Selected quad for the lemma: church_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
church_n	body_n	particular_a	unite_v	3,071	5	9.8162	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A81720	A boundary to the Holy Mount, or a barre against free admission to the Lords Supper. In answer to an humble vindication of free admission to the Lords Supper. Published by Mr. Humphrey minister of Froome in Somersetshire. Which humble vindication, though it profess much of piety and conscience, yet upon due triall and examination, is found worthy of suspension, if not of a greater censure. By Roger Drake minister of Peters Cheap London.	R. D. (Roger Drake), 1608-1669.	1653 (1653)	Wing D2129; Thomason E1314_2; ESTC R209198	85,461	218

conspire to admit unworthy ones out of by-respects as they likewise may do of the Minister But all this doth not countenance the admission of any who may be regularly suspended no more then of him who is to be excommunicated but is not through corruption of the Eldership For his fourth Consideration Pag. 26. we grant the Gospel is the Gospel of peace c. yet it s as true that whereever it comes it occasions war not of its own nature but by means of humane corruption Mat. 10.34 35. and that by means of separation which it makes whereever it comes And is it any wonder then that the seals of this Gospel by making separation make also division Where the promises are not applicable so much as visibly there sure the seals of those promises are not applicable the deniall whereof yet must needs vex hypocrites who by this means are pried into and uncased as a soul-searching Ministry doth and no wonder then if the devil of contention be conjured up and Gods Jeremies who separate the precious from the vile be men of contention to the whole Earth Cain will be angry if Abel finde better acceptance then himself and hypocrites who care least for reall goodness yet are very ambitious of all the priviledges of piety and proclaim war against such as deny them though never so justly as the Pharisees did against our Saviour but I pray who deserve blame for this contention Gods faithfull Ministers or hypocrites themselves who by visible unworthiness deprive themselves of those priviledges and yet malign Christs Stewards who dare not be so lavish and prodigall of their Masters provisions as these persons would have them What therefore he adds by way of rhetoricall amplification is frivolous as to his purpose since none are Saints but such sinners and none to be approved for Saints by the Church but such as acknowledge themselves great sinners But the question is Whether such as think themselves righteous though easily convinceable of gross ignorance or wickedness as the Pharisees are to be admitted to this Sacrament amongst humbled and repenting sinners His provision inserred in his third Edition pag. 17. will stand him in little stead since his very stating the question overthrows his great Diana of free Admission For 1. He will have free Admission and yet himself rails about the Communion Table from Infants distracted persons c. He that cries out of Suspension yet takes upon himself to suspend a world of persons far more worthy then or not so unworthy as many he presumes to admit Shall the Lords Supper be free for blasphemers murderers c. and not free for Infants distracted persons c. 2. If he can prove it is against Scripture-order and decency to admit to the Lords Supper a person visibly worthy though unbaptized I will easily prove its more against order and decency to admit to the Lords Supper a person visibly unworthy though baptized Had Constantine the great and Julian the Apostate been contemporary I should rather have admitted the former to receive when unbaptized then the latter though baptized 3. Whatever Mr. H. insinuates in the close of his Provision we are as much both for Order and for the Ordinances as himself and could not the Ordinances be had without disorder we had rather dispence with Order then part with the Ordinances The difference then between us is this We plead for and blessed be God injoy the Lords Supper with order and decency Mr. H. pleads for it and injoyes it with disorder and confusion whatever he pretends in his Provision to the contrary His second Argument he draws from the nature of the visible Church which he defines or describes to be a number of such as make profession of Jesus Christ and so are Saints by calling whatever they are in truth The essentiall marks whereof whereby it subsists as visible is the preaching of the Word and administration of the Sacraments Now unless men will be so bold as to divest our mixed Congregations and so consequently all England formerly of the name of the visible Church they cannot take from us one of its essentiall notes in the free use of this Ordinance Answ 1. His description is liable enough to exception since a visible Church strictly is not a bare number of Professors but of such as combine for Church ends The Church is a Corporation and not members as so make a body but as united either by virtuall or actuall consent c. and that either in their distinct Societies which we call Parishes or particular Congregations or in their Representees and Officers delegated for the publick concernment of particular Churches either in a Classis Province Nation divers Nations or the whole world whence arise Classicall Provinciall Nationall or Oecumenicall Assemblies c. But supposing this to be his meaning though not so clearly expressed 2. I ask him in the next place Whether all Professors or Saints by calling are eo nomine to be admitted to the Lords Supper if so then why doth he shut out children and distracted persons who are as truly Saints by calling and professors as others It s apparent then that outward profession is not the ultimate reason of admission unless accompanied with sutable knowledge and conversation at least visibly and that gross ignorance appearing or a scandalous conversation do so far contradict Mr. H. his outside profession as to make that person for present visibly unworthy 3. Taking it for granted that the Word and Sacraments are notes of a true visible Church how doth it follow that ours are not true Churches unless every particular member may partake of the Lords Supper How many children and servants were in the daies of the Prelates kept from the Lords Supper till they could give some tolerable account of their faith and of the nature and use of the Sacrament yet never was such a mad inference as this drawn from it that therefore the Church of England was not a true visible Church And certainly if the deniall of some Church priviledge though unjustly were enough to un-Church a people I scarce know where there is any one true visible Church in all the world 4. Therefore let all the world take notice of the too too gross fallacy of this Argument The Word and Sacraments are notes of a true visible Church Ergo Without free admission we have no true visible Church May not any ordinary capacity easily discern there are four tearms in this Syllogisme The Syllogisme should run thus The Word and Sacraments are essentiall notes of a true visible Church Ergo without the Word and Sacraments there is no true visible Church But that Mr. H. saw well enough would conclude nothing against us who blessed be God have both Word and Sacraments and therefore in stead thereof against the known rules of Logick he shuffles in free Admission into the conclusion which was not at all in the premises A clear evidence he is more

himself if he will urge it in order to the Sacrament since its evident Christ here makes a distinction and separation and 1. Would not have all admitted and 2. In particular he rejects sound and righteous ones namely that were so in their own conceit and such were most of the Pharisees and do we suspend any others then those who ate wiser in their own eyes then seven men that can render a reason and fitter for the Lords Supper if themselves may be judges then the best of the approved or approvers Pag. 22. His third instance is John 8. from the woman taken in adultery accused by the Pharisees but not condemned by our Saviour Answ 1. Doth this man take the Scripture for a nose of wax that he perverts it so grosly cither through ignorance instability or prejudice to say no worse what is this to our Sacramentall triall The Pharisees came to trap Christ with a practicall case and a civill case John 8.5 6. Had Christ bid them stone her he had been accused to the Romans as stirring the Jews up to act the supreme power which was taken from them by the Romans see John 18.31 Had he forbid them to stone her he had been slandered to the Jews as an enemy to and contradictor of the Law of Moses Our Saviour at first waves answering to so captious a question ver 6. But when that would not satisfie their malicious importunity he gives them so wise an answer as 1. He avoyded both extreams and 2. He caught them who came to catch him And for the woman though he condemn not her person either to civill death as being no civill Judge Luk. 12.14 nor eternally as not coming in the state of humiliation to destroy but to save Luk. 9.56 John 12.47 yet he condemns her sin and gives her good counsel John 8.11 What is this to our keeping persons visibly unworthy from the Sacrament and that by just authority in a publick and judiciall way I wonder this man doth not now condemn the civill Magistrate for executing adulterers incestuous persons Sodomites c. which Christ and his Apostles would not 1 Cor. 5.1 6 9 11. onely they judged them spiritually shewed them the danger of those sins and Gods mercy in pardoning and purging them Are not many justly cut off both by the Civill and Ecclesiasticall Sword whom yet Christ as absolute Lord of life and death may pardon Shall not man do justice because Christ shews mercy Had this woman been stoned to death had that been any barre to Christs Pardon The most righteous Judge in the world is conscious of the seeds of incest murder c. in himself shall he not therefore condemn such persons legally convicted before him The most pious Minister or Church Officer is conscious of the like shall he not therefore either suspend or excommunicate such persons when legally converged and convicted upon just triall David himself was actually guilty both of murder and adultery was it ever after unlawfull for him as a King and Judge to condemn such persons Indeed the consciousness of our own weakness and guilt should make us put forth such acts with abundance of self-reflection and pity to such offenders but hath not the leaft shew of warrant to root up or make void the power of triall and judgement either in Church or State Foolish pitty mars a City in this case shall the woolf be spared to worry the sheep If such pity be not the greatest cruelty both to soul and body I know not what is Pag. 22. His fourth reason arises from the vanity formality and impossibility of selecting people to this Ordinance For put the case you will have a gathered company I pray whom do you account to be fit and worthy receivers if not all that make profession as we do mixtly then those only that have an interest in Christ and are true Believers Well but how will you be able to know them The heart of man is deceitfull above all things who can know it And if we can hardly discover our own hearts how shall we ever discern others So that all will come but to those that have the fairest shew those that seem such and you cannot be secured but there may be and will be some hypocrites and so this true partaking as all one body and one blood in such a mixt communion as you pretend vanishes and there can be no such matter But now if men here stand upon a formall purity and will have the outward purest Church they can they go to separating again as we have daily testimony till they are quite separated one from another even as in the peeling of an onyon where you may peel and peel till you have brought all to nothing unless to a few teares perchance with which the eyes of good men must needs run over in the doing Answ 1. Here Mr. Humphrey thinks he hath us fast But let me intreat him not to boast before he put off his harness And that both himself and others may see how wide he roves from the mark we shall deny both his Extreams and tell him that neither bate profession on the one hand nor troth of grace on the other hand is the rule we walk by in admitting persons to the Sacrament if considered quatenus Could not all the art Mr. Humphrey hath think of medium participationis between these two extreams which will do very good service for his conviction and our justification 1. Therefore let him know that we look at his rule of bare profession as a very loose principle which will open a door not onely for the wickedest varlets as murderers c. but also for children and fools contrary to his own principles now in print And indeed if bare prosession were enough to warrant admission to the Sacrament how dares Mr. Humphrey excommunicate any baptized person though he be the wickedest villain that ever Tyburn groaned for since even the worst of them are professors as well as the truest Nathanael Therefore say we Profession if joyned with sufficiency of knowledge in fundamentals and sutable practice in conversation at least negatively that there be no evidence against a person as living after conviction in a known sin this is the rule we walk by in admission to the Sacraments though withall we do not neglect inquiry after truth of grace so far as may stand with charity 2. Let him and the world know that truth of grace in the heart on the other hand is not our rule of admitting to the Lords Supper The reason is because we cannot admit divers persons though we should infallibly know they had truth of grace as 1. Children and fools divers of whom undoubtedly have truth of grace in their hearts and that because they cannot examine themselves nor discern the Lords body according to the rule of the Apostle 1 Cor. 11.28 29. Nor 2. Such who though they have truth of grace yet fall into some foul and scandalous

to the Lords Supper much less is the promiscuous dimission of children to Baptisme any ground of their parents promiscuous dimission to the Lords Supper The parent gives to his child what himself hath namely Church membership but cannot thence claim what is the priviledge of a worthy Church member namely Sacramentall Communion The son of a Jew or Proselyte being clean might eat of the Passeover when at the same time the father in whose right the childe was circumcised being unclean might not partake of that Sacrament A Priests son or daughter might in their fathers right being clean eat of the holy things when at the same time the father himself being unclean was forbid to eat of them Compare Levit. 10.14 Numb 18.11 Levit. 22.4 6. There is par ratio of morall pollutions A wicked parent who deserves the highest degree of excommunication yet being a Church member his childe shall be baptized in his right and by Baptisme be solemnly admitted into the priviledge of Church membership which yet the father injoyes when at the same time the father shall be debarred the priviledge of a worthy Church member namely Sacramentall communion at the Lords Table The parents foederall holiness shall benefit his childe at the very same time when his antifoederall wickedness shall prejudice himself There is then no seam rent in our practices or principles unless it be in Mr. H. his brain which if we can neither draw nor stitch well may it be our sorrow but we trust it shall never be our sin In his third Edition pag. 25. he makes an addition to fortifie his fifth reason by impeaching us That by urging our form as necessary we violate a branch of Christian liberty equalizing Ordinances of men Col. 2.18 20. with Divine Ordinances which humane Ordinances though we might submit to as prudentiall onely yet he dares not suffer them to creep into the seat of God namely conscience It s ill putting Gods Worship upon stilts lest by seeking to advance it higher we give it a fall into dangerous scruples and divisions Answ 1. Let the Reader take notice that in Mr. H. his judgement the putting of a barre to free admission is an humane not a Divine Ordinance Could we be of his faith we would be more against this barre then himself is We bless God that an humane Ordinance doth civilly or ecclesiastically back a Divine Ordinance but like not the pressing of humane inventions upon conscience especially in Divine Worship 2. We ask him whether his excluding of Infants and distracted persons be a Divine Ordinance If so let us see his patent out of Scripture either in tearms or by consequence and if the very same or a like Divine Patent do not exclude all persons visibly unworthy we shall be of Mr. H. his Religion to admit all pell mell 3. Supposing the barre to free admission had been only a prudentiall humane Ordinance I say Mr. Humphrey had done God and the Church more service in submitting to it then in disputing against it since 1. As a prudentiall it is not against the rule of Scripture 2. And therefore might by consequence be deduced from Scripture as a thing 1. Lawfull 2 Expedient 3. Commanded by lawfull authority Civill and Ecclesiasticall yea in the very times of the Prelates And if the lawfull commands of Superiours caeteris paribus be not obligatory to conscience let Mr. H. rase out the fifth Commandment 4. We put Gods Worship no more upon stilts then himself doth excluding onely persons that are visibly uncapable of the Lords Supper and if distracted persons are uncapable in his judgement scandalous persons are more uncapable in our judgement Therefore in his Rejoynder der let him either justifie us or condemn himself His sixth and last Argument is drawn from his innocency in free admission and that upon a sixfold account 1. Because therein he doth but his duty Answ This is but petitio principii the main thing to be proved especially if he lay it down as a generall rule for all Ministers 2. Because he hath no power to turn away any Answ I take this for one of the truest passages in all his book upon supposition that he hath no Presbytery settled in his Congregation But little doth Mr. H. consider how this concession makes against himself and subverts a main argument of his drawn from the example of Judas For supposing him to have been visibly unworthy yet say we Christ as a Minister had no juridicall power to turn him or any other away since he could not legally be both Judge and Witness and there being then no Presbytery constituted to try unworthy Receivers by Which also at this day is the case of most Parishes in England And for my own part I much doubt whether a Minister by his own power can exclude any Church member from the Sacrament 3. Because he hopes the best of all Answ 1. So did the Angel of Ephesus who yet tried and uncased the false Apostles Rev. 2.2 4. 2. So did the Apostle Paul who yet commanded Christians to mark and avoid unworthy Church members Rom. 16.17 1 Cor. 5.11 2 Thess 3.14 15. 3. So must Magistrates yet I hope they may and do condemn Malefactors 4. If this be a good argument may not Mr. H. as well conclude I hope the best of all therefore I will excommunicate none Though charity hope the best yet it is not stark blinde and I think it s no mean point of charity to prevent the ruine of many poor soules who rush on headlong to contract the guilt of the Body and Blood of the Lord. 4. Because he knows God can turn even the worst at this Ordinance if he please Answ 1. Suppose a scandalous Professor actually converted by the preceding exercises at the Sacrament this is not ground enough for the Church to permit him at that time to receive since the rule they walk by is visible worthiness 2. The question is not what absolutely God can do but what God doth or hath undertaken to do Let Mr. H. shew one promise or president for so much as one person coming to the Lords Supper in the state of nature and converted by it or at it 3. Whatever any may be by the exhortation c. at the Sacrament yet the main question is Whether any be converted by actuall receiving the outward Elements who immediately before receiving was unconverted A promise or president in this kinde will be much to the purpose but till then we must crave pardon if we hold not free admission in order to participation though we shall not deny free admission in order to univerfall presence at the whole Service Prove actuall receiving a converting Ordinance and we shall be as zealous for free admission as Mr. H. can be 5. Because he endeavours his utmost de jure that all come prepared Answ 1. So high a commendation were fitter to come out of any mans mouth then Mr. H. Prov. 22.7

there avouches an Vniversall right to every Ordinance they being duties of worship which is of universall command for proof he quotes Isa 66.23 Answ If all be bound to come without exception then why doth himself exclude children and distracted persons Secondly All Christians have a mediate but only prepared Christians an immediate right to the Sacrament as all Israel had a mediate but only purified persons an immediate right to the Passeover Numb 9.10 Thirdly All are obliged to every part of worship but 1. Not at all times since affirmative precepts binde not ad semper 2. Not in all cases as an unconverted person is not bound to praise God for his conversion c. which he hath not To apply the distinction The time of every Sacrament is not a fit season for every person whether it be by his own default or by divine providence 2. In case of present incapacity receiving though an act of worship is not sinfully omitted unlesse that omission be joyned with contempt of the Ordinance His quotation is rather a prediction then a command and supposing it be both yet it must be understood with the forementioned limitations Fourthly In a strict sense Actual receiving is not an act of worship no more then preaching consecrating and distributing the Elements is And if it be not properly an act of worship then his argument falls of it self or if it be in a large sense as the other acts forementioned yet by them its apparent that all persons are not obliged to all acts of worship since only Ministers may preach baptize consecrate and give the Elements which yet in some respect are acts of worship What he adds in the same Paragraph about a poor souls doubting of his right to the Sacrament yet resolved to give up himself to Christ makes little for his purpose the Question is Whether any not resolving to give up himself to Christ ought to receive and whether upon his visible refusall to give up himself to Christ the Minister is bound to give unto him the symbole of Christ Object 6 The Sacrament is not a converting but a confirming Ordinance Ergo. Answ This indeed is one of our grand arguments against free admission and if it be not Cannon-proof our cause must needs be in a great deal of hazard it concerns us therefore to make it good against all M. H. his battery Now for overthrow of this Argument he pretends that our Divines look at Baptisme as converting the Lords Supper as edifying pag. 53. The former he willingly assents to c. The Question is not what some Divines hold but what they should hold For our parts we beleeve no Sacrament understand it as received is a means of Regeneration but only of confirmation and edification and supposing Baptisme be called the Laver of Regeneration Titus 3.5 which yet the place proves not it s only so by way of signification and obsignation not by way of causality In regeneration and conversion the Word is writ in our hearts but can any man either Scripturally or rationally make the seal the cause of the writing Is it not evident that Baptisme doth not cause but presuppose conversion Acts 2.42 yea and profession too in adult is Acts 8.37 and is called by Divines the Seal of Initiation not as it initiates us into a state of saving grace but into the body of the visible Church and as it may seal the truth and benefit of Regeneration to persons converted but not work Regeneration where it is wanting Passing therefore his flourish of denomination à parte eminentiori let us see how he proves the Sacrament to be converting His main Argument is Pag. 55. Because the Sacrament is a visible word holding forth Christ and the Covenant to the sight as the Gospel doth to the hearing And pag. 56. The Sacrament shews forth Christs death 1 Cor. 11.20 Therefore as it doth so it is undoubtedly converting Answ Doth not M. H. know that at the Sacrament there is a mixture of severall Ordinances as prayer preaching or opening the words of institution amp c. And that those may be effectuall means of conversion we deny not upon which account we judge it fitting that whoever will may be present at the Lords Supper as well as at Baptisme But the great Question is Whether actuall receiving be a converting Ordinance And here we challenge the challenger to give any one instance of a person converted by receiving the Lords Supper or to make proof that the act of receiving doth convert The Sacrament indeed is food to nourish but where is it called an immortall seed to beget any to Christ For his glosse page 56. There is in the Sacrament a Take for conversion and an Eat for nourishment It is gratis dictum and would make against the conversion of the Apostles who were commanded to take as well as to eat yet I hope they were not in an unconverted condition 2. Taking and eating do both imply and call for acts of faith but the act of faith must needs presuppose the habit of faith and so conversion He that sayes Take eat supposes a man hath an hand to receive and a mouth to feed on which no uncoverted person hath Object Why may not the command of taking Christ in the Sacrament be an instrument of Conversion as well as the same command is in the word preached Acts 16.31 Answ Because we have neither promise nor president of blessing the command of taking in the Sacrament as we have of blessing the word preached in order to conversion The Word is both seed and food not so the Sacrament which indeed may be food or physick but not a seed of regeneration nor is any where so called in Scripture And to attribute that to an Ordinance which God hath not put in it or to expect that from an Ordinance which God hath not promised to it is will worship an humane invention and a breach of the second Commandment I dare appeal to M. Humphry his conscience upon this account Suppose an unconverted person comes to the Sacrament in his pride and presumption stouts it still against Christ laid before him as crucified in and before the consecration of the Elements by the Ministers explication and exhortation what evidence doth the Scripture give that this man shall be converted by that one word Take uttered by the Minister at the delivery of the Elements I doubt not of Gods power but we must look to his revealed will The Papists say Hoc est corpus meum converts the Elements M. H. sayes Accipite converts the receiver we desire a clear proof of both before we can give credit to either But suppose the word Take as a short and virtual Sermon might convert yet what thinks he of that person who stands out against that word also can he be converted by actuall receiving Then that rule of the Apostle 1 Cor. 11.29 cannot be universally true He that cats unworthily eats judgement to