Selected quad for the lemma: truth_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
truth_n	good_a	lord_n	people_n	4,014	5	4.8063	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A81720	A boundary to the Holy Mount, or a barre against free admission to the Lords Supper. In answer to an humble vindication of free admission to the Lords Supper. Published by Mr. Humphrey minister of Froome in Somersetshire. Which humble vindication, though it profess much of piety and conscience, yet upon due triall and examination, is found worthy of suspension, if not of a greater censure. By Roger Drake minister of Peters Cheap London.	R. D. (Roger Drake), 1608-1669.	1653 (1653)	Wing D2129; Thomason E1314_2; ESTC R209198	85,461	218

and the Sacrament in their administration And here he triumphs poor man before the victory in these words immediately following Vpon this ground me thinks I stand as upon a rock against which all objections like waves do but dash themselves in pieces Answ 1. If the Sacrament have the same latitude with the Word then a Turk or Heathen may receive as well as a Christian but this is contrary to Mr. Humphrey his professed principles as well as to the truth it self 2. His consequence will not hold unless he can prove that verbum visibile converts as well as verbum audibile and that it was instituted for that purpose 3. Though it should convert it proves onely that all should be present not that all should receive 4. Granting his foundation I retort it upon himself As the Word preached is applicable to all so also the Sacraments But the Word preached is not immediately applicable to all I mean as to that part of its gracious offer which is particularly tendered and sealed in the Sacrament For instance there are some righteous persons in their own conceit that Christ came not to call Mat. 9.13 many self-justitiaries and conceited Laodiceans to whom in that condition mercy is not immediately applicable But to whom in statu quo the Covenant is not applicable to them the seales of it are not applicable and where such may be discerned by their gross ignorance or scandall they are visibly as well as really unworthy and should not be permitted to receive where there is a just Authority to exclude them 2. To come a little closer to Mr. H. As the Word preached may be heard by all yet cannot be applied to all in divers things so the word visible the Lords Supper may be seen by all but ought not to be applied to all in divers cases namely when that which is sealed in the Sacrament is not immediately applicable to them by the Word for the Word and Sacrament must go hand in hand together Ergo where the covenant of grace is not visibly applicable there the visible sign of that covenant is not applicable But the covenant of grace is visibly unapplicable to many persons in the bosome of the visible Church ergo And thus Mr. H. his rock proves but a quick-sand and his visible Word makes against himself His amplification from pag. 11. to the 15. is as impertinent as his Argument is weak We easily grant the Lords Supper declares the covenant of grace as a sign and ratifies it as a seal but that it s therefore to be applied to all is a meer non sequitur Indeed where grace is freely offered by an audible word all may yea and should hear it and where it s offered by a visible word all have liberty to see it and so may be present at the administration of the Lords Supper as well as at preaching and Baptisme But that all ought actually to partake be they in what state they will unless uncapable by age dotage or excommunication is a new light started by Mr. Humphrey which like an ignis fatuus will lead thousands into utter darkness Had Mr. H. either read or understood our meaning as easily he might had he pleased by what is extant in print in a first and second discourse by the Antiquaerist he would not have shot so wide at rovers as now he doth The hinge of the controversie turns not upon this point Whether all may be present when the covenant of grace is signed offered and sealed in the Sacrament but whether all present may actually partake thereof and in particular those who visibly reject the covenant of grace that is signed offered and sealed by it To keep to Mr. H. his own similitude pag. 14. A generall pardon sent by a Prince may be offered to all Rebels within his Dominion all of them may hear the pardon read and if need be see it sealed upon which some come in and submit really others professedly stand out against pardon offered a third sort seemingly submit yet secretly carry about them daggers or poyson to murder their Prince The King knows this and his Ambassadours strongly suspect it Now I ask Mr. H. 1. Whether pardon shall be sealed particularly to them that openly stand it out 2. Whether the Ambassadours ought not to try all that submit that it may appear who submit really and who treacherously and the latter being found out is Mr. Humphrey of the minde that pardon should particularly be sealed to them as well as to those who submit really If so I think he is a better friend to Traytors then to good Subjects or good Government Apply this case to the Lords Supper and it will quickly put an end to this controversie now again unhappily raised by Mr. Humphrey to the no small joy of profane and ignorant persons and grief of Gods people Every Sacrament seals 1. The truth of the covenant of grace 2. It s generall offer 3. By some of the Sacramentall actions it doth instrumentally apply the Covenant to every worthy Receiver and to none else Now if Mr. H. and other dissenters will please to understand us aright all may see the truth of the Covenant of Grace and its generall offer sealed and so may be present at the whole administration which is made up of severall Ordinances the sight and hearing whereof may be very profitable for all sorts But that the Covenant of Grace should be instrumentally applied per sigilla to all sorts is in a manner as bad as if it should be applied to them by word of mouth and haply in some sense worse Dares Mr. H. say to any person visibly in the state of nature Sir be assured that Christ and all the benefits of the Covenant of Grace are actually and for ever yours And will he dare to seal that which he dares not say The language of every actuall giving is Christ is thine in particular and of every actuall receiving is Christ is mine in particular And shall any Minister dare solemnly to deceive any self-deceiving person and confirm him in presumption to the ruine of his soul when he may regularly prevent that mischief If this be not a strengthening of the hands of the wicked Ezek. 13.22 I beseech you what is To answer therefore briefly to his four Considerations held forth by way of conclusion pag. 15.16 17. To the first I answer Those whom we would not baptize bad they been to have been baptized at yeers of discretion those we cannot admit to the Lords Supper though baptized in their infancy And I ask Mr. H. whether there be not many such in England who yet are neither children nor fools nor excommunicated And here let Mr. H. remember his own rule p. 10. Adultis cadem est ratio utriusque Sacramenti To the second The question is not about the freeness of the offer but about the freeness of acceptance and whether they who visibly reject grace freely offered ought

admitted Lu. 14 29 how came the unthankfull Guests to be excluded by the Lords own command who yet had farre better excuses to keep from the Sacrament then many of our Professors have Luke 14. 18 20. 4. If this be meant particularly of the Lords Supper then let me ask Mr. H. whether some worldly occasions may not justly excuse our absence and whether all are judged there unworthy who are sometimes kept from the Lords Supper by their worldly occasions The weightiest occasions cannot excuse any from the Marriage Feast But I think Mr. H. will not deny but some worldly occasions may excuse a man from the Sacrament as is evident by analogy Numb 9.10 More might be added to shew the weakness of his plea from these parables But whereas he addes pag. 10. Now who is that faithfull steward that gives the houshold their portion of meat in due season but these that are thus doing that is who admit all comers as himself there interprets What a gross sensless and profane interpretation is this For 1. What an easie matter is it to be a faithfull steward if this faithfulness lie in admitting all pell mell to the Sacrament 2. Will it not follow by this rule that the profanest Ministers who are most for free admission are the most faithfull stewards 3. That the most pious and conscientious Ministers who dare not give this bread of children to dogs are therefore unfaithfull stewards Lord whither will not a selfish opinion lead a man Whereas he there addes That Iohn Baptist admitted all comers to Baptisme yea even those whom he calls vipers Answ 1. He saies but proves not that Iohn did baptize all comers 2. Matth. 3.6 It s noted that they who were baptized confessed their sins and so made publick profession of their repentance Let our people do that privately before the Eldership which these did publickly before all the world or if they please let them do it publickly before all the world as the former did and see if we refute them to the Sacrament Should we require confession of sins in every Receiver before admission to the Lords Supper we should be branded with a witness as pleaders for Auricular confession We onely desire a profession of their faith before receiving which though weak yet if true in the judgement of charity we dare not refuse such And because we are sure there can be no faith without knowledge therefore as we our selves have been tried by others and that willingly we think it our duty to try the faith and knowledge of all under our charge and if we finde any grosly ignorant as we dare not at present admit them so we are willing to take pains with them by instruction to fit them for the Sacrament in future Whether this be more pleasing to God or the admission of all hand over head I appeal to the Readers judgement and to Mr. Humphrey his conserence Whereas for further confirmation he adds Adultis eadem est ratio utriusque Sacramenti Answ I mean Catechumeni I deny it if taken in the latitude For 1. Heathen may be admitted to baptisme but not to the Lords Supper by his own grant 2. Taking this Maxime for granted what follows but that as persons to be baptized must profess faith and repentance Mat. 3.6 Act. 8.37 so must they also before receiving which makes much for our purpose and against Mr. Humphrey His last proof is drawn from Act. 10.28 upon which instance he concludes with a rhetoricall Doxology pag. 11. I thank God I have learned this same lesson with a satisfied conscience to esteem no man unclean but all unless excommunicated free in the use of Gods Ordinances Answ 1. That God who had taught Peter to count no man unclean taught Paul to count some men unclean yea persons within the Church and not excommunicated Tit. 1.15 16. 2. Let Mr. Humphrey shew me the force of this consequence Peter was commanded to converse with a godly man though levitically unclean as not being circumcised and a proselyte which uncleanness after the death of Christ was taken away Ergo Paul ought to converse with a profane Christian that is morally unclean How sutable this is to Scripture see 1 Cor. 5.11 Further Peter is commanded to preach the Word to Heathen that were comers on and ready to receive it ergo Paul may administer the Sacrament to all ignorant and wicked Christians that reject Christ and his Word I wish he would play the Logician more and the Rhetorician less in matters of this nature lest he be found in the number of those Rom. 16.18 who by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple 3. Consider how he contradicts himself as well as the truth pag. 3. he excluded Infants and distracted persons here his charity is so large as to exclude none but excommunicated persons 4. That by excluding excommunicated persons from the Word preached he runs into an uncharitable and dangerous errour hath been formerly proved which I will not here repeat Much more might be added had I leasure to follow him in his wild-goose-chace I think he may well be accounted a Master of Arts at wresting the Scripture and whether he hath writ more words or errours seems to me a disputable point For a further flourish in the same Page he heaps up Texts of Scripture that hold forth the offers of free grace to all which make as much for free admission to the seal of this Sacrament as an offer of pardon to all rebels proves that even those rebels must have their pardons sealed who stand out against their Prince as well as those that come in and submit upon pardon offered Let Mr. Humphrey and all the world know that we desire to keep none from the seal who will please to make it out to us that but in the judgement of charity they have a right to the thing signified Which may serve to take away that wonder of his How we can have the conscience to turn them away from the signes and means of grace in this Ordinance to whom the Gospel offers Christ freely Answ 1. With what conscience can he exclude Infants distracted and excommunicated persons to whom the Gospel offers Christ as freely as to any yea each of which may have the things signified and yet be denied the signe 2. Not generall offers of Christ but our actuall receiving of him visibly is the rule of admission to the Sacrament But how many persons do visibly reject Christ at least by consequence Tit. 1.16 and they who visibly reject the thing signified may justly be debarred the sign till they manifest their repentance Thus much for his proofs from Scripture Let us now proceed to his reasons and see whether he be better at argument then at quotation His first Argument is The Sacraments are verbum visibile a visible Gospel c. therefore the same latitude must be granted to them both meaning the Word preached