Selected quad for the lemma: body_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
body_n	bread_n	communion_n	cup_n	8,923	5	10.0506	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A42757	Aarons rod blossoming, or, The divine ordinance of church-government vindicated so as the present Erastian controversie concerning the distinction of civill and ecclesiasticall government, excommunication, and suspension, is fully debated and discussed, from the holy scripture, from the Jewish and Christian antiquities, from the consent of latter writers, from the true nature and rights of magistracy, and from the groundlesnesse of the chief objections made against the Presbyteriall government in point of a domineering arbitrary unlimited power / by George Gillespie ...	Gillespie, George, 1613-1648.	1646 (1646)	Wing G744; ESTC R177416	512,720	654

who eat and drink at the Lords Table and consequently that those who are children of disobedience and wrath and strangers to Christ and the Covenant of Grace apparently and manifestly such though not professedly ought not to be admitted to the Lords Table under colour of a converting Ordinance it being indeed a seal of the Covenant of grace Sixthly That Ordinance which is appointed onely for such as can and do rightly examine themselves concerning their spiritual estate regeneration repentance faith and conversation is no converting Ordinance But the Sacrament of the Lords Supper is an Ordinance which is appointed onely for such as can and do rightly examine themselves concerning their spiritual estate regeneration repentance faith and conversation Ergo it is no converting Ordinance The reason of the Proposition is because unconverted persons cannot nor do not rightly examine themselves concerning their spiritual estate regeneration c. For such are a generation pure in their own eyes and yet not washed from their filthinesse Proverb 16. 2. and 21. 2. and 30. 12. and the natural man cannot know the things of the Spirit of God because they are spiritually discerned But he that is spiritual judgeth all things 1 Cor. 2. 14. 15. The carnal mind is enmity against God Rom. 8. 7. The Assumption is proved by 1 Cor. 11. 28. But let a man examine himself and so let him eat of that bread and drink of that Cup. This self-examination Interpreters say must be concerning a mans knowledge repentance faith and conversation The Apostle expounds himself 2 Cor. 13. 5. Examine your selves whether ye be in the Faith prove your own selves how that Jesus Christ is in you except ye be reprobates or counterfeit and unapproved This self examination as it is requisite at other times so especially before our comming to the Lords Table and an unconverted man can no more do it truly and rightly according to the Apostles meaning then he can convert himself And here that which Mr. Prynn did object maketh against himself the Apostle saith Let a man examine himself not others for the examination there spoken of belongs to the Court of a mans own Conscience and to the inward man saith Martyr upon the place not to the Ecclesiastical Court But a natural unconverted man may possibly examine others and espie a mote in his brothers eye he cannot in any right or acceptable manner examine his own Conscience nor go about the taking of the beam out of his own eye He therefore who either cannot through ignorance or doth not through impenitency and hardnesse of heart examine himself and is known to be such a one by his excusing justifying or not confessing his scandalous sin or continuing in the practice thereof ought not to be admitted to that holy Ordinance which is instituted onely for such as can and do humbly and soundly examine themselves and consequently not intended for unconverted impenitent persons Seventhly That Ordinance unto which one may not come without a wedding garment is no converting Ordinance But the Supper of the Lord the marriage feast of the Kings son is an Ordinance unto which one may not come without a wedding garment Ergo. The Proposition hath this reason for it If a man must needs have a wedding garment that comes then he must needs be converted that comes for what-ever ye call the wedding garment sure it is a thing proper to the Saints and not common to unconverted sinners and the want of it doth condemn a man into utter darknes Matth. 22. 13. The Assumption is clear from Matth. 22. 11. 12. When the King came in to see the Guests he saw there a man which had not on a wedding garment And he saith unto him Friend how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment and he was speechlesse If he had been of Mr. Prynns opinion he needed not be speechlesse for Mr. Prynns divinity might have put this answer in his mouth Lord I thought this to be a converting Ordinance and that thou wouldest not reject those that come in without a wedding garment provided that here at the marriage feast they get one But we see the King condemneth the man for comming in thither without a wedding garment Eightly That Ordinance which is not appointed to work faith is no converting ordinance But the Sacrament of the Lords Supper is not appointed to work faith Ergo. The proposition must be granted unlesse a man will say that conversion may be without faith The Assumption is proved by Rom. 10. 14. men cannot pray if they do not beleeve and they cannot beleeve if they do not hear the Word v. 17. So then faith commeth by hearing and hearing by the word of God If faith commeth by hearing then not by seeing if by the word then not by the Sacrament Ninthly That Ordinance which hath neither a promise of the grace of conversion annexed to it nor any example in the Word of God of any converted by it is no converting Ordinance But the Sacrament of the Lords Supper hath neither a promise of the grace of conversion annexed to it nor is there any example in all the Scripture of any ever converted by it Therefore it is no converting Ordinance Tenthly That Ordinance whereof Christ would have no unworthy person to partake is not a converting Ordinance But the Lords Supper is an Ordinance whereof Christ would have no unworthy person to partake Ergo. The proposition I prove thus It is not the will of Christ that converting Ordinances should be dispenced to no unworthy person for else how should they be converted but onely he hath forbidden to dispence unto unworthy persons such Ordinances as belong to the Communion Saints The Assumption I prove from 1 Cor. 11. 27. Whosoever though otherwise a worthy person one converted to the state of grace shall eat this bread and drink this cup of the Lord unworthily shal be guilty of the body blood of the Lord. v. 29. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh judgment to himself not discerning the Lords body If the unworthines of that particular act in respect of the manner of doing it make a man so guilty and liable to such judgement how much more the unworthinesse of the person that eats and drinks For a mans state the course of his life and the frame of his Spirit is more then one single act This therefore doth prove that he that is an unworthy person if he come to the Lords Table doth eat and drink unworthily Whence is that where the Apostle saith vers 29. He that eateth and drinketh unworthily the Syriack Interpreter hath it he that eateth and drinketh thereof being unworthy or indignus existens Which may be also gathered from the interweaving of vers 28. between vers 27. and vers 29. He that eats and drinks not having before rightly examined himself eats and drinks unworthily But he that is an unworthy person and comes to the

well stand together So Synop. pur Theol. disp 48. Thes. 40 and he alloweth of both these expositions and afterward in his common place of excommunication he speaketh of Gods cooperating with the Church censure by punishing the Excommunicate person with diabolicall vexations Sure I am an excommunicate person may truly be said to be delivered to Sathan who is the God and Prince of this world and reigneth in the Children of disobedience But Master Prynne will find himself difficulted to prove that tradere Satanae 1 Cor. 5. is onely meant of a miraculous or extraordinary act or to shew how or why the Apostle requireth the Assembling of the Church and their consent to the working of a miracle Which if there were no more may discover the weaknesse of Master Prynnes notions concerning delivering to Sathan 6 7 8. But as the full debate were long so it were not necessary since Master Prynne doth now himself acknowledge that the last verse of that Chapter proveth excommunication vindic pag. 2. I come therefore to the next which he calls the fourth difference whether 1 Cor. 5. 11. with such an one no not to eat be properly meant of excommunication or suspension from the Sacrament But whatsoever be properly meant by that phrase that which his debate driveth at is that this verse doth neither prove excommunication nor suspension from the Sacrament so much as by necessary consequence But let us see whether his reasons can weaken the proof of Suspension from vers 11. first he saith there is not one syllable of receiving or eating of the Lords Supper in this Chapter I answer the question is neither of syllables nor words but of things and how will he prove that vers 8. Let us keep the feast not with old leavon c. is not applicable to the Lords Supper I say not to it onely yet surely it cannot be excluded but must needs becomprehended as one part yea a principall part of the meaning the better to answer the Analogy of the passeover there much insisted upon He may be pleased also to remember that he himself pag. 24. proving the passeover and the Lords Supper to be the same for the substance for proof hereof citeth 1 Cor. 5. 7. and that Aretius Theol probl loc 80. expoundeth our Feast of the Passeover 1 Cor. 5. to be meant of the Lords Supper But he further objecteth from 1 Cor. 10. 16 17. We are all partakers of that one Bread if all were then partakers of this Bread certainly none were excluded from it in the Church of Corinth but at the Israelites under the Law did all eat the same spirituall Meat and all Drinke the same spirituall Drinke though God were displeased with many of them who were Idolaters tempters of God fornicators murmurers and were destroyed in the wildernesse 1 Cor. 10. 1. to 12. so all under the Gospell who were visible members of ●…he Church of Corinth did eat and drink the Lords Supper to which some drunkards whiles drunken did then resort as is clear by 1 Cor. 11. 20. 21. Which Paul indeed reprehends vers 22. Answ. 1 When Paul saith we being many are one bread and one body for we are all partakers of that one bread he speaketh of the communion of Saints the word all can be of no larger extent then visible Saints to whom the Epistle is directed 1 Cor. 1. 2. and cannot be applyed to visible workers of iniquity who continue impenitent and obstinate in so doing As we may joyn in communion with a visible Church which hath the externall markes of a Church though it be not a true invisible Church so we joyne with visible Saints to become one body with them in externall Church communion and to be partakers of one bread with them though they be not true or invisible Saints in the hid man of the heart But if these be visibly no Church we cannot joyne in Church Communion and if a man be visibly no Saint he ought not to be admitted to the communion of Saints I shall never be perswaded that the Apostle Paul would say of himselfe and the Saints at Corinth We are one body with known Idolaters Fornicators Drunkards and the like 2 If all in the Church of Corinth none excluded even drunkards whiles drunken and if all under the Gospell who are visible members of the Church ought to be admitted to eat the same spirituall meat and drinke the same spirituall drink at the Lords Table as he supposeth that in the wildernesse all the Israelites did the like who were Idolaters Fornicators c. Then I beseech you observe how Master Prynne doth by all this overthrow his owne rules for pag. 2. and elsewhere he tells us he would have notorious scandalous sinners who after admonition persevere in their iniquities without remorse of conscience or amendment to be excommunicated from the Church and from the society of the faithfull in all publike Ordinances If both in the Church of Israel and in the Church of Corinth all were admitted and none excluded even those who were Idolaters or drunkards whiles actually such without repentance or amendment how can Master Prynne straiten Christians now more then Moses did the Jewes or Paul the Corinthians Since therefore his Arguments drive at it it s best he should speak it out that all manner of persons who professe themselves to be Christians be they never so scandalous never so obstinate though they persevere in their iniquity after admonition without amendment yet ought to be admitted to the Lords Table 3 He shall never be able to prove either that those drunken persons 1 Cor. 11. 21. were drunken when they did resort to the Church for it was in the Church and in eating and drinking there that they made themselves drunke nor yet that the Idolaters and Fornic●tors in the wildernesse their eating of the spirituall meat and drinking of the spirituall drinke mentioned by the Apostle 1 Cor. 10. was after their Idolat●ies and Fornications But of this latter I have elsewhere spoken distinctly and by it self 4 To say that all who were visible members of the Church of Corinth were admitted and none excluded and to say it with a certainly is to make too bold with Scripture And the contrary will sooner be proved from 1 Cor. 10. 21. ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of Devills ye cannot be partakers of the Lords Table and of the Table of Devills So much for his first exception His second is concerning persons but not to the purpose that if we looke upon the catalogue of those with whom we are forbidden to eat not onely shall most of the Anabaptisticall and Independent Congregations but too many Presbyterian ministers and Elders who are most foreward to excommunicate others for Idolatry Fornication Drunkennesse must first be excommunicated themselves for their owne covetousnesse Answ. Let it light where it may Ministers doe not stand nor fall to his Judgement but where just

receive the Sacrament But M r Prynne gives us a fourth answer which is the last but a very weake refuge The word immediately saith he many times in our common speech signifieth soon after or not long after as we usually say we will doe this or that immediately instantly presently whenas we mean onely speedily within a short time Answ. 1. This is no good report which M r Prynne brings upon the English tongue that men promise to doe a thing immediately when they do not mean to doe it immediately I hope every conscientious man will be loath to say immediately except when he meanes immediately for I know not how to explaine immediately but by immediately and for an usuall forme of speaking which is not according to the rule of the word it s a very bad commentary to the language of the holy Ghost 2. And if that forme of speech be usuall in making of promises yet I have never known it usuall in writing of Histories to say that such a thing was done immediately after such a thing and yet divers other things intervened between them If between Iudas his getting of the sop and his going out did interveene the instituting of the Sacrament the taking blessing breaking distributing and eating of the bread also the taking and giving of the cup and their dividing it among themselves and drinking all of it how can it then be a true narration that Iudas went out immediately after his receiving of the sop 3. Neither is it likely that Satan would suffer Iudas to stay any space after he was once discovered lest the company and conference of Christ and his Apostles should take him off from his wicked purpose 4. Gerard having in his common places given that answer that the word immediately may suffer this sence that shortly thereafter Iudas went forth he doth professedly recall that answer in his Cotinuation of the Harmony cap. 171. p. 453. and that upon this ground because Iudas being mightily irritated and exasperated both by the sop and by Christs answer for when Iudas asked Is it I Christ answered Thou hast said would certainly breake away abruptly and very immediately So much of the first argument The second argument which I also touched in my Sermon was this As Christ said to the Communicants Drinke ye all of it Matth. 26. 27. and they all dranke Matth. 14. 23. so he saith to them all This is my Body which is broken for you This is the cup of the new covenant in my Blood which is shed for you Luke 22. 19. 20. But if Iudas had been one of the communicants it is not credible that Christ would have said so in reference to him as well as to the other Apostles This argument M r Prynne p. 25. doth quite mistake as if the strength of it lay in a supposed particular application of the words of the institution to each communicant which I never meant but dislike it as much as he The words were directed to all in the plurall This is my Body broken for you c. my Blood shed for you c. M r Prynne conceives that it might have been said to Iudas being meant by Christ onely conditionally that his Body was broken and his Blood was shed for him if he would really receive them by faith Jonas Schlichtingius a Socinian in his booke against Meisnerus pag. 803. though he supposeth as M r Prynne doth that Iudas was present at the giving of the Sacrament yet he holds that it is not to be imagined that Christ would have said to Iudas that his body was broken for him And shall we then who believe that the death of Jesus Christ was a satisfaction to the justice of God for sinne which the Socini● believe not admit that Christ meant to comprehend Iudas ●mong others when he said this is my body which is broken for you Ministers doe indeed offer Christ to all upon condition of believing being commanded to preach the Gospell to every creature and not knowing who are reprobates but that Christ himselfe knowing that the sonne of perdition was now lost that the Scripture might be fulfilled Iohn 17. 12. would in the Sacrament which is more applicative then the word and particularizeth the promises to the receivers so speake as that in any sence those words might be applied to Iudas that even for him his body was broken and his blood shed and that thereupon the seales should be given him to me is not at all credible and I prove the negative by foure arguments though I might give many more 1. If Christ did in reference to Iudas meane conditionally that his body was broken and his blood shed for him if he would believe as M r Prynne holds then he meant conditionally to save the sonne of perdition whom he knew infallibly to be lost and that he should be certainly damned and goe to Hell and that in eating the Sacrament he would certainly eate and drinke judgement to himselfe all which M r Prynne himselfe pag. 26. saith Christ infallibly knew But who dare thinke or say so of Jesus Christ Suppose a Minister knew infallibly that such a one hath blasphemed against the holy Ghost which sinne the Centurists and others thinke to have been committed by Iudas which could not be hid from Christ and is irrecoverably lost and will be most certainly damned durst that Minister admit that person to the Sacrament and make those words applicable to him so much as conditionally This is the Lords body broken for you This is the blood of the new Covenant shed for you unto remission of sinne How much lesse would Christ himselfe say so or mean so in reference to Iudas 2. If Christ would not pray for Iudas but for his elect Apostles onely and such as should believe through the word of the Gospell then he meant not so much as conditionally to give his body and blood for Iudas for if he meant any good to Iudas so much as conditionally he would not have excluded him from having any part at all in his prayers to God But Christ doth exclude Iudas from his prayer Iohn 17. not onely as one of the reprobate world vers 9. but even by name vers 12. giving him over for lost and one that was not to be prayed for 3. Love and hatred in God and in his sonne Jesus Christ being eternall and unchangeable for actus Dei immanentes sunt aeterni it followeth that if there was such a decree of God or any such meaning or intention in Christ as to give his body and blood for Iudas whom he knew infallibly to be lost and since that same conditionall meaning or intention could not be without a conditionall love of God and of Christ to Iudas and his salvation this love doth still continue in God and in Christ to save Iudas now in Hell upon condition of his believing which every Christian I thinke will abominate 4. That conditionall love and conditionall intention