Selected quad for the lemma: nature_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
nature_n	mystical_a	person_n	union_n	3,769	5	10.8414	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A80157	Provocator provocatus. Or, An answer made to an open challenge made by one M. Boatman in Peters Parish in Norwich, the 13th of December, 1654. in a sermon preached there at a fast, in which answer these questions are spoke to. 1. Whether juridicall suspension of some persons from the Lords Supper be deducible from Scripture; the affirmative is proved. : 2. Whether ministeriall or privative suspension be justifiable; the affirmative also is maintained. : 3. Whether the suspension of the ignorant and scandalous be a pharisaicall invention; a thing which wiser ages never thought of, as Mr Boatman falsly affirmed. In opposition to which is proved, that it hath been the judgment and practice of the eminent saints and servants of Christ, in all ages, of all other reformed churches in all times ... / By John Collings ...	Collinges, John, 1623-1690.; Boatman, Mr.	1654 (1654)	Wing C5329A; ESTC R232871	174,209	280

brought by the learned and eminent Servants of God both in this Generation and also in those before us to prove the divine right of this Ordinance I will name two or three more which have been brought by others not insisting upon them because I thinke these are enough and possibly some of them may be more disputable and not generally allowed by those who are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with me in this point Arg. 10 It is sin in a Minister to declare those one visible body who are not one body visibly But scandalous sinners are not one visible body with visible Saints and he that gives the Lords Supper declares those to whom he gives it to be one visible body Ergo. This Argument holy Mr Burroughs urgeth in his book called Gospell-Worship it is founded on 1 Cor. 10.17 Mr Gillespie's Aarons Rod l. 3. c. 7 p. 425. V. etiam Hieron Zanch. Epist l. 1. in epistola quae inscribitur ad illust Prin. Fredericum de excommunicatione and saith Mr Gillespy I shall never be perswaded that the Apostle Paul would say of himselfe and the Saints at Corinth we are one body with known Idolaters Fornicators Drunkards or the like Those two eminent servants of God thought there was something in this Argument there are these three Questions in it 1. Whether the Minister declares all to whom he gives the Supper to be one visible body That the Apostle determines 1 Cor. 10.17 2. Whether it be a sin in a Minister to declare those one visible body who are not so Reason will easily determine that affirmatively 3. Whether visibly scandalous sinners be one visible body with visible Saints Visibly scandalous sinners have a visible different head But it is a question whether that distinction of Membra in Ecclesia and Membra Ecclesiae hath any thing in it and whether Christ be called the head of the visible Church only as it is taken conjunctim or viritim of every member in it and that will bring us to question whether the Church as to the community of it be Corpus homogeneum or het erogeneum I shall not intangle my selfe with these disputes but shall desire 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as to this Argument and leave it to wiser heads to consider Arg 11 The Sacrament of the Lords Supper is not to be given to any who are not Christs Disciples for we are to follow Christs example who administred it to none others But scandalous sinners are none of Christs Disciples Ergo. This is Mr P. Goodwins Argument Evangelicall Communicant p. 5 6 7 8. V. Zanchium in ep praed and I refer the Reader to him to make it out there are these two things to be questioned in it 1. Whether Christs example in admission be a rule of ours 2. Whether Christ admitted any such Disciples as were actually scandalous I thinke I have proved the contrary Argument 12 Those who if they were Heathens might not be baptized V. Zach. Urs doct Christ p. 2. de clavibus q 3. sect 11. though they be baptized and in a Church ought not to be admitted to the Lords Supper The reason is this 1. Mr Humfry himselfe confesseth In adultis eadem est ratio utriusque Sacramenti 2. Besides it is against reason to say the contrary But those who are ignorant and scandalous if they were Heathens should not be baptized Ergo. I do not say the children of such ought not there is another reason for them but that they should not hath been granted by the Universall judgement and practice of the Primitive Church Erast Thesis 14 Mr Humfrie's vind p. 10. Beza de excom p. 23. Aarons rod l. 3. c. 16. Mr. Palmer c against Mr Humfry p. 49. Dr Drakes bar to free admission p. 32 33. Rutherford's divine right of Presbyteries c. 5. q. 2. I know Erastus and Mr Humfry tell us John baptized all who came yea some whom he cals Vipers but Beza long since and Gillespy more lately mind Erastus that John baptized none but such as confessed their sins Mat. 3. Mr Palmer c. and Dr Drake have told Mr Humfry too as much to which he hath discreetly replied nothing This is one of that incomparably learned Mr Rutherford's Arguments in his Divine right of Presbyteries Arg. 13 Strong meat belongs to those who are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who have made proficiency in the waies of God and are of full age who by reason of an habit have their senses exercised to discerne good and evill Heb. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But the Sacrament is strong meat Therefore it doth not belong to those who are Babes in knowledge and consequently though of the house not to be given to them by him who is the Lords Steward to give all in the Family their Portion in the due season Luk. 12.42 The major is a generall proposition given by the Apostles Requirit igitur coena domini quatenus est mystica convivas qui sensibus exercitatis interna mysteria ab eo quod oculis patet distinguere valent Musc Loc. Com. de coena A Physicall maxime applied in a spirituall case and holds as well to any strong meat as that which he there speakes of for he doth not say This strong meat That the Sacrament of the Lords Supper is strong meat is evident That meat which is of hardest digestion and concoction and requires the strongest operations of the stomack to turne it into nourishment and which not duly digested proves most pernicious to the body is strong meat in a physicall sense But such is the Sacrament of the Lords Supper The spirituall stomack must be more extraordinarily prepared for it 1 Cor. 11.28 It is not tasted nor digested well without the knowing of the greatest mysteries in Religion in some measure viz. the union of Christ with the Father 2. The Union of the two natures in the person of Christ 3. The mysticall Vnion of the soule with Christ 4. The mysterious exercise of faith in applying the Soule to the Promise and the Promise to the Soule while it sits at that Table Not duly received it proves most pernicious The Soule seales its damnation becomes guilty of the body and bloud of Christ eates judgement to it selfe Arg. 14 It is unlawfull to partake of other mens sins Eph. 5.7 Mr Ambrose his media p. 260 Rutherford in his Divine right c. c. 5. q. 2. and in his peaceable plea. cap. 12. Gillespie's Aarons rod. l. 3. P. Goodwins Evang. Com. Vindication of the jus divinum of Presbytery But he that gives the Sacrament wittingly to an ignorant or scandalous person partakes with him in his sin Ergo. This Argument is urged by Learned Rutherford Reverend Gillespy in the two fore-mentioned books and holy Mr Ambrose to whom I refer my Reader for fuller proofe Many Arguments more might be produced in this cause but the truth is scarce any but what are to be found either in Mr