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
A81720	A boundary to the Holy Mount, or a barre against free admission to the Lords Supper. In answer to an humble vindication of free admission to the Lords Supper. Published by Mr. Humphrey minister of Froome in Somersetshire. Which humble vindication, though it profess much of piety and conscience, yet upon due triall and examination, is found worthy of suspension, if not of a greater censure. By Roger Drake minister of Peters Cheap London.	R. D. (Roger Drake), 1608-1669.	1653 (1653)	Wing D2129; Thomason E1314_2; ESTC R209198	85,461	218

Sacrament as he is pleased to tearm it His first proof is from 1 Cor. 10.17 We being many are all partakers of one bread Thence he concludes That divers of the Corinthians were ready to go to Idols verse 14. yet all were admitted to the Sacrament Answ 1. The dehortation doth not necessarily prove they were Idolaters though indeed too many of them especially the stronger Christians abused their liberty in eating things sacrificed to Idols to the offence of their weaker brethren and sometimes which was more scandalous in the Idols Temple this they did as apprehending the thing was indifferent and by using their utmost liberty went beyond the bounds judging any place of eating lawfull and that without weighing circumstances as well as any meats lawfull 1 Cor. 8.10 This though bad was not especially before sufficient admonition given a just barre to their receiving 2. Yet taking it for granted many of them were guilty of greater sins as appears pears by 1 Cor. 15. 2 Cor. 12.21 How proves he from the place that all these were notwithstanding admitted As all Jews might eat the Passeover so all Church Members might receive the Lords Supper All circumcised persons had a right to the Passeover yet some of them might not injoy it at all times Numb 9.7 So all baptized persons have a right to the Lords Supper yet may not alwaies actually use this their right nay not all true converts neither till they be worthy actually as well as habitually A person may be capable in actu primo yet not in actu secundo All the Priests had a right to the holy things yet were not permitted at any time to make use of that right Levit. 22.2 7. 3. Supposing all did receive it promiscuously how proves he from this place that the Apostle did allow that free admission doth the drawing an argument from practice allow that practice Then by arguing from baptizing for the dead the Apostle should allow baptizing for the dead 1 Cor. 15.29 From their actuall communicating the Apostle proves they were one body and secondly That they ought not to communicate with Idols Doth this manner of arguing necessarily justifie their admitting all to communicate pell mell at any time Whereas pag. 7. he urges That they were drunken together at the Lords Table Answ 1. Then it seems they were not drunk before but at the Table and how can that be a let to receiving which was caused by receiving unless he will make the Effect an impediment to the Cause the Consequent to the Antecedent 2. But granting this drunkenness were at their love Feasts which preceded the Lords Supper I answer It s more then Mr. H. can prove that they were drunken in the ordinary and strict sense since in Scripture phrase the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Shachar signifie though liberall drinking yet within the bounds of temperance as is evident Iohn 3.10 Gen. 43.34 Cant. 5.1 And the Apostle reproves them rather for disorder and uncharitableness then for excess that they stayed not for their Brethren whereby the rich fed and drunk liberally when the poor were hungry and thirsty Compare ver 22. c 33. 3. What Logick is in this consequence supposing they were drunk indeed Saint Paul reproves them for coming drunk to the Sacrament ergo they ought to come to the Sacrament even though they be drunk Is not the quite contrary more rationall St. Paul reproved them for coming when drunk to the Sacrament ergo they ought not to come when drunk to the Sacrament His next proof is from 1 Cor. 10.4 5. By the way where he saies They were all admitted freely to our Sacrament He speaks gratis Indeed if he speak as to the thing signified undoubtedly their and our Sacraments are all one and thus even Circumcision and the Passeover were the same with our Baptisme and the Lords Supper but as to the outward elements I think there 's a great difference between their Manna and our Bread their Water out of the rock and our Wine But for the thing it self if he will make that a president for free admission then unbaptized persons yea persons distracted Infants and excommunicated persons by this rule may partake of the Lords Supper as there uncircumcised persons c. did partake of those Sacraments Yea many who were born after their passing the Sea and so not baptized neither yet ate of the Manna and drank of the rocks Witness 1. The mixed multitude that went out of Egypt with them Exod. 12.38 2. Many of the Israelites themselves who were uncircumcised in the wilderness Josh 5.5 yet did eat of the Manna and drank of the rock 2. Their partaking universally of that Sacramentall Meat and Drink is no argument for our free admission till Mr. H. can make out as great a necessity for our universall receiving as for theirs namely that all who receive not must both starve and choak that Sacramentall Bread and Water being their daily and necessary repast Nor will Mr. H. evade this answer by his parallels pag. 8. which do not run on four feet as we say And however their Sacraments and ours their condition and ours may agree in divers respects and it be very true that God is not well pleased with many Receivers amongst us no more then amongst them yet herein is a manifest difference that their Sacramentall Elements had a double use and end namely to nourish their bodies as well as their soules nor had they ordinarily in the Wilderness other food to live upon and therefore they must either receive those Sacraments or die I hope there is not such an absolute necessity of our Sacramentall Bread and Wine Had God made our daily food as he did to them a Sacrament I say then it were cruelty and murder to deny any man the Sacrament and then not onely monthly but also weekly yea daily Sacraments had been necessary but that must have been by accident not from the nature of a Sacrament His next Argument is drawn from the generall invitation to the Marriage Feast Page 9. Matth. 22 Luke 14. Answ 1. Let him prove that by the Marriage Feast is there meant in particular the Lords Supper Christ indeed is the Feast to which all are invited the Ordinances and especially the Word and Sacraments are the Dishes in which this Feast is served Now the question is not Whether all ought to come to the Feast but Whether all must eat of the Feast in the Dish of the Sacrament as well as of the Word The former is asserted but not proved by Mr. Humphrey 2. Since the main scope of the parable is to hold forth the rejecting of the Jews and calling of the Gentiles which is the rule Mr. H. himself goes by pag. 9. Mat. 22.43 compared with Mat. 22.1 will it not follow then that not onely Church members but also Heathen should immediately be admitted yea forced to this Sacrament 3. Yet further if all must be

one that doubts groundedly and hath no grace at all 1. It cannot convert him understand me still of actuall receiving as hath been formerly shewed 2. It cannot confirm him unless it be in sin by sealing judgement to him For can he be confirmed in grace who hath no grace at all 2. Where he saies The Receiver seals not necessarily to the condition in esse but in fieri I answer He seals as necessarily in point of duty to the condition in esse or de praesenti as in fieri or de futuro and that man who ingages not to believe at present plaies the hypocrite in ingaging to believe hereafter It is not with elicit as with imperate acts in the former he that truly wills them doth in part perform them whence Divines make a true desire of faith one degree of faith and he that in truth desires and resolves to beleeve hereafter may as well act that resolution now since faith it self as well as the resolution of faith is an act of the will And this M. H. would speak in those words Page 86. If he resolve now for the time to come without procrastination to walk according to the Covenant Is not faith the first step of this walk He that resolves in truth to beleeve cannot but desire to beleeve and the true desire of faith is both Scripturally and by the consent of Divines one degree of faith Thirdly By the very act of receiving he seals to faith in esse or de praesenti in point of profession the very language of his receiving the Elements is I receive Christ signified and offered to me in particular by them and therefore he that receives the Elements and doth not act faith at the same instant he playes the hypocrite wofully mocks God and Christ and as the mockers of Christ were guilty of his death so is every unworthy receiver Pag. 86. He proceeds The faith therefore that is absolutely requisite to a beleever is not assurance but consists I take it of these two things only 1. An historicall assent to the Gospel c. 2. A resolution to submit to the Government of Christ c. Let a man then but believe his Creed and resolve to go on in no known sin that is the main c. pag. 87. Answ 1. I easily grant assurance is not absolutely requisite as a means but only in point of duty namely that every one is bound to labour after it and in order unto our benè esse or comfort 2. Against every Sacrament a Christian is bound in an especiall manner by soul-searching examination to make out his evidence and if he have truth of grace and take pains to search he will by Gods grace finde so much truth in himself as may bring him to some assent about his good estate though usually this assent be much assaulted and weakned with doubting for removing whereof the Sacrament is an especiall help But 3. Whereas M. H. professeth to know no other kindes or ingredients of saving or justifying faith but only an historicall assent and a good purpose or resolution 1. I must tell him he is very defective on the one hand as omitting the speciall act of justifying faith namely adherence or leaning upon Christ for justifycation and salvation which is an act of the will not of the understanding nor will his historicall faith for kinde go beyond the faith of hypocrites yea of devils Iam. 2.19 and will aggravate a mans damnation if the faith of adherence follow not upon it 2. I must also tell him he is as excessive on the other in mistaking a good resolution for a constitutive part of faith which is either an antecedent or a consequent and effect of faith antecedent if it be a Legall consequent if an evangelicall resolution I wish M. H. would study fundamentalls better before he come to be so criticall about superstructures By his following discourse pag. 89. its apparent he speaks very confusedly about the spirituall estate of a Christian For 1. He supposeth a man hath not saving grace and yet that at the same time he is willing to accept of Christ to leave sin and yeeld to Christs termes all which are most precious saving graces Afterwards he compares these graces to a little gold mixed with much drosse in a lump of Ore yet at last concludes God can make grace of these least beginnings as if at present they were not grace till God does as it were transubstantiate them and turn our water into wine By all which its apparent the man doth not sibi constare and no wonder then if he bring his Reader into a labyrinth Object 9 The Ordinance is polluted if all be admitted Pag. 76. The summe of his Answer is That the Ordinance is defiled only to the unworthy receiver not to the admitters or joyners Answ Though we place no great confidence in this Argument nor believe the presence or actuall receiving of a wicked person doth simply defile either the Sacrament or the communicants as had an unclean man eaten of the Passeover supposing he neither touched any clean person nor any part of the Passeover but that he ate that Ordinance had been Levitically polluted only to himself yet connivance both in the admitters and joyners contracts morall pollution as he that suffers another to sin where he may and ought to hinder him or at least do his endeavour in order thereunto is partaker of his sin Lev. 19.17 1 Tim. 5.22 His application of Mark. 7.15 and of Peters vision to the Sacrament is ridiculous pag. 77. For do we hold that any either person or meat is Levitically unclean Contra dares he deny that any person yea any meat may be morally unclean namely as defiled with sin or occasions of sin Tit. 1.15 That which enters into the mouth defiles not a man Levitically but morally it may defile him and that either by his intemperance or irreligious receiving of it as eating the forbidden fruit defiled our first parents and he who when he may hinders not these sins is himself defiled by sinfull tolleration We believe as well as himself pag. 79. That the unworthinesse of another should not make the true beleever separate from the Sacrament Yet if I know another grosly ignorant or prophane and do not either endeavour to reform or discover him his unworthy receiving shall be set upon my score alone without any prejudice to the other communicants If it be a priviledge of the Gospel to have free Ordinances and to account no man unclean in the use of them ib. How dares M. H. set a spirituall rayl as he calls it about the communion Table and thereby refine and spiritualize old superstition to use his own termes by keeping from the Sacrament Children and distracted persons who have a better right to it then many prophane ones that his charity can admit and yet in one breath accuse and condemn us for doing the like to that he allowes in himself