Selected quad for the lemma: sense_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
sense_n	religion_n	scripture_n	true_a	4,824	5	5.8720	4	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

that author and all of us to become a little more vile in our own eys that we may learn to vilifie others lesse The Scriptures are four or five The first is Mat. 7.6 Give not that which is holy unto the dogs nor cast ye your pearls before Swine lest they trample them under their feet and rent you For my judgement on this text I conceive 1. That this speech was proverbial among the Jews and I think I have read or heard it is in the Talmud 2. That the purport or meaning not the letter is to be attended 3. That this meaning or sense hereof tends unto prudence or a prudential managing of such things as are designed to a good end 4. That these holy things and pearls though they may more specially in the coherence and in the thing agree with admonition are to be taken in general for all such things as have a subserviency to holy uses 1. Because the text limits them not And 2. Because there is no necessitie for us to do it 5. That these doggs and swine are not to be taken in general for all sorts of sinners for the same reasons on the contrary 1. Because the text it self does describe them to wit to be such as will trample the holy things under their feet and turn again and rent us 2. Because there is likewise necessity so to do For no holy thing or pearl can be given to dogs or swine by this precept it being boldnesse to limit what Christ hath not limited But some holy things as the word or admonition may be given and was given by Christ himself unto such as are dogs and swine in general in other texts as suppose ignorant and scandalous persons therefore must not the sense of these dogs and Swine be of all ignorant and scandalous sinners in general but on necessity be confined to the text in hand in which sense it is true that no holy thing at all is to be given to such 6. By these holy things then and pearls I understand all things whether matters of Religion which are more properly the holy things as wholesom counsels in Scripture pious conferences opening our experiences and in general the ordinances or matters of morality which may be more properly the pearls as precious sayings wise serious contrivances advice actions so far as they are either appointed of God or made use of by reason for the Edification of others And by dogs and swine I understand all persons whether ignorant or not ignorant scandalous or not scandalous otherwise that are but like in the use hereof towards them to trample on he things and rear the givers that is both to contemn the one and despite the other The substance then of this precept or counsel of Christ as I am fully perswaded without binding others comes to this that every man in the managing of good things should be prudent so far as to have a care and such regard to the persons with other circumstances to whom he dispenses them that we are to forbear when we shall but exasperate give occasion of contempt and do no good by them For instance suppose a man otherwise godly is in a passion so that I see reproof which is a pearl and good thing in its season would be surely contemn'd if I should give it him at the present and make him flie upon me in this case now under this dogged humour this rule of Christ commands me in prudence to forbear and take another opportunity to do my duty This foundation being laid I shall here propose these two questions 1. How can our delivering the Sacrament to our intelligent unexcommunicate members be a giving thereof unto dogs seeing we are sure they will not turn again upon us and rent us for that Or swine which some distinguish seeing they doe not trample thereupon by neglect vilipending despising or rejecting of it for that is trampling the holy things in the text but so far as we can possibly see do reverently receive it 2. Whereas if we with old the Sacrament from them unlesse we could have a fair proceeding unto censure which would stop their mouths they on the contrary will turn upon us and rent us withall trampling thereupon by not caring at all for it Whether or no is not this rather a plain breach in the want of prudence of this rule seeing suspension of them is supposed to be a holy thing and pearl and these persons in this case unlesse we could take farther order we are sure are doggs and swine in reference thereunto in the very sence of the text Let those tender Ministers that have been so much scrupled about this businesse lay this consideration well to their hearts together with the wisdom and sweetnesse of their Saviour whose commands are not grievous and they may happily find satisfaction even in this very text from which they may have likely received at first the deepest impressions towards the ensnaring of their consciences The second Scripture is 1 Cor. 10.21 Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of Devils ye cannot be partakers of the Lords table and the table of Devils For the sense of these words I judge there is no difficultie Many of the Corinths being brought over from Heathenism to Christianity and so members of that Church made neverthelesse but little conscience as if it were a lawfull thing of going to the temple of Idols eating there of those things that were sacrificed to Devils Now to reclaime them from this and prove that they ought not so to doe the Apostle uses this argument I speak to you saies he as wise that is as rational men Judge ye what I say Doe not you know that the Sacrament which we celebrate is the communion of the body bloud of Jesus Christ so that all that partake thereof are visibly professors of communion with him So all that partake of those meats sacrificed to Idols are visible professors of communion with these Devils Now there is no agreement between Christ and these Idols such things are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 you cannot partake of the table of Lord and the table of Devils In which words wee are to understand by this Cannot 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Logical cannot that is in reason you cannot this is manifest because he lays it down by way of argument which the more you consider will be the lesse denied and by these words the cup and table of the Lord and the cup and table of Devils we must understand the outward elements in both that is the bread and wine in the Sacrament and that meat offered to Devils in their Idol-temple the reason being open because the Apostle argues from their partaking of the one against their partaking of the other For those Commentators as Pareus that restrain the sense to inward spiritual communion because we Can say they partake of the outward things in both they go but on a slight

and they shall be my people And as that is extended to the whole Jews Lev. 26.12 13. So are the whole Gentiles Is 55.4 5. Is 11.10 Is 60.1 2. All Nations Isa 2.1 2. All flesh Is 66.23 Is 40.5 Psal 65.2 All the kinreds of the earth Ps 22.26 27. The Kingdoms of the world Rev. 11.15 From the rising of the Sun to the going down thereof Mal. 1.11 to wit even as many of them as the Lord our God shall call Act. 2.39 said to become the people of God under the New Testament SECT 2. I Know indeed for all these many and arge expressions every where in Scripture some eminent Divines do conceive the Church and Covenant ought to be restrained to the regenerate only and that none else are really but nominally aequivocally Church-members And so I remember Arminius expresses it for them Disp pub Thes 18. Sec. 15. Vocati et non electi ad ecclesiam visibilem pertinere judicantur quanquam Aequivocè quum ad invisibilem non pertine an t This doctrine enforces them to distinguish between what gives right as to a mans own part unto Church-membership and the Ordinances and that which gives right to be admitted whereas the truth is these are Relata quorum posito sublato uno ponitur tollitur alterum Besides there is this grievous inconvenience it runs do●nright into that the Minister shall be bound to administer the Ordinances particularly the Sacrament unto people when they are bound upon pain of damnation not to take them Upon this arises inextricable difficulties which as they encline men to separations so they leave the doubtfull Christian in such a case that he can hardly ever act in faith upon such foundations It is my opinion therefore that the Covenant may be considered in the special grace thereof and in ernal administration and thus it belongs only to the elect and regenerate Or in the general grace and external administration of the Ordinances and thus it belongs to the whole Church as visible and to the several members alike whether regenerate or not My reasons for this latitude are these 1. It is manifest that the whole Nation of the Jewes Deut. 29. were Gods peculiar people in covenant with him by the texts fore-quoted and this is amply proved by Mr. Blake Treat Cov. p. 189 190. but that most of them were only aequivocally so is by others assumed gratis 2. It is plain that the Gentiles are ingrafted into the Olive of the Jews Rom. 11.24 that is into their external covenant which covenant must be the covenant of grace for else it could be no prejudice for any of them to be broken off nor priviledge for any of us to be ingrafted in And it must be as to the external administratiò for else neither could any of them be broken off not any of us ingrafted in 3. It appears that the Promise or covenant of Grace in the external administration belongs to all that the Lord our God shall call Acts 2.39 To those that are afarr off that is the Gentiles and their children when the Lord should call any of their parents as it did for the present to the Jews and theirs 4. The called no doubt are many more than the elect many are called but few chosen The called are such as Mr. Blake phrases it as are brought in covenant The chosen such as are brought up to the terms of it Now it is to be considered The called contain the chosen As there is an outward vocation and an effectual vocation yet that outward is real as well as the other So there is an outward being in covenant and effectual as we speak for distinctions sake Yet that outward is real not aequivocally only 5. The Scripture puts a real difference between the Nation of the Jews as being in covenant Rom. 3.1 and 9.4 and others that were alienated from the Commonwealth of Israel without hope without God in the world Eph. 2.12 but if none but the regenerate are in covenant there is no such difference externally between a Jew and Gentile Christian and Heathen but aequivocally onely in which manner methinks the Scripture should not be made to speak so abundantly 6. For this latitude as to Obligation and priviledge of Ordinances it is evident Gen. 17.10 This is my covenant ye shall keep between me and you every man-child among you shall be circumcised Here I note that the waiting on Gods ordinance is the keeping the covenant it self in the external administration And surely there is so much plain strength in the instance of circumcision Gen. 17. Jud. 5. from this large right of Ordinances from covenant-relation that it alone will hold against all can be said against it 7. Excellent Mr. Baxter in his Inf Bap p. 224. mihi Ed. 3. highly commending Mr. Blakes opening of the conditional covenant and affirming that he hath fully proved that the reprobate meaning of professors is within the verge of it he adds And doubtlesse this imerest in the covenant is afruit of Christs death Now if it be so how can it be aequivocal only that is an interect or priviledge which will become a lie and dissimulation for those that have it to assume and can that be a fruit of Christs death 8. If no unregenerate Christian be in covenant but aequivocally then must not such a one bring his child to baptism nor partake himself of Christian communion but it is a meer mockery of Christ as some seem to me here to speak harshly to avoid which he must tenounce his profession and never come to the Supper and to the other Ordinances but only as an Heathen and Infidel 9. Then those that are disciples of Christ for so was Judas must not be caught to doe all things Christ hath commanded Mat. 28.20 10. The Scripture as Mr. Blake urges speaks of dealing falsly in covenant breaking and not being stedfast in it but if the regenerate only be in covenant there can be no such thing really but nominally only 11. Christ said expresly to the twelve Doe this Drink you all of it that was a command and yet one of them was unregenerate From whence it follows that receiving the Sacrament is a duty of a disciple though unregenerate and so the covenant as to priviledge of ordinances belonging to such For my part I cannot but think those titles of Disciples Beleevers Christians Saints by calling and the like given to all within the Church are titles of right and not nominal only We must distinguish saies Timson of beleeving in a large sense and of beleeving in a strict sense both to be accounted true beleeving in Scripture sense The denomination of a beleever and so Saint Christian is as well derived from a right object beleeved on as from the holiness of the subject beleeving Answ to Mr. Col p. 153. It is in my apprehension appositely spoken 12. The covenant is founded upon grace Gratia saies Bullinger Decad. 5. Ser 6.

oppose me be more fully stated and some prejudice avoided I must crave pardon to use some more words it may be some more than enough upon this particular In my Vindication of Free-admission my first little book p. 33. for the explaining my conceptions I have laid down a distinction between discipline and worship The exercise of the keys as acts of discipline I would have accounted one thing and the use of the ordinances as acts of worship to be another Discipline to be in one element Worship in another I know if some list to be contentious they may confound these but docendi gratiâ at least for the expressing my self no equitable man can deny me thus to distinguish for my purpose Now there are two extreames I conceive concerning Free-admission to the Lords Supper On the one hand of such who are too large for it and the other of such as are too strict against it There are some then as hath been touched before that plead for free admission not only in regard of Worship but also in regard of Discipline disclaiming all exclusion from any of the publick Ordinances of God by the censures of the Church and indeed denying all Ecclesiastical government distinct frō the civil where the Magistrate is Christian There are others that plead against free admission not only in point of Discipline but also in point of Worship herein advancing the Sacrament above all other Ordinances that those who have a granted right to all other parts of Gods worship and Church-communion as baptised members are deni-to have any right unto the Sacrament though they be yet under Church-indulgence and not censured The Sacrament say they requires truth of grace in the receivers unlesse a man be regenerate on his own part he is forbidden to come and consequently unlesse upon trial and examination there be some evidence that he is visibly or probably such on the Churches part he must not be admitted In the middle between these extreames my opinion and the truth as I think without engaging others does lie Affirming against the former who are the Erastians that the Lord Jesus Christ hath set up a power of the keys in the Church as I have said before and that the Scripture is manifest for an exclusion of some persons to wit the scandalous and obstinate from Christian communion in general and so consequently from the Lords Supper as a part thereof Neverthelesse I doe assert likewise against the latter that there is no Scripture for the exclusion of any from this Sacrament without discipline but that administring and receiving the Lords Supper is as free and universal in the nature thereof to our members as other parts of Church-communion The same qualifications are required to effectual prayer and other parts of Gods worship as to the Sacrament and as the want hereof puts no barre to the one no more does it to the other It shall never be proved I believe that the Scripture hath advanced this difference between the Sacrament and other ordinances that herein alone it must be better to omit the matter and manner both than to do the matter if it be not done in such manner as it ought directly contrary to all other duty In short then neither the Erastian nor rigid Suspensioner must have their wills In point of Discipline Free-admission is to be denied against the one In point of worship Free-admission is to bee maintained against the other It is a thing very considerable in the holding any point upon what grounds it is we hold it Those that oppose me in my opinion are very hot for an exclusion from the Sacrament and I for my own part doe allow and uphold the same An exclusion it self neither of us do deny the very difference between us is upon what grounds or arguments we hold it Now all those arguments for this exclusion against Free-admission may be reduced to these two heads Either to such as do arise from the nature of the Sacrament as distinct herein from all other parts of Church-communion Or to such as do arise from the nature of discipline that respects the communion of the Church in general and so this Sacrament in common with the other parts thereof Arguments of the latter sort are those and those only which are from such texts Let him be to thee as an heathen Keep no company with such Pu●ge out the old leven Avoid withdraw from them Put away from your selves such a person with the like The summ whereof comes to this briefly The Scripture commands Excommunication that is an exclusion from the Church and society in general therefore from the Sacrament also These arguments now I conceive are firm Free-admission as Erastus holds it I maintain not Arguments of the former sort are such as these The Sacrament is appointed only for the regenerate It is a seal of Faith and set to a blank if given to any others Every one else does but necessarily eat and drink damnation in the Apostles sense with the like Now these arguments I conceive are to be satisfied taken off as such as are both invalid and doe hurt Free-admission will stand for all them Alas were all such arguments conclusive and true what will become of the poor doubtfull Christian How shall he act in faith How shall the Minister himself act What will become of the Churches unitie and peace the command of Christ and the foundation of discipline If it be from the nature of the Sacrament and these grounds upon which men are to be excluded then must they be excluded if there were no discipline then must the keeping away of such not be an act of vindicative but distributive Justice As a godly Father shuts his stubborn son from prayers in his family and from his presence So does the Church as I conceive exclude her refractory children It is not because the coming to prayer is not the duty of such a child and is not a means to do him good No but because indeed it is so the Father would make him sensible hereby how highly he hath offended him and how much the more hainous is his evil to reclaim him A man hath enjoyed those priviledges and means of grace which should have done him good so long and he grows but the worse Well now the Church in her exclusion does as it were say thus to him I will teach you Friend 1 Tim. 1.20 to make better use hereof when I again admit you to them If the Sacrament were not a mans priviledge before and for his benefit then could not as I say Suspension be a judicial proceeding It were not a punishment but a deliverance That cannot be in way of punishment that is onely to preserve a person from that which is noxious and can be no wayes any good to him It is not upon such grounds therefore wee must stand the Scripture knows no such advancement whatsoever humane prudence may make of this Ordinance above her