Selected quad for the lemma: blood_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
blood_n	body_n	bread_n	spiritual_a	8,062	5	7.3168	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A85545	A defence of Christian liberty to the Lords table; except in case of excommunication and suspension. Wherein many arguments, queres, suppositions, and objections are answered by plain texts, and consent of scriptures. As also some positions answered by way of a short conference which the author hath had with divers, both in citie and countrey. All which are profitable to inform to truth, and lawfull obedience to authoritie. / By John Graunt, who beareth witnesse to the faith. Published according to order.	Graunt, John, of Bucklersbury.	1646 (1646)	Wing G1591; Thomason E330_22; ESTC R200727	25,078	32

for the Word and Covenant of life is manifested and declared by preaching Tit. 1. 3. Now the way of preaching that was committed to S. Paul was the Scriptures yet he himself proves to the Romans that the same covenant of life and word of grace which he taught by the Scriptures is taught to the Gentiles which have not the Scriptures by the creatures as Rom. 10. 8. compared with v. 18 19 20 21. and Psal. 19. which is confest and acknowledged before in my opposites arguments but because this is beyond the question in hand which is to cleare the teaching use of the Sacraments by Scriptures I will therefore here wave the point of the creatures teaching without the Scriptures and prove it clearly by arguments drawn from the Scriptures that the Lord Supper hath a teaching operation for the strengthening or confirming use no man questions My first Argument Whatsoever doth declare or shew forth Christ to a Christian doth teach Christ But the Supper of the Lord doth declare and shew forth his death from the tree of his ignominy to the throne of his glory Therefore the Supper of the Lord declareth and teacheth Christ so often as it is communicated even untill his second coming And ths Argument I thus prove 1 Cor. 11. 26. For as often saith the Apostle as yee eat this Bread and drink this Cup yee doe show the Lords death till he come Agreeing to which is that of the Prophet when he spake to King Darius I will shew thee the truth said he Did not he therein declare and teach to him the truth So also our Lord signifying and shewing the truth to the Apostle John Revel. 1. 1. what was it but preaching and manifesting the truth to him My second Argument Whatsoever is ordained of Christ to commemorate call to mind or keep in remembrance himselfe or his death that preaches Christ and the benefit of his death But the communicating in the signes of the Lords body and bloud calls him to mind and keeps his death in remembrance to Christians Therefore the celebration of the Lords Supper teacheth or preacheth the benefit of his death And this Argument our Lord himselfe proveth whose testimony is beyond all Luke 22. 19 20. This is my Body which was given for you doe this in remembrance of me This Cup is the new Testament in my bloud which was shed for you I beseech you mark two things in these few words for the proving the Argument that is first that the Lords Supper the participation of the Elements they being set apart by blessing according to our Lords example and the Apostles practice the doing thereof is a remembrance of Christs death And secondly that thereby is made known and taught the Covenant of life and salvation in these words This Cup is the new Testament in my bloud then which nothing can be thought of to prove clearer the teaching use of the Sacrament And that whatsoever calleth to remembrance the truth preacheth the truth is plain and apparent For Peters putting the Saints alwayes in remembrance of the truth thereby preached unto them the truth 2 Pet. 1. 12 13 14 15. Your third Quere Whether the act of Christ in admitting of Judas be exemplary My defence to your third Quere If the Lord did admit of wicked Judas unto the Apostleship and so to the participation of Baptisme the Word Prayer and to the breaking of bread as hereafter shall bee particularly proved then such Ministers that teach that all unregenerate men are to bee kept from the Sacrament assume that to themselves which neither Gods law nor mans law gives them For the exception in the law of God is the case of excommunication the exception in mans ordinance is ignorance and scandall Your fourth Quere Whether there be like reasons of the Sacrament and the Passeover If there be the like reason then it followes not that the Lord did approve of every one that came to the Passeover 2 Chron. 30. they were to prepare themselves before they came My defence to your fourth Quere You both forget your selves to ask me a reason of Gods ordinances for to give a reason of them is peculiar to God alone that made them But this I say that there is the same use and meaning of the Lords Supper as of the Passeover in the common fellowship of all beleevers that is Christ typified and signified by both Christs death shewed forth and called to remembrance by both the beleevers informed to grace and confirmed in grace by both and the spiritual and truly faithful eat Christs flesh and drink his bloud by both they being both sacramentall for that purpose And as under the law they were to put away the leaven out of their houses and prepare and sanctifie themselves so under the Gospel Christians are to examine themselves repent c. For to keep the Feast and holy day the Apostle speaks of 1 Cor. 5. 8. is to keep it with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth as I have briefly declared in my Admonition in Christians liberty to the Lords Table p. 18. Your fifth Quere Whether can a naturall man or a man indued with the common gifts of the Spirit so try examine and judge himselfe as to come worthily as the Apostle 1 Cor. 11. 28. doth drive at My defence to your fifth Quere I answer An inward or spirituall Christian as an inward and an outward common Christian as an outward Christian may either of them discerne the Lords body to participate worthily or profitably according to their different gifts received the high way stony and thorny grounds may discern the Lords body and all the elect Christians unregenerate by the visible signes thereof in the Sacrament that therein Christ Jesus is manifested giving himselfe to death for mankind and that he is the bread of life declared and preached first by the words of consecration and prayer with admonitions then made by the Minister And secondly by seeing the wine powred out the resemblance of the shedding his bloud and then seeing the bread broken the resemblance of his death and passion with the consideration of all other circumstances the violence the Grape suffers in the Wine-presse and the cruelty offered to the Corn both in the Mill and in the insufferable hot Oven And as thus the eye affects the heart so doth the sweet comfortable refreshing nourishing delectable relishing taste also which are all evident sensible in-lets to the soule of the mercy and goodnesse of God And because the Christian hath received no other but common gifts it is but information to him to the speciall grace but the good ground the spiri●uall Christian his communion is sustentation and confirmation in grace to eternall life according to his speciall faith and grace received of God he spiritually eats Christs flesh and drinks his bloud and is hereby more and more inoculated and rooted in the true Vine Jesus Christ And in this differing consideration both may

which was shed for many for the remission of sins Now of that many he speaketh in that he saith I will drink it new with you in my Fathers Kingdom And in this distinction he might speak it to the twelve when Iudas was present For you may say as well Iudas was not amongst the twelve when he said to them Iohn 6. 70. Have not I chosen you twelve and one of you is a Devill In this distinction of election may our Saviour speak in the case of perfection Their fifth Objection I will smite the Shepheard and the sheep shall be scattered Mark 14. 27. And again I will lay down my life for my sheep Iohn 10 15 17. Now Iudas could not be included and therefore not present for hee was none of Christs sheep but a traytor against the Shepheard and the Flock also My defence to your fifth Objection This objection extends not to the question in hand for the Shepheard was smitten after the Institution and distribution of the Lords Supper And so also after Iudas left our Lord and his Apostles company and went privatly to effect and perfect his treacherous conspiracy And yet again in the Scripture phrase there are evill sheep unlost as well as good such as are lost and found in the Scripture sense And Iudas was amongst them and sent out with them when our Lord said Matth. 10. 16. Behold I send you forth as sheep in the midst of Wolves And the Prophet David knew well there was more bad then good men when he said 2 Sam. 24. 17. But these sheep what have they done Now while I was making my defence against all these former oppositions I received from an honoured friend of mine this double supposition following His first Supposition Friend I pray consider how the Apostle speaks of the Lords Supper 1 Cor. 10. 15 16 17. I speak as to you wise men judge you what I say The Cup of blessing which we blesse is it not the communion of the bloud of Christ The Bread which we break is it not the communion of the body of Christ For we being many are one bread and one body for wee are partakers of that one bread Now who are the wise but the regenerate Who hath communion in the body and bloud of Christ but the faithfull Who are the many memb●rs that are one body the many grains that make one loafe but the Saints And therefore doth not the Sacrament properly and peculiarly belong to the Saints Yea onely ordained for them I suppose My defence to your first Supposition Sir the answer lies in the Apostles words by you mentioned for to say For the cup of blessing which we blesse and the bread which wee breake is it not the communion of the body and bloud of Christ proves plainly there are two things considerable in the Sacrament the elements or signes bread and wine the substance or thing signified the body and bloud of Christ of both which the regenerate communicate but the unregenerate although acknowledging the common faith they of bread and wine the signes onely And this is plainly proved by the Apostle by the instance hee gives to the Corinthians 1 Cor. 10. 1 2 3 4 5. The multitude as well as the faithfull they passed through the sea they had equall benefit of the coole moist cloud in the heat of the day and of the light hot burning pillar in the dark cold night and sustained both with the same Manna Angels food And yet none did communicate of the spirituall substance the Rock and Truth but such as were spiritual and thereby could by faith eat Christs flesh and drink his bloud and all the regenerate and truly faithfull did so But with may of them saith the Apostle that is with the carnall impenitent provoking unbeleeving part God was not well pleased but overthrew them in the wildernesse notwithstanding their outward fellowship and communion with the faithfull in the outward externall shadowes And the Apostle by way of comparison seems to make the Church of Corinth and the Church of the Jews in the wildernesse to agree in the like participation with those that communicate as in the things communicated both for the quality of persons and distinction of ordinances And if it were not so as you would suppose then his exhortation were in vain Neither be yee Idolaters as some of them neither fornicators nor tempters nor murmurers c. And if faulty and unregenerate Christians ought not upon any terms to comunicate then the Apostle in Chap. 11. would have forbidden them communion whereas he uses onely admonition And therefore as for the inward and spirituall Christians the spirituall part of the sacrament is peculiar so the externall and common part is for such Christians as are but outward and common and ordained for them as for the Saints as before hath been shewed His second Supposition If unregenerate men come to communicate in the Sacrament they intrude and thrust themselves to that which God calls them not to and so therein doe that which they ought not and therefore it is sin to such to come for so much seems to be implied by the Apostle in saying They discern not the Lords body and so it proves to bee punishment instead of nourishment And it may be said to them as to the guest that bad not on the wedding Garment Friend how comest thou in hither And their intrusion to the Lords Table is like the false Apostles and Prophets thrusting themselves into all the administrations of the Gospel My defence to your second Supposition The first part of this Supposition being an inference of the former by consequence is answered already And whereas you say It is an intrusion in the unregenerate and so a sin in them to come to the Sacrament you must shew the inhibition for otherwise the text is plain Where there is no law there is no transgression Secondly you instance the uncloathed mans coming to the Feast in the Gospel I pray consider hee was not condemned for coming to the Feast but for being there without a wedding Garment for the feast is all the ordinances of God which Christ hath purchased and freely vouchsafed for all men to communicate in for their salvation the coming to the feast is the free liberty that all beleevers have in the enjoyment of these ordinances and to bee fed and clad with the blessed spirituall benefit thereof is to enjoy the blessing and salvation that comes by these means ordained of God for that end but to enjoy the administration thereof and not to be bettered by them is to be there where we might have been clad and yet continue naked fed and are yet starved And so it comes to passe that which is a savour of life to the one is a savour of death to the other the first heareth and obeyeth the second heareth and rejecteth In the next place I answer Whosoever taketh upon him to be a Steward of that which is

discerne the Lords body and communicate for the better and not for the worse From some other friends I have likewise received divers objections against Judas his being present at the institution and distribution of the Lords Supper which principally are these five following Their first Objection Judas went immediatly out after the receit of the Sop John 13. 30. Now the Sop was part of the Passeover therefore Judas was gone before the institution of the Sacrament My defence to your first Objection This objection is against the consent of the three former Evangelists for they all agree and testifie that as our Lord was eating the Passeover he took bread and blessed it and the cup and blessed it which is the institution of the Lords Supper And this hee did before they or any of them rose from the Table Mat. 26. 26. Mark 14. 21 22 23. And S. Lukes witnesse is beyond all exception or any excuse Behold the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the Table Luke 22. 21. Now John doth not at all speak the least tittle of the institution of the Sacrament and therefore his knowledge of that must be included in his discourse before he makes expresse mention of our Lords rising from Supper John 13. 4. because all the rest testifie that he instituted it as they were eating the Passeover before our Lord did rise from Supper even while they were eating at the later end of the Passeover as at the end of the first course at a feast the second course is brought in in that instant Jesus instituted the Supper of his passion And to this agree the Apostles words 1 Cor. 11. 25. Also he took the Cup when he had supped that is before he rose from the table because after he rose John testifies of other actions And after hee sate down again to them verse 12. of other discourses And to this accords S. Lukes witn●sse also Luke 22. 19. And he took the bread and gave thanks that is the bread on the Table provided for the Passeover Likewise also the Cup after Supper that is as they had finished the supper of the Passeover as abovesaid no distance of time but as they were eating the one Christ instituted and distributed the other And as the Sop might be a part of the Supper of the Passeover being a part of the fragments untaken away from the table so was the bread and wine a part of the provision of the Passeover Supper also which the Lord blessed to institute the Sacrament with and yet neither of them for your purpose Their second Objection It is said in the Institution of the Lords Supper Luke 22. 19 20. This is my body which is given for you c. In which words Judas could not be included for Christ gave not his body nor shed not his bloud for him and therefore Judas could not be there My defence to your second Objection I affirm that as Christ gave himselfe to death peculiarly and effectually for his elect so generally and sufficiently for the whole world according to that of the Apostle If any man sin meaning if any of the justified elect we have an advocate with the Father Jesus Christ the righteous who is the propitiation for our sins and not onely for ours that is for the elect but for the sins of the whole world 1 John 2. 1 2. And so saith Saint Paul 1 Tim. 4. 10. For therefore wee both labour and suffer reproach because we trust in the living God who is the Saviour of all men especially of them that beleeve Observe in the general he hath given himself to be a Saviour that by and through his death there is now a way opened to life and salvation for all men without which no man could be saved And this purchased and purchasing life is the true light that enlightneth every man that commeth into the world John 1. 9. yet notwithstanding this light and remedy provided such is the naturall opposition thereunto of all men which through the first Adams offence lie damnable Rom. 5. 18. and although the second Adam by his death hath brought them to an estate saveable yet notwithstanding this possibility when none was before through this new and living way by Christs death if God did not after a speciall manner in an extraordinary respect make this means that is sufficient for all effectuall for his elect they should be condemned with the reprobate world for loving darknesse more then light because their deeds are evill but that God of his everlasting love and pitie works his owne works in them and for them of repentance and remission of sins to salvation And the reprobate part of mankind and such as perish they also enjoy all Gods mercies and goodnesse long suffering and patience life food and all things for the body the Sun-shine and dewing rain of Gods grace in his ordinances for their soules good which could not be enjoyed but by the death mediation of Jesus Christ So that in these considerations it may bee said Christ hath given himself for all men and his death in it selfe virtuall for all but effectuall onely for the elect Their third Objection Matth. 26. 13. it is said All yee shall be offended with me this night Now Judas could not be offended therefore Judas was not there for hee effected his treachery wilfully and for his hire My defence to your third Objection In the Scriptures the tearm offence is diversly taken there is an offence of impenitency an offence of imbecillity of wilfulnesse and weaknesse Judas was guilty of the first offence of that of impenitency and all the rest of the Apostles of that of weaknesse and frailty The Scribes and Pharisees were wilfully and impenitently offended with our Lord Luke 7. 30. who rejected the counsell of God against themselves So was Herod against John Baptist Mark 6. 20. who notwithstanding the Prophets powerfull Doctrine which wrought such a change in the heathen King as to respect the Prophet so as to hear him to obey and doe many things to honour his person with fear and his doctrine with gladnes yet rather then his lust should want prosecution he will Judas-like take up such an implacable offence against him and the truth so as suddenly barbarously to imprison him and there to murder him Thus Cain was offended with Abel Ishmael with Isaac Esau with Jacob The severall grounds that received not the seed to perfection And blessed are they to whom Christ is not such a rock of offence Their fourth Objection I will not drink henceforth of the fruit of the vine untill that day when I drink it new with you in my Fathers Kingdome Matth. 26. 29. Now Judas c●uld not be one that should drink with Christ in his Fathers Kingdome Ergo Iudas was not there when our Lord spake this My defence to your fourth Objection The words of the former verse are these This is the bloud of the new Testament

freedome for this is the effect of your practice which affirm in this governed church in which you are placed under authority you ought to have freedome of conscience to exercise your gifts to gather a people to your selves and so to make use of all the ordinances of God both for Doctrine and Discipline And that no power nor authority ought to question you for it because you ought to have freedome of conscience This is another conceit of humane invention Did you ever read of such an expression in the Scriptures so applied as to free a man from all lawfull obedience to authority the consequence of truth is sincerity but the consequence of error is iniquity For think you not that your freedome of conscience as you call it which doth acquit you from all obedience to lawful commands if you your selfe shall so judge of it is not your own wilfulnesse to disobey that authority that is over you a permanent ground for the like freedome for all in particular that are under you to discl●ime your authority upon the same terms you doe others See in a word how you by mistaking the word overthrow Gods ordinance of government Rom. 13. even that which himselfe is God of for he is the God of Gods Dan. 2. 47. the God of order 1 Cor. 14. 33. Now to make your absurdity more manifest observe a similitude make the whole Kingdome of England the great nationall church make the Parliament and assembly of Ministers the Ruling and Teaching Elders in this great church your selves neither of them but under this authority And therefore by the law of God and man ought to live obediently to all their lawfull ordinances You pretend by religious freedome you ought not to obey them but rather to follow your own conceivings Is not this your practice of disobeying your Superiours a perpetuall ground for disobedience in your inferiours For that inferiour who ever he be that saith none above him hath power to prescribe rules to him his own practice for ever frees all that are under him from all manner of obedience to him and so for ever to establish by this doctrine such dissenting and contending as that there is no such custom in the churches of God 1 Cor. 11. 16. for the rule of Gods church is the quite contrary as the Apostle testifieth Rom. 13. 7. Render therefore to all their dues tribute to whom tribute is due custome to whom custome fear to whom feare honour to whom honour It is true the Saints and children of God are free but that is in a spirituall respect by a spirituall birth The truth shall make you free John 8. 32. If the Sonne make you free you shall bee free indeed verse 36. but with the right knowledge of this freedome I find few professors are acquainted Their second Position When we have truly constituted our church by selecting 〈◊〉 a congregation then we shall enjoy the spirituall administration of Christs ordinances in their purity setting up Christ upon his throne to the happy enjoyment and accomplishment of all the prophesies and promises foretold of all by the Prophets and Apostles My defence to your second Position There are three things considerable in this Position also First what you mean by Ordinances Secondly their spirituall administration and purity And lastly what you mean by setting Christ up in his throne to the fulfilling of all the Prophesies and promises in the Scriptures And first for the term Ordinances are they not those that wee have in communion in our publick Assemblies prayer reading and expounding the Scriptures preaching and in communicating in baptisme and the Lords Supper Is not the word of God the same in publick congregations as amongst you the same in a common and the same in a speciall administration Is not prayer the same in both with the spirituall the sacrifice of a broken heart with the rest a presentation of persons and words Is not baptisme the same in the outward as in the inward consideration The Lords Supper the same in the corporall signes as in the spirituall grace that as the carnall Christian through the common faith eats the bread and drinks the wine so the spirituall Christian by justifying faith eats Christs flesh and drinks his bloud You confesse all this to bee true but you say the difference lies in the point of the purity of the ordinances the manner of administration and communion in them which is the second consideration in the Position And you say for want of the spirituall administration the authorized congregations have lost the purity of all Gods ordinances and thereby continue the abominable and unclean thing amongst them And you give three instances to prove this First that our Minister● are not truly called secondly say some of you we alter the ordinance of baptisme thirdly you all with one consent condemne us for admitting of mixt congregations To the first I answer Presbyters by the Parliament are ordained to examine approve and allow of mens gifts and for their spirituall gifts received of God to appoint and allow of them therefore to be Ministers according to the Apopostles rule 1 Tim. 3. 10 chap. 4. 14. against which there is no other externall rule to be shewed in the Scriptures And secondly whereas many of you say we alter the ordinance of baptisme it is more then you can prove by Scripture for although it be said Matth. 28. 19. Go yee therefore and teach all Nations baptizing them c. In your own understanding of that place it doth not say therefore as you say ye shall not baptize the infants of beleevers who you therein forbid to be brought to Christ contrary to the command of our Lord Matth. 19. 14. Suffer little children to come or to be brought unto me for so much the Text inferres and forbid them not to come unto me Which inhibition of yours is contrary also to Gods own ordinance and command Exod. 12. Gen. 17. which plainly commands that which you deny that children are to communicate if their parents were beleevers According to which ordinance of God the Apostles testifie to all the world Acts 2. The promise belongs to you and to your children and to all that are afarre off even to so many as the Lord our God shall call as if he should say whosoever God calls to beleeve the covenant belongs to them and to their infants as the covenant belonged to Abraham and to all strangers that should come to beleeve the truth to them and to their children also And this is the reason that we find it written and there are many examples of it in the Apostles times that when a man came to beleeve the truth the doctrine they taught them not onely they themselves but their housholds were baptized 1 Cor. 1. as the houshold of Stephanos and the rest And the Apostle resolves the question to the Church of Corinth saith he to this effect If one of the parents