Selected quad for the lemma: state_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
state_n	church_n	invisible_a	visible_a	1,968	5	9.3548	5	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

fateor quidem generaliter omnes censeri qui se tales esse testentur etiamsi reipsâ nihil minùs sunt quam Christiani 3. That they are so to be accounted of in regard of admission untill they are orderly convicted and sentenc'd Deinde pro non detectis haberi qui tales esse non fuerint eo quem Deus in ecclesiâ constituit ordine convicti pro rebellibus damnati So pag. 27. Christus inquit D. Erastus jussit omnes edere illum panem et ex poculo illo bibere Ergo neminem vult excludi qui se suum discipulum profiteatur Id verò concedimus adeò quidem ut ipsos etiam hypocritas quamdiu vel penitus sunt tecti vel neque authoritate publico convicti et damnati inter discipulos numeremus I know some of our Divines of late but not of the gravity and moderation of Beza as Mr. Collins p. 41. Gillespy Mr. D. and others are more bold with the command of Christ and taking up Beza for granting thus much do restrain it to the regenerate only But this reverend man who is much rather to be heard durst not do so but is plain you see and clear in these concessions upon which the substance of my whole opinion at least as to the Ministers part will stand For if the Sacrament be instituted for disciples and all that professe Christ are to be accounted such and none of them to be excluded until they be convicted and condemned for rebels in that order God hath appointed as he affirms then must that disciplinary Free-admission which hold before excommunication be good unless it can be provd that there is some other censure in the order God hath appointed whereby the said rebels are to be condemned besides excommunication which I deny And so you see to what a little point our difference draws Beza sayes they must be convict and sentenced first before they be excluded as well as I only he conceives there is a lesser censure to be first inflicted before the greater which I must confesse I find not And herein likewise Beza himself acknowledges thus far that there is seldome mention in the Scripture of any such lesser censure but the greater only Tantum abest ut major excommunicatio censeri possit praeter Dei verbum invecta ut contra rara sint in ipso verbo Dei expressa minoris excommunicationis exempla majoris autem multa p. 11. Now if here instead of rara he had said nulla I think he had delivered the very truth My reasons against the affirmative of this question are these 1. Because the Lord Jesus in that primitive institution under the Gospel Mat. 18.15 16 17. hath prescribed no other parts or order in discipline than admonition and excommunication After the offending partie is admonished privately then publiquely If he will not hear the Church sayes Christ let him be as an Heathen that is let him be excommunicate according to those that oppose Erastus Now if the Apostles have prescribed any other order of discipline than what is prescribed in this original pattern let it be produced If not then may this text be sufficient that there is no such middle thing in the order Christ hath appointed as Suspension between admonition and excommunication 2. Because the power of the Keyes are given for binding and loosing which I conceive is done not in regard of a persons being debarr'd or admitted any ordinance The Levitically unclean were kept from the ordinances during their uncleannesse yet were not their sins bound thereby for many times they might become unclean without sin Lev. 21.3 Numb 19.8 But in regard of that state and relation men have to the Church outwardly and Christ as visible members from which while they are excluded their sins are accordingly and no otherwise bound or retained because there is no remission out of the Church or out of Christ the visible herein clave non errante presenting the invisible as they are loosed by being received in again through repentance From whence I argue where the sins of men are not bound or retained there is no Church-censure Mat. 16.19 Io. 20.23 But it is not excluding men from the Sacrament but the excluding them from the Church and so Relatively from all its benefits in that sense as we say Extra quam non est salus aut remissio that does bind the sins of men upon earth Therefore suspension can be no Church-censure distinct from excommunication See my Rejoynd p. 145 150. As the being within the Church puts men into a state whereby every member Relatively though a Reprobate is said in Scripture to be in Christ redeemed sanctified to have communion of his body and bloud with the like so does the casting them out of the Church put them likewise into a contrary state or condition whereby they are Relatively to be said without Christ without God in the world without redemption remission salvation 3. Because the Scriptures wheresoever they speak of exclusion in point of discipline doe still speak in general Purge out the old leven Have no company Put away from among your selves such a person c. From whence my argument will be framed thus If there bee no place in Scripture to prove any exclusion at all but such as speaks of exclusion from the Church the whole lump society in general or the like then is it not possible to prove by the Scripture Sacramental exclusion as distinct from Church-exclusion Or If there be no other medium in Scripture-discipline I speak of the word Discipline all the way restrainedly as to this part of censure but excommunication it self for the proving a withholding any at all for moral uncleanness from any publick ordinance as may appear by any thing of weight in Gillespyes 14 Arguments for exclusion from the Passeover B. 1. c. 12. then cannot suspension be proved as distinct from but only as conjunct with excommunication The consequence here is apparent But the former is true therefore the latter In a word the Scripture knows no other exclusion that is disciplinary but a casting out of the Church and so from the Sacrament only as included in it SECT 12 ANd this I take to be so true full and convincing that I should hardly need any thing more for the answering even the whole of those arguments for juridical suspension which is of late put forth by Mr. Coll in that book of his upon this subject wherein I may truly say there is bestowed a good deal of reading only as it were to discover how little there is to be found in others and nothing from himself besides humane authority for his opinion I must confesse there are here Certain Scriptures and Reasons urged by him with so much pedantry that is more than enough and it will be necessary that I give my thoughts concerning the Scriptures though for what is mere formalitie ostentation or personal abuse it may passe I pray God teach

able to act from a principle of reverence towards God the other have not The Corinths sin of not discerning the Lords body was more of carelesnes or prophanenesse than bare ignorance there is as much difference between Infants and Ignorants as I have said otherwhere as between a Doe not and a Cannot if the one does not it is their fault but the other cannot and are excused 2. Because there is yet a farther thing here most considerable and that is this The very ground upon which we are to do any thing or leave it undone is the consideration of duty The command of God as it is our rule so it must be the reason of our actions Now there is a difference in the very point of obligation or duty between Infants and Distracted persons and Ignorant and Scandalous persons The command of the Apostle is this 1 Cor. 11. Let a man examine himself and so let him eat discerning the Lords body Now as for Infants and the Distracted they are not bound to this command it is impossible for such to examine themselves and discern the Lords body and there can be no obligation to that which is naturally impossible But as for Scandalous and Ignorant persons they are bound to examine themselves they are of capacitie and are bound to get knowledge and discern the Lords body Who can deny that they are bound to do this and that if they do it not it is their sinne It is true an ignorant person cannot examine himself as well as a knowing Christian but he can examine himself though so farr that he is bound to it He cannot hear and apply the Word as a man of more knowledge but he can hear and apply the Word after a sort though as an ignorant man which he is bound unto and so far as he can apply the word he can examine himself the doing of one is a doing of the other Likewise an unregenerate man cannot discern the Lords body with that faith and love as the regenerate do but yet neverthelesse in point of dutie the case is plain every man must doe still what he can that God may help him to do what he cannot That which is a sin to neglect or leave undone is a dutie to be done but it is a sin in Ignorant and Scandalous persons not to examine themselves and discern the Lords body and no fin in Infant and Distracted persons and therefore it is a dutie in the one and not in the other And if it be a dutie here comes in then this rule which can never be taken off that Mans impotencie in the manner of performance of a dutie must not make void Gods authoritie in the substance and so I cloze up this if there be a dutie incumbent upon Ignorant and Scandalous members in respect of this Sacrament which is not on Infants and those which have not the use of reason then can there be no argument here from the non-admission of the one to the exclusion of the other And this might suffice but I will adde 3. It cannot be reasonably imagined that such a state of persons as Infants and Idiots in the Church should be admitted to actual receiving that in the discretion of the Church are no proper objects of Church-censures in point of offending which growen persons in the Church are though never so ignorant As John Timson hath put in to my assistance in his Bar removed p. 6. I will add it is as unreasonable likewise that such a state of men in the Church as ignorant persons should not be capable of a right of receiving the Sacrament who are upon their misdemeanour lyable to a censure of exlusion from it Eadem est ratio contrariorum 4. The non-admission of Infants and Distracted or Idiots is the office of everie single Minister belonging only to the right administring of the ordinance so that the precept alone Let a man examine himself and discern the Lords bodies does suffice for the doing thereof But exclusion of ignorant and scandalous persons is an act of Jurisdiction and belonging according to the Presbyterians to the Elders so that there are other texts required upon the account whereof that is to be done to wit those texts which concern discipline as Mat. 18. 1 Cor. 5. Put away from among you such a person There is not therefore the same reason for the one as for the other as may be gather'd farther from what will follow There is more required and another ground to an act which is ecclesiastically inflictive of punishment than to a bare act of pastoral discretion 5. The Ordinances all are to be used only for edification Now the work of the Sacrament on the receiver being only by way of sign as the understanding is exercised thereon it is not possible that those who have not the use of reason to discern any meaning here of can be edified or have any real grace wrought on them by it But for such as are of years understanding though spiritually ignorant and scandalous though unregenerate for the regenerate may sometimes be such I do conceive they are capable through the grace of God to receive good by it as by the word the Sacrament being nothing else but a visible word or an appendix to the Gospel As for the ignorant in the first place I suppose such as are of age and reason let the Minister speak of Mans miserie redemption by Christ and tell the people plainly the meaning of the Sacrament they come unto in as few plain words as they can and ought who can deny that they may not receive instruction and with instruction conviction now at this time they are here as at another If they do not the fault will be their Ministers or their own The Sacrament mediante verbo through the word will be granted a teaching ordinance but the Word does accompany the Sacrament and is indeed a part of it The Novices of the Jews were instructed in the meaning of the Passeover and some mysteries of their Religion at their eating the Passeover Godwin Jewish Antiq. l. 3. c. 4. the Paschal Lamb was appointed for a teaching sign and memorial in their generations Exod. 12.26 27. So doubtless is the Sacrament a teaching sign also I must confesse if you will say that some are so grosly ignorant that they are not capable for the present to learn or be instructed by publick teaching then may you have the libertie for me to number them amongst Idiots and such as have not the use of reason and so deal with them accordingly and if indeed there be such we had best happily for avoyding cavil to distinguish between these excepting them together with Infants and the Distracted and those whom I speak of that though they be ignorant are of discretion and capacitie to edifie by the publick ordinances and as for such it seems to me against sense to deny that they may not receive instruction and edification by the

that do understand this text as well as Mat. 18. of Excommunication do reconcile them both pretty well together Some say the Excommunicate is not as a man quite dismember'd but as a diseased member under cure It is not said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Some say he is cast out quoad us in se not quoad jus ad rem Others say he is indeed cast hereby out of the Church but this is conditionally he is not as an heathen absolutely but that such an expression may be used I will adde A man may be Relatively put into the state of a heathen through some misdemeanour when yet Really he may be a Saint and a true child of God 3. If this does not satisfie but that you think here is a censure and that not so high as excommunication it will not follow for all this that it must be necessarily this suspension because it may be any thing else as well unlesse there was something in the place to discover that the Apostle had some aim here in particular at the Sacrament which being a vain thing to affirm if you should frame twenty kinds of keeping not company or exclusions as well as from the Sacrament and should say the Text means one of them you would have quite as much from the place to prove the one as well as the other To conclude then these Scriptures about which I have been something long Mr. Col. argues thus still in the main and in particular p. 87. It is the duty of Church Officers to keep the fellowship of the Church pure for to this end is the rod of Discipline put into their hands Therefore must such and such persons be excluded the Sacrament But he should say therefore they should be excluded Church-fellowship for to plead for suspension from this Ordinance only instead of casting them out of fellowship in general to this end that it may be kept pure is nothing else but to yeeld openly that Church-fellowship in other parts of it should remain polluted and impure And then will all these texts return most forcibly on himself and overwhelme him Christ does not say keep the Sacrament only from Dogs and swine but give no holy things at all to them Paul does not say Purge out the leaven from this ordinance only but from the lump He does not say Keep not company only in the Sacrament but Keep no company Put such a one from amongst you Let him be as an Heathen The summe then is this according to what hath been before If these very Scriptures which are alleadged for suspension do respect the Sacrament no otherwise but as a part of Church-communion that is if they doe not prove a man is to be excluded from communion in the Sacrament at all but only that they prove he is to be excluded communion in general we shall not need any stronger proof against Suspension then that there is not such a censure in Scripture as distinct from Excommunication SECT 13. THere are some other Divines of something more candid spirits that look upon Suspension only as a prudential pastoral duty and no juridical censure and so labour to maintain it For such as these I must acknowledge that those reasons of mine laid down before do not strictly meddle with them It may suffice me as for such that they have Beza with the Presbyterians directly against them and no Scripture for any Suspension at all I speak as to the Sacrament whereon to build such an opinion And as for that they have to say for it for that is the whole that the Apostle commands a man to examine himself and discern the Lords body upon which we granting that infants and distracted persons are not to be admitted by the Minister therefore say they likewise neither ignorant nor scandalous persons I conceive it too insufficient a ground alone to build a businesse of so much practical weight and trouble upon I will adde therefore two or three reasons more against this opinion 1. A regenerate person that can examine himself and discern the Lords body in the strictest sense yet may be scandalous and for that scandal deserve exclusion as Theodosius by Ambrose It is not therefore because the Apostle commands a man to examine himself and discern the Lords body that a scandalous person is excluded but because the Apostle commands other-where let such be censured Put away from your selves such a person The same ground or reason that will exclude an unregenerate man will exclude the regenerate and no other From whence likewise I shall take away this argument from the hands of my proper opposers If the keeping of persons from the Lords Supper upon this ground or account that the Apostle commands those that come hither should examine themselves and discern the Lords body be a pastoral duty as these think and indeed so far as it is done barely on this ground in infants and distracted persons who being not bound hereunto through incapacity of reason are refused it is no other Then must not exclusion of ignorant and scandalous persons stand upon this ground with the Presbyterians for that is an act that cannot be done according to them as Beza fore-quoted but by the power of jurisdiction This is what hath at large been said before Suspension from the Sacrament must not be held upon any argument from the nature of the ordinance but from discipline 2. It is manifest that the same grace is required of a person to be accepted of God in one part of Gods worship as in another The Scripture requires us expresly to pray in faith in love with understanding and the like when it does not expresly but by consequence command us so to receive and as for due preparation or self-examination and a right discernment of the Lord in his worship who will deny it to be required in every ordinance by the same consequence as in the Sacrament it is expresse It cannot therefore be said that the debarring of scandalous or ignorant persons from the Sacrament is a Scripture-result from the nature of that service and the requisites to it which is the whole can be pleaded to make this a pastoral duty any more than from prayer and other Ordinances It is true we may suppose according to the ratity solemnity of an Ordinance our addresses to it may and ought to be more solemn but yet is the Ordinance alike otherwise as to the nature and requisits to it and not to be preferred before others to the breeding such a superstitious conceit on the spirits of men that looks to me like to bowing at the name of Jesus and not at the name of Christ God and the Holy Ghost 3. It is not the part of Pastors to content themselves with keeping men away from the Sacrament without proceeding unto censure and debarring them other communion at least that of common familiarity to make them ashamed I know many happily may

pastor can have to the following them with instruction for the good of their souls which is that I suppose they only aim at in this matter and if it were any thing else it is fit they should never obtain it Only I must adde here that I suffer not in my principles It is not because I think receiving is no duty unto such for this I conceive were evil to hold Nor because I think it not appointed for edification unto such for those arguments that reverend Mr. Blake hath put in to prove the Sacrament a means of grace to the unregenerate within the Church Cov. Seal ch 7. sect 13. must needs reach and be cogent for these also as they are Church-members although he would not have them Nor because I think that such are in an utter incapacity to be edified by it as infants and the distracted are wherein the formentioned learned man places his whole ground of dissent he hath from me in this point seeing the Sacrament through the word and the word goes along with it doth teach as for the one and convince of sin as for the other as is said before and granted by him That it is a teaching Ordinance mediante verbo even at the present for the ignorant I pray let me but propose this one thing Were not those words of our Lord to his disciples This is my body broken for you This is the New Testament in my blood which was shed for remission of sinnes teaching words informing forming them of his death and mystery of our redemption Who can deny this And were not the disciples ignorant at that time of his death and mystery of our redemption Compare Mar. 9.31 32. Lu. 9.44 45. with Lu. 24. 7 8. Io. 20.9 and what then will follow for the ignorant is cleer That it is a sin-aggravating Ordinance and so a soul-humbling heart-breaking Ordinance for the sinner Mr. B. and I so well agree Rejoynd p. 235 236. with Cov. Seal p. 204. that it needs no argument and then what follows for the scandalous is as clear likewise It is not therefore I say for these causes that I allow thus much but it is indeed because I think that no lesse can be denied to belong to the Minister upon the score of prudence only That there is a possibility upon what is said of edification unto all intelligent Church-members though scandalous Cov. Seal p. 240. or ignorant p. 233. Mr. B. cannot ingenuously deny and that there is not that moral probability or likelihood hereof as upon their further instruction and preparation I do grant From both which then the plain reason will arise why such may in prudence be advised to forbear the Sacrament at present when yet it must be held fast that there is no necessity on the conscience simpliciter for the ir exclusion To speak a little more my thoughts freely I conceive it to be a Magnale in the wisdom of the Church which hath ever kept up some more solemn times for the putting in mind of her members to shrift or addresse their souls to God in a more peculiar manner at some seasons above others to make use of the Sacrament to this end insomuch that though the primitive Christians broke bread every week and sometimes daily yet hath it been the use of after Ages to celebrate this Ordinance more rarely that the solemnity and rarity those expressions in 1 Cor. 11. giving help hereunto might have this desired work upon the people Upon this same score I do conceive this condescension may take place in allowing that a forbearance of the Lords Supper be advised many times to unprepared unfit persons when we judge it in Christian prudence conducible through a more solemn address thereunto towards a farther improvement thereof for their souls And so may the same be asserted happily as I judge of it Ex quadam conveniontia Ob majorem reverentiam as the School-men speak in some other cases about this Sacrament When as I am perswaded otherwise there is the same outward priviledge aed the same inward qualifications held forth alike in the Scripture unto this and other Ordinances And this for my first concession SECT 16. SEcondly then for some 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or condescension in the latter question that the excommunicate person may not be so turned out from all the Ordinances though he be turned out from them and that alike too from one as well as the other in a sort but that he may have admittance to some of them upon an account which may be justifiable for the gaining of his soul and yet without the introducing of this lesser censure of suspension into the discipline of man which is not in the discipline of Christ or the Scripture I have spoken more at large in my Rejoynd part 2. sect 1. See particularly p 87. 149. Where having shewn that Church-censure or Excommunication does reserre to Church-communion in general and consequently that a person excommunicate is cast out from every part thereof and so from all the Ordinances as well as the Sacrament I do humbly offer this distinction of a Real and Relative exclusion A real exclusion is an exclusion of a man from a thing so that he cannot by any means participate of the thing A relative exclusion is the exclusion of a man from his relation to a thing or his right of priviledge in it whether he yet otherwise possesses the thing or not Now that which we admit Heathen to in receiving them into the Church I think we cast them out from in excommunicating them But we admit not persons to an actual hearing the Word or participating such ordinances as they did and might attend before but we admit them into a state and relation whereby the ordinances belong to them with a difference of priviledge from the world and as they partook of them while they were without They were then indeed admitted to the Word and it may be Prayer to bring them in as they ought yet neither one nor the other Ordinance did belong to them by way of advantage Rom. 3.2 or propriety as externally in covenant in Christ redeemed sanctified c. as they doe being members Consequently therefore my thoughts are that though Excommunication cuts off a person Relatively from all the Ordinances from one alike as well as the other in the sense now spoken and does cut off a man really from that Ordinance the actual participation whereof is peculiar to that relation as the Sacrament Yet this Relative exclusion does not necessarily inferre a Real exclusion of a man from those other Ordinances as the Word and Prayer which may be partaken of out of that relation And so here will arise that which may give contentment to wit that upon this it shall be left in the Churches hands by way of Mitigation to admit the Excommunicate hereunto whether one or more or none of them as she sees it fit to use severity or