Selected quad for the lemma: conscience_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
conscience_n	bind_v	law_n	obligation_n	1,970	5	9.7701	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A86891	A second vindication of a disciplinary, anti-Erastian, orthodox free-admission to the Lords-Supper; or, The state of this controversie revised and proposed: for the fuller understanding of the most, as to the grounds whereon it stands; and more especially for the ease, and clearer proceeding of those, that shall write about it, whether for it, or against it. / By John Humfrey, min: of Froome.	Humfrey, John, 1621-1719.	1656 (1656)	Wing H3710; Thomason E1641_2; ESTC R209066	63,290	161

admitters in regard Christ acting say they as a Minister was not to take notice of what he knew of Judas as he was God yet it is apparent that it reaches not the matter at all as to the receivers themselves who neverthless for all this as for their own parts will be bound to receiving though they be such as Judas was that is at least unregenerate if not scandalous also It may be replyed as to the part of the admitters that Christ knew of Judas compact which no doubt was a high scandal in its self being inductive of sin and ruine to the Jews with whom he dealt not only as God but as man likewise because as man he was a Prophet Deut. 18 15. and that Godhead that dwelt in him bodily revealed this to him Now I argue if it was Christs duty to have excluded Judas from the Passeover if a man had revealed this to him how much more must be have done it when the God-head revealed it to him whose testimony is above all mens in the world But I shall chuse to lay my strength here as I say as to the part of the receivers that from Christs acting not as a mere man but as Mediator As the Lord Jesus does institute the Sacrament and give the precept he must do it unquestionably as mediator It is God only can give laws to bind the conscience Now in the institution and giving the precept he directs the same to all present and so to Judas amongst the rest from whence arises an obligation from the Lord irrefragably upon Judas as well as on the others to actual receiving what Christ bids him expresly do among them must be his duty and consequently while a man is a disciple though unregenerate as Judas was that does not unduty him to use the Supper And then let us hear what Dr. Diake himself who herein throughly looks to the foundation will tell us Let but Mr. H. says be p. 116. prove that actual receiving is a debt on the part of a natural man and he will yield the cause to us 2. Whereas it is denied notwithstanding this text and others by us alleadged that there is no precept nor president in Scripture for the administring the Sacrament to all Mr. Coll. ch 5. I desire these two Trules may be laid 1. that Giving and receiving being Relata all those texts that prove it the duty of any to receive the Sacrament does eo nomine oblige the Minister to deliver it to them or admit them because Posito uno relatorum ponitur alterum 2. That we are to look upon all the Ordinances of God unto his Church as universal obliging every member in particular to wait upon them unless where the Scripture it self layes some restriction or limitation the reason is because it is presumption in any to limit that which Gad hath not restrained And then I do assert hereupon that there is as many Scripture-precepts and presidents to deliver the Sacrament to all as to any supposing them within the Church and neither unintelligent or excommunicate as we entend the question for such as are Heathen Exod. 12.43 48. or have not reason and discernment 1 Cor. 11. 28 29. or are under censure 1 Cor. 5. 13. are debarr'd we all grant by the Scriptures quoted There are two instances only besides the precept and president in the former text I will here mention The one is the instance of the Passeover where all the congregation of Israel every man Ex. 12.3 47 50. from Dan to Bersheba 2 Chr. 30.5 all their males every year Exod. 34.23 Deut. 16. 16. All the children of the captivity to name that text Ezra 6.21 because by some it is alleaged against us that is all the Jews that returned without exception and all such as had seperated themselves unto them from the filthinesse of the heathen that is all their proselytes also the filthinesse of the heathen was their idols did eat and were so commanded There is nothing which I would chiefty have observed that made any Israelite uncapable of partaking thereof but that which made a godly man uncapable and such no more uncapable of this than of other the holy things And this was Levitical uncleanness whereof while the question is proposed to Moses Num. 9. whether such should eat of it or no it is plain in the chapter that for the rest to eat thereof was out of question The other instance is that of 1 Cor. 10.1 2 3 4. as I have prest it in my first book They all eat of the Manna and drank of the rock which was Christ The main answer given by Beza Gillespy Philip Goodwin Rutherford Dr. Drake and which all have is that all the Israclites were admitted here because this water and manna was their corporal food without which they could not live But herein lyes the force of what we urge to wit Why should the Lord make that ordinary food of theirs without which they could not live to be Sacramental if to eat and drink of Christ sacramentally was not a priviledge in common to the Church The main thing alleaged against Free-admission is the holiness of that whereunto Sacramental sigus do relate and the indisposition of the visibly unworthy to partake thereof Now sayes the Apostle the Israelites all of them yet many of them unworthy in our adversaries sense did drink of the rock which was Christ and it was the Lords will they should do so for therefore he made that food I say which all were to live by Sacramental Besides if it were such a grievous sin as murdering the Lord of glory or being guilty of his bloud to drink of Christ symholically without such and such qualifications as some do still speak then should these Israelites as I have said in my Rejoynd have rather samished their bodies than have eat and drank the damnation of their souls whereas we find that the sons of Aaron Lev. 22.23 were not to eat of the holy things during their Levitical uncleanness though it was their appointed food which Gillespy himself notes p. 97. Exemplo Israëlitarum saies Musculus in Ps 105. v. 39. Apostolus admonet usum externorum Sacramentorum talem esse ut neminem justificet possing ab omnibus promiscuè exerceri 3. Whereas it is laid down by my adversaries as their main hold that visible worthiness is the rule of admission as visible unworthiness or unfitness the rule of Suspension I shall think sit to propose or oppose these three things 1. Take all the visible worthiness in the world it can amount to no more than an external covenant-relation denominating the subjects quoad homines Saints Believers Christians Now who shall define us these covenant-relatives either this judgement of men or the open plain determination of the Scriptures 2. If we go on this ground of covenant-relation we go on a certain judgement every one knows who are externally in covenant or Church-members but if we go on

be ready to think thus The Scripture commands such and such should be censured cast out of the Church and a voided Now seeing we cannot proceed so farre it is good to doe something towards it we will keep them from the Sacrament and that will be well But under favour I am perswaded this is a great mistake and evill in regard that hereby men doe place a virtue in a meanes of their owne to convert sinners from their evill wayes It is true when men are duly admonished convicted and censured as they ought then is there the virtue of an Ordinance which may be expected to reduce them for God hath appointed his Ordinance of discipline for this purpose to bring men to repentance On the contrary for men to make a businesse onely of keeping people away from this part of Gods service without discipline how can any such fruit be expected by it Can men ordain or set up themselves a reclaiming Ordinance If they doe How shall they give a power and promise to it for this effect Let those Ministers consider that have kept never so many away even whole congregations from the Sacrament for many years together what are the fruits they have reaped by it Are their people indeed ever the better for it Does it not rather serve only to breed indignation to themselves make their Suspension to be flighted the Sacrament it self to be neglected so that the most of their people care not at all to come thither If this indeed be the fruit then will I thus argue The Ordinances of God as exclusion from the Church and Sacrament is one are to be used only for Edification and not destruction But to exclude men the Sacrament without discipline without a due legal conviction and authority does not tend to their edification but in all this to their destruction Or thus The Lord Jesus commands us expresly not to give holy things to doggs and swine as before But to use suspension without discipline or a due authoritative sentence as should put a reverence on it is but likely to cast it to such as will trample upon it and turn again and rent the doer And consequently therfore unles Ministers will purposely goe about to make men dogs and swine that else would not be so in the sense of this text they are bound directly at least when they see plainly this is like to be the issue by this very precept of Christ which is that happily scruples them mainly to the contrary to forbear Suspension till they can use it to edification SECT 14. THese two questions being laid downe with my judgement thereof there will remain two things onely for the compleating my mind in this controversie The one is whereas I hold in the first question that no argument from the nature of the Sacrament alone without discipline will be of validity for Suspension it may be required that something be condescended to the tendernesse of most mens spirits and practice herein before censure The other is whereas I hold in the second question that those arguments alone are valid for exclusion from the Sacrament that respect it only as a part of Church-communion and consequently that a person must be excommunicate or excluded Church-communion in general or else he cannot be legally excluded the Supper it may be required that there be some 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 some salve found out here also for the abatement of so much rigor in censure that a person may be permitted some of the Ordinances as the Word while he is debarred the Sacrament and no breach be made on excommunication If these two things can but be done with reasonable satisfaction I hope it will serve to take away the prejudice of many sober and moderate spirits from my opinion the drift whereof is not at all to doe the pious Ministry any harm let not my brethren think so in obstructing their care and inspection over their flocks but to bind up their broken hearts with a grounded support that in what they do and cannot but do in admission of their people the most whereof are unregenerate persons and so in their sense unworthy they may do with a sure foot and safe conscience My great business I may say truly with pious Mr. Blake Cov Seal ch 7. sect 15. p. 247. in what I have written about this matter together with him hath been for their comfort and encouragement that give admittance that their benefiting is possible that are thus admitted And yet by the way I would not be taxed for the opinion of a promiscuous admittance which I do not own without the distinction thereof into Erastian and orthodox as before An Erastian promiscuous communion I declare against as much and I think something more than Mr. Blake but for an Orthodox Free-admission the end whereof is to advance discipline not depose it I confesse it is what I think should be maintained being bold to say this one thing in reference to that worthy man now named that an Anti Erastian free-admission will be found I believe at last to stand a great deal better both with the Churches peace and consonancy of Scripture than a kind of Erastian indisciplinary Suspension SECT 15 FIrst then for some condescension in the former question how farre those that are more tender in their spirits and practice may goe towards with-holding the Sacrament from such they conceive unqualified as ignorant or scandalous before censure I have touched at in my Rejoynder p. 82 83. 111 112. where distinguishing between what is to be condescended to as prudential and what to be yielded as necessary between what is done by way of advice and by way of compulsion between forbearance and exclusion I doe acknowledg it is a rule to be allowed in affirmative precepts that though they doe bind semper they do not bind ad semper at all times Upon which account I take it to be lawfull for a man that is obliged and hath a right to an ordinance to forbear the same upon a just occasion which I think may be as upon other matters Numb 9.10 so much more upon pious ends regarding preparation Mat. 5.24 Upon this same ground then I humbly conceive that a Minister looking into the state of his flock and finding some ignorant and scandalous amongst them though he cannot take upon himself to exclude them the Sacrament before censure he may proceed so far towards it that besides the rebuking of them sharply he may admonish or advise them to forbear the ordinance at present so long as he judges it in prudence to be a means to make them come the more prepared to the next Sacrament what hinders but the Minister may stretch himself even to the utmost end of his line of doctrin when he stands there and knows that he is still without the line of jurisdiction And this I conceive may satisfie the conscientious in this thing putting into their hands as much advantage as a single

indulgence to bring the sinner to repentance It is manifest that the Primitive Christian Church was wont to permit an Heathen or those that were without to be present in their assemblies at the Word if not at Prayer and some other Ordinances for their conviction as appears 1 Cor. 14. According to this president it is my opinion then in short that a person excommunicate may be admitted to an Ordinance or Ordinances as an Heathen into which condition he is expresly cast Mat. 18. when yet he is cut off from all his priviledge and interest in them as a member And this I suppose will even serve the turn of my very adversaries and yet be no dishight or prejudice to that latitude of Excommunication which the truth dictates and must be maintained according to my opinion In fine two things are objected against me by my Opposers which methinks do even quite take off one another In the former question it is objected that my doctrine is loose in that it admits of every intelligent Church-member to the Sacrament before censure To which I answer That doctrine about admission that maintaines Excommunication in point of offending cannot be loose towards the offender and if a man have not offended I mean so far as to deserve censure the Minister can but admonish and advise he can go no further and here how much I allow upon the score of pastoral discretion is declared And why should any more be desired In the second question it is objected my doctrine is too severe bloody and cruel in that those persons which it cuts off from the Sacrament it cuts off from all other parts of Church-communion also To this I answer It is true it does do thus indeed according to the Scripture but let this be understood aright and candidly of this Relative exclusion here declared likewise and then I hope all will be reconciled and satisfied And thus I have now finished my purpose endeavouring to keep in a way of moderation that I might avoid the extremities of others I have not in any thing I suppose departed from the Scripture as my Guide and yet in every thing come up as near as I can to those that are against me to content them I do not know how it may be taken but it shall suffice me that I have in the sincerity of my intention so far as I can judg of my own heart proposed my thoughts leaving others to their own The Churches peace is the thing I have aimed at without hindring but happily furthering her reformation If I have done well and as is fitting to the matter it is that I desired if I have done but slenderly and meanly it is what I could attain unto Deo gloria J. H. FINIS A POST SCRIPT Courteous Reader THere are yet some things I shal make bold to trouble thee to read in this place because I would not have the Discourse it self to swel any bigger thā it has don If thou thinkst thē long thou mayest let them alone if thou wilt I know well that this controversie is not about any fundamental but that as brethren we may bear well enough with one another that differ in it nevertheless in regard of practice it is even necessary at least for most that are of the Ministry to be establisht concerning the same or else perhaps it might have been long enough before some should have thought it fit to meddle any more with it What I have done here in this last book I offer to them chiefly and thee that hast studied the point what I have done in my first book to the many 1. Whereas in my undertaking this Subject I chose those words Doe this Drink ye all of it And they all drank of it in that text Mar. 14. 23. for my ground which many think might have been more soundly chosen I desire the strength thereof may be laid in those two things which have been touched Sect. 10. but I am not satisfied without speaking a little farther thereof with thy leave to have it noted by such The first is that we have here as in the other Evangelists the institution of the Sacrament wherein there is a direct precept to the Church Doe this with the extent thereof expressed Drink ye all of ir The words are directed in general to the disciples as disciples and consequently all that are disciples suppose them in a capacity of reason to use it come under a right of Obligation to use the same It is objected By all is meant no more than All present But this is too overly the precept I hope does so concern the disciples present as that St. Paul makes these very words of the institution obtigatory to the Church of Corinth and to us all as a standing Ordinance till Christ come 1 Cor. 11. 26. It is manifest then that these words as the precept of Christ are delivered to the disciples in bebalf of the Church whereof themselves were a representative part Now then I ask whether as Representatives of the Church invisible or visible if you will say of the Church invisible to make the command only to the regenerate and elect it is unreasonable for all the Ordinances are delivered to the Church as visible Heb. 9.19 Rom. 3.2 and we suppose Judas was amongst them But if they were here Representatives of the Church as visible it must follow that all those who are of the visible Church and in capacity of the obligation are berchy obliged to this Ordinance It is not argumentative to say here none of these disciples were ignorant or scandalous which yet I think is untrue because they were representatives of the Church not as men unspotted with ignorance or scandal any more than as Apostles but as they were members thereof visible members disciples Christians Id veiò concedimus saies Bezs De Presb. Ex. p. 27. with 23. quòd Christus inter suos discipulos coenam instituens manifestè oftendìt coenae celebrationem illis convenire which is inciuded in solis illis qui Christi se discipulos profiteantur and Mr. Perkins Case cons B. 2. c. 10 laies this down for his first rule Every man of years living in the Church and being baptized is bound in conscience by the commandement to use the Supper Now whiles my adversaries are forced to fly off here and confine the precept to the regenerate only we may easily see both where our bottom lies and also how firm it is The second thing I build on in this text is That together with the precept we have the example of Iudas who is sat down with the twelve Mat. 26.20 and his hand at the table Luke 22.21 It is objected that Judas was a close hypocrite his villany secret and unknown and so this president will make nothing to our purpose But under favour such as say so are mistaken for though this answer should suffice which I think it does not as to the part of the