspensionis ecclesiasticæ ut et presbyterii evangelici. A double reply, containing a vindication of the antient practice of the Church (according to the rule of the word) suspending the ignorant and scandalous from the Lords Supper. As also of ecclesiastical presbyteries ... The first in answer to one M. Boatmans challenge of all the ministers on earth to make suspension of any but Turks, Jews, pagans and excommunicate persons from the Lords Supper, appear from Scriptures. In answer to whom the said censure is justified by several arguments from Scripture, and the universal practice of the Church, the magisterial vanity also of his sermon, Decem. 13. and March 28. in Peters Church in Norwich is discovered, ... In which answer also some objections of Erastus, Mr. Prin, and Mr. Humfry, are coilaterally considered, and answered. The second part in answer to Theophilus Brabourn, who hath talked something in a little pamphlet against the Lord Jesus Christ ... / By John Collings, B.D. and pastor of the church of Christ in Stephens parish in Norwich.	Collinges, John, 1623-1690.	1655 (1655)	Wing C5333; Thomason E832_2; ESTC R207514	201,020	319

notion p 27. that the Receiving the Sacrament is the End and Self-examination the means it is so far from making for him that it will conclude that he who cannot or hath not examined himself can no more receive the Sacrament without sin neglecting the due means to make him a worthy receiver then Mr. Timson can prove the wicked ought to receive without Scripture or reason or write another book without an hand pen ink of paper I had thought due means must be necessarily supposed to the end His 9. query is Whether there be any thing in the nature language actions or end of the Sacrament in 1 Cor. 11. or elsewhere incongruous to the unregenerates receiving Whether in 1 Cor. 11. there be any thing there or no I shall not dispute I have said something to that already and it is enough if we find it elsewhere and we conceive there is something contrary to the receiving of the ignorant and scandalous which is the question for the Church judgeth not of secret things 1. In the institution for Christ gave it to none such 2. In the nature of it for it is strong meat and the seal of the righteousness of faith 3. In the language of it for the ignorant cannot do it in a notional remembrance of Christ nor the scandalous in a practical remembrance of him 4. In the actions required for we conceive the communicant is spiritually as well as corporally to eat and drink viz. to exercise faith 5 In the end for we conceive it was instituted not to convey faith but to seal it But before Mr. Timson can tell us his mind he must lay down six postulata and if we will grant them he will do something 1. First he conceives that this Sacrament is instituted for the good of every particular member of the Church We conceive so too therefore they have jus ad rem but how doth this prove that therefore every particular member ought in his present state to come to it and coming ought to be admitted 1. Was not the Passover so appointed yet I think the unclean persons might not come during their uncleanness 2. I know many reverend men think the excommunicate person is yet a member of the Catholike Church and I am sure we shall not baptize him again upon his repentance and he yet possibly owns the Christian Religion So that he is a baptized person owning the Christian Religion and so a member of the Church Catholike and doubtless supposing his Repentance the Sacrament is instituted for his good but I hope it will not therefore follow he ought in his state of Excommunication to be received to that Communion 2. For his second we will grant it him that the Church confists of good and bad 3. And his third That the unregenerate are the proper objects of the promise of first grace Though that must be understood with a grane of salt and I had rather say that the unregenerate are the only objects of first grace then the only objects of the promises For the promises profit not any without faith and how the unregenerate should exert an act of faith to apply a promise I cannot tell and I doubt whether it be truth to say any promises belong to men as unregenerate for if they belong to them as unregerate they may apply them as unregenerate 4. His fourth thing is That the whole administration of the Covenant belongs to those in the Church who are the immediate objects of the absolute promise● they being of years of discretion to use the same in order to the Lords putting the promises into execution How those in the Church and being of years of discretion comes in I cannot tell unless it be to prevent an answer for if Mr. Timsons argument be good it is fetch from the right which an interest in the Covenant promises gives one to the Seals of it And then it must hold universally and if the unregenerate out of the Church be is much objects of the promises of the first grace as those within there is no reason for that restriction But to speak to his Argument To those to whom the absolute promises of the Covenant belong to those the whole administration and so the seals of it belong But to the unregenerate in the Church and of years the promises belong Ergo If Mr. Timson will clear this Syllogism from the fallacy of 4 terms the answer will be easy Let but belong in each propofition be understood in the same sense and the argument is weak If by belonging he means no more then this that the unregenerate are those onely upon whom God shines with first grace or to whom God hath declared he will give first grace we deny the major for by this argument heathens may come If by belonging or being the objects he means that those are they only who by faith can apply them and make use of them for their salvation or consolation his major is true but his minor is false for no promise doth so belong to any unregenerate man viz. as his portion which he may claim and make use of in his unregeneracy To his fifth That the Sacraments being visible representations of the death of Christ on which those promises are founded and by which they are confirmed The use of the Sacrament doth belong to those whom those promises do respect To this I answer 1. That the promises are founded upon Christs death and confirmed by it I grant 2. I grant also the Sacraments are visible representations of Christs death But that is not all they are seals as well as signs 3. It is false That the use of the Sacraments belongs to such as the promises of first grace do respect For then the use of it belongs to heathens but the use of it belongs to those only who by faith apply the promises 6. That those in the Church whom we cannot exclude from Covenant relation being of year must not be excluded from the Sacrament because they are seals of covenant love to that people that are i● possession of Covenant administrations I wonder again how that term being of years comes in for the argument is to prove a right for covenant Seals for such as are in covenant relation now children are in covenant relation That exception plainly implies that covenant relation is not enough I know if Mr. Timson had thought of it too he would have excepted mad men for they are in covenant relation and this argument pleads their right the upshot is Mr. Timson grants here by excepting those not of years that covenant relation is not enough to give right to covenant scals so he hath answered himself For his argument fails if covenant relation be not enough and we still demand what must be superadded if he says only years then mad men have a right if he adds a capacity to exercise reason too 1. Let him shew us Scripture for these ● things to be added 2. I spoke

to it already He tels us the elect before conversion are in the writing and in the Church therefore the Sacraments seal to them That the elect are enrolled in the everlasting covenant I dare not deny but that they are fully in covenant is false Christ indeed hath covenanted for them before they believe but they are not said to be completly in covenant till upon the tender of the covenant to them in the Gospel they have accepted the condition And the Sacrament doth not seal to the everlasting covenant but to the acceptation of the covenant to which faith must be supposed For what Mr. T. saies about baptism hath been answered again and again He thinks it hard to say any in the Church are not in covenant Concerning the everlasting covenant I know none will say it de individuis yet surely Judas was out though a member of the first church but those who are in a state of unbelief though they may be objects for Gods first free grace yet surely are not in covenant In the 2 or 3 next p. he puts us in hope of 2 or 3 new arguments I would fain see them for I have not seen one brought in this case many a day H●s first is from the nature of a Sacrament That it is a visible Gospel representing Christ crucified to all the senses what then therefore the unregenerate have need of it Bravely concluded he was afraid if he had concluded Therefore they have right to it we should have denied the consequence The unregenerate have need of Christ and all his grace and glory but have they therefore a right to him This argument is as old as Pauls steeple too But from need to right is wide concluding His second is from the end of the Sacrament viz. To remember Christ what then The Sacrament is to be observed in remembrance of Christ by all those who profess hope of being saved by his death If he had put in lively hope or will grant me that he means those who having that hope purify themselves as God is pure which is the evidence of that hope I yield it otherwise I quaery But how if they be ignorant of what Christ was or did How shall they do it in remembrance of him or how if they by profane oaths and blasphemies profane his blood how shall they do it in a practical remembrance of him Thirdly he argues learnedly They have an hand to take and a mouth to eat This argument will prove a Monkies right to it I had thought the taking eating and drinking must be spiritual by faith he asks how we will prove it if he pleaseth to compare Jo. 6.54 53 56. with v. 40 35.50.51 53. Eph. 4.17 Jo. 3.36 he may find proof for it 4. The language of the Sacrament runs in general he saith for many for you and who were they Christs disciples It sounds very harsh he saies to say the Sacrament is not a converting Ordinance How harshly it sounds in Mr. Timsons ears I cannot tell Mr. Gillespy hath proved it is not by 20 arguments which M.T. hath not answered and it will be more hard for M.T. to prove That Christ appointed it for an ordinary means to convert souls His argument is worth nothing because it is an essential piece of the Ministers work and because it was appointed to shew forth Christs death Let him prove the consequence of these that therefore Christ hath appointed it for conversion if it were appointed to that end doubtless they excōmmunicate should not be debarred 3. His thred bare argumnt p. 40. hath a great hole in it For though the word and prayer are means of conversion and they do constantly attend the Sacrament yet it doth not follow that the Sacrament quà a Sacrament is so nor is there any need for conversion that the unregenerate should be at it for they may hear and pray and not receive But M. T. tels us if bare presence answer the end much more would receiving We cannot promise them their presence will do them good but we are sure their receiving will not and therefore M. Ts. consequence is nought In his 3 next pages he falls upon the Doctor who is able to speak for himself In the other part of his book I find nothing in thesi to prove the right of the ignorant and scandalous he is altogether dealing with the Doctor and the Glocestershire ministers answering what they have said against promiscuous communion I am afraid my Preface will swell too much I shall therefore turn him over to my elder Brethren I think I have endeavoured to loosen the Foundation upon which his whole building stands and if I mistake not these rotten pillars uphold it 1. Church membership with a proportion of years and a capacity to exercise reason gives one full right to the Sacrament 2. Any superficial examination if we know the nature of the institution is all required 3. Those who are in any covenant relation have right to all covenant seals 4. The Sacrament is a converting Ordinance 5. Do this in remembrance of me is an universal precept which concerns all in the Church yea and they are bound to do this though they cannot do what is prerequisite to it 6. Receiving the Sacrament in remembrance of Christ is nothing but a bodily eating the bread and drinking the wine and a notional remembrance of the history of the passion of Christ 7. The Sacrament belongs to all believers and in Scripture sense there are no unbelievers in the Church p. 48. These are the rotten principles of divinity which he makes his heads for his arguments which how contrary they are to Scripture to reason to the Judgement of all Divines enquire and judge Being past these I shall leave the remaining Structure Suis ipse viribus liber ruit If these principles be false his book hath not much truth in any one page of it I shall now dismiss thee from my porch onely let me give thee a caution or two Thou wilt find many slips either of my pen or the Printer for which I beg thy pardon Some I have noted in my first part yet two sheets of the preface and two at the end of that escaped me and in the other sheets some also slipped me after twice reading over besides Comma's and Periods and other stops misplaced for which I must beg thy pardon possibly they might be my faults writing in hast I hear of some intentions in M. Brabourn to reply to me He hath nothing else to do I have I am assured in that he will do nothing to the purpose he is at ten or twelve pound charge to get an answer printed t is pitty that it should not be worth so many farthings when it is done and that he should not have all the advantage given him can be to help him off with his copies If with a good conscience I could I should be willing to answer him out of charity to help