Linguistic DNA - Concept Modelling Demonstrator

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
church_n	bind_v	earth_n	loose_v	5,255	5	10.5190	5	true

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A62859	An addition to the Apology for the two treatises concerning infant-baptisme, published December 15, 1645 in which the author is vindicated from 21 unjust criminations in the 92 page of the book of Mr. Robert Baille, minister of Glasgow, intituled Anabaptisme and sundry materiall points concerning the covenant, infants-interest in it, and baptisme by it, baptism by an unbaptized person, dipping, erastianism and church-government, are argued, in a letter, now enlarged, sent in September 1647, to him / by John Tombes . ..	Tombes, John, 1603?-1676.	1652 (1652)	Wing T1794; ESTC R11324	36,211	48

loosing burdens rather then prisoners which is confirmed in that the phrase is not whomsoever but what things soever ye shall bind on earth Mat. 18. 18. and this may very well stand with the coherence signifying Gods ratifying in heaven the Commands of the Apostles and the Church on earth in the matters wherein they are to be obeyed v. 17. and so the binding and loosing belongs not to vindicative judicature as by Excommunication but to Stewardly declarative authority what is to be done or not to be done and consequently proves not juridical Excommunication I add that Mr. Gillespy in his Aarons rod blossoming book 3. c. p. 412 413. will not have binding and loosing by a dogmatical authoritative declaration of the will of Christ here excluded but proves this sense from Mat. 28. 20. Acts 15. 28. and from the coherence with the 17. v. As for 1 Cor. 5. 5. Mr. Rutherfurd cha. 9. 4 5. page 329. denieth not many learned Protestants to conceive that delivering to Satan might be a bodily punishment or conjoined therewith c. yea he addeth and the learned Molineus denyeth delivering to Satan to be expounded of Excommunication and will have the destruction of the flesh to be some bodily tormenting of his Body by Satar and so do sundry of the Fathers especially Ambrose Hieronymus Augustinus and Chrysostome though Augustin be doubtful which if true it will be hard to prove juridical Excommunication now contended for from thence And for the 13. v. if it be read as it may And ye shall put away not therefore put away {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} not {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} the evil thing not the evill person as it 's said to be in a Manuscript copy at Saint James and is the more likely because it seemes to many learned men that the Apostle tooke these phrases {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} v. 2. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} v. 3. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} or {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} from the Greek version Deut. 17. 5 7. and 22. 21 22 24. it will note not a command but an event and so it may be either expounded impersonally as Deut. 17. 7. ye shall put away the evil that is the evil shall be put away from you or if it be referred to their action they may be said to do it because they mourned that he might be taken away ver. 2. and it was to be done when they were gathered together ver. 4. now the phrase of taking away from them compared with those places in Deuteronomy with the Apostles speech ver. 5. is more likely to be meant of killing then Excommunicating And the putting it ver. 13. in such an abrupt manner like to that Deut. 17. 7. doth give great cause to imagine it hath the same sense But if it be a command and be referred to Excommunication with the judging them that are withir ver. 12. yet it cannot be gathered from the text that this was the juridical Excommunication contended for invested in some Officers or the people with the Officers as superiour judges but rather by verses 9 10 11 12. precedent this judging and putting away belongs to every private Christian jointly in a constituted Church or severally by themselves I have read Mr. Gillespies Aarons rod blossoming and I think the strength of all is in the 9. chapter of his 2. book in which I doubt whether any of his 21. arguments will prove such a forensical Ecclesiastick government as he contends for The argument from two distinct governments and judicatories to censure vicious manners in which Mr. Gillespy in his first book seemes to be most elaberate in the Jewish policy to prove the like to be among Christians is many wayes faulty It will hardly be proved the Priests had peculiar cognizance of scandalous manners or that any was kept from the sacrifices for moral uncleannesse much lesse that the reason is good men were kept away for legal uncleannesse from the sacrifices Ergo much more for moral or exclusion for legal pollution typifies exclusion for moral in the Christian Church You say truly in answer to Mr. Cotton first part of your Dissuasive chap. 7. pag 172. There is no argumenting from symbolick types except where the spirit of God in Scripture applâ—es a type to such a signification and use Nor is the Jewish policy a patterne for us If it were we must have a Bishop answering to an High Priest a Parliament consisting of Bishops and Nobles as they had their Synedrium at Jerusalem of Priests and Elders of the People These arguments cannot stand without asserting that the Jewish judicial lawes binde still I have bin the larger in this because in some writings especially of your Nation to be an Erastian is now counted an high crime and if the advice of the Assembly concerning a confession of faith chap. 30. should be established as a law assertion of a Church-government corrective of manners by censures in a juridical way would be pressed on us as of Divine institution distinct from the Civil Magistrate which I conceive it concerns the Assertors better to prove then yet appears they have done or else they will in pressing it on others usurpe dominion over other mens fiath But sure in many particulars I am not of Erastus his minde and therefore you do ill to terme me a compleate Erastian And though I find not by Bullingers and Gualther's letters to him Beza's preface to his answer to his theses Philip Pareus his Relation of his fathers life and other wayes but that Erastus had the repute of a werthy man yet I take it all at your hands to be named by any name but Christs as you and your fellow-Commissioners did take exception at the Apologetical narration of the five brethren for calling some Churches Calvinian But how do you prove me to be a compleat Erastian SECT. XVIII Of the eighteenth Crimination that I avow no scandalous professor ought to be kept from the Lords Table YOu say that I avow that no scandalous professor ought to be kept from the Lords Table and for proof you referre your Reader to the letters N N where some words of mine are recited out of my Apology page 92. which avow not any thing but my doubt nor that of the thing it self but of the proofe and that not out of any Scripture whatsoever but onely the fact of delivering to Satan the incestuous Corinthian 1 Cor. 5. 5. Nor do I expresse my doubt to be how from that it may be concluded that any scandalous professor ought to be kept from the Lords Table but how hence may be concluded any power of suspension from the Lords Suâ—per for every emergent scandal so judged by a Congregation or Congregational Presbytery Yea to shew how ready you are to mis-report me in the very next page of my Apology I have these words And if

troubles many and is of very frequent occurrence in a place that lead me to speak of it But it seems neither Mr. Marshall nor your self are willing to let any thing passe that may make me odious or ridiculous though you do but shew your own inconsideratenesse and uncharitablenesse the like dealing you use towards me in the following charges SECT. XVII Of the seventeenth Crimination That I am a compleate Erastian wherein reason is given of my doubt that in Scripture no such juridicall Excommunication is appointed as is now contended for YOu say Fourthly to shew how little inclineable he is to joine with the Anabaptists he declares himself a compleat ERASTIAN Sir what I said and to what end I expressed plainly enough in my Apology page 91. The occasion of printing what I conceived was a passage in Mr. Marshalls Defence which he stuffed with all the exceptions he could thrust in against my person but answered little or nothing punctually in the maine points of the dispute which praevarication I may perhaps in time discover also in your dispute chap. 5. of your ANABAPTISME The occasion of speaking in private conference was to shew my sensiblenesse of the misery of the Land by reason of the present differences upon some speech that was moved by some friend of mine as I remember when the Assembly brought into the House of Commons their Petitior desiring power to suspend persons from the Lords Supper for all scandals without restriction and asserted the Presbyterian Government unto which they advised the Parliament to be jure Divino by the will and appointment of Jesus Christ What I spake then and since printed was to shew my compassion of my native Countrey like to be ruined by the violent asserting things disputable to be ure Divino and thereby necessitating men to oppose lest conscience be brought in bondage according to the Apostles warning Col. 2. 20. It was not as you say to shew how little inclineable I am to â—oine with the Anabaptists Nor did I declare my selfe a Compleat ERASTIAN in the words you alleadge at the letters NN out of my Apology as you charge me but only expresse my doubts much lesse did I declare my self a compleate ERASTIAN that is in your sense one that holds with ERASTUS in all things wherein he differs from BEZA in the disputes between them For whereas there are two main points in difference between them Excommunication and the mixt Presbytery Concerning this latter my words in my Apology speak nothing against it but rather for it when I say And if any Assembly of Ministers and Rulers be set up for the better discovery of such as live viciously or do contrary to the Christian faith or worship that a person be not charged with those evils upon uncertain reports I think it agreeable to Gods will 1 Tim. 5. 19. And whereas Mr Gillespy in his Aarons rod blossoming page 249. hath these words Erasâ—us pag. 175. hath not spared to say that the Magistrate may in the New Testament though he might not in the Old exercise the Ministeriall functior of he can have so much leasure from his other imployments and pag. 315. in very truth the Erastians do oppose not only the institution but the Lawfulnesse and agreeablenesse to the word of God of a Church-government distinct from the civill yet you cannot shew that I hold either of these positions I confesse I have read ERASTUS his Theses Confirmatio thesium but I could not do it so exactly as I would have done it if I had had Beza's book to compare with it I have read that which Mr. Rutherford disputes against Erastus but it doth not satisfy me in that he dictates many things without proof which are most necessary to be proved and proves something by the sayings of Authors that deserve to be examined and many times omits in reciting his Antagonists words that which is either most or very material and makes not his own answers punctual which things Mr. Mather also chargeth him with about another point besides many incoherent and imperfect speeches and inserting things impertinent Besides in this dispute I conceive Mr. Rutherford doth yield that which overthroweth that which he concludeth for As when in his Divine right of Church-government chap. 4. q. 1. page 223. he hath these words It is evident from the text Mat. 18. 15. that Christ speaks of such sins in a speciall manner committed against me or a particular brother which are within the verge of my power or his to pardon as not being yet publickly scandalous which if true then it can be meant onely of personal injuries which alone a private person hath power to pardon and so is not an institution how to correct scandals under that notion which Mr. Gillespy contends so much for in his Aarons rod blossoming book 2. chap. 9. page 295. and book 3. chap. 2. As for his aâ—gument from proportior Christ did appoint this to be done in case of civill inâ—uries much more in scandals it hath no strength to impose a thing as by Divine institution upon mens consciences yea it is no better then a humane invention when only gathered by such reasoning such arguments from proportions being weak probations as rightly Mr. Rutherford Due right of Presbyteries chap. 2. sect. 2. page 37. and all Logicians acknowledge that an argument Ã comparatis is but Topical yea easily overthrown if any disparity be assigned And this is enough though much more may be said to shew that Mat. 18. 15 16 17. is impertinently alleadged though it be one of the chief texâ—s urged importunately for Church-government by Prelates Independents Presbyterians even the Assembly it self Advice concerning a Confession of faith chap. 30. art 2 4. to prove a power of excommunicating for sins as scandalous and so all scandals And for the power of the keyes Mat. 16. 19. Mr. Rutherford chap. 3. q. 1. pag. 236. makes the power of the keyes to belong to Church-Rulers that are the Stewards of the house and the dâ—spensers of the heavenly mysteries but this may be only preaching the Gospel of which the Apostle speaks 1 Cor. 4. 1. which place is impertinently alleadged in the Assemblies confession of faith chap. 27. art 4. to prove neither Sacrament may be dispensed by any but a Minister of the word lawfull ordained the Scripture no where calling the Sacraments mysteries but the doctrine of the Gospel however the Greek Fathers oft call them so As for binding and loosing though I conceive Dr. Hammond hath more exactly disputed this matter in his book of the power of keyes chap. 4. then others yet I conceive it more agreeable to other places in Matthew leaving Mr. Selden to justify his explication in his preface to his book of the Calender of the Jewes out of the Talmudists as he conceives fit as Mat. 23. 4. 11. 28. besides Acts 15. 28. Revel. 2. 24. Luke 11. 46. to draw the Metaphor from binding and

Selected quad for the lemma: church_n

Text snippets containing the quad