Selected quad for the lemma: reason_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
reason_n	include_v	proposition_n	roger_n	120	3	16.4934	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A74671	The bar, against free admission to the Lords Supper, fixed. Or, An answer to Mr. Humphrey his Rejoynder, or, reply. By Roger Drake minister of Peters Cheap, London.	R. D. (Roger Drake), 1608-1669.	1656 (1656)	Wing D2128; Thomason E1593_1; ESTC R208860	271,720	506

proves the minor of the first Syllogism is the evidence of my faith 1. In actu signato in the major He that receives Christ for righteousness believes 2. In actu exercito in the minor I receive Christ for righteousness Now I pray how doth the major of the second Syllogism prove the major of the first Syllogism Set them together in an hypothetical Syllogism and see if they hang not together like ropes of sand thus If I receive Christ for righteousness then he that believes shall be saved I receive Christ for righteousness ergo I pray what connexion is there in the forementioned hypothesis Had it run thus If I receive Christ for righteousness then I believe I receive Christ for righteousness ergo There is an evident connexion but in the former hypothesis there are clearly quatuor termini 1. The pronoun I. 2. Receiving Christ 3. Believing 4. Salvation The major then of the second Syllogism doth not prove the major but the minor of the first Syllogism as is evident because not the major but the minor of the first Syllogism is the conclusion in the second Syllogism He that receives Christ for righteousness believes I receive Christ for righteousness therefore I believe The conclusion I believe is the minor of the first Syllogism and that was the thing to be proved but not the major of the first Syllogism which was taken for granted as being express Scripture 2. That the evidence in actu exercito is in Scripture by consequence I have formerly proved and wait to see what M. H. hath further to say to it M. H. p. 196 197. Whereas Mr. D. puts this off with a not in terminis but by consequence Let us see his Consequence All are sinners therefore thou Roger art a sinner All must rise therefore thou must rise This is true because the one includes the other So whosoever believes shall be saved includes this de fide If thou Roger believest thou shalt be saved but it cannot include de fide Therefore thou Roger believest Answ 1. If that proposition All that are men shall rise include Therefore thou Roger shalt rise then this proposition All that believe shall be saved includes Therefore thou Roger shalt be saved The reason is because as the former proposition includes not Roger but as a man humanity being supposed to be in him so that latter proposition includes not Roger but as a Believer faith being supposed to be in him which faith being really-in him as well as humanity upon the supposition its evident the last proposition includes Roger as well as the first and therefore Rogers salvation is as sure as his resurrection True seldom is it as sure to Roger because Rogers faith is seldom as evident to him as his humanity but it is as sure in it self Thus if Roger be a Babe his resurrection is sure in it self though not to Roger because he cannot reflect to know himself to be a man and so if Roger be a Babe in Christ he cannot by a reflex act discern himself to be a true Believer as he can discern himself to be a man yet his salvation still is as sure as his resurrection though not as sure to him And the Conclusion is firm Roger shall be saved though Roger do not know he shall be saved 2. As that proposition Whosoever believes shall be saved includes this de fide If thou Roger believe thou shalt be saved but doth not include de fide Thou Roger believest So that proposition All men shall rise doth include de fide If thou Roger art a man thou shalt rise but doth not include de fide Thou Roger art a man And if Roger may be sure by Scripture-evidence that he shall rise at the day of Judgement though the Scripture doth not say in express terms Thou Roger art a man then Roger may be sure he shall be saved though the Scripture doth not say in express term Thou Roger believest M. H. ib. M. D. says Yes because the minor here is the Conclusion in the Prossyllogism to wit He that hath these signs believes But I have these signs ergo I believe I answer contra seeing the Conclusion in the Prosyllogism is the same with the minor in the prinpal Syllogism it cannot be in Scripture or de fide by the same consequence he proves it can For that he hath these and these signs is not in Scripture but to have these and these signs is all one with to believe ergo That he believes is not in Scripture or de fide by consequence He that hath these signs I say is all one with he that believes and so his Prosyllogism then comes effectually but to this He that believes believes But he believes ergo he believes Answ Here Mr. H. undertakes to prove That the minor I believe in the Syllogism of Assurance is not in Scripture so much as by consequence An high attempt I confess and of so sad consequence if true as to thrust out of our Sermons all Uses of Tryal break in pieces bruised reeds increase the fears of doubting Christians and in a word discourage all sorts from the great and necessary work of self-examination for wherefore should I try my faith by Scripture unless by Scripture I can come to know that I believe If by Scripture I can come to know that I believe then it follows necessarily that this proposition I believe depends some way or other upon Scripture but it doth not depend upon Scripture in express terms therefore it must depend upon Scripture by consequence And so by consequence the Scripture says I believe or Thou John Peter or Roger believest which is the minor in the Syllogism of Assurance Now what in me lies to convince M. H. and to stablish weak Christians that they may not be overborn by principles that strike not onely at Church-examination but also at self-examination I shall endeavor as much plainness as the subject will bear being made the more intricate by terms of art and the rather considering I have to deal not onely with a Scholar my Antagonist but also with weak and plain-hearted Christians whose life of comfort lies very much in the Vindication of this sweet truth here opposed by Mr. Humphrey Let me only premise to prevent mistake That the minor in the Syllogism of Assurance is not sealed in the Sacrament as it is formally the minor or Assumption of the principal Syllogism but as it is the conclusion of the Prossyllogism He that receives Christ c. believes I receive Christ therefore I believe And thus as the conclusion of the principal Syllogism I shall be saved depends partly upon Scripture as to the major partly upon sense and experience as tp the minor so doth the conclusion of the Prossyllogism I believe and therefore as the first so the second conclusion depends upon Scripture by consequence c. Amesius is clear to this purpose in his Cases of Conscience Lib. 1. Cap. 9. Sect.

Ministers namely Apostles 4 ly In admitting them suddainly without previous examination and preparation 5 ly In celebrating the Sacrament at night after Supper and in private c. And why may not Christ as well act extraordinarily in admitting a known Hypocrite If Mr. Humphrey will tie us to imitate Christ in one of these why not in all of them I might add that if Christs practice in admitting Judas be our rule then it were a sin to excommunicate any since Christ did not excommunicate Judas though he knew Judas deserved excommunication as well as suspension Nor 2 ly Is that a ground to exclude Sacramentall eating out of the fore-mentioned Text 1 Cor. 5. 11 Because all are invited to repentance for then even Pagans should not be debarred the Sacrament yea if none should be denyed Sacramentall eating because all are invited to repentance why should any be denyed civill eating with Church-members since all are invited to repentance May not there be in the one as well as in the other 1. Testification of love 2 ly Familiarity 3 ly A desire to win the offending-Brother And 4 ly Is not the one offensive as well as the other Nor 3 ly Is there any contradiction between 1 Cor. 5. 11. and 1 Cor. 11. but rather a sweet harmony since in the first place be forbids unworthy ones to eat in the second place he shewes their great sin and danger if they presume to eat Here is no opposition but a regular subordination Nor 4 ly is Sacramentall eating excluded out of 1 Cor. 5. 11. because it is not particularly mentioned in the Text for then by the same reason both civill eating and eating at their Love-Feasts should be excluded also since neither of them are mentioned particularly in the Text but only eating in generall which is common to Sacramentall as well as to civill eating It 's sufficient that Sacramentall eating is intended by the Apostle under the notion of a Feast 1 Cor. 5. 8. there being no Gospell Ordinance so properly and Literally a Feast as is the Lords Supper which supplies the Feast of the Passover and comes in its room and in it Christ our Passover is representatively and declarativly offered for us and actually offered to us more then in other Ordinances Gal. 3. 1. Before whose eyes not only to their ears Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth crucified among you If yet it be objected There 's good reason civill eating should be included in the Text since the Apostle speaks evidently of such an eating wherein I may converse with an Infidell but not with a scandalous Brother Ans Therefore we grant the place may be understood of civill eating but deny it must be understood solely of civill eating there being good reason also why it should be understood of Sacramentall eating since the Sacrament is Literally as well as Spiritually a Meal a Feast in which I testifie love to every Communicant as well as I do to any by admitting him to my own Table and the scandall of admitting a scandalous Brother to the Sacrament where it lies in my power to keep him away will be great as well as it will be if I admit him to my private Table A scandalous Brother then was debarred some priviledges of an Heathen some priviledges of a Church-m●mber and might not be admitted with Christians either to a Civill Feast or to the Love Fe●sts or to the Sacramentall Feast Yea the Apostle tells us particularly Such were spots in their Feasts of Charity Jude verse 12. And those Love-Feasts were Appendixes of the Lords Supper 1 Cor. 11. verse 21 22. Object They were all partakers of one bread yet in the Church of Corinth there were many scandalous sinners 1 Cor. 10. 17. Ans The word All can be of no larger extent then visible Saints such as were those to whom the Apostle wrote and surely visible workers of iniquity cannot be visible Saints This not mine but Mr. Gillespy's answer who asserts also that it cannot be proved that any came actually drunk to the Sacrament in which both the terme 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 favour him 1 Cor. 11. 21. This Interpretation is more evident by the manner of expression 1 Cor. 10. 17. compare a like place Rom 8. 35 39. We all are partakers c. the Apostle putting himselfe in the nūber though he were not a Member of the Church of Corinth or of any other particular Church but as a reall and visible Saint did partake where ever he came Yea where Ministers or other Christians travelled from one Country to another they were not easily admitted to Church-communion without some Testimoniall of their reall or visible Saint-ship by either word of mouth or by writing Acts 9. 26 27. and 15. verse 25 26 27. and 18. 27. and 2 Cor. 3. 1. and 3 John verse 5-8 c. What a poor recommendation had it been I pray receive the incestuous Corinth or such a one as denies the Resurrection to full Church-communion for he is a Church-member The Congregationall Churches yea and other reformed Churches will not admit Church-members of our Congregations barely upon the account of Church-membership though they acknowledge divers of our Congregations to be true Churches but put us upon the Test unlesse they have otherwise sufficient testimony of our visible Saintship More to this purpose together with sundry opposite answers to severall other objections made against this Scripture see in Mr. Gillespy and Mr. Collins his late Vindic. Suspensionis c. unto whom for brevities sake I refer the Reader 2 Argum. My second Argument for Suspension which is also Mr. Collins his Argument is this It 's unlawfull to admit some intelligent Church-members to the Lords Supper Ergo They ought to be suspended The Consequence is clear since to admit and not to admit are termes contradictory and therefore if the one be unlawfull the other must needs be a duty Now Suspension in its formall Nature is a non-admission and therefore if it be unlawfull to admit it is a duty to suspend The Minor I prove thus It 's unlawfull to admit those who cannot eat of the Lords Supper some intelligent Church-members cannot eat of the Lords Supper Ergo. By persons that cannot receive I understand those who are morally uncapable and who if they be of age fin by their very receiving as being forbidden to partake of the Lords Supper because at present they are visibly unworthy by grosse ignorance or scandall as well as Heathen are forbidden to receive upon the account of being no Church-members Both have a naturall but neither of them have a morall power to receive Nor is an Heathen in expresse termes forbid to receive the Lords Supper but only by consequence as are unworthy Church-members This premised the Major is evident upon the very explication of the termes for if it be unlawfull to admit those who sin by their very receiving