Selected quad for the lemma: blood_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
blood_n	body_n	bread_n	break_v	17,454	5	7.4495	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A64560	An apology for the Church of England in point of separation from it by ... William Lord Bishop of St. Davids.	Thomas, William, 1613-1689.	1679 (1679)	Wing T975; ESTC R33829	87,104	244

may be byast with a further scope more peculiarly reflecting upon Timothy that he should turn away from such offenders of steeled faces that being habitually depraved obstinately hardned they should not ineffectually be exhorted argued with The patient may be quitted when the cure is despaired Junius and Tremelius thus descant on the Caveat Estius parallels it with the Apostolical Precept to Titus 3. 10 11. A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject Knowing that he that is such is subverted and sinneth being condemned by himself The LETTER We cannot communicate with those whom we are commanded by God to separate from without sin But scandalous and offending brethren are such as we are commanded to separate from 1 Cor. 5. 11. If not to keep company in the lesser as ordinary commerce eating much less may we in the greater The ANSWER Distinguish betwixt Separation in Communion and Conversation and there will evidently appear four Terms in your Argument which will discover it not a Fallacy only in Divinity but a Prodigie in Logick The Major Proposition is true only as to separating in Communion The Minor Proposition is true only as to separating in Conversation To prevent Ambiguity Amphibology I shall crave leave to new mould your Syllogism We may not communicate with such whom we are commanded by God to separate from in Communion But from scandalous sinners we are commanded by God to separate from in Communion Therefore we may not communicate with scandalous sinners I deny the Minor Proposition This you assay to confirm by the Apostles Prohibition 1 Cor. 5. 11. With such a one no not to eat you hence fortifie your Argument If not to keep company in the lesser as ordinary commerce and eating much less may we in the greater I answer The Topick Canon from the Lesser to the Greater is a valid proof when both are of the same Tribe of the same stock and nature when they are cloathed with the dress of the same circumstances But your instances are not Take the illustration from Calvin The one is arbitrary it is in our power not to eat with a scandalous Brother The other is necessary to communicate with him in the Lords Supper He can till excommunicated plead an interest in the Lords Table which is secund● post naufragium tabula the second plank after Shipwrack He can plead no interest in yours If the Church saith Calvin tolerate an unworthy person it is commendable to be shy of his society so far as may consist with a mans duty so that hereby no Schism no Separation as to Church Communion be introduced Aretius manifests the fallacious abuse of your Topick Maxime by this reason Private familiarity of repast with the wicked may taint in point of conversation at least tempt molest but not so for the publick Piety of the Sacrament In the one the holy encourage the impiety of the prophane in the other the prophane countenance the piety of the holy Their access if impenitent needs not scare nor divert your approach if penitent a foil to set off your lustre of Religion your joynt Prayers and Graces may be helps to purge them their defect and blemishes cannot annoy and soil you in the Sacramental Devotion Like a Bee you may suck Honey out of that Herb out of which others like Spiders extract Poyson As the fragrancy of that Oyntment deadens the Fly which enlivens the Dove The Principle Quicquid recipitur recipitur ad modum recipientis is no less appliable to a Sacrament than a Sermon Both admit different repugnant Operations according to the capacities of Auditors and Receivers As a reverent Auditor is not less edified because of irreverent Auditors in the same Church so a faithful Communicant is not less sanctified because an unfaithful dissolute Brother partakes of the same Table Remember the Apostles Caution wherein in the judgement of Expositors he pricks the bladder of Pharisaical censure Let every man prove his own work and then shall he have cause of rejoycing in himself alone and not in another It is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not against another saith St. Chrysostom to tax to condemn him The Apostle enforceth this caution with a prediction which may unplume any spiritual Arrogance and turn the edge of any censorious rigor For every man shall bear his own burden This personal clog of guilt hath weight and terror enough to cause you and me to sigh and tremble for our selves Alas there needs no panick affrightment of being loaded and polluted with the corruptions of others in uncorrupt actions unless such only as are committed to our charge whose vitious courses may reflect stains if promoted by our neglects by our defaults The LETTER It is called a Communion 1 Cor. 10. 16 21 22. I suppose meant a Communion of Saints as far as our charity guided by the word may discern but to say That a company of ignorant Drunkards Swearers Sabbath breakers are Saints is contrary to the word of God 1 Cor. 6. 9. 1 Joh. 1. 6 9. Matth 7. 8. Let us take heed of it Esa. 5. 20. Prov. 17. 15. They profess Christ 1 Cor. 6. 15. 17. Therefore such make not the Communion A mixt Communion is not for Christ. His Members must be homogeneal or else a monster 2 Cor. 6. 14. The ANSWER To prove a Communion of Saints in the Eucharist you cite 1 Cor. 10. 16. The cup of blessing which we bless is it not the Communion of the blood of Christ the bread which we break is it not the Communion of the body of Christ This relates to the matter of the Communion not to the quality of the Communicant You add vers 20 21. But I say that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice they sacrifice to devils and not to God I would not that you should have fellowship with devils The Apostle here brands the oblations of depraved Gentiles to damned Spirits and forbids those that communicate in a Christian Pious Sacrament to partake of a Pagan Idolatrous Feast This is remote eccentrical to our question I hope your judgement as well as your charity better guided than to rank those you separate from with Heathens Idolaters or to repute their sacrifice of thanksgiving to God to be an offering to Satan You aggravate it as a Soloecism in Religion to say that a company of ignorant Drunkards Swearers Sabbath breakers are Saints Is this your best Character to descypher a Parochial Ecclesiastical Assembly The sharpest invectives are the slightest proofs It was but a frothy confutation of a fiery Spirit in Lucian 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Thou cursed wretch We may in these saith St. Austin to Petilianus a Donatist be alike copious but we will not be alike vain As if like those of China you fancied your selves only to have two eyes of Reason and of Religion and the rest of the World but one your first brand is Ignorant I pray