Linguistic DNA - Concept Modelling Demonstrator

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
christian_n	church_n	member_n	visible_a	6,329	5	9.5436	5	true

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A91314	A vindication of foure serious questions of grand importance, concerning excommunication and suspention from the sacrament of the Lords Supper, from some misprisions and unjust exceptions lately taken against them; both in the pulpit, by a reverend brother of Scotland, in a sermon at Margarets Church in Westminster, before the Honourable House of Commons, at a publike fast there held for Scotland, on the 5th of September last: and in the presse, by three new-printed pamphlets, by way of answer to, and censure of them. Wherein some scripture texts, (commonly reproduced for excommunication, and bare suspention from the Lords Supper onely,) are cleared from false glosses, inferences, conclusions wrested from them; ... / By William Prynne of Lincolns Inne, Esquire.	Prynne, William, 1600-1669.	1645 (1645)	Wing P4124; Thomason E265_5; ESTC R212424	79,558	71

withdraw himselfe from the Lords Table or sever from our Churches because of mixt Commâ—nions as some now phrase them or because some opâ—â— sâ—aâ—dalous unexcommunicate persons are admitted to communicate with them This iâ—â—he use and inference which most of the Ancienâ—s made of Iudas his â—ating the Lords Supper and Passeover with his fellow-Disciples and they with him against the scismaticall Donatists now revived in our Indâ—pendenâ—s Aâ—â—baptists Separatists whose resolutionâ— in this case they may doe well to read at large in Gratian Caus. 1. Quest 1. and in Ivo Carnotâ—nsis Decreâ—â—lium â—ecâ—nda parâ— to whom I shall referre them Certainly they may with as much conscience and reason refuse to joyne with such in hearing reading fasting singing prayer or any other Ordinances as in this â—pon the self same grouâ—dâ— tâ—ey ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ to communicate with theâ— at the Lords Table Therefore let not such ground lesse whimsieâ— and false principles upon which they have hitherto sounâ—â—d their practice of separation in this kind delude theÌ„ any longer they being â—s much partakers of other mens sinâ— in participating joining or being present with them in any other Ordinâ—nce as in this since if they deâ—est their sinfull courses they are no more guilty of them by recâ—iving the Sâ—crament with theâ— then Christ or his Apoâ—â—leâ— wâ—re of Iudâ—s his â—â—eaâ—on or unworthy receiving by communicating with him the â—ather bâ—cause the Scripture resolves expresly and all Comeâ—tators new and old upon the Text subâ—cribe to it that every unworthy Communicant eats and drâ—â—â—es judgement onely TO HIMSELFE 1 Cor. 11. 27. 29. not to the Ministeâ— or any other with whom he shall Communicate in this Ordinance Let those therefore who out of spirituâ—ll pride and selfe opinion of their owne transcâ—â—dent holinesse above others disdâ—ine to communicate with those whom â—hey deem more sinâ—â—l lâ—sse pâ—nitent then themselves beware lest this groundlesse Phariâ—â—ical ride of theirs make them not more scandalous unfit to receive thiâ— Sacrament â—t which they should especially manifest their humilty charity love â—ompassion and ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ towards their brâ—thren then those scandalous persons they refuse to communicate with as the Pharisâ—s pride in prayer made him lesse justifiâ—â— and unâ—â—ceptable to God then the Publican Luke 18. 9. to 15. a place well worthy their saddest consideration And thuâ— much for Iâ—das his receiving the Sacrâ—ment which goâ—â— very farr in deciding our present controversies The seventh difference is Whether the Minister hath not fully discharged his duty and conscience if he give warning to unworthy Communicants of the danger they incurre by their unworthy approches to the Lords Table â—nd seriously dehâ—rt them from comming to it â—â—lesse they repent reforme and come prepared And â—hether the 1 Cor. 11. Ezek. 33. 1. to 10. Acts. 20. 26. 27. â—ith the Liâ—urgies of our owne and the French Churches doe not intimate aâ—d prove aâ— much I affirme my f Antagonists deny it in their three printed Pamphlets affirming that it is not enough for Ministers to warne them of the sinne and danger of unworthy receiving unlesse they lâ—kewise keep them back from the Sacrament The reason they render is because â—f the Minister gives the Sacrament to such he is a partaker of their sinne and as much guilty by the giving as the other by his unworâ—hy receiving and shall partake with him both in the guilt and punishment To exemplifie which they use this simiâ—itude Sir if you have a cup in your hand which will poyson and kill a sick distempered man if he drinke of it will you give it unto him if he desire it and doâ— you think it enough to admonish him that it is deadly poyson and first dehâ—rt him from drinking of it and then imediately reach it to him with intent tha he shall drink of it I perswade my selfe that as he shall perish so hiâ— blood shall be required at your haâ—ds and that you shall as guilty hold up your hand at the barre for it Yea th y avâ—rre that this is more then arbitrary tyrannicall papall domineering over the consciences of Pastors Elders and godly people to â—â— sâ—andalous sinners intrude and come boldly to the Lords table and the Pastors and Elders have no power to keep them backe To which I answer I very much wonder at this strange divinity never heard of in the world till of late and that first among the Anabaptists from whence it was derived into oâ—â— English soyle But for a direct reply I readily acknowledge that all desperate scâ—ndâ—lous wicked obstinâ—te sinners may be justly excoÌ„municated from the Church â—nd Sâ—craments after severâ—ll previous admonitions for their sinful courses thâ—t being thâ—s excommunicâ—ted they ought â—ot to be admitted to the sâ—crâ—ment nor any other publike Ordinâ—nce til their open profession of sinâ—ere repentance â—â—d re-admission to the Church But if â—ny such not thus proceeded â—gainst â—or excommunicâ—ted after due â—dmonitions profer themselves â—t the Lords Table together with others professing unfâ—ined repâ—ntance for their sinneâ— past and reformation of their lives for time to come aâ— every person volâ—ntarily doth who resorts to the Lords table in such a case the Minister when he hath sâ—rioâ—sly â—dmonished them of the dâ—nger of unworthy râ—ceiving and dehorted them to come to the Sacrament unlesse they find thâ—mselves sufficiently prepared in their owne consciences hath fully discharged his duty and cannot repell them from this heavenly banquet And if iâ— this case they receive unworthily he is no way guilty of their â—inne in the least degree since he consented â—ot to it and did forâ—wâ—rne theâ— of it To make this apparent to every mans capacity I shall lay downe these six conclusions which I desire all Christians especially Separatists and Iâ—dependents seriously to ponder First that eveâ—y visible Member of â— visible Church or Congregation not actuâ—lly seclâ—ded from it by excommâ—nication for some notorious scaâ—dall hath a true interest in â—nd right unto every Ordinâ—nce of Christ â—dâ—inistred in that Church of which he is not made uncâ—pâ—ble by any naturall disability as children fooles and distracted men are of receiving the Lords Supper becâ—use unable to exâ—mine themselves to which notwithstanding they have been admitted in some Châ—rcheâ— For proâ—fe of this conclusion I must lay downe another which â—tterly sâ—bverts the very foâ—ndâ—tion of Separationâ—nd Independency That the Sacrâ—ments both of Baptisme and the Lords sâ—ppeâ— were beqâ—eathed by Christ himselfe as all his other Ordinanceâ— â—ot only to his elect and regenerated children but to his visible Châ—râ—h on eâ—rth and â—ll visible memberâ— of it in which there alwayes hath beeâ— â—oâ— is and ever will be a â—ixture both of good and bad châ—â—fe and Wheat exterâ—all and reâ—ll professors Hypocrites and sincere Beleevers Hence it is all our Oppositeâ— unanimously grant that they caâ—â—ot refuse the Sacrament to Hâ—pocrites or câ—rnall morall Christians of civill â—nblamâ—ble life â—nd conversatioâ— though there be no power of godliâ—esse

in them if they be not grosly ignorâ—â—t nor yet deny the Sacrament of Baptisme to their childreâ— which the Apoâ—tle calâ—Saints or Hâ—ly becâ—â—se they are members of the visible Church to whom the Sacaments of right belong as such else they â—ight sâ—spend all sâ—ch from the Lords Sâ—pper upon this very ground that they are hypocrites unregenerated unsanctified persons who have no right unto the Sacraments as well as scandalous impenitent sinners From whence I argue thus Those who have a true right to the Sacrament as visible members of the visible Church ought not in justice or conscience to be deprived of it in case they demand it by any Minister or Presbytetery Mat. 24. 45 46 c. Luke 12. 42 c. compared with Mat. 22 â— to 15. 1 Cor. 10 1. to 7. 17. â— Tim. 2. 24. 25 26. But all unexcommnnicated Christians who are able to examine themselves as visible Members of the visible Church have a trus right to the sacrament in case they doe demand it when publikely administred Ergo they ought not in justice or conscience to be deprived of it by any Minister or Presbytery when publikely administred if they shall require it The rather because nothing but an actuall excommunication can suspend them from this their right as an actuall oâ—tlary suspends men from the benefit of the Law Secondly that every visible Christian not actually excommunicated who hath a right to the Sacrament of Baptism hath bin admitted therunto which answers circumcision this Seal of the covenant such only excepted who by reason of infancy or other infirmitieâ— of nature are unable to examine themselves hath likewise as good a right to and interest in the Lords supper the other seal of the Covenant as some phrase it without a text which answers to the Passeover even as every circumcised person under the Law had a right to eat of the Passover and might not be debarred from it as is formerly proved since no rationall Christian is able to give a satisfactory reâ—son why such should enjoy the benefit of one Sacrament and yet not be admitted to the other seeing that which entitles them to the one entitles them to the other and that which debarres them from the one secludes them from the other We read in the very Apostles times that a meere externall slight confession of sin and profession of the Christian faith was sufficient to enable sinners to be baptized hence Simon Magus a meere dissembler and Symonaicall unregenerate wretch was bâ—ptized by Phillip as well as others who really repented and beleeved in Christ though he were in the gall of bitternesse and bond of iniquity Acts 8. 12. to 25. yea many others who turned Wolves Apostates Hereticks were baptized by the very Apostles onely upon their externall profession of Christ without any inward truth of grace Acts 20. 29. 30. 2 Tim. 3. 1. to 6. Rom. 16 17 18. 2 Pet. 2. throughout Iude 8. to 20. 1 Ioh. 2. 18 19 And uâ—on a very sodain seeming remorse for sin and Confession of Christ at the very first Sermon without any delay or long examination of the sincery or truth of their faith or conversation thousands with their whole housholds were baptized and admitted into the Church by the Apostles Act. 2 37 38. 4â— c. 8. 12. 13. â— 10. 34. to the end ch. 16. 33. Yea among the very Anabaptists themselves both beyond the seas at home there are farre more hypocrites and carnall persons of ripe yeers rebapâ—iâ—ed then reall Saints onely upon a bare externall profession of faith and repentance and so generally iâ— all other Churches in the world from Christs time till this present Iâ— then the Sacrament of Baptisme hath in all ages Churches since its instâ—â—â—tion and bâ— the very Apostles themselves without any danger of siâ— or sâ—ruple of conscience beâ—n administred to all externall â—rofessors of Christ and never denied to any sucâ— or to their children but by Anabaptists then by the self same reaâ—on the â—aâ—â—ament of the Lords Supper may and must be adminisâ—red to thâ—â— wâ—â—n tâ—ey â—â—nder themselves among others to receive it and can neither in point of conscience or Christianity be justly with held from them by any Ministery or Presbytery whatsoever if not actually excommunicated for some â—otorious sâ—â—ndall the one being as much a trâ—â— Sacrament as the other if not of more absolâ—â—e necessity then the other Upon which ground I shall challeâ—ge all my Opposites to shew me any divine charter or president in Scriptuâ—e authorizing them to suspend any unexcommâ—â—icated Christians able to exmine themselves and willing to commâ—nicaâ—e from receiving the Sacrament of the Lords Supper whom they â—ave formerly deemed fit to receive and could not deny him the Sacrament of Baptisme Till this be done they must pardoâ— me for not subscribing to any such pretended authority by divine right Thirdly that it is the Ministers bounden duty to administer the Sacraments to their people as well as to preach and pray Mark 16. 15 16. Matth. 28. 19 20. Acts 2. 41 42. chap. 8. 12 13. chap. 10. 47 48. 1 Cor. 10. 16. chap. 11. 23. to 28. Therefore they can no more deny to administer this Sacrament to those of their Congregation who are not excommunicated then refâ—se to preach the Gospell to them or pray with them What Paul writes of preaching the Gospell Necessity iâ— laid upon me andwâ—â— is me if I preach not the Gospell 1 Cor. 9. 16 the same may Ministers apply to their administrng the Sacrament woe to us if we administer it not when deâ—ired the râ—ther because it is now a received principle among Presbyterians and professedly agreed by our reverend Brother of Scotland iâ— his Fast Sermon that no private Minister hath any jurisdiction in himself to keepe backâ— any from the sacrament but onely the whole Classis or Presbytery Fourthly that though God hath originally in his primary intention ordained his Gospell and Sacraments which are rich mercies in themselves only for the comfort and salvation of those who worthily receive them yet he hath secondarily instituted them to be the savour of death unto death and a means of aggravating the sins and condemnation of such who shall wilfully conteâ—ne abuse or unworthily receive them 1 Cor. 11. 25. to 30. 2 Cor. 2 15 16. Matth. 10. 14 15. Mark 16. 15 16. Lâ—ke 8. 18. Heb. 6. 6 7 8. Iohn 15. 22. 2 Pet. 2. 21. Ezek. 2. 3. to 9. Yea Christ himselfe thoâ—gh he be a most sweet Saviour in his owne â—atâ—re and Gods priâ—itive intentioâ— yet accidentally he is set for the fall as well as for the rising of many in Israel Luke 2. 34. â—ay for a stone of stâ—â—bling and rocke of offâ—nce for a gin and for a snare at â—â—d against which â—any shall stumble and fall â—nd be broken and sâ—ared and taken Isa. 8. 14 15 chap. 2â— 16. Rom. 9. 33. 1 Peâ—. 28. Matth. 21. 44. Luke 20. 18.

and use of excommunication is onely to reforme or amend mens lives and turn them from the power of satan unto God And is not this diametrally contrary to that end to deliver them over to the very conduct and guidance of satan who l rules only in the children of disobedience precipitates them into all sinful courses with a ful câ—â—â—re and is so farre from learning men not to blaspheme that he fils their hearts and mouthes with naught but lyes and blasphemies This interpretation therefore I cannot approve Neither doe I read or beleeve that any Presbytery or Church hath or doth claime any authority in these dayes to deliver any man to Satan Wherefore to deliver a man unto satan I rather coÌ„ceive to be meant in two other senses more agreeable both to the letter and scope of these Texts and the interpretation of the Fathers on them The first is either to deliver up a man corporally by way of punishment into the actuall possession of the Devill onely in respect of his body not soule so as the Devill thereby might actually possesse macerate torment and afflict his flesh as he m used to vex those whom he did corporally possesse which the Scripture plentifully manifests till he were sufficiently punished and then be dispossessed of the Devill againe by those who delivered him into his power and restored to the bosome of the Church the Apostles and others n in their age having a power not onely to cast out and dispossesse men of Devils but likewise to deliver men up by way of punishment to o be corporally possessed by the Devill which as I conceive was the ground of that common imprecation too frequent in lewd mens mouthes when they are injured or provoked by any man the devill take you or Tradatur Satanâ— This kind of delivering men over to satan was peculiar onely to the Apostles and some others in that age but ceased since and so cannot be drawne into practice among us A godly Christian by way of punishment may be for a season thus delivered unto satan for the mortifying or destruction of his flesh and carnall corruptions and yet still continue a true child of God in respect of his soule and spirit p which the holy Ghost doth alwayes possesse though the Devill possesse his body as he had possession of Christs body though not of his soule and spirit when he led him into the Wildernesse to be tempted and carried him from place to place And this I take to be one genuine sense and scope of these two Texts Secondly there is another sort of delivering men up to satan somewhat different from the former which suits very well with the words and sense of these Scriptures and that is when a man by Gods immediate permission is delivered unto satan to be tortured afflicted and vexed by him either in his body by sicknesses botches diseases or in his mind by cares feares perplexplexities and discontents or in his estate and family by losses and crosses of all sorts as q Job was of purpose to mortifie his flesh and carnall members to humble his soule and bodie before God that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord his sinfull life reformed and he hereby lessoned no more to blaspheme or dishonour God In this sense God many times delivers over his children as he did Job into their Adversary satans hands to scowre away all their drosse and crucifie their old man the flesh with the affections and lusts thereof without giving their hearts and spirits into his power which he still reserves intirely to himselfe as he did lob's and theirs whom the Devill cast into prison and into tribulation for ten dayes that they might be purifid and have their robes of corruption washed quite away and made white in the blood of the Lamb Revel. 2. 10. chap. 7. 14. And in this sense no doubt the Apostles by Gods permission had power to deliver men over to satan one of whose r Messengers Paul had sent to buffet and humble him least he should be exalted above his due measure for the destruction of the flesh But how farre the Church or Ministers of God have any authority at this day actually to deliver any scandalous persons thus to satan unlesse it be by way of prayer or option I submit to others who now claime this power to determine However in these two last senses which I conceive most genuine these Texts are no solid proofes at all either of excommunication from the Church or suspension from the Sacrament since a Christian may be delivered over to satan in both these senses and yet not actually excommnicated or suspended from the Sacrament The fourth difference is this Whether 1 Cor. 5. 11. If any man that is called a brother be a fornicator or covâ—tous or an Idolater or a railer or a drunkard or an extortioner with such a one no not to eat be properly meant of excommunication or suspension from the Sacrament or not to eat with such at the Lords Table upon any tearmes Some Opposites confidently averre others with my selfe deny it and that upon these grounds First because there is not one sillable of receiving the Lords Supper or eating at the Lords Table spoken of in this chapter and in the 10. and 11. chapters where the Apostle professedly treats of the Lords Supper and receiving that Sacrament he speakes not one word of secluding any members of the Church or Christians from it but onely exhorts men carefully to examine themselves before they come to receive it least they eat and drink their owne damnation become guilty of the body and blood of the Lord and draw downe sicknesses and diseases upon themselves affirming expresly ch. 10. ver. 16 17. The bread which we breake is it not the communion of the body of Christ for we being many are one bread and one body for 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 as the Israelites under the Law did ALL eat the same spirituall meat and ALL drink the same spirtiâ—all 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 the Church of Corinth did eat and drink the Lords Supper to which some drunkards whiles drunken did then resort as is cleere by the 1 Cor. 11. 20 21. which Paul indeed reprehends verse 22. Therefore this with such a one no not to eat cannot be meant of excommunication or suspension from the Sacrameut Secondly if we look upon the catalogue of those with whom the Corinthians were forbidden so much as to eat we shall find railers covetous persons and extortioners therein mentioned as well as idolaters fornicators drunkards and if all such must be

to scandalous sinners to convert them from their sins but the sacrament of the Lords supper is no converting but onely a sealing and confirming Ordinance instituted not to beget but â—ncrease faith and repâ—â—tance where they are formerly bâ—gun and therefore not to be administred to such to whom they can seale no pardon of sinne nor covenant of grace The same distinction hath likewise been used in a Sermon at Wool-chuâ—ch and is subscribed to by all the three printed Answers to my four Queries To which I answer first that the Sacrament of the Lords Supper is a converting as well as a sealing Ordinance For the better cleering wherof we must distinguish of two sorts of conversion and sealing which our Antagonists to delude the vulgar have ignorantly wilfully or injudiciously confounded First there is an externall conversion of men from Pagâ—â—isâ—e or Gentilisme to the externall profession of the Pâ—ith of Christ which is ordinarily wrought by the preaching of the Word or extraordinarily by miracles without the Word preached in reference to those without the Church but ordinarily effected by the Sacrament of Baptisme in reference to infants of Christian Parents borne within the Church which Sacrament both admits and makes them members of the visible Church without the preaching of the Word of which infants are not capable Acts 2. 37. to 43. 1 Pet. 3. 20 21. Joh. 3. 5. 1 Cor. 7. 14. Secondly there is a conversion from a meere externall formall profession of the Doctrine and faith of Christ to an inward spirituall embracing and application of Christ with his merits and promises to our soules by the saving grace of faith and to an holy Christian reall change of heart and life In this last conversion the Sacrament of the Lords Supper is not onely a sealing or confirming but likewise a regenerating and converting Ordinance as well as the Word There is likewise a double sealing if we admit this Sacrament or Baptisme to be Seales though never once stiled Seals in any Scripture text 1. A visible externall sealing of the pardon of sin Gods promises in the blood of Christ to our outward sences 2. An internall invisible sealing of them by the Spirit working in by the Word and Sacraments to our soules In the first sense this Sacrament is a seale to all receivers even to those who are scandalous and unworthy who receive only the outward elements In the second sence only to worthy penitent beleeving receivers who receivethe inward invisible grace as wel as the outward signes The first seales all Gods promises and a free pardon of all our sinnes onely conditionally if we truly repent lay hold on Christs passion merits promises and apply them to our soules by a lively saving faith and sincere repentance the second seales them to us absolutely because we have thus embraced and applyed them These distinctions premised we may easily discover the falsity of the Antagonists surmise That this sacrament is no converting but onely a sealing Ordinance and that onely to true beleevers and worthy receivers to whom alone it seals the pardon of sinne and promises of the Gospell for proofe whereof they produce neither reason nor Scripture but their owne bare confident groundlesse assertions which I shall thus refute because it is a very common dangerous error First our Antagonists unanimously grant that the Sacrament belongs to all unscandalous members of the visible Church capable of self-examination and not actually excommunicated to close Hypocrites morall carnal Christians not really regenerated converted yea to scandalous persons unconvicted whom they professe no Minister hath any power to suspend from the Sacrament upon his owne particular private knowledge of their guilt If then the Sacrament be onely a sealing or confirming ordinance of true grace when and where it is already begun then it were altogether impertinent and ineffectuall unto civill carnall Christians Therefore do ubtlesse it is and was intended by Christ for a convâ—rting Ordinance to all such as these to turne them from their evill wayes and work saving grace within their hearts since it can have no other proper primary effect in such Certainly God and Christ bestow no Ordinances upon men in vaine therefore their intentions in instituting this Supper even for such visible morall unregenerate Christians as well as reall Saints must necessarily be for their conversion not their confirmation and sealingonely in that sense as they interpret it Secondly all Ordinances of Christ that tend to edification confirmation or encrease of grace are more or lesse conducent to begin or beget grace converting as well as strengthening Ordinances the preaching reading hearing of the Word which comfort strengthen and build up men in grace doe likewise by our Antagonists free confessions convert and beget grace why then should not the Sacrament doe the like â—ince Gods spirit equally breathes and works in all his Ordinances and may and doth regenerate and beget grace in mens souls by what Ordinance he thinks best working in and by every Ordinance as well as by any The rather because Christ instituted this Sacrament to be frequently received when aâ— Baptisme only is but once administred for this very end that those who often fall into sin through infirmity may likewise by this supper often rise againe be refreshed comforted and get strength against their sinnes and corruptious And is it not then a converting as well as a coâ—firming Ordinance fit for sinners to resort to The Sacraments are by all Divines whatsoever and the very Directory page 52. ever enumerated among the MEANS OF GRACE and SALVATION why then should they not be meanes of converting and begetting grace as well as strengthning and consirming it as your selves affirme Thirdly the very receiving of the Sacrament even in unregenerate persons is for the most part accompanied with such particulars as are most effectual to convert beget grace in mens hearts As first with a previous externall serious examination of their own hearts and estates between God their owne consciences for which there are divers pious rules and directions published in printed books of devotion which most Communicants ordinarily read and make use of before their resort to the Lords Table Secondly a solemne searching out of all their open or secret sinnes and corruptions past or present accompanied with a serious particular private confession of them a hearty contrition and humiliation for them private prayers to God for pardon of yea power and strength against them secret purposes Vowes and resolutions for ever to relinquish war strive fight against them and avoid all occasions which may ensnare them in them Thirdly sundry pious soul-ravishing meditations both in regard of their sinnes Gods mercy and justice Christs merits death passion the end and use of the Sacraments c. which make deep temporary impressions on their hearts spirits and work an extraordinary change both in their resolutions minds spirits conversations for the present and many times for

excommunicated or suspended the Sacrament what will become of most of our Anabaptisticall and Independent Congregations who are generally knowne to abound more with covetous persons extortioners railers then our Parochiall or Presbyteriall Congregations do with idolaters fornicators drunkards I feare their Independent Conventicles and chamber Congregations will be dissolved for want of members of Ministers and their Lords Tables be left empty without Guests if all railers covetous persons and extortioners were excommunicated out of them and this their pretended discipline put into exact execution yea I fear too many Presbyterian Ministers Elders who would be very active in excommunicating suspending others from the Sacrament for fornication idolatry drunkennesse must themselves be first excommunicated from the Lords Table for their owne covetousnesse Wherefore s let such pull that beame out of their owne eye before they passe the sentence of excommunication and suspension for the mâ—tes they spye in their brother's eye and this would much moderate their severity towards others if not make them disclaime this Text to be ment of those Ecclesiasticall censures which would light first and heaviest on themselves Thirdly it is as cleere as the noon-day Sunne that no not to eat in this Text is no more then not to keep company or hold civill familiarity with such First by verse 10 11. I wrote to you in an Epistle NOT TO KEEPE COMPANY with fornicators c. yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world c. for then ye must goe out of the world as those must doe who would have unmixt churches and communions without any putred members But now have I written unto you NOT TO KEEP COMPANY If any man that is called a brother be a fornicator c. with such a one NO NOT TO EAT By which it is most cleer that no not to eat with such is nothing else but * not to keep company or converse familiarly with them it being here twice together thus interpreted in the preceding words And that it cannot be meant of eating with them at the Lords Table is most cleere because this inhibition extends it selfe though not in the same strictnesse to fornicators idolaters covetous persons c. that are Infidels and without the Church as well as to him that is called a brother and within the Church as is evident by verse 10 11 12 13 compared together Therefore it must of necessity be meant of civill conversation with them of which eating together with others and sitting with them at our or their Tables is one principall branch being one of the highest expressions of outward friendship and familiarity as is evident by Gen. 43. 16 17. 32 33 34. 2 Sam. 12. 28. 33. 2 Kings 2. 7. Psal. 41. 9. John 13. 18. and disdaining to eat with one the greatest token of estrangednesse or want of familiarity one with another Gen. 43. 32. compared with John 4. 7 8 9. Secondly this is further confirmed by these parallel Texts of Rom. 16. 17. Eph. 5. 7. 12. 2 Thes. 3. 14. Tit. 3. 10. 2 John 10. 2 Tim. 3. 10. which interpret no not to eat here by these phrases of avoyding them turning away from and rejecting them not to keep company or have fellowship with them nor to welcome theâ— into our houses neither of which amounts to an excommunication or suspension which are judiciall acts of the whole Church or Presbytery after legall proofe and conviction whereas these acts of not eating avoiding or not keeping company c. are all onely morall or prudentiall acts of particular Christians or Voluntary negative actions not positive judiciall publike Church censures Object But our Opposites object that though this Text be not directly meant of excommunication or suspension from the Sacrament yet it warrants such mens suspension from tht Lords Supper by necessary consequence For if we may not so much as eat and drinke with raylers drunkards covetous persons c. at our owne their or other mens Tables much lesse may we doe it at the Lords Table Answ. I answer that the Argument is meerly sophisticall fallacious and not properly any formal Argument from the lesse to the greater because itvaries in the kind of eating the one being civill the other spirituall the one private in ones own house or anothers where he hath absolute freedome or liberty to eat or not to eat with another the other pulik in the Church where he hath a divine command necessitating him to communicate with others of that Congregation in the Sacrament as well as in other Ordinances Every Argument from the lesse to the greater that is conclusive must have sundry qualifications to make it solid I will instance but in three First it must be in the same kind of action Secondly it must fall under the same precept Thirdly it must be within the compasse of the same power If either of these faile the Argument is a meere Inconsequent For instance This is a solid Argument Men ought to abstaine from the smallest sinnes Ergo much more from the greatest sins because this holds still to the same kind sinne and abstaining from the greatest sins fals under the same precept which forbids the least So this is a firme Argument He that can make a little Watch or ball can likewise make one somewhat greater because it in the same kind of manufacture and both of them within the virge of the Artificers skil But on the contrary these inferences are unsound and inconcludent A man must not keep company with an angry man Prov. 22. 24. Ergo he must not joyne with him in any publike Ordinances or acts of Gods worship or A man must not sweare vainly by the Name of God which is the lesse Ergo he must not swear solemnly before a Magistrate which is the the greater because there is in these a variation in the kind occasion and manner of swearing So it is unlawfull for any Christian to recompence evill for evill in the least kind nor to avenge himselfe for the least wrong Rom. 12. 17. 19. Therefore it is unlawfull for any Christian Magistrate to recompence evill for evill or inflict the highest degree of Vengeance on Malefactors even death and capitall punishments is a meet Nonsequitur because this publike revenge by way of justice fals not under the same precept with privat reveng So such a workman is able to make a boat or ditch which is the lesse ergo he is able to build a Ship or Fort which is the greater is an Inconsequent because they fal not under the self-same degree of art ability To apply this to the objected text Not eating with scandalous persons at meales in private differs in manner kind from eating with them at the Lords Table in publike they fal not both under the self-same precept and we have free power not to eat bread with those at our own Tables with whom we have no power or liberty left us by Christ to refuse to

Reformation and oft stiled a THE ADVERSARY of it when as God who b knowes his heart and those men who are acquainted with his person and intentions will acquit him from this calumny and know him to be as great as cordiall an Advancer of Reformation as any of his Accusers Secondly these foure Questions have been conceived and reported to be a grand obstruction to the work of Reformation and settlement of Church-Discipline yea purposely published to obstruct it When as intentionally and really they doe by moderating irreconcilable extreames tend onely to facilitate and expedite this much desired work which he cordially desired might be speedily accomplished to prevent the dangerous encrease of Errours and Scismes which multiply daily in our Church Thirdly they are apprehended to strike at the very root of Excommunication and absolutely to deny it in case of grosse and scandalous sinnes when as it onely tends to remove those sandy foundations whereon some would build it to prevent and regulate all probable abuses of it in its originall establishment and confine it to its due bounds to prevent as farre as possible might be al just scandall and prophanation of holy things in the people and Arbitrary Government Tyranny Oppression and Lording it over Gods Ordinances Heritage and mens consciences in the Ministers and Presbitery as the expresse words thereof demonstrate Fourthly it is conceived that their principall end was to deprive Presbyteriâ—s of their due jurisdiction conferred on them by divine right when as there is not one sillable in them to that purpose but onely to regulate their power by Gods Word to controle the Arbitrary Tyrannicall usurpations of some Indâ—pendent Ministers who take upon them an exorbitant jurisdiction not onely to exclude whom themselves please from the Sacrament without any legall admonition or conviction of ignorance or scandall but likewise refuse publikely to administer the Lords Supper to their Congregations or Parishoners for sundry moneths nay yeers together yea to those against whom they have no just exceptions and who tender themselves to their Examination desiring to be excluded if found ignorant or unworthy for feare of delivering it to some whom they before conviction deeme scandalous or unworthy as they pretend or rather in good truth only because they will not joine with them in their new Independent ways and Covenants Fifthly it hath been suggested that it layes a tax â—pon our Ministers and intended Presbyteries as if they desired Papall Tyrannicall authoriy over mens consciences when as it tends onely to prevent such Papall Episcopall abuses of Excommunications and Suâ—pensions which may possibly creep into them by degrees if not carefully provided against in the originall settlement of their authority by strict and punctuall Lawes there being no authority so good so necessary in Church or State but by reason of their corruptions who manage it may be abused to tyranny and oppression especially if not bounded And we find by Histoâ—y and experience that these Church censures have bin as grosly abused as tyrannically managed by rigid Anabaptists and Seperatists as Popes Prelats poâ—sibly may be so by Presbyteries These prejudices and mis-apprehensions being removed I shall next proceed to the exceptions against the substance or subject matter of them wherein to avoyd mistakes be pleased to observe First that it is confessed yea agreed by the Opposites that Excommunication or suspension from the Sacrament is a matter of grand concernment fit now to be established with as much deliberarion caution circumspection and care as possible may be to prevent prophanation scandall on the one hand and Arbitrary Papall Tyrannicall domineering over mens consciences christian liberties all abuses of this power on the other hand and that it is a matter of very great difficulty thus to settle it it is as readily yeelded on the other side that grosse notorious scandalous obstinate sinners who presumptuously persevere in their iniquities after private and publike admonitions without remorse of conscience or amendment may be justly excommunicated from the Church the society of the faithfull and all publike Ordinances after due proofe and legall conviction of their scandalous lives and that 1 Cor. 5. 13. warrants thus much notwithstanding the various readings and interpretations of that Text So that thus farre there is no dissent on either part Secondly it is accorded on both sides in words at least though not in practice that no Minister may ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ can in point of power or conscience refuse to adminiâ—â—er the Sacrament to any member of his Church not actually excommunicated after sundry admonitions and publike reprehensions for some grosse scandalous crime who earnestly desires to receive it in case he publikely professeth his sincere repentance for his sinnes past and promise amendment of life for time to come though the â—inister or Presbytery in their owne private opinions may have a hard prejudicate opinion of his unfitnesse or unworthinesse to receive it These Agreements on both sides premised which will in a manner determine the greatest controversie and rectifie the mistakes between us I proceed to the matters in difference which are these First whether there he any precept or president in Scripture for the suspending of any Member of a particular Church or Congregation from the Sacrament of the Lords Supper only who is not at the same time excommunicated and utterly sequestred from the Church the society of the faithfull and all other publike Ordinances there used as Prayer Preaching Fasting Catechizing singing of Psalmes and the like And whether the d Texts of the old or new Testament quoted in the first Question and in the Margin here warrant any such partiall excommunication or suspension from the Lords Table but not from preaching the Word and other publike Ordinances This I positively deny from the pregnancy and words of these Texts of Scripture backed by the judgement and practice of Antiquity in the purest times as I shall prove at large anon Neither hath the Author of the Antidote against four dangerous Questions nor the Reverend Preacher in his Sermon at St. Margarets before the Commons House who undertook to refute them produced one dram of Scripture or solid reason to refute it the latter not so much as taking notice of this Question the onely thing there controverted but utterly mistaking it whiles he charged the Questionist with mistakes Secondly whether Matth. 18. 16 17. If thy brother trespasse against thee c. tell it to the Church c. be properly meant of excommunication of suspension from the Sacrament The Opposites affirme I deny it The only reason they have rendred in Presse or Pulpit why this text should and must be intended of a sentence of excommunication given by the Church is because the text saith let him be to thee as an heathen man and a publican that is as one quite cast out of the Church which must be only by excomunication whereby men are cast out of

it no private christian as they affirme having any authority to esteem his brother as a heathen and publican if the Church hath not first cast him out for then he may esteem one man of the Congregation thus and after that another and so all the Membets of it and at last the whole Church by degrees by his owne authority which to doe say they is a great absurdity sinne and inconvenience But this reason under correction is very infirme inconcludent if not false and absurd For first Heathens were no excommunicate persons being never Members of the Jewish or Christian Church and therefore uncapable of any excomunication out of it Excomunication being peculiar only to Church-members as St. Paul expresly determines 1 Cor. 5 10 11 12. and Aretius in his definition of Excomunication cited in the first Question And as for Publicans if they were not heathens but Jews as e some of them were we never find them excommunicated from any of Gods Ordinanâ—es as they were Publicans but partakers of them To make then an excommunicate person and an Heathen a Publican Synonimaes is at best an incongruity if not a contradictioÌ„ SecoÌ„dly the genuine sense of this expression not elswhere used in Scripture and f no forme at all of any excomuniâ—ation practised by the Jewes Let him be to thee a Heathen and a Publican in the judgment of the best Interpreters is no more but this keepe not any familiar company or have no civill fellowship with him but avoyd his company and fellowship as Paul expresly interprets it elswhere 1 Cor. 5. 10 11 12. 2 Thes. 3. 14. Eph. 5. 11. Rom. 16. 17. or receive him not into thy house neither bid him God speed as St. John renders it 2 John 10. Which phrase was derived from the practice of the Jewes and Pharises in that age who shunned the very company of heathens and publicans not in publike Ordinances or Sacraments in which heathens certainly had no communion or society with them being no Members of their Church but only in civill conversation whereupon they taxed Christ for keeping compauy with publicans and sinners Mat. 9. 10 11. ch. 11. 19. ch. 21. 31. 32. Mark 2. 15 16. Luke 18. 11 12 13. ch. 15. 1 2. though some of them beleevee on and received him when the Scribes and Pharises who disdained their company did reject him Luke 7. 29. ch. 15. 2 2 3. ch. 19. 2. to 12. Mat. 21. 31 32. And as the Jewes then avoyded all civill familiar society with Publicans g whom they generally hated for their covetousnesse and extortion so also with Heathens with whom they might not inter marry nor familiarly converse Deut. 7. 2 4. Josh. 24. 12 13 Neh. 13. 27. to 31. Ezr. ch. 9. 10. Ps. 116. 34 35. Act. 21. 28 29. Whence we read The Jewes had no dealing or conversation with the Samaritans John 4 9 nor they with the Jewes Luke 9. 52 53. If then let him be to thee as a heathen and a publican be no more then keep not civill company fellowship or familiar conversation with him who obstinately trespasseth against thee after private admonition and publike complaint or avoid intimate familiarity with him then every christian hath free power by Gods word to do this without any danger of sin or scandall before any private or publike censure of excommuncation passed against him by the Church as is cleer by 1 Cor. 5. 9. 11. 2 Thes. 3. 14. Rom. 16. 17. Pro. 22. 24 25. Ps. 101. 4 5 7. 2 Tim. 3. 2 3 4 5. 2 John 10. 11. Therefore by the self-same reason may he avoid the company of any other brother or the Members of an whole particular Congregation severally without sin or guilt if he or they continue impenitent in the case of private injuries or trespasses against him after admonition Wherefore this Answer of theirs is both erronious and impertinent Now that this Text of Matthew so mvch insisted on is not meant of excommunication or Church-censures and that the h Church in this text was not any ecclesiastical Consistory but only the i Saâ—hedrim or Court of civil justice among the Jews commonly called the Councel in other Texts is apparent to me for these ensuing reasons never yet answerd by the Opposites First because it speaks not at all of any publike scandalous sin against the Church or Congregation the proper Object of Church-censurs but onely of prâ—vate civill trespasses betweene man and man as is evident by the words If thy brother trespasse against THEE goe and tell him his fault between him and thee c. which Saint Luke relating without any Die Ecclesiâ— Luke 17. 3 4. puts out of question if compared with Gen. 52. 31. 1 Sam. 25. 28. Now the puniâ—hment of such trespasses belonged properly to their temporall Magistrates not to their Ecclesiasticall Consistory as the 1 Sam. 2. 29. Deut. 10. 16 18 19 20. ch. 25. 1 2. 2 Chron. 19. 9. 6. Exod. 21. 6. 22. chap. 22. 8 9. prove Secondly because the following words ver. 16. If he refuse to heare thee take with theâ— one or two more that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established relate onely to the manner of trying civill capitall crimes as murthers and the like before the civill Magistrates of the Jewes which was by two or three witnesses Num. 25. 30. Deut. 17. 6 7. chap. 19. 5 6. not to any proceedings in Ecclesiastical causes in their Ecclesiastical CoÌ„sistories of which we find no president Thirdly because tell it to the Church the Assembly or Congregation in the 17. verse is not meant of any Presbyteritall or Ecclesiasticall Classis which had Cognizance of private trespasses there being no such among the Jewes but only of the * civill Court of Justice which the Scripture commonly cals the Councell which had power which no meer Ecclesiasticall Consistory can doe to scourge imprison torture and outlaw offenders if not to condemnâ— put to death but not properly to excommunicate them Matth. 5. 22. chap. 10. 17. c. 5. 26 27 59. 60. chap. 27. 1 2. Marke 13. 9. Acts 4. 3. to 22. chap. 5. 17. to 40. chap. 6. 12 13 14 15. chap. 25. 15. to 29. chap. 24. 20. Fourthly because he addes If he will not heare the Church What then not let the Church excommunicate or suspend him from the Sacrament or put him out of the Sinagogue or cast him out from them or deliver him to Satan or denounce an Anathema Maranatha against him or cut him off from his people the onely phrases in other Texts alleaged for proof of Excommunication but lâ—t him be as an Heathen man and a Pâ—blican a phrase never used elswhere in Scripture which cannot properly signifie excommunication because Heathen men being never Members of the Church could never be excommunicated or cast out of it being un capable of such a censure As for Publicans those of them who were members of the

Selected quad for the lemma: christian_n

Text snippets containing the quad