Selected quad for the lemma: church_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
church_n	hear_v	heathen_a	publican_n	4,379	5	11.4435	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A90729	A full ansvver to a printed paper, entituled, Foure serious questions concerning excommunication, and suspension from the sacrament, &c. Wherein the severall arguments and texts of scripture produced, are particularly and distinctly discussed: and the debarring of ignorant and scandalous persons from the sacrament vindicated.	Palmer, Herbert, 1601-1647.	1645 (1645)	Wing P233; Thomason E302_1; ESTC R200273	24,895	32

think none will deny but to savour of much Moderation and Caution Withall you may remember for sure you know it that in all Courts of Equity or Conscience as they are called much is and necessarily must be left to the discretion of the Iudge which is in some Courts with lesse certainty and lesse remedy also of Appeale in case of wrong or Tyrannie then could be in Elderships if the power desired were settled in them Sixthly you advise the Avoyding of Extremes and the seeming Affectation of a greater Lording power over the Conrciences and Priviledges of Christians and Brethren then of right belongs to them I answer 1. Surely no Lording power at all over Consciences and Priviledges of right belongs to any in the Church of Christ But a Ministeriall Power of judging and censuring scandalous sinners belongs to Church-Officers according to the Word as your selfe cannot but grant if you grant Excommunication at all And if you do not grant Excommunication at all why do you so sedulously bring in the mention of that in three of your Questions and lay so much weight upon it as you plainly do 2. Do not you your self know even by experience that no man can shew zeal against scandalous sinnes but by some and even too many he will seem to runne into Extremes and to affect a Lording over mens Consciences Finally to end these preparatory Animadversions and Answers to your Title Preface and other circumstantiall Passages of your Paper you will be pleased sadly and seriously to consider that all this reproach obliquely cast upon the Assembly in the forementioned Infinuations and others in this Paper do in like fort asperse all the Reformed Churches of Christ that have any Ecclesiasticall Discipline who all practise what the Assembly hath desired And yet further disgraces all the Discipline of the Primitive Church in her purest times which was rather more strict then lesse as hath been in part already manifested to the Parliament and may be more fully if they shall require it And now I come to your four Grand Questions in their order whereof the first is this Whether Matth. 18.16 17. or 1 Cor. 5.5.11 1 Tim. 1.20 be meant properly of Excommunication or Suspension from the Sacrament only I answer first This under your favour is a very impertinent Question to your propounded scope of avoyding Arbitrary Tyrannicall domineering over Consciences and Priviledges For if they prove Excommunication properly which is a greater censure then Suspension then either a greater power proved by the Word must be reproached with Tyranny and Arbitrary unlimitednesse c. or else that load was unjustly cast upon a lesser Power a power of a lesse censure for sure you will not say that it is Tyranny and an Arbitrary unlimited Domineering to deny a Childa meales meat when it would hurt him and none to turn him quite out of doores whereby he may be in danger to starve So that if there be any use of this Question in this dispute it seems to me to be only to perplex the Reader and entangle the businesse And so I might dismisse it But I shall answer distinctly to your Texts First Matth. 18. speaks properly as I suppose of Excommunication as your Quaere intimates Meane while your Glosse you give in a Parenthesis will not hinder it to be meant of either For first though the words are Let him be to thee yet this is not Exclusive to thee and no other but Respective to thee who hast been scandalized And from thence the Argument will be strong 1. If to thee for resusing to heare the Church then to all others who know that he hath refused to heare them for that makes it as much a scandall to them as before it was to thee when thou only knewst it 2. Also binding on earth and binding in heaven when known by the publication of the Churches sentence and thy holding him thereupon as a Heathen and Publican will reach to make him so to others as well as to thee the Complainant Secondly though the words be If thy brother trespasse against thee yet neither is this exclusive nor yet Luke 17. so as that this Rule should extend only to pesonall private trespasses between man and man But contrarily here also the Argument is strong à minori ad majus If thou maist complaine for a private personall trespasse and finally repute him a Heathen and Publican for impenitent obstinacy and not hearing the Church then much more is this to be done in publike scandalous sins against the Congregation or else the publikenesse and scandalousnesse of the sin which are fearfull Aggravations shall obtaine an Impunity and Immunity from that complaint and censure which belongs to a lesser and more private offence which is absurd to imagine But supposing it to be as you contend Let him be to thee not to the Church and that it is for a private trespasse not a publike scanda yet how doth this tend to prove that the place is meant properly of Excommunication and not of Suspension from the Lords Supper only Secondly 1 Cor. 5.5 and 1 Tim. 1.20 which speak of delivering to Satan are properly meant of Excommunication yet neither do they deny Suspension by way of endeavour to prevent the highest censure and for the present preventing of mischiefes to the Offender and the Congregation or those that know his offence or of the dishonour of Christ if such an one being as yet not penitent should approach his holy Table to partake of his Body and Blood of which he will be guilty infallibly if he so come in his sinne Thirdly 1 Cor. 5.11 With such an one no not to eat inferres Suspension first and after Excommunication upon the grounds now mentioned and afterward to be enlarged and applyed even to this Text and proved by it Under your former Question you have another which hath also two branches and so we have three Questions in stead of one in this one Section and we shall see the like afterward You ask What warrant here is in Scripture for Ministers or others to suspend men from the Sacrament and not from the Congregation and all other Ordinances with it A. Because Excommunication is the highest censure of the Church to which men should not proceed till extreme necessity from the Offenders obstinacy compell Mean time it may be evident that if he should be admitted he would dishonour Christ in stead of worshiping him and mischiave his owne soule in stead of doing it good And therefore may fitly in this Interim be suspended for the preventing thereof till it doe appeare whether there will be a necessity of cutting him off by Excommunication And against this none of the forementioned places which you do annex do make opposition And among them 1 Cor. 5. and 2 Thes 3. will give great approbation to Suspension The one requiring no not to eat with a Brother at a common table that is a Fornicator if I can avoid

notorious scandall upon a legall conviction you add Or judicially accused Pendente lite Secondly afterward Quest 4. after the words Not actually excommunicated you add again Or judicially accused of some grosse scandall Pendente lite And thirdly in your conclusion whereas before you said Not actually excommunicated now you say Not actually or preparatorily excommunicated What do you or can you meane by this which destroyes what the rest of your paper builds or builds what that destroyes Do you not to any Readers understanding seeme not to argue against keeping such from the Sacrament who are judicially accused Pendente lite And is not this to grant suspension from the Sacrament before excommunication Let but us obtaine this power with relation to all scandals to keep away such as are judicially accused Pendente lite and we will promise you to ask no more Have you not then with this dash of your pen yeelded us our whole cause and been a Spongia to censure your paper unâ litur● Againe What is to be preparatorily excommunicated but suspended You pretend not to argue against that We desired no more Shall wee be friends then And will you be entertained of our Counsell to plead our Cause so far as these new inserted phrases will beare If so I shall love a second Edition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the better as long as I live Fourthly you interpose these words neere the end of pag. 3. Everie Christian hath a right to the Sacrament 1 Cor. 10.4 5 16 17 18. Mat. 26.27 I answer An Originall Right no man denies as everie free-borne subject hath a right to go abroad to the market or elsewhere without restraint and sue for debts and challenge the protection of the Laws But you will not say but he may forfeit this right for a time he may deserve to be banisht outlawed imprisoned and imprisoned for some accusations even upon suspition In like sort may a man forseit his right to the Sacrament for a time so as to be banisht excommunicated or restrained of this spirituall libertie by suspension which if in some cases it may not be even for suspition yet at least upon unquestionable proofes of scandalous practices Neither do the Text you cite gain-say this For though all the Israelites 1 Cor. 10. are said to eat of the same spirituall meat and to drink of the same spirituall drink yet this was not quâ spirituall meat or drink not as Sacramentall food but a they had no other at all to eat or drink The other verses speak only of the joynt participation of Christians which is not denyed ordinatily And Mat. 26.27 though it sayes Drink yee all of this yet it saith so to none but those that were not convicted of any scandall even Iudas was not proved nor so much as openly named Trayrour or Devill but the Disciples at the Supper say touching themselves Lord is it I no man points at him and saith Lord is it he Therefore neither that speech Drinke yee all of it not Iudas his admission as was roucht before declares all Christions to have such a right to the Sacrament as that they cannot fall from it no not for a time But notwithstanding they have often been admitted they may appeare so unworthy by scandall and impenitence as that they cannot for the present claim that right and it is for his own good also that he cannot claime it as a man in a distraction or violent seaver cannot claime the use of those things that would undoubtedly do him mischief but may be kept from them even from meat drink by those that are about him specially by those that have any power over him Finally you have some marginals the first is Q 1. p. 2. unto the words of 1 Cor. 5.11 With such an one no not to eat Your Margent saith not meant of eating the Sacrament c. I answer Not properly those words at first for the Apostle makes his sentence an argument à minori ad majus you must put away wicked persons out of the Church because with such you must not so much as eat willingly at an ordinary table if you can avoyd it It is granted then that it is meant in familiar civill conversation so that you might have spared all your consequent Texts which yet would hardly prove interpretations of 1 Cor. 5. especially some of them if it were needfull to speak to them particularly But I pray offer but to analize the Apostles Discourse there and make him speak sense in bringing in these words while he was urging them to put away the incestuous Corinthian and so making a rule for other scandalous sinners To what purpose saith he No not to eat but that more is meant you must not so much as eat with him at home therefore much lesse allow him to eat with you in the Congregation Your second Note is to prove Iudas was at the Sacrament I have granted it and so am contented to say no more of it except in thanks for your proofes to requite you with the Answer of your Objection hence and prevention of some other a little more fully then before in the words of the French Catechism which follow The 55. Sunday Q. Ovght the Pastors to whom the Dispensation of the Sacraments is committed to admit every one without any difference A. As for Baptism because now adayes it is only administred to Infants there is no room for any making a difference But in the Lords Supper the Minister ought to take heed that he give it to none who appeares openly to be unworthy Q. Why so A. Because it cannot bee done without reproaching and profaning the Sacrament Q. But did not Christ vonchsafe to Iudas though he was a wicked man the participation of it A. I acknowledge it while as yet his impiety was concealed For though it was not hidden from Christ yet it had not broken out as yet into the light and knowledge of men Q. What must be done then to Hypocrites A. The Pastor cannot put them away as unworthy but must let them alone untill such time as God reveale their wickednesse that it may be known to men Q. What if the Minister himselfe know any man to be unworthy or any hath admonished him of it A. Even this will not suffice to put him from the Communion unlesse hereunto be added a legall cognizance and judgement of the Church upon it Q. It is requisite then to have a certaine setled order of Government in the Church A. It is so For otherwise they are not well managed or rightly regulated Therefore this is the order that Elders be appointed who are to censure mens manners and watch over the scandals that may arise and to debarrt such from the Sacrament as they know to be unworthy and who cannot be admitted without dishonour to God and scandall to the Faithfull Your third note is Q. 3. pag. 3. upon not partaking of other mens sins You say 1 Tim. 5.22 not meant of administving the Sacrament I answer No man sayes it is only meant of that but you have not disproved this to be included which we contend for That to suffer scandalous persons by those that have authority to judge them as you have not yet denied the Eldership to have is to partake of their sins And I think I have proved it But your last Note running along almost all your last page is an admirable one about the Ministers private opinion There if ever you set up a man of straw and sight against him or fight against your own shadow For what Relator or Delator told you this was the Assemblies advice Or what book of Discipline or particular Writer plead for such a Power in a fingle Minister as you oppugn Why then do you insinuate them guilty of going about to introduce the grearest spirituall Tyranny that ever was heard or practised in the Christian world and to make every Minister an absolute Pope I adde and 〈◊〉 then a Pope for a Pope in Church censures hath usually I take 〈◊〉 his Cardinals with him But if we disclaime this will you grant us the rest Will you yeeld that the Eldership upon just proofe may suspend for any scandall If so all is well If not why do you trouble your self and them the world and make men beleeve so vile and odious a slander of them as thousands will beleeve it upon the sight of your Paper as if they were as badde as the Pope or worse the greatest Tyrants in the world to Conscience It was not an Enemy that reproached me saith complaining David I will ask no other Reparation then what your own Ingenuity will prompt you unto when you see your Errour Your concluding Text for Moderation I shall only turne into this Prayer God give us all spirits of meeknesse and lead us into all Truth by Iesus Christ Amen FINIS