Selected quad for the lemma: earth_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
earth_n	bind_v	church_n	heaven_n	11,478	5	7.0638	4	true

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