Selected quad for the lemma: lord_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
lord_n	blood_n	bread_n	cup_n	12,142	5	9.7026	5	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

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 Jerem. 10. 23. O Lord I know that the way of Man is not in himselfe it is not in Man that walketh to direct his steps 1 John 2. 26. These things have I written unto you concerning them which seduce you 2 Tim. 3. 13. But evill men and seducers shall wax worse and worse deceiving and being deceived Published according to Order London Printed for Humphrey Robinson and are to be sold at the three Pigeons in Pauls Church-yard 1646. THE PREFACE TO THE READER OUR Lord once asked a question of his Disciples Are yee able to drink of the Cup that I shall drink of and to be baptized with the Baptisme that I am baptized with In the answer he agrees with his servants that it should be so with them Mat. 20. 22. 23. And as this was the case of James and John so it was Peters and all the faithfuls also and is now and ever was Gods servants case and condition to suffer with him as truly as they shall reigne with him For as the shadow followes the naturall body so afflictions follow the Church the children of Truth his mysticall Body And as there is an universall daily proofe of this truth so in particular at Woolchurch Anno 1645. for a modest and privat testimony of the the Witnesses of sound Doctrine the testifier thereof was testified against with contempt and reproach which for the truths sake he hath patiently born not rendring evill for evill or railing for railing but contrariwise blessing knowing that the Lord calls his servants thereunto that they may inherit a blessing And notwithstanding the Parishioners his suffering he being not thereby discouraged went on in discovery of the truth and in opposition of the mistakes so that the questions were brought to publication in a small short Treatise called Christian liberty to the Lords Table against which authorized Tract I have received divers exceptions from severall friends yea friends which doth the more take my affection And the said exceptions under differing notions as below are mentioned All which with my defensive answers to each I again present with open face to the world And in conclusion a briefe recitall of some short Discourses I have had in my journey in the Countries with such as are opposite to the present government And because since the time my small Taper was lighted there hath risen a man of much eminency a burning glory a starre of great shining holding forth with Scripture Learning and Arts the subject and matter of my meditations yet the manner being different and my phrase stile and knowledge like my selfe low and mean I therefore commend my thoughts to such of my own capacity casting my mite into the Lords Treasury and thrusting in my weake and mean Sickle of plain workmanship into the Lords great harvest praying that all that read it with the same affection that I write it may gain the like benefit A Defence of Christian Liberty to the LORDS Table THE first thing I received by way of opposition to my book were six Arguments My first Argument against your Treatise saith my friend called Christian liberty to the Lords Table is this Because the Scripture doth not testifie of any particular man converted by the Sacrament alone Therefore it is a reason to me to beleeve the Sacrament doth not convert My Defence to your first Argument Friend by your first Argument you seem to divide between the Scriptures and the Sacrament in these words By the Sacrament alone which is a mistaking the point in hand For my book is intituled Christian liberty to the Lords Table the Title thereof shewing and preaching the quite contrary for there can bee neither Christians so called nor Sacraments so instituted where there is no Scriptures And that this might have been understood by you consider the Texts of the Old and New Testament alledged for proofe with the place Preacher and hearers instanced at Woolchurch in London Secondly there is no example that the reading the Scriptures doe convert should any man beleeve therefore the Lord doth not many times convert by reading We have no expresse Scripture to testifie that Peter James and John with the rest of the Apostles by name were outwardly baptized shall we therefore not beleeve it We doe not read that the Apostles Evangelists or Disciples of Christ did once or ever use the Lord prayer although he commanded it Luke 11. 2. is it therefore un●awfull to use it And that the Supper of the Lord is a teaching Ordinance as it is a confirming ordinance we shall have many times occasion to cleare in making my defence His second Argument I doe not read in Scripture that the Sacrament was administred to any Christian Assembly till some of that Assembly were begotten to God by the word of truth which makes me beleeve that it was for the Saints sakes onely when it was instituted and administred and so to confirm and not to convert but to commemorate and strengthen My defence to your second Argument I doe not read in all the Scriptures that the participation of the Lords Supper was denied any common beleever for want of speciall faith and not being a spirituall Christian for although God did in a speciall sense institute and ordain all his ordinances for his elects sake for their regeneration and confirmation their spirituall communion with God in Christ yet I affirm that among these faithfull the outward and common Christians did in the Apostles times may now communicate in the outward common things of the word Sacraments for they that gladly received the word were baptized and continued in the Doctrine Sacraments and Prayer Acts 2. 41 42. And as it was thus at Jerusalem so it was at Samaria Acts 8. Corinth Ephesus Colosse and in all the Churches of the Saints And therefore the outward signes of the Sacraments were not ordained for the Saints onely but it is with Christians in our time as it was with Abraham and his seed that is the elect in these words Gen. 17. 7. I will be thy God and the God of thy seed but the outward signes of the covenant belonged to all his seed ingenerall and to the seed of all others that came to acknowledge the truth and beleeve the Scriptures His third Argument Because the right use of the Sacrament is onely and alone with the faithfull they onely have spirituall communion with the Lord in whose remembrance it was instituted My defence to your third Argument In my defence to your