Selected quad for the lemma: soul_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
soul_n	body_n	drink_v	eat_v	7,421	5	7.1440	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A86891	A second vindication of a disciplinary, anti-Erastian, orthodox free-admission to the Lords-Supper; or, The state of this controversie revised and proposed: for the fuller understanding of the most, as to the grounds whereon it stands; and more especially for the ease, and clearer proceeding of those, that shall write about it, whether for it, or against it. / By John Humfrey, min: of Froome.	Humfrey, John, 1621-1719.	1656 (1656)	Wing H3710; Thomason E1641_2; ESTC R209066	63,290	161

admitters in regard Christ acting say they as a Minister was not to take notice of what he knew of Judas as he was God yet it is apparent that it reaches not the matter at all as to the receivers themselves who neverthless for all this as for their own parts will be bound to receiving though they be such as Judas was that is at least unregenerate if not scandalous also It may be replyed as to the part of the admitters that Christ knew of Judas compact which no doubt was a high scandal in its self being inductive of sin and ruine to the Jews with whom he dealt not only as God but as man likewise because as man he was a Prophet Deut. 18 15. and that Godhead that dwelt in him bodily revealed this to him Now I argue if it was Christs duty to have excluded Judas from the Passeover if a man had revealed this to him how much more must be have done it when the God-head revealed it to him whose testimony is above all mens in the world But I shall chuse to lay my strength here as I say as to the part of the receivers that from Christs acting not as a mere man but as Mediator As the Lord Jesus does institute the Sacrament and give the precept he must do it unquestionably as mediator It is God only can give laws to bind the conscience Now in the institution and giving the precept he directs the same to all present and so to Judas amongst the rest from whence arises an obligation from the Lord irrefragably upon Judas as well as on the others to actual receiving what Christ bids him expresly do among them must be his duty and consequently while a man is a disciple though unregenerate as Judas was that does not unduty him to use the Supper And then let us hear what Dr. Diake himself who herein throughly looks to the foundation will tell us Let but Mr. H. says be p. 116. prove that actual receiving is a debt on the part of a natural man and he will yield the cause to us 2. Whereas it is denied notwithstanding this text and others by us alleadged that there is no precept nor president in Scripture for the administring the Sacrament to all Mr. Coll. ch 5. I desire these two Trules may be laid 1. that Giving and receiving being Relata all those texts that prove it the duty of any to receive the Sacrament does eo nomine oblige the Minister to deliver it to them or admit them because Posito uno relatorum ponitur alterum 2. That we are to look upon all the Ordinances of God unto his Church as universal obliging every member in particular to wait upon them unless where the Scripture it self layes some restriction or limitation the reason is because it is presumption in any to limit that which Gad hath not restrained And then I do assert hereupon that there is as many Scripture-precepts and presidents to deliver the Sacrament to all as to any supposing them within the Church and neither unintelligent or excommunicate as we entend the question for such as are Heathen Exod. 12.43 48. or have not reason and discernment 1 Cor. 11. 28 29. or are under censure 1 Cor. 5. 13. are debarr'd we all grant by the Scriptures quoted There are two instances only besides the precept and president in the former text I will here mention The one is the instance of the Passeover where all the congregation of Israel every man Ex. 12.3 47 50. from Dan to Bersheba 2 Chr. 30.5 all their males every year Exod. 34.23 Deut. 16. 16. All the children of the captivity to name that text Ezra 6.21 because by some it is alleaged against us that is all the Jews that returned without exception and all such as had seperated themselves unto them from the filthinesse of the heathen that is all their proselytes also the filthinesse of the heathen was their idols did eat and were so commanded There is nothing which I would chiefty have observed that made any Israelite uncapable of partaking thereof but that which made a godly man uncapable and such no more uncapable of this than of other the holy things And this was Levitical uncleanness whereof while the question is proposed to Moses Num. 9. whether such should eat of it or no it is plain in the chapter that for the rest to eat thereof was out of question The other instance is that of 1 Cor. 10.1 2 3 4. as I have prest it in my first book They all eat of the Manna and drank of the rock which was Christ The main answer given by Beza Gillespy Philip Goodwin Rutherford Dr. Drake and which all have is that all the Israclites were admitted here because this water and manna was their corporal food without which they could not live But herein lyes the force of what we urge to wit Why should the Lord make that ordinary food of theirs without which they could not live to be Sacramental if to eat and drink of Christ sacramentally was not a priviledge in common to the Church The main thing alleaged against Free-admission is the holiness of that whereunto Sacramental sigus do relate and the indisposition of the visibly unworthy to partake thereof Now sayes the Apostle the Israelites all of them yet many of them unworthy in our adversaries sense did drink of the rock which was Christ and it was the Lords will they should do so for therefore he made that food I say which all were to live by Sacramental Besides if it were such a grievous sin as murdering the Lord of glory or being guilty of his bloud to drink of Christ symholically without such and such qualifications as some do still speak then should these Israelites as I have said in my Rejoynd have rather samished their bodies than have eat and drank the damnation of their souls whereas we find that the sons of Aaron Lev. 22.23 were not to eat of the holy things during their Levitical uncleanness though it was their appointed food which Gillespy himself notes p. 97. Exemplo Israëlitarum saies Musculus in Ps 105. v. 39. Apostolus admonet usum externorum Sacramentorum talem esse ut neminem justificet possing ab omnibus promiscuè exerceri 3. Whereas it is laid down by my adversaries as their main hold that visible worthiness is the rule of admission as visible unworthiness or unfitness the rule of Suspension I shall think sit to propose or oppose these three things 1. Take all the visible worthiness in the world it can amount to no more than an external covenant-relation denominating the subjects quoad homines Saints Believers Christians Now who shall define us these covenant-relatives either this judgement of men or the open plain determination of the Scriptures 2. If we go on this ground of covenant-relation we go on a certain judgement every one knows who are externally in covenant or Church-members but if we go on