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	chapter_n	read_v	24	3	5.9175	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

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

scandalous sinner but even Iudas himselfe was both in the Disciples eyes and in Christs eyes acting not as an omniscient God but as a Minister of the Gospell a visible Saint Which was the answer as I remember of Bonaventure I am sure of Halensis and Salmeron long since and is the generall answer of our Divines to that cavill Nor hath Mr Humfry in his Rejoinder said any thing to prove Iudas then scandalous for though as Erastus noted before him he had then treason in his heart and supposing that to be true which Erastus and Mr Humfry so much plead but I scarce beleeve that he had before covenanted with the High Priests yet all this was secret and he was not discovered till upon Christ giving him the sop he asking is it I Christ said thou saiest it and that reply of Christ was before as some think Grotius well observes that Christ did but whisper it to him for it is plaine from Iohn 13. that the Disciples knew it not till then and he then having received the sop went out 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Iohn which by the way as I shall prove more anon was both before the eating of the Paschall Lambe and before the institution of the Lords Supper too It is worth our observing that Christ did not so much as call up those of the same house which it is more then probable that he would have done if he had intended it for a converting Ordinance or for all promiscuously Nay surely Christ had more disciples then the twelve but the twelve onely if all of them were present 2. Some think that they have a precept for promiscuous administring this Ordinance from Mat. 28.19 20. where we have our commission in these words Goe teach all Nations baptizing them in the name of the Father the Sonne and the Holy Ghost 1. To that I answer 1. There is nothing exprest concerning the administration of the Lords Supper and our opposites who are so nimble at every turn to call for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should remember that by it they oblige themselves to doe the like But secondly admit that there is an implicit precept likewise for the administration of the Sacrament of the Lords Supper yet surely by the same rule that the Apostles notwithstanding that precept did not think themselves obliged to baptize any but such as beleeved and confessed their sins we may also expound the included part of the precept and must administer this Ordinance to none but such as are able to examine themselves and to discerne the Lord Body So that this will not serve their turne Thirdly Erastus and Mr Humfry and Mr Boatman make a great stir with the wedding Supper Mat. 22. to which all were invited c. But 1. They should remember that old and true rule Theologia parabolica non est argumentativa No argument can be fetcht from Parables but from the generall scope of them v Mr Humfrie's rejoinder p. 52 53. 54 〈◊〉 Now he that runs may read that our Saviours main scope in that Parable was not to shew who might or might not come to the Lords Table but to shew how angry God was with the Jewes for not comming to Christ by which unbeliefe of theirs they procured destruction to themselves and God would now call in the Heathens and those who before were not his people to be his people and to fill up his Feast 2. If Mr Humfry or Mr Boatman thinke they may argue from any of the foure feet of that parable as to this cause they may prove it to be their duty not onely to stand in a Pulpit and invite all the Lords Table but to goe into high waies and hedges too and bring in all they meet with yea and to compell them to come in Now it will prove too that they ought to fetch in Pagans who are chiefly meant in the latter part of the Parable And thus they shall not need to want company at the Lords Table 3. Doctor Drake answered Mr Humfry well I think when he told him that Christ is the Feast meant in that Parable and although all be invited to the Feast Christ yet the question is whether all be invited to eat of that dish in the Feast Dr Drokes Bar to free admission p 30. Mr Humfries rejoinder p. 54. viz. the Sacrament of the Lords Supper as wel as they are invited to hear the Gospel Here now M. Humfry hath a mind more to shew his wit then his honesty thus he answers him p. 54. This is something ingenuous but whereas he applies this that a man may be invited to a Feast yet not to the dish in the Feast it is very fine c. then he tels us a tale of the two egs and concludes let us have the dishes of the Foast and what will become of Mr Drakes Feast How falsly hath he abused Dr Drake let the Reader judge Dr Drake doth not say they are not invited to any dish but they are not invited to every dish and if the dish of the Sacrament be removed there will a Feast still remaine But the truth is it was properest for Mr Humfry to abuse his Adversary when he could not answer him If this and other passages of the same nature in that unworthy book be not enough to make it stink in the nostrils of conscientious Christians let them but read his language p. 269. and the application of Scripture to serve his nastie intentions and they may help a little towards it 4. I never heard of any more Scripture precepts protended onely that 1 Cor. 11.24 where I desire the Reader to consider 1. That the Apostle doth but repeat the words of our Saviour which were spoke to none but visible Saints 2. The Apostle delivers the same words to them he bids them Doe that c. Which by the way is not a command to their Pastors to administer it but to the Church to receive the Sacrament and surely doth not concerne those who in that Chapter are commanded to examine themselves c. and are not able to doe it The question is whether the Apostle v. 24. doth command them to receive the Sacrament of the Lords Supper who could not examine themselves according his rule v. 28. nor discern the Lords body or who if they did partake must necessarily eat and drink their owne damnation and make themselves guilty of the body and blood of Christ Surely this was very absurd to say If not this precept is nothing to the purpose sounding no more then this you that are fit to doe this doe this We are now come to examine if they have any examples I never heard but of three pretended indeed they are great ones and enough if they be made appeare for their purpose The first that of Christ who admitted Iudas as some think The second Mr Humfry mentions Acts 2.41.42 The third is of the Church of Corinth I will speak of the latter two