Selected quad for the lemma: book_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
book_n	believe_v	church_n	scripture_n	4,985	5	6.5050	4	true

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

then But he walks by another rule for he professeth here That except the profane be first admonished then excommunicated which he knowes now they cannot be except by Elderships which his judgement is not for belike no power on the earth hath the least seeming or semblable Authority to keep any from the Sacrament yea and this is his Say notwithstanding all the Learning of ab the Ministers on earth yea and he tels us so againe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For Suspension it is a dreame of the Pharisees who invented it yea a Pharisaicall invention How a dream a Pharisaicall dream a thing not to be maintained by the Learning of all the Ministers on earth No Authority for it neither seeming nor semblable Bona verba quaeso Surely lesse Learning will be enough to deal with so yong a Rabbi and to maintaine so ancient so divine so rationall an institution at least against such an adversary Softer words would have been better for one that had no harder Arguments for his opinion Nay more he desires nay he challengeth with as much humility as we can thinke he hath after he hath so boldly charged all the Churches of God as Dreamers Pharisaicall Dreamers c. any to shew him the least footsteps for it from the Word of God This challenge he shall see anon is accepted We will try what a combatant our Goliath is he tels us he speaks not besides his Book I know not what is in his Book but I shall prove anon he speaks besides Gods Booke and besides his Book too if it were the Bible he had in the Pulpit but possibly it was Master Humphria's Rejoinder But he tels us he hath Reasons anon shall come forth yea and those terrible ones too such as shall amaze our consciences Let us see what they are Sect. 4 Trace the footsteps and they are very rare in Scripture too that Christ hath laid downs in such a case as this and till you have searched them beleeve that a great deale of pride and more uncharitablenesse and worse then both hath been the cause of suspending so great an Ordinance so long and making such a breach in the Church of God I find but once in the Booke of God that it speaks directly in it and then it speaks of no other remedy for all exorbitances committed in the Church but Let a man examine himselfe c. If you find any shew them It is a meere Dreame and Invention of men which they pretend to implode the Scriptures and lay a burden on our shoulders and an intollerable yoke I say a Pharisaicall invention and I speake plainly and home When the Aprstle had taken a survey of the great enormities of some he speaks Not a Word more and that upon a fault which I beleeve not any man was guilty of in the English Church viz. They were drunke at the Sacrament and we doe not sind that he did suspend them cast them out or excommunicate them only the Apostle fatherly and Apostolically adviseth them to take a better care for the time to come 2. Secondly admit what some pretend that there is just reason to suspend some from the Sacrament whom it would never trouble the wisest heads in this Age for it never entred into the heads of former Ages to tell what distinct crimes they are for which any are to be suspended You are mistaken if you thinke for every whimzy-gimcra●ke or trifle that comes in a mans head a man must be kept fram the Sacrament The Apostle indeed adviseth the Corinthians to excommunicate the incestuous person but the businesse was so highly aggravated that the sinne was not so much as named amongst the Heathen It is not every trifle because a man is not of such a mans opinion in point of State-affaires though I hope you are all of a mind now therefore he must be kept from the Sacrament not because such or such a Pharisee saith a man keeps company with Publicanes and sinners and so one himselfe but not so though called so therefore he must be debarred from the Sacrament What is all this from God I dare safe●ier say from the Devill What out of a private and particular prejudice and he that hath taken it hath a little power that way and interest in Admission therefore the Party must be kept from the Sacrament Quis talia fando I had almost spoken something that had been a Solecisme Did ever the Lord Jesus Christ thinke on earth this should have been done in his Church and I tell you the Holy Ghosts straine No either he must be convicted and adjudged or I dare pronounce of him that denies it him on any other score That he is a bold intruder on Christs Authority Are those the amazing reasons we heard of I wonder Here 's amazing language and boldnesse and confidence here 's nothing looks like a Reason but only that the Gentleman doth not read that the Apostle in 1 Cor. 11. that the Apostle gave no other order but Let a man examine himselfe But what if Christ himselfe gave other order Mat. 7.6 and by his owne example admitting none but his Disciples and the Apostles Acts 2 admitting none but such as were prickt at the heart c. And what needed the Apostle in the eleventh Chapter give order further when in the fifth Chapter he had plainly forbidden them to keep the Feast with old Leaven viz. scandalous sinners as ver 6. and to eat with any call'd brethren that should be fornicators covetous idolaters railers drunkards extortioners for the Corinthians being drunke at the Sacrament There is nothing but our Translation serves Master B and we translate the same word otherwise John 2.10 of that more afterwards But he tels It will pose the wisest heads to find out for what sinnes any should be kept away that is another dispute We are now disputing whether any should or no according to Master B's Doctrine if a man had sinned the sinne against the Holy Ghost he should not this is all that looks like Reason and here 's a poore pittance of it but besides this Reader 1. Here 's an impudent falshood affirmed in a Pulpit That it never entred into the heads of former Ages to suspend any thou wilt find I have proved it the constant practice of the Churches of God in all former Ages 2. Here is a bold expression of Suspension He tels us againe that it is a meere Dreame an Invention of men a Pharisaicall invention 3. Here is an impudent aspersion cast not only upon the eminent servants of God in former times and Churches and Councels but upon the generality of godly Ministers in this Age whose judgment practice hath been to suspend the ignorant and scandalous from the Lords Table Master Boatman tels the people that They goe about to implode the Scriptures to lay a burthen and an intollerable yoke so all Christs Ordinances are to men captivated by their lusts on their shoulders That

is boldnesse in us to restraine what God hath not limited And hence I perceive that some who have been inclined to thinke that some one Ordinance is especially meant here yet dare not exclude others So Mr Jeanes Mr Ieanes p. 125 126. 2 ed. of his bank entituled The want of Church Government c. though he thinkes admonition and reproofe are chiefly meant supposing the words not to be a compleat precept in themselves but to relate to the precedent words yet he tels us he will not deny but it may be extended and applied to the giving of the Lords Supper And Chemnitius determines it an unjust restriction to restraine it to reproofe Besides that admonition may be given to Dogs yea to such Dogs as are shut out of the doores of the Church 2 Thes 3.15 He is not to be counted as an enemy but admonished as a Brother with whom we ought to have no company that he may be ashamed I know Thomas Erastus tels us it must be meant of Preaching the word Erast Explic. Graviss quaest thes 94. But besides that there is no ground in the Text for this there is lesse in other places of Scripture For the Word must be preached to Heathens Mat. 28. and much more to them who are but as Heathens and to scandalous sinners Nor is there any reason to appropriate this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the word onely It seemes to me that our Saviour had an especiall eye to Sacramentall Ordinances not onely because in other Scriptures there is an expresse command to admit the most sorts of Dogs to heare the word but also because if any one Ordinance may be called more holy then other it is this of the Supper which is The new Testament in his blood The Communion of the body and blood of Christ But to say this Ordinance is excluded is not onely to speake contrary to Scripture but to common sense too Which made Erastus in the same thesis thinke it safer to insist upon a distinction of Dogs then adhere to his first distinction of holy things This Scripture therefore using a generall terme which is not restrained by any preceding or subsequent words and no other Scripture plainly allowing of the holy thing of the Lords supper to be given to Swine and Dogs I conceive he that desires his words may goe along with the truth and beare a proportion to his owne reason if he be endued with so much as an humane soule doth intitle all but mad men and fooles unto will not say but that the Lords Supper is here couched at least in the number of the holy things and pearles here specified Especially when I shall have made it evident by the different applications of this Scripture amongst the Ancients and large expositions of it by Moderne sober Writers That they thought not the holy things here spoken of were Admonition or Preaching onely but other holy administrations also Clemens Alexandrinus expounds it generally for all the flowings out of living water 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Clem. Alex. Strom. l. 2. ex edit Lutes 1619 p. 368. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Athanas in dial 1 de Trin. sub initio p. 138. t. 2. impr 1606 in offic Commetiana Tertul. 9. l. 2 de matrimonio cum Gentilibus c. 5. lib. de praescrip contra haeretices cap. 26. lib. de Baptismo cap. 17. which surely are in all divine Ordinances Athanasius makes use of this Text to justify himselfe in not giving an account of his faith to enemies of the Truth In his first Dialogue concerning the Trinity inter Orthodoxum Anomoeum Arrianistum In the beginning of it Anomoeus asking Orthodoxus whether he was a Christian or no hee tels him yes he was Anomoeus going on and asking him what Christianity was he tels him it was necessary for him to tell him the first but not safe for him to tell him the latter Anomoeus asking him why he answers him that if he did not know who he was that askt he might give Holy things to Dogs and cast Pearles before Swine Tertullian in his second Book concerning the marriage of Heathens with Christians applyeth this place as forbidding Christians to marry with Heathens because their conversation was an holy thing which must not be cast unto Dogs Yet it is plaine he doth not restraine it for in his Book de praescrip contrae haereticot he plainly applyes it to the Preaching of the Gospell and in the 17 Chap. of his Book de Baptisme he applies it to Baptisme By which it is plaine hee understood it in generall of all holy things Moyses and Maximus and Ruffinus in their Epistle to Cyprian understand it of absolution and all divine Ordinances Cyprian himselfe makes use of this Text to justify his not writing to Demetrianus v. Cypt. opera ep 26. lib. contra Demetrianum sub mitio l. 3. Testim ad Quirinum Chrysost in 1. Hom. in cap. 7. Math. in prologo ad expos Iohannis Homil 20. in 10 cap. Heb. lib. de compunctione cordis Immundis impuritatibus sacra consortia non impertienda a wretched enemy of the Truth and how he useth it elsewhere may be seen in l. 3. Test ad Quirinum where he brings it to prove this head Sacramentum fidei non est profanandum Basil the Great applies but doth not restrain it to preaching the Gospel Chrysostome in his first Homily on the seventh Chapter of Matthew applies it to the Preaching of the Word to warrant him if he saw his hearers negligent to shut up his book So he doth in his Prologue to his Exposition of the Gospell of St Iohn And againe in his Homily de oruce dominicâ But in his twentieth Homily upon the tenth Chapter to the Hebrewes he applies it to the Lords Supper And in his Book de compunctione cordis to all the mysteries of our Salvation and from this Scripture takes occasion to chide those Ministers who gave out the Sacrament promiscuously and saies this was the reason why they were trampled upon and rent by the wicked according to this Text. Hierom cals the holy things the childrens bread and the Gospell Pearls I might also weary my selfe and the Reader with many quotations out of Ambrose Gregor Mag. Origen which plainly shew their expounding this Text in a latitude not restraining it to this or that holy thing Isid Pelus l. 4. n. 181. ep ad Hicr●cem l. 1. ep 143. Aug. in Serm. in momte l. de side c. Hieron in Mat. 7. Chemnit harm c. 51. c. 66. n. 3. Alex. Halensis sum theol p. 4. q. 11. art 1. sect 4. The judgement of Isidorns Pelusiota and Angustine may be read in many places the latter of which though once he applies it to fraternall correption yet hath many different applications of it Chemnitius in his Harmony upon the place tels us that the Word and Sacraments are the holy things here meant And in the

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