Selected quad for the lemma: spirit_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
spirit_n	body_n	lord_n	soul_n	15,609	5	5.1843	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A84062	The nullity of church-censures: or A dispute written by that illustrious philosopher, expert physician, and pious divine Dr Thomas Erastus, publick professor in the University of Heidelbertge, and Basil. Wherein is proved by the holy Scriptures, and sound reason; that excommunication, and church-senates or members, exercising the same, are not of divine institution; but a meere humane invention.	Erastus, Thomas, 1542-1583.	1659 (1659)	Wing E3217; Thomason E1783_2; ESTC R209663	63,863	128

admonish that it will never come to pass that it can be shewn in the holy Scriptures that to bind is put for that which is to keep back believers from receiving of the Sacraments and to loose signifies the same that is again to admit him to the Sacraments which for his wickedness was debarred thereof and by this means to be insert again as it were into the Church LVI So then it is firmely and truly proved that Christ in the 18. of Mat. did not discourse of excluding men from the Sacraments but of the private transaction and composing of private injuries Other men likewise have seen this as Angustin in his 16. Sermon upon the words of the Lord upon Matthew And Theophylact that compilator of Chrysostome which no man doubteth to have had this opinion as he hath allmost all other things from Chrysostome Amongst the late Divines Mr. John Brentius hath written many things in his Exposition on this Chapter which are very agreeable to our purpose LVII Now the matter requireth that we come to that fact of the Apostle Paul set down in the 1 Cor. and 5. and that we demonstrate that it belongeth not to this Excommunication First It is known that the Apostle was a strict observer of Moses's Law And to have done nothing against the same as he witnesseth of himself Acts 25. Yea it appeareth Acts 18. and 21. that he together with the rest of the Apostles did observe some Ceremonies also of the Law and therefore to have been evill reported of by the Jews not that he had taught unto the Gentiles that observation of the Law was not necessary but that he went about to perswade this to the Jews when all the faithfull in Judea did observe the Law nevertheless But who knows not that Christ did not change the Law of M●ses concerning the celebration of the Passover in that part in which it is commanded that all the circumcised should be present thereat Therefore he neither commanded this man that had committed incest neither any other that desire to be accounted amongst the Christians to be debarred from the Lords Supper Of the Jews it is certain because they would not suffer any thing to be done against the Law or against their own inveterate custome and who would believe that the Gentiles in this business were in a worse condition LVIII If to deliver over to Satan was no other thing then to interdict him the Sacraments till he repented why with such study and with such exquisite words did the Apostle Paul excuse himself to the Corinthians and as it were deprecate them in the 2. and 7. Chapter of the last Epistle Then why should the Corinthians be taken with so much sadness seeing they now know that this way of restraining the wicked was to remaine and ought to be exercised in the Church they ought rather to have rejoyced for the example that was given to them which they afterwards ought to follow If it was no other thing then an invitation to Repentance and a wholesome remedy against damnation why were they made sad and did not rather rejoyce Christ saith that the Angels of Heaven rejoyce more at the conversion of one sinner then for ninety nine just from whom it followeth that the Corinthians were not indued with the Spirit of Christ that they saw the Apostle do that one and sole thing which would recall an erring Brother unto the way and save him that was in danger who doth not clearly see that it was another thing that the Apostle was framing Thirdly What needed the Apostle to write 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I repent not though I did repent or how could he repent any way of this fact if he would have the same observed every where and in all Churches And if it was nothing else then a removing from the Sacraments for a time or only untill his Repentance Fourthly What need was there that the Corinthians should intercede with the Apostle with so much diligence for that miserable person which they knew would be received again immediately unto their society so soon as he had repented now that they intreated seriously for him is evident by these words of the Apostle to whom ye forgive I forgive also for if I forgive any thing I forgave him for your sakes in the sight of Christ Fifthly We read in the 2. Chapter that he excuseth himself thus that he would take a triall of their obedience and the 7. Chapter that so he would make manifest their good will towards him how could he have said these words or written them except he had commanded some greater matter then to keep back that wicked person from the Sacraments Sixtly By what means will we shew that these words agree to it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For ye sorrowed to God so that in nothing ye were hurt by us He saith that they received no loss by their sadnes because they obtained by their sorrow forgiveness to that unhappy and miserable person If this had not been done they would have suffered loss to wit they would have left him if he had only been to have been kept from the Sacrament till he had repented what less pray you could they have suffered Seaventhly Paul doth not there speak of the Supper but of the whole Christian life Therefore he will not have him excluded from the Supper but he will have him taken out of the middle of them least a little Leaven should Leaven the whole lump This agrees with the Apostles words and with the figure of Leaven Excommunication can neither be easily fitted to the Apostles words nor those of Moses Eightly It is to be marked that he doth not simply write that they being gathered together should deliver him to Satan in the name of the Lord or according to the Commandment of Christ or that they should keep him back from the Sacraments but saith he I absent in body but present in spirit have decreed in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ you being gathered together in my spirit and in the power of our Lord Jesus Christ to deliver this man to Satan c. Manifestly declaring that the power of our Lord Jesus Christ was needfull to this business and therefore that it was a greater matter then to be removed for a while from the Sacraments Adde this That he writes that he hath decreed to do this albeit he resolved not to do it without them because perchance he was absent but he doth not command it to the Church that it alone should do this as if this power had not been the power of the Church but of the Apostle Lastly We do not read in any place that the Apostle gave command either to one or more that whither he was dead or alive they should deliver any to Satan for the destruction of the flesh because he knew this was proper to the Apostolick power and that it agreed in Noun else for as they had the gift of healing

for wheresomever it is found it is found to be written either for the death of the body or of the soul whither the name of flesh be added or not I may likewise say that on Greek Author is extant that so hath used it as I have been told some do expound it but our discourse is of holy things The Apostle hath used it 1 Thes 5. and 2 Thes 1. and 1 Tim. the last The verball Noun 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is found written in the 1 of Crinth 10. and the Participle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 11. of the Heb. even the Compound 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 taken out of Deuteronomy is found in the 3. of the Acts and every where they all either signifie perishing or death 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is frequently used by the 70. Interpreters and Pagnin every where translateth it by the word exscindendi of cutting off this is certainly that they alwaies used to signifie death I know that in the Apostle the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Rom. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Colos 13. To conclude 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Gal. 5 and 6. that they are put for the killing of the lusts of the flesh but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are neither found in holy or prophane Authors to be taken so Yea I do not remember that I read in the New Testament this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be taken in this signification in the new Testament therefore it is frivolous when they say Paul contradistinguishes here the lusts of the flesh from the spirit seeing the death of the flesh or of the body is opposed to the safety of the soul or of the spirit as the native signification of the words to the purpose of Paul the series and circumstances of the discourse and the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 do prove that the lovers of the truth can desire no more Sixtly These words that the spirit may be safe in the day of Jesus that is in the day of judgment For they clearly demonstrate that he speaketh of that wretch as of one that was to die Seaventhly and lastly The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 proveth that he was not rejected from the Sacraments For in his own native signification it seems to be put for rebuke correction threatening and upbraiding as the Interpreters have turnd it but not for a punishment or pain and besides this there is a double reason for it The first is That in holy writs you never find the interdiction of the Sacraments to be put for a punishment The other is That the words of themselves do teach well enough that it s put for an upbraiding wherewith not any one but many did rebuke him for Paul in this 2. Epistle writeth sufficient to such a man is this rebuke which is of many He absolves him only from that threatening which had it proceeded from the Church or from any that it should come to pass that he should be delivered over to Satan to be tormented therefore he had only as yet indured this for he doth not only absolve him in part but altogether therefore while he saith that this rebuke and threatening was sufficient he together with it declareth that he had suffered no more We find the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the 16 17 19 20. of Matthew and in the other Evangelists and in the 2 of Paul to Tim. 4. in all which places it is ever put for rebuke but never for punishment I.X. But here it may be demanded if he did only suffer rebuke by what means its said that he was delivered over to Satan to be tormented and killed There is a double answer to this some of the Antients say that he was indeed delivered over that he might be tormented with sickness or some other way and so he should kill him by little and little but that in the mean time he was delivered by the Apostle before the matter was brought to that length Which Answer if it be true then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 might signifie a punishment albeit I do not deny but this Answer may be tollerated notwithstanding I will bring another more agreeing to the words of the Apostle the Apostle Paul did not resolve by himself alone to deliver this man to Satan but he would have this done the whole Church being gathered together for that matter Now when the Church saw this unhappy man afflicted with so great sorrow that he was almost swelled up with grief it did defer the matter till it tried the Apostles mind whither it could obtain forgiveness to him or not In the mean time the Church did threaten that it would do its duty if it could obtain nothing So that miserable man was afflicted for many M●neths till he knew that the Apostle had forgiven his punishment that the business was thus carried on may be clearly enough gathered as it seemeth out of the latter Epistle LXI From all that hath been now said and from more that might be said it is so clearly and fully demonstrate that this delivering up to Satan was farre another thing from that which at this day we call Excommunication or thrusting from the Sacraments that it cannot be denied by any that is a lover or knower of the truth I said above that some of the Antients did so expound this place Amongst whom Augustin was one whose Testimony I produced before besides there is another Testimony of this extant in his 1. Book of the Lords Sermon upon the Mount Before him Athanasias did so interpret it and after him Chrysosteme and at last his compilator Theophylact LXII Now let us take a view of these other places which they that dissent from us produce for themselves but nevertheless in brief In the Apostle Pauls sentence to Timothy where the saith that Presbyters which labour in the Word and Doctrine are worthy of double honour they put some strength and firmness For they think that from this place it is proved that there was some Presbyters that were not occupied in teaching but they attribute to those another Office to wit to censure manners to observe sinners to admonish the obstinate and to tell this to their fellow Presbyters that is to the Church and together with them to excommunicate these that will not hear the Church LXIII But we thinke that out of the writings of the Apostles Peter and Paul it is clear that Minister Bishop and Presbyter if this name signifie an Office and not age were the same in the Apostles times and that therefore there was then no Presbyter that did not also teach except perchance any man will have them also comprehended under this name that in the 1 Cor. 6. are appointed to be Judges and Arbitrators of controversies and causes But of these for the present we are not to speak seeing their Office was farre another from this Our opinion that is known to be most true is