Selected quad for the lemma: earth_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
earth_n	apostle_n	heaven_n	loose_v	2,492	5	10.3143	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

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 appl●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 Su●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