Selected quad for the lemma: work_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
work_n call_v faith_n justification_n 5,686 5 9.0220 5 false
View all documents for the selected quad

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

There are 2 snippets containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

that which God hath provided for them 1. That the Infants of Christians are as capable is proved by that of Cor. 7.14 They are holy And what is that Ther be who gloss upon the text and say That ●hildren are Holy indeed but how As the wife not otherwise viz. As she is sanctified to the use of her Husband so the children to the use of their Parents But they falsifie the text For the text saith not of the wife She is sanctified to her husband but by her Husband 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nor of the children it is said as of the wife 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is sanctified but they are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Holy which is more full and more emphaticall Others shift it of with this That the children are said to be Holy because Notwithstanding the difference of Religion in the Parents yet the children are legitimate This is further of than the former Nor can it stand except this be presupposed That all the children of Heathens are illegitimate No more than the former can stand without this being presupposed That neither wife nor children of Pagans are sanctified to their use Wherfore ther is nothing left but that they are said to be Holy by the Holines of the Covenant and sanctified with a federall sanctification The which is so much the more manifest because it appeareth by the context That the pretence of them who did repudiate their wives for their infidelity was a fear lest the infidelity of the wife should deprive the Husband of his interest in the Covenant of Grace which hee had imbraced and that his conjunction with her should rend him of as did the Sinn of Fornication cap. 6.15 from Communion with Christ St. Paul denyeth this and sheweth that rather the Faith of the Beleevers should so farr preponderate and prevail as to draw the other parties also after a sort within the Covenant So that the unbeleeving wife is sanctified and accounted as one interressed in the Covenant by the Husband His reason is because otherwise the children of such should be accounted Vnclean or altogether barred from the Covenant wher-as now they are Holy i. e. Heirs of the Covenant and admitted to the Seals ther-of Admitted I say For this is worthy our observation That suppose any of the Corinths would have been so wilfull to doubt of this Medium and deny th' Argument of St. Paul what is ther to convince the Gainsayer but only the practise of Israel continued in the Christian Churches viz. That the children of one beleeving Parent are admitted to the Seals of the Covenant This must of Necessity be presupposed else doth the Argument fall to the ground and overthrow it self To say That it resteth upon the Authority of th'Apostles affirmation is not sufficient in as much as he doth not positively set it down as a thing to be learned as he had done the former point The wife is sanctified but brings it in as a Reason to confirm that former point And we know that the Reason of a Position is alway presupposed as a thing already yeelded and confessed 2. That the Infants of Christians have as much need of partaking in the Covenant of Grace as had the Jewish Infants is thence confirmed Because That which is born of the Flesh is flesh Naturall corruption is common to all Why was Circumcision ordained but that ther-by the Uncircumcision of the Heart might be taken away that the Corruption of Nature might bee cured and the Guilt of that first sinn cut off from the Israel of God That Abraham by Faith apprehending the promise of God might ther-in have a Ground of comfort to himself in respect of his Sonn viz. That tho he had begotten him in his own likeness and had been a mean to convey unto him the Guilt and Filth of Originall sinn yet now by the mercy of God he was provided of a Remedy for that Malady of his child and using that Sacrament in Faith he might comfortably assure himself that the Remedy should prevail against the Malady And is not this Ground of comfort needfull also for Christians Surely they are deceived who either deny the propagation of originall sinn to Infants or dream of any Universall Demolition of it by the Death of Christ without the particular Application of his Blood by the Sacrament of the Gospell If there be no such Malady no such Guilt in our Infants how cometh it to pass that they dy Is ther any place for Death in Mankind wher ther is no sinn at all If the Beasts decay and dy by reason of their naturall mortality yet we know that sinn it was which brought Death upon Adam and his Posterity Where ther is no sinn inherent Death can claim no interest in that party Wher Death seizeth upon man we must not deny sinn some sin ther must be Actuall ther is none in these Infants Not yet have they sinned after the Similitude of Adams transgression viz. by listening to the Tentation of Satan and therfore it is Originall Guilt and corruption which is in them If the Disease be in their Nature Is ther not need of a Remedy Had the Infants of the Jews a Remedy and is ther none provided for the Infants of Christians Is ther a Remedy provided for them and a ground of comfort for their Parents and shall it be denyed and they debarred Objection The force of this Argument some think to elude by denying Circumcision to be a Seal of the Covenant of Grace and consequently no Remedy against that originall Malady wher-of we speak We oppose that honourable Elogie of it Rom. 4 11. The Apostle termeth it A Seal of the Righteousnes of Faith They answer it was a seal of Abrahams Faith not in the Promise of the Messiah and the Covenant of Grace but in the promise of a Neumerous Off-spring That he should be the Father of many Nations This was say they that part of Gods Covenant with Abraham which was sealed by Circumcision A fleshly Covenant had a fleshly Seal But in this Answer we find a twofold ignorance bewrayed 1. The mis-interpretation of the Phrase The Righteousnes of Faith A phrase peculiar to St. Paul by which is intimated not the Act of Faith but the Benefit ther-of The phrase is equivalent to and to be expounded by that of Rom. 9.30 10.6 The Righteousnes which is by faith and that also Rom. 3. 21. 10.3 The Righteousnes of God Both which are joined in one Rom. 3.22 The Righteousnes of God which is by Faith and therby is signified the Benefit of imputed Righteousnes which God bestoweth on Beleevers for their Justification This benefit God having bestowed upon Abraham did seal it up to Him afterward by Circumcision which is therfore called Not the Seal of his Faith but the Seal of the Righteousnes i. e. of Justification which cometh by Faith and not by Works 2. Another point of ignorance is in dis-joyning those things which ought
then the Customes of the Church ordained by the Apostles are a Ground of satisfaction Nor are they therfore in themselves less authenticall because they are not mentioned in the text of Scripture as prescribed by the Apostles if yet it may appear that from them they fetch their first Originall It is not the writing that giveth things their Authority See Hooker Ecclesiasticall Polity lib. 1 sect 14. pag 44. Field on the Church lib. 4.20 but the worth and credit of Him that delivereth them tho but by word and lively voice onely More certainty to us-ward things have by writing but not more Authority in themselves ex gr That saying of our Saviour not mentioned by the Evangelists yet now known to be his by the Allegation of St. Paul Act. 20.35 That Proph●cy of Enoch Jude 14. These in themselves were no● less authentick truths before than after those allegations So for Apostolicall Customes Those mentioned in the Scripture have a more unquestioned Certainty than Traditions but not greater Authority Neither is this to sett up Tradition as do the Papists to the prejudice of the Scripture Because we admit none for Apostolicall which either are contrary to the Scripture or which may not by good reason from some text of Scripture be confirmed for Apostolicall You see whither all this tendeth viz. To make way for this Assumption That if the Baptizing of Infants may reasonably be judged one of those Apostolicall Traditions one of these Church-Customs which were established in the Churches according to the commandement of Christ Then is ther sufficient Ground in Scripture to warrant the use and practise of it And tho ther be no mention of it in the text of Scripture yet if it may appear to have been ordained by th'Apostles and used by the Churches even from the dayes of the Apostles why should it not be acknowledged to be the commandement of Christ and so a Ground for Conscience to build upon Well But you will say how may it appear to have been a custome of the Churches ordained by the Apostles Here it may be worth our Observation That the pattern and president from whence most if not all of them was ●aken was the custome of Israel in the Old Testament It is the observation of Jerome Ut sciamus traditiones Apostolicas sumptas ex veteri Te●●amento Quod A●ron fi●● ejus atque Levit●e in Templo ●●crunt hoc sibi Episcopi Presbyteri atque Diaconi vend●●ant in Ecclia Hieron Epla 85. ad Evagrium And this may be one speciall reason why the Providence of God did not take so much care for the writing of every Custome and Ordinance for the Government of the Church-Assemblies in the New Testament Because as ther was not so much danger of Corruption in them as in points of Doctrine So the President from whence they were take being at hand if any aberration did creep in it might easily be amended by reducing it to the pattern Yea and who can tell whether the wisdom of God did not hereby provide to uphold the credit of the Church of Israel and the Authority of the writings of Moses and the Prophets against the frowardnes of some who were but too apt and ready to dis-esteem them That the Institutions of God by Moses for the Church of Israel were the Pattern for the Apostolicall Traditions which were appointed for the Discipline and Order to be observed in the Christian Congregations it will appear more evidently if we consider that the subject matter of these Orders are Times Places Persons and the like In all which the Apostles by the Commandement of Christ setled such Rules as were consonant to what had been formerly in the Church of Israel That we might know that no better Orders for the Church can be devised than such as in Conformity to the Church of the Old Testament may justly and without wrong to the time of Truth and Grace be framed and as it were thence translated Was it not for this cause that divers particulars which should be in the Christian Churches are prophetically described in phrases taken from the Church of Israel See these texts Esai 66.21 23. Zech. 12.16 I said Without wrong to the time of Truth and Grace Because as some judiciall lawes were peculiar to that Nation and to that Age of the World and so may not be now taken into the Statutes of the Common-wealth So some Ecclesiasticall Rites were peculiar to that Age of the Church and may not now be taken into the Canons of the Christian Church tho others may which are more morall and so more perpetuall Ex. gr In the Old Testament ther was one day in seven set a part to be a Day of Holy Rest i. e. a time for the Assemblies and Holy Convocations meeting together for the works of Piety and Devotion In imitation where-of th'Apostles by the Direction of our Blessed Saviour consecrated the first day of the week to the same ends and uses and gave it that honourable name which still it beareth The Lords Day Then for Places Israel had their Synagogues beside the Temple And who knoweth not that even in th'Apostles times ther were places sett apart for the Assemblies to meet in and even then began to be called Churches So for Persons Israel had those who were sett apart to the service of the Altar and the Temple Accordingly the Apostles ordained in severall Churches certain Elders men sett apart and separated to the work and office of the Ministry who by that solemn Rite and Ceremony of their Ordination might be known and acknowledged to receiv from God a speciall designation to that function from which they might not return to secular employments and the cares of the world The maintenance of them doth St. Paul affirm to be ordained of the Lord in conformity to the Ordinance of the Old Testament Cor. 9.13.14 And whether the subordination of Some in the Ministery to other in the same Order were not likewise an Apostolicall Institution appointed by Christ and this also fetcht from the pattern of Moses I dispute not But this I make no question will be acknowledged by all That the Censures of the Church That the Directions given to the Church how to proceed in the execution of those Censures That these I say were received from Israel and that not only by the Apostles appointing them Cor. 5. Tit. 3. but also by our Saviour himself Mat. 18.15 That the Liberty which women have to come to the Table of the Lord must be acknowledged a Tradition of the Apostles taken from the Pattern of the Passover Nay yet more The Custome of the Apostles to baptise the whol housholds of them that beleeved and that immediatly upon the Conversion of the Master of the family and his subscription to the Faith of Christ whence they should have it except from that like pattern and President in the Old Testament viz. Abraham circumcising all the