Selected quad for the lemma: blood_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
blood_n	eat_v	flesh_n	wine_n	6,675	5	7.7468	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A80157	Provocator provocatus. Or, An answer made to an open challenge made by one M. Boatman in Peters Parish in Norwich, the 13th of December, 1654. in a sermon preached there at a fast, in which answer these questions are spoke to. 1. Whether juridicall suspension of some persons from the Lords Supper be deducible from Scripture; the affirmative is proved. : 2. Whether ministeriall or privative suspension be justifiable; the affirmative also is maintained. : 3. Whether the suspension of the ignorant and scandalous be a pharisaicall invention; a thing which wiser ages never thought of, as Mr Boatman falsly affirmed. In opposition to which is proved, that it hath been the judgment and practice of the eminent saints and servants of Christ, in all ages, of all other reformed churches in all times ... / By John Collings ...	Collinges, John, 1623-1690.; Boatman, Mr.	1654 (1654)	Wing C5329A; ESTC R232871	174,209	280

by or finding some other course to have them debarred though my judgement would condemn them as neglecting an Ordinance of Christ yet my charity would beare with them till they were further convinced 2 Others professe their judgements to stand for Presbyteries but they know not how to got any yet they think they are bound to administer the Ordinance Would these men first doe what in them lies to set up the Government of Christ in the hands of his proper Officers and in the meane time 1. Not onely in the Pulpit exhort c. but indeavour to be acquainted with all in their flock going from house to house and taking account of their spirituall estate and observe and enquire concerning their conversations and 3. Pastorally admonish those that they find ignorant of that great sin of Affected ignorance and unprofitablenesse under the meanes of grace and this not only in the Pulpit generally but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 personally and particularly I could say something to excuse them at least à tanto for administring the Ordinance without a Presbytery and they might have a little plea made for them though they kept away none as the state of our Church stands though for my owne part I durst undertake to justifie them in withholding the Sacrament from known scandalous sinners who after pastorall admonition where no more can be shall yet presume to intrude But I heare Mr Humfry and Mr Boatman cry they must be excommunicated first and the latter cry he knows none ignorant nor scandalous if they were yet they both agree that they must be juridically excommunicated But doe these tender men set up this same Court in which the scandalous and ignorant should be first judged or doe they by enquiry of others or observation or examination first endeavour to know such as they invite to the Lords Table and not administer the Ordinance till they have done what in them lies to know whether there be none in their congregations that are ignorant or excommunicate de jure For one of them I can say something though nothing to perswade me or any other that it is from a tendernesse of conscience he is so free I shall now shut up this first Argument it amounts to thus much The holy Sacrament of the Lords Supper is one of those holy things which our Saviour Christ in Mat. 7.6 forbids us to give unto Dogs or to cast before Swine They have the nature of holy things there is no reason to exclude them Expositors generally have so judged Men of impure lives and conversations are Dogs and Swine in Scripture phrase and such as will trample upon the Ordinance It will be an easie conclusion If God hath required those whom he hath betrusted with his holy things not to give them out to such as his word describes to be Dogs and Swine then though there may be some in the Church not yet excommunicated yet they ought not to have the holy thing of the Sacrament given to them But I have proved this to be the will of Christ from this Text Ergo If Mr Boatman can finde out a medium betwixt not giving the Sacrament to them and denying it to them I shall listen to him otherwise by his leave here is a Scripture-prohibition for some to be kept away who are neither Turks nor Jewes nor Heathens nor excommunicated persons and he needed not have challenged all the Ministers on the earth to this task CHAP. III. VVherein a second Argument is brought to prove suspension distinct from excommunication from 1 Cor. 10.21 A second Argument is this It is unlawfull to give the Sacrament to those who cannot eat or drink it But there may be some in the Church not excommunicated who cannot drink of the Lords cup. Ergo I will prove both propositions 1. For the major BEfore I prove it it will be necessary that we consider in what sense the Apostle useth this phrase in the place I allude to 1 Cor. 10.21 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the question is what Impotency is there meant 1. That it is not to be understood of the want of a Physicall power is plaine enough for so they might eat at the Table of the Lord and the Devils Table too 2. It must therefore be understood in a morall sense Id tantum possumus quodjur possumus You cannot that is lawfully and warrantably you cannot drink of the cup of the Lord and the cup of Devils Grotius minceth this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 too small v. Grotium ad loc when he expounds it by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And Parens observes against him well that it is a manifest depraving of the sense v. Pareum ad loc the Apostles designe being to shew a plain inconsistency betwixt a fellowship with Christ in his Ordinances and with Devils at Idols Feasts not a meere indecorum in it This is one of the senses which Musculus gives of the Text. 3. I find indeed a third sense of the words hinted Musc ad loc by some reverend Expositors You cannot drink of the cup of the Lord and of the cup of Devils You cannot eat of the Table of the Lord and of the Table of Devils That is say they though you may enjoy an outward Communion in the Ordinance yet you cannot enjoy an inward spirituall Communion with Christ in it As Augustine supposing Judas was at the Lords Supper saith that he did eat Panem Domint but not Panem Dominum But I think Learned Beza saith something against this sense when he tels us that by the Table is meant the Elements upon the Table and by the cup the wine in the cup. If the Apostle had said you cannot eat the flesh and drink the blood of Christ if you have fellowship with Devils the Apostle might possibly have been so interpreted but his Argument is plainly to prove the unlawfulnesse of their comming to the Table being guilty of such sinns But the summe of all amounts to this that those who cannot drink the cup and eat at the Table of the Lord in the sense of this Text are either 1. Such as God hath forbidden comming to that Ordinance Or secondly such as if they sush upon the Ordinance yet can have no Communion with Christ no benefit by it I will take it in either sense and I say It is sinfull for any to administer the Ordinance of the Supper to those whom he knowes to be such as are forbidden to meddle with it or whom he knowes to be such as considering their present state cannot have Communion with Christ in it This I hope will easily be proved For surely it will be granted that it is sinfull for any to give it to those to whom he is not commanded to give it for he is the steward of the mysteries of God and must expect his masters order before he deales them out nor will it be enough to say he is not forbidden for his very

scandalous sinner but even Iudas himselfe was both in the Disciples eyes and in Christs eyes acting not as an omniscient God but as a Minister of the Gospell a visible Saint Which was the answer as I remember of Bonaventure I am sure of Halensis and Salmeron long since and is the generall answer of our Divines to that cavill Nor hath Mr Humfry in his Rejoinder said any thing to prove Iudas then scandalous for though as Erastus noted before him he had then treason in his heart and supposing that to be true which Erastus and Mr Humfry so much plead but I scarce beleeve that he had before covenanted with the High Priests yet all this was secret and he was not discovered till upon Christ giving him the sop he asking is it I Christ said thou saiest it and that reply of Christ was before as some think Grotius well observes that Christ did but whisper it to him for it is plaine from Iohn 13. that the Disciples knew it not till then and he then having received the sop went out 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Iohn which by the way as I shall prove more anon was both before the eating of the Paschall Lambe and before the institution of the Lords Supper too It is worth our observing that Christ did not so much as call up those of the same house which it is more then probable that he would have done if he had intended it for a converting Ordinance or for all promiscuously Nay surely Christ had more disciples then the twelve but the twelve onely if all of them were present 2. Some think that they have a precept for promiscuous administring this Ordinance from Mat. 28.19 20. where we have our commission in these words Goe teach all Nations baptizing them in the name of the Father the Sonne and the Holy Ghost 1. To that I answer 1. There is nothing exprest concerning the administration of the Lords Supper and our opposites who are so nimble at every turn to call for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should remember that by it they oblige themselves to doe the like But secondly admit that there is an implicit precept likewise for the administration of the Sacrament of the Lords Supper yet surely by the same rule that the Apostles notwithstanding that precept did not think themselves obliged to baptize any but such as beleeved and confessed their sins we may also expound the included part of the precept and must administer this Ordinance to none but such as are able to examine themselves and to discerne the Lord Body So that this will not serve their turne Thirdly Erastus and Mr Humfry and Mr Boatman make a great stir with the wedding Supper Mat. 22. to which all were invited c. But 1. They should remember that old and true rule Theologia parabolica non est argumentativa No argument can be fetcht from Parables but from the generall scope of them v Mr Humfrie's rejoinder p. 52 53. 54 〈◊〉 Now he that runs may read that our Saviours main scope in that Parable was not to shew who might or might not come to the Lords Table but to shew how angry God was with the Jewes for not comming to Christ by which unbeliefe of theirs they procured destruction to themselves and God would now call in the Heathens and those who before were not his people to be his people and to fill up his Feast 2. If Mr Humfry or Mr Boatman thinke they may argue from any of the foure feet of that parable as to this cause they may prove it to be their duty not onely to stand in a Pulpit and invite all the Lords Table but to goe into high waies and hedges too and bring in all they meet with yea and to compell them to come in Now it will prove too that they ought to fetch in Pagans who are chiefly meant in the latter part of the Parable And thus they shall not need to want company at the Lords Table 3. Doctor Drake answered Mr Humfry well I think when he told him that Christ is the Feast meant in that Parable and although all be invited to the Feast Christ yet the question is whether all be invited to eat of that dish in the Feast Dr Drokes Bar to free admission p 30. Mr Humfries rejoinder p. 54. viz. the Sacrament of the Lords Supper as wel as they are invited to hear the Gospel Here now M. Humfry hath a mind more to shew his wit then his honesty thus he answers him p. 54. This is something ingenuous but whereas he applies this that a man may be invited to a Feast yet not to the dish in the Feast it is very fine c. then he tels us a tale of the two egs and concludes let us have the dishes of the Foast and what will become of Mr Drakes Feast How falsly hath he abused Dr Drake let the Reader judge Dr Drake doth not say they are not invited to any dish but they are not invited to every dish and if the dish of the Sacrament be removed there will a Feast still remaine But the truth is it was properest for Mr Humfry to abuse his Adversary when he could not answer him If this and other passages of the same nature in that unworthy book be not enough to make it stink in the nostrils of conscientious Christians let them but read his language p. 269. and the application of Scripture to serve his nastie intentions and they may help a little towards it 4. I never heard of any more Scripture precepts protended onely that 1 Cor. 11.24 where I desire the Reader to consider 1. That the Apostle doth but repeat the words of our Saviour which were spoke to none but visible Saints 2. The Apostle delivers the same words to them he bids them Doe that c. Which by the way is not a command to their Pastors to administer it but to the Church to receive the Sacrament and surely doth not concerne those who in that Chapter are commanded to examine themselves c. and are not able to doe it The question is whether the Apostle v. 24. doth command them to receive the Sacrament of the Lords Supper who could not examine themselves according his rule v. 28. nor discern the Lords body or who if they did partake must necessarily eat and drink their owne damnation and make themselves guilty of the body and blood of Christ Surely this was very absurd to say If not this precept is nothing to the purpose sounding no more then this you that are fit to doe this doe this We are now come to examine if they have any examples I never heard but of three pretended indeed they are great ones and enough if they be made appeare for their purpose The first that of Christ who admitted Iudas as some think The second Mr Humfry mentions Acts 2.41.42 The third is of the Church of Corinth I will speak of the latter two

a Pharisaicall dream Suppose a Minister upon examination found that his Communicant did not know whether Christ were God or Man a Man or a Woman nor any thing of the Story of the Gospell must he be admitted too He is neither Turke nor Jew nor Pagan nor Excommunicated person Ergo He is holy and must come A Doctrine sure that every one who hath any thing of God in him will see the folly and filth of and which no sober pious or learned man ever yet durst undertake to defend and it is a shame it should be named amongst Christians Argument 9 If profane scandalous persons though Circumcised and not cast out of the Jewish Church nor legally uncleane were yet to be debarred from some Ordinances and the Passeover then such though Baptized and not Excommunicated may be suspended from the Lords Supper But profane scandalous persons though Circumcised and not cast out of the Jewish Church nor legally uncleane yet were to be debarred from the Passeover and other publike Ordinances The strength of the consequence appeares not only in the Analogy which is betwixt the Passeover and the Lords Supper But also in our Adversaries continuall arguing against us from a supposition of a generall admission to the Passeover This Argument was the best shaft in Erastus his quiver Erasti theses thes 12 13. Mr Humfry's vind p. 4. and the very best Mr Humfry hath The Minor therefore only needs proofe with those with whom we have to deale And for the proofe of that Beza proves it against Erastus from Ezra 6.21 where none did eate the Passeover but such as were separated from the filth of the Heathen of the Land to seeke the Lord And from 2 Chron. 23.19 where Jehojadah Beza de Excom p. 19 20. restoring the Worship of God set Porters to keep out of the Sanctuary those who were uncleane in anything Mr Gillespy proves it against Mr Prin Mr Gillespie's Aarons rod c. l. 1. c. 9. and Erastus too 1. From the testimonies of Philo and Josephus and answers the two objections from Luk. 18.11 12 13. and Joh. 8.2 3. and proves it by seven Arguments in that Chapter and follows it Chap. 10.11 12. in the twelfth Chapter he proves it by fourteen Arguments which Mr Humfry should have done well to have answered before he had told us so confidently that all were admitted to the Passeover Dr Drake hath likewise sufficiently proved it against Mr Humfry Mr Palmer c. Dr Drake's Bar c. p. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24. Mr Palmer c. answ to Mr Humfry vind Presb Govern p. 62. hath done the like from Num. 15.30 31. Ezra 10.8 Joh. 9.22 Ez. 22.26 Ezek. 44.7 9 13. The Province of London prove it from 2 Chron. 23.19 Ez. 44.7 8. Lev. 10.10 Ez. 22.26 I do not thinke it ingenuous wittingly to passe by any thing I heare objected against an Argument therefore though for the maine I leave Mr Humfry to his proper Adversary yet because he comes acrosse me here I must give him a meeting First he addes to his Argument from his supposed generall admission to the Passeover Mr Humfrie's rejoinder p. 43 44 45 46 47. the example of Judas but besides that I have before proved he was not scandalous I have also said enough to make a rationall man beleeve he was not there Dr Drake had argued à concesso Mr Humfry granted that those who were legally uncleane were not to come Dr Drake askes the reason why Surely because they polluted holy things Mr Humfry saies he would not answer so sillily well what will this wise man answer I wist He tels us Because it was Gods positive command they should not come But this is too short For let a Christian but enquire further Why should the Lord command that one who is aleper who hath touched a dead body c. should not come to his Ordinance Surely his reason must tell him because he is an holy and pure God and will be worshipped in a cleane and pure manner And can we thinke that a pure God should determine him who had a leprous sore upon him unfit for his Sanctuary c. and yet admit him as worthy who was a profane swearer blasphemer c. that he who had had Nocturnam pollutionem involuntariam was to be judged uncleane and the same God should judge him cleane who had polluted himselfe with an Harlot in the night A second place which Mr Humfry would answer is 2 Chron. 23.19 Page 45. and he tels us that neither the Passeover nor Suspension nor Morall uncleannesse are there spoken of 1. Whether the Passeover only be there spoken of is nothing to the businesse There were Porters set to keep some that were not excommunicated from the Gates of the Lords house So that Suspension of some from some Ordinances who were not excommunicated is there proved 2. Mr Humfry boldly saies they were not to keep out the morally uncleane the Text saith they were to keep out the uncleane Lecal Dabar in any thing so that if there were such a thing as morall uncleannesse and such persons as morally uncleane persons they were to keep them out Nor is it any thing to the purpose that Mr Humfry saith the Levites in such a concourse could not try and examine them for by the same rule they should not have kept out the legally uncleane but surely those words signifie something they were therefore doubtlesse tried and judged before for it was the Priests not the Levites worke to judge or try the legally uncleane But what Mr Humfry saith in the last place that the Levites could not hinder the uncleane from eating the Passeover for it was eaten in private houses Either argues he hath a mind to cheat his credulous Reader or that he was not so well acquainted with the Jewish Customes as he might have been It is true the Passeover was to be eaten in private houses Dr Light foots Temple service c. 12. but it was to be first killed in the Temple where the fat was to be burned and the bloud sprinkled and if the Levites kept them from comming to kill it and to sacrifice it I thinke they kept them from eating it as a Passeover too they might eate a Lambe indeed in their own but no Paschall Lambe As to the maine places to prove that there was a Law to seclude the morally uncleane from the Passeover Ezra 6.21 Ez. 44.7 8. Deut. 23.18 à minori ad majus Jer. 7.9 10 11. Psal 118.19 20. Psal 15.1 as they are urged by Mr. Gillespy pag. 90 91. Ez. 22.26 Hag. 2.11 12 13 14. which proves that morall wickednesse was uncleannesse then as well as now Mr. Humfry hath the discretion to say nothing to them But I have said enough to establish this Argument CHAP. X. Wherein some other Arguments are mentioned but not largely insisted upon THese are but some of those many Arguments