Selected quad for the lemma: book_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
book_n	aaron_n	call_v	rod_n	38	3	8.5867	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A80157	Provocator provocatus. Or, An answer made to an open challenge made by one M. Boatman in Peters Parish in Norwich, the 13th of December, 1654. in a sermon preached there at a fast, in which answer these questions are spoke to. 1. Whether juridicall suspension of some persons from the Lords Supper be deducible from Scripture; the affirmative is proved. : 2. Whether ministeriall or privative suspension be justifiable; the affirmative also is maintained. : 3. Whether the suspension of the ignorant and scandalous be a pharisaicall invention; a thing which wiser ages never thought of, as Mr Boatman falsly affirmed. In opposition to which is proved, that it hath been the judgment and practice of the eminent saints and servants of Christ, in all ages, of all other reformed churches in all times ... / By John Collings ...	Collinges, John, 1623-1690.; Boatman, Mr.	1654 (1654)	Wing C5329A; ESTC R232871	174,209	280

brought by the learned and eminent Servants of God both in this Generation and also in those before us to prove the divine right of this Ordinance I will name two or three more which have been brought by others not insisting upon them because I thinke these are enough and possibly some of them may be more disputable and not generally allowed by those who are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with me in this point Arg. 10 It is sin in a Minister to declare those one visible body who are not one body visibly But scandalous sinners are not one visible body with visible Saints and he that gives the Lords Supper declares those to whom he gives it to be one visible body Ergo. This Argument holy Mr Burroughs urgeth in his book called Gospell-Worship it is founded on 1 Cor. 10.17 Mr Gillespie's Aarons Rod l. 3. c. 7 p. 425. V. etiam Hieron Zanch. Epist l. 1. in epistola quae inscribitur ad illust Prin. Fredericum de excommunicatione and saith Mr Gillespy 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 or the like Those two eminent servants of God thought there was something in this Argument there are these three Questions in it 1. Whether the Minister declares all to whom he gives the Supper to be one visible body That the Apostle determines 1 Cor. 10.17 2. Whether it be a sin in a Minister to declare those one visible body who are not so Reason will easily determine that affirmatively 3. Whether visibly scandalous sinners be one visible body with visible Saints Visibly scandalous sinners have a visible different head But it is a question whether that distinction of Membra in Ecclesia and Membra Ecclesiae hath any thing in it and whether Christ be called the head of the visible Church only as it is taken conjunctim or viritim of every member in it and that will bring us to question whether the Church as to the community of it be Corpus homogeneum or het erogeneum I shall not intangle my selfe with these disputes but shall desire 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as to this Argument and leave it to wiser heads to consider Arg 11 The Sacrament of the Lords Supper is not to be given to any who are not Christs Disciples for we are to follow Christs example who administred it to none others But scandalous sinners are none of Christs Disciples Ergo. This is Mr P. Goodwins Argument Evangelicall Communicant p. 5 6 7 8. V. Zanchium in ep praed and I refer the Reader to him to make it out there are these two things to be questioned in it 1. Whether Christs example in admission be a rule of ours 2. Whether Christ admitted any such Disciples as were actually scandalous I thinke I have proved the contrary Argument 12 Those who if they were Heathens might not be baptized V. Zach. Urs doct Christ p. 2. de clavibus q 3. sect 11. though they be baptized and in a Church ought not to be admitted to the Lords Supper The reason is this 1. Mr Humfry himselfe confesseth In adultis eadem est ratio utriusque Sacramenti 2. Besides it is against reason to say the contrary But those who are ignorant and scandalous if they were Heathens should not be baptized Ergo. I do not say the children of such ought not there is another reason for them but that they should not hath been granted by the Universall judgement and practice of the Primitive Church Erast Thesis 14 Mr Humfrie's vind p. 10. Beza de excom p. 23. Aarons rod l. 3. c. 16. Mr. Palmer c against Mr Humfry p. 49. Dr Drakes bar to free admission p. 32 33. Rutherford's divine right of Presbyteries c. 5. q. 2. I know Erastus and Mr Humfry tell us John baptized all who came yea some whom he cals Vipers but Beza long since and Gillespy more lately mind Erastus that John baptized none but such as confessed their sins Mat. 3. Mr Palmer c. and Dr Drake have told Mr Humfry too as much to which he hath discreetly replied nothing This is one of that incomparably learned Mr Rutherford's Arguments in his Divine right of Presbyteries Arg. 13 Strong meat belongs to those who are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who have made proficiency in the waies of God and are of full age who by reason of an habit have their senses exercised to discerne good and evill Heb. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But the Sacrament is strong meat Therefore it doth not belong to those who are Babes in knowledge and consequently though of the house not to be given to them by him who is the Lords Steward to give all in the Family their Portion in the due season Luk. 12.42 The major is a generall proposition given by the Apostles Requirit igitur coena domini quatenus est mystica convivas qui sensibus exercitatis interna mysteria ab eo quod oculis patet distinguere valent Musc Loc. Com. de coena A Physicall maxime applied in a spirituall case and holds as well to any strong meat as that which he there speakes of for he doth not say This strong meat That the Sacrament of the Lords Supper is strong meat is evident That meat which is of hardest digestion and concoction and requires the strongest operations of the stomack to turne it into nourishment and which not duly digested proves most pernicious to the body is strong meat in a physicall sense But such is the Sacrament of the Lords Supper The spirituall stomack must be more extraordinarily prepared for it 1 Cor. 11.28 It is not tasted nor digested well without the knowing of the greatest mysteries in Religion in some measure viz. the union of Christ with the Father 2. The Union of the two natures in the person of Christ 3. The mysticall Vnion of the soule with Christ 4. The mysterious exercise of faith in applying the Soule to the Promise and the Promise to the Soule while it sits at that Table Not duly received it proves most pernicious The Soule seales its damnation becomes guilty of the body and bloud of Christ eates judgement to it selfe Arg. 14 It is unlawfull to partake of other mens sins Eph. 5.7 Mr Ambrose his media p. 260 Rutherford in his Divine right c. c. 5. q. 2. and in his peaceable plea. cap. 12. Gillespie's Aarons rod. l. 3. P. Goodwins Evang. Com. Vindication of the jus divinum of Presbytery But he that gives the Sacrament wittingly to an ignorant or scandalous person partakes with him in his sin Ergo. This Argument is urged by Learned Rutherford Reverend Gillespy in the two fore-mentioned books and holy Mr Ambrose to whom I refer my Reader for fuller proofe Many Arguments more might be produced in this cause but the truth is scarce any but what are to be found either in Mr

Policy should now and then divide and we humbly submit to God and desire rather to be faithfull Stewards for him then providers for our selves and ours Surely there is so much ingenuity at least in some of the godly Ministers of England as would intitle them to a desire of the love of all and so much earthinesse in all their hearts as exposeth them to some temptations to use all endeavours for a comfortable subsistence in this life If any of them neglects both that and this and chuse rather to venture the begging of their own bread then to throw the childrens bread to dogs rather to prostitute their owne names and lose their interest in the hearts of some people then to prostitute the Lords sacred Ordinance and give his name to a reproach as in this they come short of Chrysostome who professeth he would rather give his owne bloud to the prophane then the body and bloud of Christ and of Ambrose who ventured the losse of his head as well as the love of Theodosius so it will not need much of thy charity to interpret their actions conscientious pieces of self-deniall for the interest of their deare and blessed Saviour yea and of their soules too who are kept away it being certaine if Iudas were at the Sacrament which can never be proved the next worke he did was to hang himselfe through horror of conscience and for that sinne of unworthy receiving in the Church of Corinth Many saith the Apostle were sick and weak and many fallen asleep How unjustly therefore we are raged against who durst not give the bloud of Christ to those to drinke who are in a burning feaver of open lusts and so dangerous a knife into the hands of those whom we see distracted with sinne and in a spirituall Delirium We hope any equitable standers by will judge and measure our actions by the duly and orderly practise of Physitians in bodily tempers considering we are ready as to such Patients to allow them what they will drinke of the Barley water of Repentance which we conceive more proper for them and are ready to restore their knives to them when they shall by any moderate account given us let us know that God hath restored them so much of his Image in spirituall wisdome that they will not murther their precious soules with them And we doubt not but if ever the Lord shall give them an heart to repent and restore their desperately distempered soules to health in that day it shall be no more griefe of heart to them that they have been kept away then it is to the recovered Patient that his Physitian denyed him flesh and wine in his feaver or a knife in his distraction and at that time we shall expect their thanks in the meane time we shall beare their rage and reproach with paience knowing it is for the Lord we suffer it For the Lord who suffered more in the shedding of his bloud for us then we can doe in the vindication of it and preserving it from being prophaned by unhallowed mouths If it pleaseth the Lord they dye in their spirituall distempers and go raging to their graves we must be content to expect our thanks from our Lord and Master at the great day and our vindication there except Reader thou wilt shew thy selfe so ingenuous and judicious as in thy thoughts to acquit us As to the subject of this Tract the truth is so much hath been said in the defence of what I plead for of old by all the Schoolmen and since by Calvin Vrsin Zanchy and by Reverend Beza and Master Rutherford in answer to Erastus and by learned and Reverend Gillespy in answer to Master Prynne besides what hath been spoken by Master Philip Goodwin in his excellent Book called the Evangelicall Communicant and by many others that were it not for the importunate clamours of those who would get that by their importunity and clamorous tongues and pens which the justice of their Cause and strength of their Arguments will not allow to them nor gaine for them both my selfe and others might have had an eternall supersedeas for this Worke. I scarce find any thing in Erastus and Beza but what I meet with in the Schoolmen nor any thing in Master Prynne or Master Humfry considerable but what I find in Erastus That if our Brethren of the contrary perswasion would not have troubled the world with their opinions without answering first what had been said against them we had long ere this time had our Quietus est for I durst undertake to yeeld him the cause who sufficiently answers but one Book wrote upon this subject viz. Master Gillespies Aarons Rod blossoming so that the truth is the advantage our opposites have of us in this point is mostly upon such as have not knowledge of what hath been said against their opinions or are not supplyed with money to buy the Books nor able to gaine ti●e to read them or upon such whose particular engagements and over-much love to the whimzies of their owne braines or malice or prejudice at least to the truth or love to their cursed lusts which yet they would keep and have the Sacrament too and be thought unworthy of no Gospell-priviledge hath outlawed their Reason and so stopt their eares that they are made incapable of a boaring with the sharpest and most convincing Arguments that Scripture and Reason can afford and thus they only captivate those who are first led captive by their owne lusts Possibly thou wilt be inquisitive to know what hath made me write if I have judged enough already said I must crave a little of thy patience to satisfie thee as to this I have often thought that it would be a rare expedient in order to the ending of all controversies of these times relating to the order of the Church if some judicious man would out of all the considerable Books wrote upon each Controversie within these twelve or thirteen yeares candidly state each Controversie and transcribe the Arguments relating to them with the Exceptions and Answers given to any digesting them in a due method and it might please the civill power then to Enact That no one should write more upon any of those Questions but should be engaged either to bring New Arguments on the part he would defend or vindicate those brought on the part he would defend from the various Answers given to them Were this taske but imposed upon new Scriblers the world would be lesse full of impertinent Discourses and Disputes would not run as they doe in infinitum I doe not pretend a specimen of such a Worke I have neither purse nor Library nor time fit for it But the truth is as I find in Mr Humfry and heare from Mr Boatman nothing more then Erastus long since said and hath been more then once already answered so I have not studied for a new Argument but out of severall Authors have rallyed up an old

negative argument Christ did not forbid any nor doe we find that he left his disciples any such order nor ever reproved any that they did come to the Sacrament all which comes short of this that Christ did command the administration to all thesi 30. and it is too weake that Erastus hath thesi 30. that Christ said drink ye all of it for those all were all visible saints though Judas was there which shall never be proved yet Judas was not discovered to the communicants It is worth the observing that Christ did not so much as call up the Jewes in the same house which he would have done probably if he had intended for all Erastus saith Christ inviteth all to repentance Ergo to the Sacrament page 249. If the syllogisme be put in forme saith Mr Rutherford the major is blasphemy Ruth divine right page 362. for by the same argument might be proved that God invites Pagans to the Sacrament See more in him Erastus hath another Argument If the Apostle did here forbid these scandalous sinners the Sacrament he had contradicted himselfe But he doth not contradict himselfe The major lies upon the Doctor to prove His loose lines must be thus formed Hee that should here forbid scandalous persons the Sacrament Etenim paulo post licentius viventibus non interdicit ●ec interdieere jubet Sacramentorum usum sed judicium Dei proponit Erast conf●rm thes p. 249 and a little after cap. 11. not forbid loose livers the Sacrament onely set before them their danger contradicts himselfe I will go no further here 's enough to be denyed Is it a contradiction I wonder if I should write a letter to my friends and in the beginning of it say I will not have you come in such a gamesters company a little after in the same Letter tell my friends I heare some of them have been in gamesters company and God will be revenged of them if they follow such courses I have not eyes to see it if it be This is the very case here must Paul needs forbid that cap. 11. that which he forbids cap. 5. or doth he contradict himselfe This is all that Erastus hath to say for it which is to little purpose That learned and worthy Gentleman whom I am loth to name in this cause pretends to give three reasons why the Sacramentall eating is not here meant First because there is not a word of receiving the Lords Supper in this Chapter Vind. p. 9. 10. and in the 10 and 11. Chapters he saith no such thing though he professedly treats of it His Learned Adversary sufficiently answers him 1. Gillespies Aarons rod. l. 3. c. 7 Desiring him to prove that the 7.8 verse of this Chapter is not meant of the Lords Supper 2. Telling him that in the 24 page of his book himselfe confesseth from this Chapter that the Passeover and the Lords Supper are the same for substance and that Ar●tius so expounds it Ar●t prob loc 80. To that I have spoke already Mr Prinn objects that 1 Cor. 10.16 17. the Apostle saies they were all partakers of one bread yet in he Church of Corinth were some scandalous some druntards that came so to the Table c. Mr Gillespy answers him That the word all can be of no larger extent then visible Saints such as were those to whom the Epistle was directed and surely visible workers of iniquity cannot be visible Saints Saith Mr Gillespy he shall never prove that those that were drunk at the Sacrament in the Church of Corinth came thither such 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or were drunk the night before or knowne drunkards if they were drunk it was there which the Apostle could not know before they came where by the way I desire my Reader to take notice of the invalidity of this plea of Mr Boatman's for the admitting such as are knowne before hand to be scandalous sinners I add further Plus satis bibit Grotius ad loc Quanquam ego non existimarem de eâ sermonem fieri qua homines alienati a sensu mente susi jacent sed potius de larga compotatione ita ut liberalius bibendo plus aequo exhilarati essent P. Mart. ad loc that he shall never be able to prove they were drunk the word there used is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which doth not alwaies signifie to drink drunke but often to drink liberally and well So Io. 2.10 The sence is onely this you come to the Table of the Lord in parties disorderly first one company comes and they drink liberally more then they need then the others come and they have none to drink Nor is this a new notion I find it in Peter Martyr Grotins Estius ad loc Beza in Io. 2.10 translateth this word affatim bibere and why he might not have done so here if it had pleased him I cannot tell This Dr Drake hinted Mr Humfry of and Mr Humfry in his late vindication is so ingenious as to allow it So I hope now it may passe currant and wee shall heare this pleaded no more by Mr Humfry or Mr Boatman that drunkards were admitted to the Sacrament in the Church of Corinth 4. Especially considering what Mr Gillespy hath already said that although it could be proved that there were drunkards and other scandalous sinners there yet it can never be proved that they were admitted to the Sacrament 5. I will add one thing more the Apostle doth not say 1 Cor. 10.16 17. you are all partakers of one bread which if he had it would have been something more to have proved that the scandalous sinners in the Church of Corinth were admitted to this Ordinance but he saith no such thing he saith we are all partakers of one bread that is while we who are Saints wait upon God in that Ordinancé we partake of one bread and are one body yea and that he saith they were one body he plainly proves that the scandalous sinners did not partake of that one Bread But of that more anon 6. Lastly suppose this were true that some of the Corinthians were notoriously scandalous 2. That these were admitted to the Lords Supper that St Paul doth not in so many words command their suspension how doth this yet prove that scandalous sinners ought to be admitted till Mr Humfry or Mr Boatman have proved 1. That the Church of Corinth did nothing amisse 2. That because the Apostle did not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in so many words say drunkards keep away therefore he did allow them to come any more then it will prove women ought to keep away because Paul no where saith expresly you beleeving women come as well as men So that this reason which is purely negative though urged by Erastus Mr Prin Mr Humphry and Mr Boatman will never inferre that it is lawfull to administer the Sacrament to all much lesse prove that Sacramentall eating is

Teacher and Cyprian tels us Cypr. ep 22. that with the consent of the Presbyters he after made Optatus their Teacher Now these were the first sort which were not come to the Table saith Dionysius and so Pachymeres expounds him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2. The second sort excluded he saith are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Those who had apostatized from an holy life By these doubtlesse he meanes scandalous sinners who had been former Professors otherwise they could not be Apostates George Pachimeres expounds it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 men given up to vile affections who had returned to their former lusts 3. The third sort were those 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. such as through the terrours of persecutors had been tempted to sin and fallen into it c. There are two or three other sorts mentioned by him who were kept away such as were Penitents that is who had fallen into sin and the Church had appointed them a time of shame and repentance after the profession of their resolutions to amend and lastly those who were not altogether 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without any scandall or spot these were all removed saith Dionysius before the Lords Supper was administred but surely these were not all excommunicated here is not a word of that Those who will see more may looke into Maximus and Pachymeres the two Scholiasts upon Dionysius I have not translated the passage because it was large But Dionysius saith plainly that such as are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. men given to their lusts c. should much more be kept from the Lords Table than either Catechumeni or Poenitentes I know none else in the first Century but Ignatius who hath left us any Writings and it is questionable whether any of these or his either be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or no. But doubtlesse Dionysius was ancient though I beleeve not thus ancient his Scholiast Maximus lived within the fourth Century Let us see what we have in the second Century ad annum Christi 200. In this Century we have Justin Martyr who hath something considerable extant to tell us the practice of the Chur●h in his time and he hath spoken fully enough to our purpose in his second Apology for the Christians which Helvicus saith he wrote about the yeare 160. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ΚΛΙ ' ΟυΤΩΣ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Just Mart. Apol. 2. ex edit Lutet Paris 1615. p. 97 98. where he tells us how in those daies they administred the Ordinance of the Supper and hath these words This nourishment saith he is with us called the Eucharist of which none may partake with us but he 1. That beleeves our Doctrine to be true 2. He that is washed with the Laver of Regeneration for the remission of sins 3. He that lives so as Christ hath Commanded We desire no more than the recovery of this ancient Discipline of the Church viz. that none may be admitted to the Lords Supper but such as first are baptized Secondly Such as beleeve the Doctrine of the Gospell which they must know before they can beleeve 3. Such as do not live according to the rule of the Gospell but if none else were admitted in Justine Martyrs time questionlesse there were some suspended who were not excommunicated In this Century also lived Tatianus Melito Ireneus Theophilus Antioch Policarpus Apollinaris Athenagoras Clemens Alexandrinus Pantaenus Tertullian c. If testimonies could be produced out of these it were to little purpose Justin Martyr having sufficiently evidenced for that Century But the truth is some of them have nothing extant and others very little and upon restrained subjects in the handling of which they were not led to this theme And in those pieces of Clemens Alexandrinus and Tertullian I find very little spoken concerning the discipline and order of the Church Something there is in Tertullian but Justin Martyr hath already spoken enough for this Age considering the occasion of his speaking it was in an Apology for all Christians in his Age and Apologizing for them he sets out their pure worshipping of God and inoffensive practice From the yeare two hundred to the yeare three hundred In this Century were severall Synods but none of which we have any Record but only a Provinciall Synod called Consilium Anchyritanum by Gratian. Genebrard in his Chronology puts this Synod anno 298. Helvicus anno 312. Caranza and Mr Gillespy anno 308. certaine it is it was either in the latter end of this or the beginning of the next Century I shall with learned Genebrard account it into this Caranza saies it was before the Oecumenicall Councill of Nice but in what Emperours time is not determined But in that Councill we find Suspension established with a witnesse That for some sins if any committed them before he was twenty yeares old he should spend fifteene yeares in penitence before he should be admitted to pray with the Church and five yeares he should have no more than a communion in Prayers with the Church and afterwards be admitted to the Lords Table This Canon may be seen in Caranza p. 28. can 16. I find the Greeke Copy thus elsewhere 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I neither justifie this Councill nor this Canon of it in all things but if there were such a Councill and so ancient as we are told it plainly shews us Suspension distinct from Excommunication was so ancient in the Church of God the same is also confirmed by the 4 5 6 7 8 9. Canons of that Councill the Copies of which may be seen either in the booke called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Greek-Latine or Latine in Caranza and Benius c. The two most Famous Fathers in this Century were Origen about the yeare 202. and Cyprian 250. Origen hath some not obscure hints of the judgment of the Church in his time Orig. in Levit. Homil. 23. Cibus iste Sanctus non est communis omnium nec cujuscunque indigni sed Sanctorum est Severall other hints are in Origen though he no where speakes directly to the case For Cyprian he that reads his tenth Epistle ad clerum de Presbyteris c. or his book de lapsis will find enough I had thought to have transcribed some passages but I am prevented by Mr Gillespy in his Aarons Rod l. 3. cap. 17. where the Reader shall find them quoted From the yeare three hundred to foure hundred In the Century besides other Councils was the famous Oecumenicall Councill of Nice and for Ancients Arnobius Athanasius Hilary Macarius Optatus Basil Greg. Nyssen Nazianzen Epiphanius Ambrose Chrysostome Hierome Austin Some of these will doubtlesse tell us the practice of the Church in their times For the Councill of Nice we have an imperfect Record but if those Canons which are printed as theirs be so they speake plaine enough Can. 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Concil Nicen. Can. 11. Reader this Synod was questionlesse the most glorious