Selected quad for the lemma: water_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
water_n	bread_n	lord_n	wine_n	3,679	5	7.3104	4	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

the rule of Admission as that persons to receive first must have some maturity of understanding Secondly must be in their right wits Thirdly must not be jure excommunicate If it be objected that these he excepts afterwards by way of Explication Ans 1. His Explication must never contradict his Rule Secondly By the same reason he can find three middle things we shall find more as I hope to make evident when we come to particulars Mr. Humphrey Pag. 19 20 21. Some are uncapable of the Ordinances by Nature namely such as can discern no meaning thereof As infants the distracted natural fooles in opposition to the ignorant that are of age And that first Because discerning the Lords Body cannot be a duty in the former c. Secondly Because signes cannot work upon the unintelligent as to any reall effect Ans 1. Here you see one middle thing between Church-membership and truth of grace Infants c. are Church-members and divers of them have truth of grace Yet are uncapable of admittance to the Lords Supper in M. Humphrey his judgement for lack of understanding which therefore must be added to Church-membership as a Qualification for admittance I here dispute ad hominem Secondly Why may not unintelligent persons be admitted as well to the Lords Supper as to Baptism since they understand and discern the Body of Christ as much in that as the Water of the Spirit in this and if Bread and Wine cannot work upon the unintelligent no more can Water both being Sacramentall signes If therefore Mr. Humphrey will keep to his rule he must deny Infants Baptism as well as the Lords Supper If he urge● That discerning the Lords Body is required in all receivers of the Lords Supper 1 Cor. 11. 29. Ans 1 If discerning the Lords Supper be necessary as to admittance This strongly justifies our way of trying persons before we admit If it be not necessary as to admittance then how dares he exclude any Church-member from the Sacrament and punish Infants c. by suspending them who are only naturally uncapable when at the same time he wittingly admits those who are morally uncapable We grant Elder persons ought to get understanding which we endeavour to work in them by offering to instruct them whom we find ignorant against the next Sacrament and divers we doubt not will blesse God to Eternity that by a temporary suspension they were brought out of the Darknesse of Ignorance and sin into the Light of Knowledge and Grace But doth it follow that because they ought to get understanding therfore they must be admitted before they have it Is not their privative Ignorance a greater Bar then Childrens negative Ignorance We further grant they may be wrought upon by many parts of the Sacrament and therefore suspend them not from presence but onely from actuall receiving it till Mr. Humphrey can prove the ultimate act of receiving to be a converting Ordinance But till then these two great reasons of his may well prove gravell-stones in his own bowels but not in our teeth what ever he may please to fancy of them Mr. Humphrey allowes Pag. 23. that persons excommunicate ipso jure should be suspended namely persons guilty of notorious and evident crimes c. Yet this he minces again saying I do not hold the Minister or Church is alwaies bound to take cognizance hereof for what hath been shown already so plainly in the pattern of Christ See more of this kinde page 26. where he makes the keeping away or suspending of persons jure excommunicate but a prudentiall Ans 1. Is not here another middle thing to be a rule of admission besides Church-membership Persons jure excommunicate are Church-members till actually excommunicated and therefore either must be admitted or Mr. Humphrey his former rule is false 2. Note further and tremble Mr. Humphrey holds the Minister and Church are not alwaies bound to take cognisance of a Zimri and Cosbi a person stark staring drunk incestuous marriages those who come newly reaking out of open enormities such as publickly renounce Christ or say they won't believe on him such as being in notorious malice will not forgive but professe their obstinacy but may admit these comming to the Sacrament though convicted by evidence of the fact so they be not juridically sentenced and de facto excommunicated Let the Reader compare page 21. and 22. and see if I wrong him If this latitude of Admission turne not Gods House into a den of Theeves I know not what will Well may persons excommunicable as he calls them be admitted if the former rabble of hell may passe 3. Note further the good use he makes of Judas his admittance supposing he was admitted by our Saviour by making it a president for the admittance of the vilest convicted miscreants that ever the earth groaned under so they be not actually excommunicated Let me to evidence the absurdity of this instance of his inlarge it a little As Christ did not suspend so he did not excommunicate Juaas nor send to the High Priests or Officers for evidence against him though he were jure excommunicate for the foulest treason that ever the Sun beheld Ergo the Church must not excommunicate actually the vilest monsters of men though never so clearly convicted by evidence of the fact or at least they do not sin in not excommunicating them because Christ did not think fit to excommunicate Judas actually who was jure excommunicate See whither an ingagement in loose principles will not drive men But I hope Mr. Humphrey upon a review will be of another minde how ever prejudice and preingagement may cloud his judgment for the present Mr. Hum. Pag. 23. And here I must complain of my Opposer Were not these words Unlesse excommunicate ipso jure or de facto page 24. in all three Editions and why then doth he so overly and contemptibly bring an odium on me by being willing not to see or understand them c. Ans Herein I am sure I have cause to complain of my Opposer Let the Reader peruse his Vindication page 24. and finde if he can one word of excommunicate jure or facto there Indeed in that page he challengeth both Independents and Presbyterians but in the Edition of his Vindication printed 1642. I finde not one word about excommunication much lesse that distinction of excommunicate jure and facto nor do I remember it is in any part of his Vindication so far was I from shutting mine eies against it that had I found it there I should probably have improved it then as I do now in order to his conviction Mr. H. Page 23. As to the Church or Minister I held do hold that all Church-members that are neither unintelligent nor excommunicate ought freely to be admitted to this Ordinance some cases in Spirituall and Temporall prudence being considered Ans 1. Doth it not hence cleerly follow that the suspension of persons jure

weak Brethren 2ly Wee grant and agree with Mr. Humphrey that the Apostle doth plainly reason from their partaking of one of these Tables against their partaking of the other which makes much for us and against himself From their partaking of the Devills Table hee argues against their partaking of the Lords Table as well as from their partaking of the Lords Table he argues against their partaking of the Devills Table What follows then by Mr. Humphrey his own grant but that as those who partake of the Lords Table ought not to partake of the Devills Table so those who partake of the Devills Table ought not to partake of the Lords Table A clear evidence for S. spension of Church-members that were Morally unclean the Apostle doth not say they ought to be Excommunicated in Mr. Humphrey his sense by sequestration from all Ordinances but they ought not to receive the Lords Supper and what is this but that they are to be Suspended But whereas he addes Those who were engaged from going to Idols partook of the L●rds Supper but it was not the regenerate only but all their intelligent members were hereby engaged from Idols Ergo All their intelligent members partook of the Sacrament and were to partake of it if the Apostles argument were sufficient Ans He may as well argue Those who were ingaged against open renouncing of Christ buggery witchcraft blasphemy murther the sin against the Holy Ghost c. partook of the Lords Supper but it was not the regenerate only but all their intelligent Members were by the Apostles Doctrine ingaged against the former crimes even those who were most guilty of them and that upon open conviction having no shew of repentance and so being ipso jure excommunicate Ergò all their intelligent members yea even those who were jure excommunicate did partake of the Sacrament and were to partake of it if the Apostles argument were sufficient You see how the man rises in his latitude for admission to the Sacrament page 21. and 22. he yields that persons ipso jure excommunicate may be kept from the Sacrament though they be not actually excommunicated Mr. Humph. saies not so in expresse terms but it followes necessarily by consequence frō his way of arguing Here he tells us that even persons ipso jure excommunicate ought to receive and therefore must not be kept back or else the Apostles argument is not sufficient Yea further if Mr. Humphrey's argument be good should not children distracted and excommunicated persons be admitted also to the Lords Table since all these are engaged against sin as well as the regenerate But this I will not presse His next proof is drawn from 1 Cor. 10. verse 3 4 5. Here he brings in Calvin as agreeing with him in his explication that all the Israelites were Baptized did eat of the Manna and drink of the Rock and had free Admission to those Sacraments All which we easily grant as being clear in the Text. Against this he saies I bring two exceptions 1. I say he speaks gratis in saying they were admitted to our Sacraments Mr. Humphrey I pray see the words does Saint Paul speak gratis They did all eat the same spirituall meat c. Nay he saies not only the same spirituall meat but the same spirituall Symbols c. Ans 1. The words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the same referre clearly as the scope of the context evidenceth not to the unity of their and our Sacraments in order to the Symbols or Elements of each which are as manifestly distinct as wheaten-wheaten-Bread and Manna Wine and Water But to their unity in receiving or their mixed communion in those Elements pel-mel without distinction of good and bad distracted or sober infant or elder person circumcised or uncircumcised Israelite or Heathen in the mixed multitude Exod. 12. 38. Numb 11. 4. Ans 2 ly Their Baptisme indeed had the same Symbol of Water with ours but were their Sacramentall meat and drink the same Symbols with ours then their Manna was our manchet-Manchet-bread and their Water was our Wine Well may Mr. Humphrey perswade men that all Church-members before Excommunication may and ought to be admitted to the Lords Supper if upon his dictate they can presently believe that the Manna was bread made of Wheat and the Rock-Water was Wine Christ can turn Water into Wine but then it must cease to be water but Mr. Humphrey can make the Element of Water to be both Wine and Water at the same instant Nor will that shift help him because we sometimes have Sack sometimes Claret since Sack and Claret are evidently under one kinde namely under the kinde of Wine but so is not Water And to strip him of this cavill let Mr. Humphrey give Water in stead of Wine at the Sacrament will any say he gives the same Element or Symboll with Wine I deny not but Calvin saies they enjoyed the same symbols But doth not Mr. Humphrey know there is Identitas generica specifica generically a man and a tree are the same yet it 's absurd to say A man is a tree or a tree is a man So generically Wine and Water are the same Symbolls both being under the genus of corpus inanimatum but he who therefore should say that Wine and Water are the same Symbols would speak incongruously and may as well ay that Bread and Water are the same Symbols since they are the same generically as being both of them inanimate bodies Mr. Humphrey therefore might well have spared this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as understanding my meaning well enough and that I grant Their Sacraments and Ours are the same as to the thing signified Mr. Humphrey Pag. 50. Whereas he urges here The Uncircumcised and Infants which is now thrice were admitted his argument will but ever come to this That because our Scriptures sometimes seem to prove more therefore they cannot prove the lesse Ans 1. Mr. Humphrey saw he was pinched here and might with farre more honour have confessed his errour than by making a vainflourish have bafled his Reader especially considering whether this place be for him or no it is not much materiall to his cause the Sacraments being extraordinary both in their institution and their use miraculous in their institution common in their use And as to their Sacramentall Elements their very Beasts did partake at least of some of them or else they must have choaked for want of Water Exod. 17. verse 32. 6. Numb 20. 8. which puts a wide difference between them and Sacraments in Ordinary 2 ly Here further his vanity appears in upbraiding me now the third time with that passage of Infant-Admission which makes so much for me and against himselfe 3 ly We denie not the strength of that argument either in Scripture or else-where drawne a majore and minus but willingly grant where the Scripture proves the greater it proves the lesse where it proves more it proves fewer in a right

were ignorant or scandalous no not Judas himselfe therefore his or their receiving is no warrant for any ignorant or scandalous person to receive Mr. Humph. This is not true for indeed we shall finde both ignorance in the Apostles and scandall in Judas The Apostles were ignorant of Christs Death and Resurrection and of the Sacrament and Judas had made his bargain to betray Christ Ans 1. They knew Christ to be the Bread and Water of Life and the Saviour of the World Iohn 6. 68 69. Secondly had as much knowledge as might stand with grace Thirdly were willing upon all occasions to be further instructed and Catechised by Christ And we trust Mr. Humphrey shall never be able to charge us with keeping any away who are of this temper As for Iudas though he had made his bargain of betraying Christ yet it was not then scandalous Nor did Christ though he knew it well enough discover that Iudas had made any such bargain but did only foretell that Iudas would betray him However therefore pag. 15 16. he is pleased to charge me as speaking a very untruth a grain of charity might have informed him that Iudas however he purposed plotted and contracted all which he knows or may know I believe as well as himself yet betrayed not Christ as to the Execution till he kissed him in the Garden True in Gods account a purpose plot and contract of evil is an Execution thereof but civill and Ecclesiasticall Courts proceed usually by evidence of the fact not of the purpose plot or contract I might adde that Iohn 13. ver 18 19 21. 27. our blessed Saviour even after the discovery looks at Iudas his betraying him as a future act In some sense therefore it is a truth that Iudas had not betrayed Christ And if so then I did not speak a very untruth in saying Iudas had not yet betrayed Christ no more then Peter had denied him understanding it of the ultimate and compleating act of his Treachery which Christ endeavourd to prevent by the Commination as well as Peters denyall by the Premonition Besides our Saviours dispensation here was extraordinary admitting onely men Ministers Apostles and that without self-examination foregoing which is no rule for our imitation in point of Sacramentall admittance no more is his admittance of Iudas supposing he did receive And if this supposition fail where is Master Humphrey his superstructure upon it His upbraiding me again by comparing Christ with the Presbytery hath been formerly answered Which therefore with other passages of lesse moment for brevities sake I passe I shall onely adde this Iudas his treachery if it were before the compleating of it matter for a Judiciall cognizance and if Christs extraordinary knowledge and discovery of it were legall evidence as Mr. Humphrey would ●ave it was a just ground of excommunication yet our Saviour did not excommunicate him for it no more then he did suspend him nor did he send to the High Priests or their officers for evidence against Iudas May not the Church therefore excommunicate or seek for evidence against scandalous or suspected persons Even before this all judgment was committed to Christ Iohn 5. 22. yet we read not that Christ judged any either Civilly or Ecclesiastically but rather the quite contrary Iohn 8. 11 12. 47. Doth it therefore follow that either the Magistrate or the Presbytery do lift up themselves above Christ the great Master of Discipline because they undertake that both in Civill and Ecclesiasticall Judgement which our blessed Lord would not meddle withall in his State of humiliation Mr. Humphrey Pag. 18. As for the Question whether he acted as a Minister or Mediator It is vaine for he acted as both He could not institute an Ordinance for his Church but as he was Head and Mediator nor could he administer it but as a Minister Ans 1. If this Question be vain the more to blame Mr. Humphrey who troubles his Reader with it especially since we both agree Christ acted here both as a Mediator and as a Minister Secondly I onely distinguished between Christs acting as a Mediator and as a Minister And added that Christ is imitable not in his acting as a Mediator but as a Minister We doubt not but Christ as Mediator might be both Judge and Witnesse But in that he is no pattern for our imitation If as a Minister he might be both Judge and Witnesse then every Minister may be both Judge and Witnesse Thirdly Mr. Humphrey himself here grants Christ could not administer the Sacrament but as a Minister Yet at the same time Christ was Mediator We say Christ as Mediator might be both Judge and Witnesse but not as a Minister Will he forbid us the same liberty of distinction hee takes himself The other instances he excepts against pag. 18. of Christs administring it only to Ministers c. prove strongly that all Christ did at the Supper is no necessary rule for our imitation amongst which Judas his Admission upon Mr. Humphrey his supposall being one falls under the same notion unlesse Mr. Humphrey can prove that Christ did not only admit Iudas a person then as he saies scandalous but also with this very intention that his practice herein might bee a Rule for all Ministers to the end of the World to admit to the Sacrament scandalous persons As for his appeal in the close of pag. 18 I have shewed formerly that Mr. Timson though his Second in this cause looks not at Judas his receiving or not receiving as clearly argumentative in this cause pag. 3 4. And should the stresse of this controversie lie upon Iudas his receiving or his not receiving at what uncertainties should we be about our practice herein when it is so hard to determine out of Scripture whether Iudas received or not His Quotation out of Doctor Hammond makes not for his purpose We easily grant with that learned Clerke That Christian professors may lawfully be admitted though their hearts be full of villany and when we have done all we can such will be admitted Where we find competency of knowledge professed subjection to all the waies of Christ not contradicted by a scandalous life we blesse God for the good we see in them cheerfully give them the right hand of fellowship leaving their hearts and inward condition to Gods Judgement For that other worthy Gentleman he quotes in the end of this Section I have some reason to believe what ever may bee his judgement about Iudas his receiving he is not of Mr. Humphrey his Latitude for admittance to the Sacrament Sect. III. Mr. Humphrey comes to the stating of his Question In which for explication pag. 20. He premiseth That between these two a covenant-relation visible and truth of grace which is invisible there is no middle thing injoyned in the Scripture for the rule of our Admission Answ If this Rule be true then Mr. Humphrey doth very ill to coyn divers middle things for