Selected quad for the lemma: opinion_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
opinion_n	church_n	doctrine_n	hold_v	2,971	5	6.0227	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A76816	A moderate ansvver to these two questions 1. Whether ther [sic] be sufficient ground in Scripture to warrant the conscience of a Christian to present his infants to the sacrament of baptism. 2. Whether it be not sinfull for a Christian to receiv [sic] the sacrament in a mixt assembly. Prepared for the resolution of a friend, and now presented to the publick view of all, for the satisfaction of them who desire to walk in the ancient and long-approved way of truth and holiness. By T.B. B.D.	Blake, Thomas, 1597?-1657.	1644 (1644)	Wing B3148; Thomason E19_6; ESTC R12103	35,052	36

Teachers and Officers in the Church They must indeed put a difference betwixt things holy and profane they must separate the precious from the vile pronouncing mercy to the one denouncing judgement to the other admitting the one to the Holy things keeping of the other This must they do and if not they deserve a just reproof But what is this to the cause in hand Doth this countenance the course of such who condemn those that do not put themselves from the Holy things of Gods because those be admitted which ought not Is not this rather to make sad the Heart of the righteous That of Esay 65.11 Yee are they that forsake the Lord that prepare a Table for the Troup and furnish a drink-offering for the number This I say hath been alledged to tax the negligence of them who admit the promiscuous multitude to the Table of the Lord As if the Prophet had blamed Israel for the like carelesness in their Passover and Peace-offering wheras the text doth blame their Idolatry not their profaness Idolatry in sacrificing to Jupiter and Mercury to the Host of Heaven But admit it as a tax of negligence and profaness yet must it not fall upon every particular person Apply it to the Church officers and spare not but blame not them who because the promiscuous multitude are not turn'd away do not turn away themselves from the Table of the Lord. And so much for the first Argument c. The second Argument NO man may neglect either the Duty that he oweth to God or the Benefit which God reacheth forth to Him upon pretence that another man doth not perform his Duty or is not fitted to receive the Benefit with Him Shall not the Husband pray or Hear and Receiv because the wife of his Bosome is passionate and irreconciliable Shall not Lot make hast out of Sodome because his son-in-laws do not prepare to go with him That it is a Duty to receiv the Sacrament is plain enough by that precept Do this in Remembrance of mee That ther is a Benefit reached forth to us in it is as evident by that word of our Saviour This is my Body This is my Blood He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath everlasting life Nay more This Benefit cannot be had without this duty Except yee eat the flesh of the Son of man and drinke his blood yee have no life in you Joh. 6.53 You will perhaps reply That Duties must be performed in a right manner otherwise we may provoke God Israel must eat the Passover yet not in their uncleanness nor with the unclean say the same of Christians I grant the Proposition for sound and good The instance of Israel doth not reach home to the point in hand It doth not appear by any text of Scripture That if the Master of the familie did neglect to exclude such as were unclean that therupon the children or servants did or might lawfully forbear the Passover Add this also To bring home the Argument more particularly to the cause in hand where a prepared Heart may comply with the principall end of Receiving the Sacrament ther ought he not to absent himself for want of the secondary Reason giveth it That wher ther is a Duty to be done a Benefit to be expected If ther be divers Ends of doing that duty some more some less principall No reason to neglect that by which the Principall end may be obtained because we cannot obtain th● s●condary Now then As God hath appointed and ordained this Sacrament 1. To hold forth the Benefit of Christs death to the worthy Receiver that by partaking of Christs flesh and blood the Christian may be more neerly united to Christ himself in the first place and then to the members of Christ 2. To call for and cause in the Society of the faithfull a publick Testification of their mutuall love and charity one to another as members of the same mysticall body So the principall end of Receiving is to continue the Union and Communion with Christ and all good Christians the living members of Christ which was begun in Baptism And the secondary is to make profession of it by joining with this and that Assembly of Christians Now then since the primary end of Receiving is our Union with Christ and our union with Christians is but the secondary For we are not united to Christ by being received into the Congregation but indeed received into the Congregation because first united to Christ Nay since the primary end is Union and our Profession or Testification therof is but the second or third end of Receiving Therfore where the Primary end may be obteined why should the want of the second or perhaps the third be accounted any just barr to keep us off Now howsoever the mixture of bad with the good or the scandalous courses of over-many in the Assembly might seem a just barr to our Profession of Communion and Fellowship with this or that Congregation yet since it cannot hinder us in obtaining our desire of Union with Christ and his mysticall Body why should this mixture be any barr to the Duty enjoined In very deed if that Profession of our selves to be of the Number of them who hold of Christ and his Church if this I say were the principall end of Receiving the Sacrament Then were there some shew of Reason to forbear joining with a mixt Assembly But now it is otherwise It were indeed to be wished that the whole Congregation were such as that we might affectionatly desire to continue in Communion and Fellowship with them But if it fall out otherwise through the fault of other men Can that be a sufficient reason to hinder us from the Sacrament The prime fruit and Benefit wher-of we may partake of even in the mixt Assembly Add this also That it is charitably supposed ther be some Saints in the Congregation and in our address to the Sacrament we do profess our desire of Union and Communion with them if others intrude themselves we came not thither to meet with them Now the Question is whether we may neglect the good and godly Christians and that Duty which we ow to God in respect of them because of the bad and wicked whom finding ther we have not power to remove The third Argument TThat Opinion which in the best Ages of the Church hath been condemned of errour And that which necessarily casteth Christians upon inextricable difficulty's and discomforts is in all probability erroneous and therfore not to be embraced Such is the opinion of them who hold it sinfull for a Christian tho well-prepared for the holy Sacrament by self-examination according to the Doctrine of the Apostle to draw neer to the Table of the Lord in the company of them that are unjustly permitted to come to that holy Ordinance That it hath been condemned as erroneous in the best ages of the Church is evident by the story of the Novatians first and the

A MODERATE ANSWER To these two QVESTIONS 1. Whether ther be sufficient Ground in Scripture to warrant the Conscience of a Christian to present his Infants to the Sacrament of Baptism 2. Whether it be not sinfull for a Christian to receiv the Sacrament in a mixt Assembly Prepared for the Resolution of a Friend And now Presented to the publick view of all for the satisfaction of them who desire to walk in the Ancient and long-approved way of Truth and Holiness By T.B. B.D. EPH. 4. VER 1.2.3 I therfore the Prisoner of the Lord beseech you that yee walk worthy of the Vocation wherwith ye are called with all LOWLINES and MEEKNES with long-suffering forbearing one another in LOVE endeavouring to keep the UNITY of the Spirit in the Bond of PEACE LONDON Printed by I.N. for Abel Roper at the signe of the Sunne over against S. Dunstans Church in Fleet-street 1645. YOu desire mine opinion touching these two Questions 1. Whether there be sufficient Ground in the Scripture to warrant the conscience of a Christian to present his Infants to the Sacrament of Baptism with an expectation of Benefit that may accrew unto them by it 2 Whether it be not sinfull for a Christian to receive the Sacrament in a mixt Assembly I shall endeavour to give Answer to them both for the satisfying of your conscience So that you turn not Conscience into Will and Iudgement into Affection The meek yea only the meek will the Lord guid in judgement and teach his w●y The secret of the Lord is with them that fear him he will shew them his Covenant Psal 25. The Answer to the first Question AS for the first I answer affirmatively There is sufficient Ground in that Scripture to warrant the conscience of a Christian to present his Infants to the Sacrament of Baptism with an expectation of Benefit that may accrew unto them by it wherein I observe two particulars 1. Whether the Parent so doing may be excused from sinning through an unwarrantable use and Application of Gods Ordinance 2. Whether he may in the use thereof expect any Benefit accrewing to the Infant These two are different in their own Nature and require either of them severall Grounds of Satisfaction For tho if it be sinfull for the Parent to bring his Infants to Baptism he can expect no good for them by it In as much as no man may expect good to come from what is evill yet tho it be not sinfull in the Parent it will not follow that Good may be expected by it But I hold the Affirmative part of Both to be the Truth of God The first Argument This I build upon the words of our blessed Saviour in Mat. 19.14 Suffer little children and forbid them not to come unto me Children The children here m●ntioned were Infants such as men do hold in their arms The text saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that He took them up in his arms c. Where we see that our Saviour was highly displeased with his Disciples who had rebuked the Parents for bringing their children to Christ Hence I argue Christs justification of what is done doth presuppose the lawfulnesse of the thing It was therfore lawfull for the Parents to bring their children to Christ to receiv his Blessing if lawfull for them so also for others for all Consequently even for us there is a sufficient warrant to present our Infants to Christ that they may receiv his blessing You will reply That tho it be lawfull to present Infants to Christ to receiv his blessing yet not therfore lawfull to present them to Baptism I admit your reply but rejoin thus If lawfull to present them to Christ for his blessing Then lawfull to present them to him in his Ordinances in which that blessing is to be expected This I suppose will stand good That whosoever might be welcom to Christ in his person were he here upon earth may be admitted to his Ordinances in which he is present by the power of his Spirit For who doubteth but that he hath set up his Ordinances in the Church for this end that in them he might meet those of his who desire to draw neer unto Him and by these Ordinances as by a Mean appointed for that end convey to them that Blessing and Grace which were he present with us in the flesh he would bestow upon them This being laid down for a Ground I build upon it thus but ther is none other of Christs Ordinances in which and by which a Christian can present his Infants to Christ with expectation of his Blessing excepting this of Baptism Consequently either by Baptism they may be presented to Christ for his blessing or not at all If not at all Either Christs presence in his Ordinances is not equivalent to his Corporall presence or some prohibition hath in a speciall maner put in a Barr to keep them off from his Ordinances which did not keep them of from him when here upon earth If any such there be let it be named if not Then is ther a sufficient ground to warrant the Parents bringing their children to Christ in his Ordinances and particularly in Baptism that ther-in they may expect the Benefit of Christs Benediction I know what hath been objected viz. That ther is a Barr to hinder Infants implyed in thes texts Math. 28.19 Mar. 16.16 Act. 8.36 from whence this Argument is framed without Faith none may be baptised Infants want Faith and therfore They may not be baptised And then To what purpose should they be presented to that Sacrament To which I answer That granting the Assumption to be true tho if a man deny it as some do Vide Greg. Decretal lib. 3. cap. 3. De Baptismo ejus effectu I see not how it can be proved But I say let it be granted that Infants have not Faith The Proposition is utterly fals viz. That without Faith none may be baptised For neither do the texts prove it and besides ther is good reason against it 1. The texts prove it not 1. Not Mat. 28.19 This indeed sheweth what the Ministery must do Not what the People The Ministery must teach all Nations But defineth nothing whether they may not be baptised before they have learned or before they do beleev much less doth it say None but beleevers may be baptized 2. Nor Mar. 16. This text sheweth what is the issue of Beleeving and b●ing Baptised viz. That such shall be saved and contrarily He that beleeveth not shall be damned But saith not That none may be baptised who beleeveth not Ob. But the Order of the Words doth inferr it Beleeving set before Baptising Sol. I reply That Doctrines collected from the order of words are not alway sound nor such Arguments conclusive Ex. gr Mat. 3.6 they were baptised confessing their sinns And Joh. 3.5 Born again of water and of the Spirit Here is Baptised before Confessing and Water before Spirit yet doubtless they did