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
A80160	Responsoria bipartita, sive vindiciæ suspensionis ecclesiasticæ ut et presbyterii evangelici. A double reply, containing a vindication of the antient practice of the Church (according to the rule of the word) suspending the ignorant and scandalous from the Lords Supper. As also of ecclesiastical presbyteries ... The first in answer to one M. Boatmans challenge of all the ministers on earth to make suspension of any but Turks, Jews, pagans and excommunicate persons from the Lords Supper, appear from Scriptures. In answer to whom the said censure is justified by several arguments from Scripture, and the universal practice of the Church, the magisterial vanity also of his sermon, Decem. 13. and March 28. in Peters Church in Norwich is discovered, ... In which answer also some objections of Erastus, Mr. Prin, and Mr. Humfry, are coilaterally considered, and answered. The second part in answer to Theophilus Brabourn, who hath talked something in a little pamphlet against the Lord Jesus Christ ... / By John Collings, B.D. and pastor of the church of Christ in Stephens parish in Norwich.	Collinges, John, 1623-1690.	1655 (1655)	Wing C5333; Thomason E832_2; ESTC R207514	201,020	319

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 Hum●ry 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●r 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 100. 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 Pareus 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. Musc ad loc I find indeed a third sense of the words hinted 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 Domins 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 Office forbids him and in that he is not commanded he is expresly forbidden Now a Minister is not commanded any where surely to give it to those who are forbidden to receive it To say no more in this case I hope we have all too reverent thoughts of the wisdome of God to think that he should lay his Minister under an obligation to administer his Ordinance to those whom he hath warned upon pain of damnation not to take it Though this were enough for those who encline to the other sense doe cleerly yet grant that those who partook of the Table of Devils are here either forbidden that Table or the Lords Table which if it be true as questionlesse it is our Adversaries must maintaine that they are commanded to give the Sacrament to those whom the same God forbids to take it yet possibly the other part may be more disputable viz. Whether a Minister

Responsoria Bipartita SIVE Vindiciae suspensionis Ecclesiasticae ut et Presbyterii EVANGELICI A double Reply containing a Vindication of the antient practice of the Church according to the rule of the word suspending the ignorant and scandalous from the Lords Supper As also of Ecclesiastical Presbyteries as the subject of Church Government The first in answer to one M. Boatmans challenge of all the Ministers on earth to make suspension of any but Turks Jews Pagans and excommunicate persons from the Lords Supper appear from Scripture In answer to whom the said censure is justified by several arguments from Scripture and the universal practice of the Church the Magisterial vanity also of his Sermon Decem. 13. and March 28. in Peters Church in Norwich is discovered by animadversions on each In which answer also some objections of Erastus Mr. Prin and Mr. Humfry are collaterally considered and answered The second part in answer to Theophilus Brabourn who hath talked something in a little pamphlet against the Lord Jesus Christ as Lord of his Church and Lord of the Sabbath against whom it is proved he hath said nothing to any purpose but to discover his own weakness To which is prefixed an Epistle giving account of the whole and fully answering whatsoever Mr. Thomas Morshall in his three Sermons lately printed upon Mat. 22 8. Mr. Barksdale in a letter of his dated May 26. 1652. and printed with a disputation at Winchcomb Nov. 9. 1653. and Mr. Timson in his late book in answer to Dr. Drake have said in these for promiscuous communion By JOHN COLLINGS B.D. and Pastor of the Church of Christ in Stephens Parish in Norwich In ipsa Catholica Ecclesia magnopere curardum est ut id teneamus quod ubique quod semper quod ab omnibus creditum est hoc est enim vere proprieque Catholicum Vincent Lirinensis con haer cap. 3. London Printed by H. Hills for Richard Tomlins and are to be sold at his house at the sign of the Sun and Bible neer Py-Corner To all those who love the Lord Iesus in sincerity especially such of them whose lot is cast in the City of NORWICH Beloved Friends and Brethren IT is not for my own sake nor for the sake of those who are my Brethren in the work of reformation here or elsewhere that I am come out into these lists both my self and I suppose all of them could either have been content to have come up to Mr. Boatmans principles and practice and so endeared our selves to all our people or at least have born with patience the names of Pharisees Dremers such as do things wiser ages never thought of Recusants Presbyterian Reformadoes Calvins fellows which are the Rhetorical terms that M. John Boatman M. Thomas Marshall have bestowed upon us securing our selves in the assurance of our innocence and pittying their ignorance who if they had been better acquainted with the Scriptures and the practice of the Church would have spake more modestly Nor is it for their sakes because I think they have said any thing worth the answering We know 't is an easy thing for one to stand in a pulpit and cry out against the way of God as a Pharisaical way a Pharisaical invention a dream an impleding Scripture and to set upon the Title page of a book The Kings censure of Recusdants he that hath but got a mastery over his conscience and a bold face may do such things cheap enough In the mean time we know the Gentlemen will eat their words when they are challenged for them It is for your sakes dearly beloved Brethren and for our Lord Jesus Christs sake and for his Churches sake that we cannot be silent for the Lords sake whose sacred Ordinance we cannot with patience see prostituted and his blood counted as an unholy thing For his Churches sake that what she hath believed and practised in all times and ages might neither be judged heresy or novelty for your sakes that you may not be seduced by the great adversary of reformation or any that drive on his designs though possibly not wittingly into an alienation of heart from and an enmity to the great work of the Lord in cleansing the Sanctuary and refining of Zion which we have hoped the Lord is about in England and hath been for some years yea and for their souls sake who are angry with us that we will not let them eat and drink judgement to themselves towards the good of whose souls our bowells yern and we are loth that by our means they should increase their guilt and more and more harden themselves to eternall ruin was it not my beloved Brethren the burthen that lay upon the souls of the old Non-Conformists that there was no bar to keep any from the Lords Table but one which superstition made was it our just grief then that we had no bar and is it our work now to remove the bars yea the Lords and the Churches antient land marks shall not the Popish faction rise up in judgement against us at the last day and say Aquinas Vasquez Bonaventura Lord we disputed whither a secret sinner might be received to the Sacrament and these reformers plead for open sinners receiving yea and the Prelatical party which we condemned shall say Lord we gave the Minister authority to keep any from the Sacrament for any notorious sins yea for speaking against the prayer book or the Kings authority in things Ecclesiastical These pretend to reform us and cryed out against us yet do not only admit but plead for the admission of such as speak against Jesus Christ the great King of Zion Thus we have justified our Elder Sister Sodom and our younger Samaria yea neither of them would plead for the wickedness which we do This hath brought me into the lists now I am there I shall desire but fair play If our adversaries can prove all primitive Churches and modern Churches in an errour and themselves onely in the right though we must needs be concluded to err with good company yet I hope I shall not stop my ears against due conviction But we must crave leave to try them with the two weapons of Scriptural Reason and Antiquity to prove that we are not cowards in this Cause of God Since my book was sent to the Press three others have came to my hands all pleading for promiscuous communions I crave your patience for a backblow for them much of them I have answered before hand I shall subjoin a few animadversions more upon what they have in them An answer to Mr. Thomas Marshall The first contains two or thee Sermons preached by one Mr. T. Marshall on Matth 22.8 As I discern in him a spirit which from any Sober man deserves rather flight than answer from those ill favoured passages p. 21. where he chargeth us with sequestring first the bodily bread from the Pastors and then the bread of Christ from the peoples

there is a guilt may be contracted by a participation of the sins of others otherwise the Apostle forgot himself in warning us we should take heed of it and the Schoolmen have spent their time ill to tell us how many waies it may be incurred The question is whether the Minister giving the Sacrament to the unworthy incurs this guilt Page 31. if Mr. M. thinks he doth not let him speak out and we will join issue with him upon that He saies we are commanded to give it but he hath not proved it by Luke 22.19 He thinks he hath nicked it by a distinction of cooperations he saies the Minister doth onely cooperate to the sinners sin in receiving in actu primo not in acti secundo 1. If this distinction will serve the turn it will excuse giving it to Turks 2. But we must tell him that the actus primus is sin It is sin for an ignorant scandalous person to receive 3. I do not well understand what Mr. Marshall means by the actus secundus if he saies his receiving sinfully is actus secundus I cannot understand how his sinfulness can make a distinct act if he means receiving damnation this indeed may more properly be so called but then he that by giving to him contributes to the cause doth doubtless contribute to the effect for surely if he be causa causae he must be also causa causati He thinks our third Argument from the scandal of godly Communicants is invalid 1. Because he conceives we are commanded to give it to all 2. Because he conceives it is not scandalum datum a scandal given but only taken but we deny both these we find no such command 3. It is a scandal given for we are commanded not to keep the Feast not to eat with such not to give holy things to dogs c. of which see more in the following sheets He sayes the Minister must exclude none of himself Page 33. I have examined that chap. 11. he saies it belongs to a Court of Judicature I wonder what Court he means for Elderships he hath declared against them The Common prayer Book gave this power to a single member so do the Canons 1603. In the latter end of the second Sermon he lets fly against Presbytery But what hath the man to say against it Pag. 33 34. why it hath been thrice endeavoured to be established to no purpose He forgets that it is the onely Government now established in England by the Form of Church-Government passed sine die by both Houses of Parliament 1648. And I believe it may stand long enough if it stands but till M. Marshall be able to dispute it down I find no more In him to this purpose Page 46. onely one passage in his third Sermon stumbles me where he tells us that communicants may be worthy dignitate Congruentiae or ex merito congrui What others may I cannot tell I do not understand that Divinity if he means honestly he is at best unhappy in his expressions Since I had read over this Pamphlet An answer to M. Barksdales letter printed with the disputation at Winchcomb there came to my hands a Book entituled a disputation at Winchcomb in which I find a letter dated May 26. 1652. from one Mr. Barksdale to one Mr. Helm wherein he propounds 14. Arguments for promiscuous communion I will shortly turn them into form and shew you where they halt If we must fulfil Christs precept do this in Remembrance of me Argum. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 then we must administer the Sacrament to all But we must fulfill Christs precept Ergo. The Consequence is false Christ onely spake to his disciples to do it in communion of his disciples no other were there he that administers it in a scandalous communion doth not do that in remembrance of Christ If Christ washed Judas his feet Argum. 2 and admitted him to the Sacrament then we ought to admit all But Christ washed Judas his feet and admitted him to the Sacrament Ergo. 1. The consequence is false for Judas was no scandalous Sinner 2. The Minor cannot be proved Judas indeed sate down with the twelve but went out immediately upon the Sop Joh. 13. which was before the paschal Lamb was eaten long before the Supper was administred as I prove in the following sheets If the Lords death must be shewed to the ear in hearing Argum. 3 then also to the eye in the Sacrament to all men But it must be shewed to all to the ear in hearing Ergo. The consequence is false and 1. will conclude for receiving heathens to the Sacrament 2. Nothing must be done in Gods worship but what he hath appointed he hath appointed the word to be preached to all but he hath not appointed the Sacraments for all Besides the word is by Gods appointment a converting ordinance so is not the Sacrament 4. The Sacrament is not an Ordinance for meer presenting Christs death but for sealing our interest in it If there be the same danger upon hearing unworthily Argum. 4 as receiving the Sacrament unworthily then those who are admitted to hear may be admitted to receive But there is the same danger upon unworthy hearing the word being to some the savour of death Ergo. 1. The consequence is feeble for admit there were the same danger upon the one or the other yet the praerequisite duties are not the same through an inability to perform which those who are sounable are to be excluded 2. I doubt whether either the sin of unworthy hearing or the danger be so great as the sin and danger of unworthy receiving There are degrees of sin I know not how we should better judge the greatness of sin than by Scripture expressions The Scripture saith He who eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh damnation to himself and is guilty of the body and blood of Christ it is made equall to the sin of Judas which surely was greater than the sin of Peter in denying his Master For the danger 't is true in exitu the danger of both is the same but it seems God is quicker in judgement with such as by unworthy receiving the Sacrament trample under foot the blood of Christ for this cause saith the Apostle some of you are sick and weak and some are fallen asleep The Scripture saith Blood-thirsty and deceitful men shall not live out half their dayes This concludes Bloodthirstiness of more dangerous consequence than other sins If the Apostles baptized whole multitudes upon profession of faith Argum. 6 and afterwards admitted them all to the Sacrament though many of them afterwards appeared not right then we may administer the Sacrament to all But the Apostle baptized whole multitudes upon profession of faith and afterwards admitted them to the Sacrament though many were not right Ergo Here is fallacia 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Profession of Faith is an ambiguous term it signifyeth either a meer verbal profession or

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 Senne 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 Beatman 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 viz. Dr Drakes B●● to free admission p. 30. Mr Humfries rejoinder p. 54. 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 whoreas 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 Feast 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 pretended 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 first The first then is Acts 2.41 42. in the 41 verse 3000 soules were added to the Church verse 42. it is said they continued stedfastly in the Apostles Doctrine and fellowship and breaking of bread and prayers To this I answer 1. I should put our opposites hand to it to prove that the breaking of bread here spoke of was the Sacramentall action I could tell them of many who are of another mind A phrase like this Luke 24.30 he took bread and blessed and brake it c. is used to express common eating at our own Tables 2. But I confess I encline to to think it was Sacramentall breaking of bread and so the Syriack version reads it So the phrase is used 1 Cor. 10.16 But who were those that brake berad together such as verse 37. were prickt at the heart and had cryed out v. Mr Palmer● answer to Humfry p. 51. Men and Brethren

legally uncleanes 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 shast 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 Beza de Excom p. 19 20. 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 restoring the Worship of God set Porters to keep out of the Sanctuary those who were uncleane in anything Mr Giltespy 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's Bar c. p. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24. M Palmer c. answ to Mr Humfry vind Presb Govern p. 62. Dr Drake hath likewise sufficiently proved it against Mr Humfry Mr Palmer c. 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 a leper 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. Page 45. 23.19 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 Dr Lightfoots Temple service c. 12. the Passeover was to be eaten in private houses 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 brought by the learned and eminent Servants of God both in this Generation and also in those before us to prove the divine right of this Ordinance I will name two or three more which have been brought by others not insisting upon them because I thinke these are enough and possibly some of them may be more disputable and not generally allowed by those who are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with me in this point It is sin in a Minister to declare those one visible body who are not one body visibly Arg. 10 But scandalous sinners are not one visible body with visible Saints and he that gives the Lords Supper declares those to whom he gives it to be one visible body Ergo. This Argument holy Mr Burroughs urgeth in his book called Gospell-Worship it is founded on 1 Cor. 10.17 Mr Gillespie's Aatons Rod l. 3. c 7 p. 425. V. etiam Hieron Z●nen Epist l. 1. in epistola