Selected quad for the lemma: lord_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
lord_n	day_n	sabbath_n	time_n	25,202	5	5.0710	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A87512	The want of church-government no warrant for a totall omission of the Lords Supper. Or, A brief and scholastical debate of that question, which hath so wonderfully perplexed many, both ministers and people. Whether or no, the sacrament of the Lords Supper may (according to presbyterial principles) be lawfully administred in an un-presbyterated church, that is, a church destitute of ruling elders. Wherein the affirmative is confirmed by many arguments, and cleared from objections, especially such as are drawn from the unavoidablenesse of mixt communions without ecclesiastical discipline. / By Henry Jeanes, minister of Gods Word at Chedzoy in Sommerset-shire.	Jeanes, Henry, 1611-1662.	1650 (1650)	Wing J511; Thomason E618_6; ESTC R202652	58,879	80

no more then we can infer that it is only to be administred to men or Ministers But look as because Christ gave the Lords Supper only unto men therefore it followeth that it is lawfull to administer the Lords Supper unto a Congregation made up only of men which is a thing usuall in ships at Sea and amongst Merchants trading in remote parts even so because Christ gave the Lords Supper unto a Church destitute of Ruling Elders therefore the administration of it unto a Church that now is destitute of Ruling Elders is lawfull as being agreeable unto the practice of Christ in the first administration thereof A second Example is in Acts 2.42 They continued stedfastly in the Apostles Doctrine and Fellowship and in breaking of bread and in Prayers The breaking of bread here mentioned is not say Interpreters a common but a Sacred or Sacramentall breaking of bread And Mr Shepheard in his Doctrine of the Sabbath Part. 2. pag. 23. gives a reason for it The bread was no more common then the continuance in the Apostles Doctrine and fellowship was common Now that the Church was then Presbyterated is spoken gratis without any colour from the Text. But you will say the Apostles were clothed with a fulnesse of Jurisdiction What if First It is not said That the breaking of bread was by the Apostles only or by their direction And secondly if it were Did they act under the Notion of Apostles extraordinary Ministers or else as ordinary Ministers For the former no Argument appeares in the Text and for the latter we have at least a probable Argument A Connexis The Doctrine or Preaching and the Prayers there mentioned belong to the Apostles as Ministers why not so also the breaking of bread A third Example is Acts 20.7 And upon the first day of the week when the Disciples came together to break bread From this Example thus I argue The Lords day and all duties belonging thereunto are to be observed even in Un-Presbyterated Churches But the administration of the Lords Supper is a principall duty belonging to the Lords day For Saint Luke describes therefrom as its end the Assembly of the Disciples upon that day the first day of the week when the Disciples came together to break bread And it were absurd to describe a thing as from its end by that which is unnecessary and lesse principall It were absurd to describe a constant meeting upon such a day as from its end by that which is unusuall upon the day The evidence of this Argument is acknowledged by the London Divines in their Divine Right of Church Government Pag. 20 21. Whatsoever actions were done by Saints recorded in Scripture upon such grounds as are of a morall perpetual and common concernment to one person as well as another to one Church as well as another These actions are obligatory to all a rule to after generations and for an instance they bring the Text now under debate Thus say they the Churches practice of Preaching the Word and breaking Bread on the first day of the week Acts 20.7 c. is our rule for sanctifying the Lords day by celebrating the Word Sacraments and other holy Ordinances at these times Unto whom we may adde Mr Shepheard in his Doctrine of the Sabbath Part. 2. pag. 22 23. Here the breaking of bread is made mention of as the opus diei or the especiall businesse of the day and the day is mentioned as the especiall time for such a purpose And therefore it is called in effect the day of meeting to break bread Holy duties are here called breaking of bread by a Synecdoche of a part for the whole and therefore comprehends all other Sabbath duties For there is no more reason to exclude Prayer Preaching singing of Psalmes c. Because these are not mentioned then to exclude drinking of wine in the Sacrament as the blind Papists do because this neither is here made mention of Thus Mr Shepheard But now we could not well take breaking of bread Synecdochycally for all Sabbath duties unlesse it were a principall part of them If we consult Ecclesiasticall Stories they informe us that the Lords Supper was administred every Lords day Paraeus proves as much out of Justin Martyr and Tertullian Indeed there be many who affirme that the Lords Supper was celebrated by the Primitive Christians every day But this strengthneth my Argument as is well collected by Nathaniel Eaton in his disputation at Franeker under the Moderation of Doctor Ames de Sabbato die Dominico If the Lords Supper were daily administred in the Primitive Church why then is there particular mention made of the celebration of it on the first day of the week unlesse it be for the singular eminency of this day above others and because Christians were bound by necessity of Command unto performance of this duty of celebrating the Lords Supper upon that day whereas in other daies they were left unto their liberty The fourth and last Example is in the Church of Corinth 1 Cor. 11. And how strongly conclusive this Example is for the administration of the Lords Supper in an Un-Presbyterated Church you shall heare when we come to a Comparison of an Un-Presbyterated Church with a Presbyterated Church in which there is a Mal-administration of Discipline Unto which head we shall refer the consideration of this Example The third principal Argument is taken from the general nature of the Lords Supper It is an Ordinance of Christ The third Argument a genere one of those mysteries of God which we read of 1 Cor. 4.1 2. A principall branch of Gods positive and instituted Worship a part of that Profession of faith which is required at our hands And therefore to be administred even in an Un-Presbyterated Church First the Ordinances of Christ may nay must be dispensed even in an Un-Presbyterated Church unlesse there be some dispensation to the contrary For they are under a Command have promises annexed are appointed for Gods honour and our good In the use of them we draw nigh unto God and therefore omission of them must needs be transgression if we may dispense them without sin for it is a detracting the shoulder from Gods burden a neglecting an opportunity to glorifie God and so a sin against God and our selves But now the Lords Supper is an ordinance of Christ and Ministers have no dispensation in Scripture to omit the administration thereof Ergo c. Secondly Ministers are to dispense the mysteries of God without any exception that we read of as well in an Un-Presbyterated as a Presbyterated Church 1 Cor. 4.1 2. Let a man so account of us as of the Ministers of Christ and Stewards of the mysteries of God Moreover it is required in Stewards that a man be found faithfull but the Lords Supper is a part of these mysteries Ergo c. Thirdly no principal part of Gods positive and instituted Worship is to be omitted in an

that have no foundation in Scripture are indeed saucy presumptions a taking upon us to tutour the Almighty Unto this expresse Command for the administration of the Lords Supper the Scholemen adde a virtual and implicite precept from the necessity Suarez or at least profitablenesse of it unto salvation The people are bound to make use of all meanes that are in any degree necessary to salvation and a Minister being to watch for the soules of his People is to make what provision he can not only of things simply and absolutely necessary but all things profitable convenient for salvation Before I meddle with the Answer which may be to this Argument I will give it a little more strength We have a Command not only for the celebration but also for the frequent celebration of the Lords Supper Mr Marshal in his Sermon of the Baptizing of Infants argues for a repetition of the Lords Supper by way of Analogy and proportion from the Passeover Pag. 35 36. All Gods Commands and Institutions saith he about the Sacraments of the Jews bind us as much as they did them in all things which belong to the substance of the Covenant and were not accidental to them The Jewish Passeover being to be yearly repeated binds us to have a repetition of the Sacrament of the Lords Supper which came in roome of it because this belongs to the substance of the Covenant both of them being Sacraments for spiritual nourishment growth and continuance in the Covenant But we have no need to stand upon a virtual or analogical command for the frequent use of this Sacrament seeing we have an expresse command of it 1 Cor. 11.24 25 26. * Addit declarationem istius clausulae hoc facite Annunciate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sic m●l● quam Annunciatis quasi dicat annunciare debetis nam exponit illa verba Hoc facite ad meirecordationem Quod si reddas Annunciatis erit rationatio cujus vis nulla apparet Nempe vis Corinthii celebrantes Coenam Domini Annunciatis mortem Domini ergo Christus praecepit ut hoc faceretis Quin determinatie illa temporis videtur imperativ●em postulare Annun●iate donec venerit id est non solum vos sed etiam vos secuturi credentes usque ad finem mundi deb●nt in celebranda sacra caena mortem Domini annunciare This do in remembrance of me This do as oft as ye drink it in remembrance of me for as often as ye eate this bread and drink this cup shew ye the Lords death untill he come For to choose rather to read the words as they are in the Margent then as they are in the Translation ye do shew you may see in Piscator two reasons for thus rendring the words The meaning of them in briefe is Ye ought to shew declare represent and make known the death of the Lord by this sacred Supper This is a duty lying not only upon you but upon all Beleevers following you unto the end of the world The Lords Supper is then to be celebrated even untill the coming of Christ to judgement and therefore there ought to be no interruption of the celebration of it at fit and convenient seasons which is that which I meane by the frequent celebration thereof That the frequent celebration of this Sacrament is a duty is inferred from this Text by Tilemannus Heshusius Fridericus Baldwinus Peter Martyr Calvin Musculus Aretius Hiperius Tossanus Pareus Piscator Dickson and our own Pemble And for this their inference I find these following reasons alledged The first is pressed by Pareus upon the words Cur saepius faciendum quia mors domini perpetuis laudibus celebranda c. Christ death is so great so important so beneficial a mercy as that it cals for a frequent commemoration Now this Sacrament of the Lords Supper was appointed purposely to quicken our memory therein Do this in remembrance of me therefore ought frequently to be administred A second reason is of Mr David Dickson upon the place Because Christ shall not bodily be present in the Church before the last judgment he therefore commands that by this Sacrament the memory of the Redemption of the Church by his death should ever and anon be repeated and celebrated untill he come from the Heavens in the last day A third reason is also in Pareus upon the place How long ought this Sacrament to be administred untill the Lord come till he come to judge the quick and the dead For even as the Sacraments of the Old Testament continued untill the first coming of Christ in the flesh so shall the Sacraments of the New Testament continue till the second coming of him in glory From these Arguments thus premised we may infer in the words of the learned godly Pemble that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here implyeth a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as often as ye do it therefore do it often not once in an age as Baptisme never to be repeated nor once a year and no more as the Passeover but many times in our Age many times in a yeare according as the Saints in the Primitive Church understood the meaning of these words and not as some in these times when Sophistry hath wrangled out Divinity would seeme to cavill that because the words run Do it as oft as you eate this bread and drink this cup therefore it is at their discretion to do it as seldome as they please who these Cavillers are that he speaks of I know not but Bellarmine hath some such evasion in his plea against the Cup in the Lords Supper and Bullinger also upon the place hath something sounding that way By this word As often Christ saith he leaves a liberty unto the Churches when and how often they will celebrate the Lords Supper For this he quotes a saying out of Augustine Epist 118. ad Ianuarium In which after repetition of some variety or difference in the Churches of God about the time of administring this Sacrament some administring it every day and some only upon certaine set daies he concludes that the best course for a prudent Christian herein is to conforme himself unto the usage of that Church unto which he shall come Unto Bullinger I might joyne Hiperius who quotes Epiphanius affirming as much But I beleeve that the liberty left to the Church which Bullinger and Hiperius speak of is meant only concerning a prudent choice of fit and convenient seasons for administration of the Lords Supper alwaies provided that she keep within the Latitude of frequency in the administration thereof If so be by it they understand an absolute unbounded liberty of administring it as seldome as she please the collection is groundlesse and unreasonable and confuted by Volkellius a Socinian and therefore an undervalluer of this Sacrament We must mark faith he that the Apostle doth not at all say that it is free for us to use or not to use the Lords Supper

but he teacheth us what we must do as often as according to the command of Christ we celebrate it to wit shew forth the death of the Lord so that if the Apostle seem here to grant any liberty it doth not stand in the usage or neglect of this sacred rite or ceremony otherwise he should be contrary to himself For he saith that he received this Ordinance of the Lord and that he delivered it unto the Corinthians and in them unto all other succeeding Churches that so it might be continued and used in the Assemblies of the faithfull even untill the coming of Christ I hope then you will give me leave to conclude that howsoever 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth not absolutely and universally imply 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet it doth imply it in this place If any desire further proofes for the frequency of administring the Lords supper I shall desire them to apply hereunto what I shall say touching the ends of the Lords supper As also concerning the great need that Beleevers have thereof even in an Un-Presbyterated Church In the mean time I take it to be sufficiently cleared that we have here in the Apostle a peremptory command for the frequent celebration of the Lords Supper And how we can obey this command and yet omit the administration of it for 5,6,7 years together nay perhaps for the whole space of the remainder of our dayes I am yet to learn To suppose that we shall never live to see the Churches of God here in England setled in a Presbyterian way is a supposition of that which is neither impossible nor improbable Now if the feares that many have concerning this particular should prove true What shall the Lords Supper be for ever laid aside Would not this be a goodly interpretation of the command shew ye the Lords death till he come that is if you can get the Church to be Presbyterated otherwise let there be a perpetuall amnesty as to the externall commemoration thereof And yet this is the exposition of the words which those that dissent from me in this Question must hold unlesse they will retract their opinion and confesse that the Lords Supper may bee administred in an Un-Presbyterated Church I have bethought my self what may be answered to this Argument a Praecepto and these my thoughts I shall communicate to you as plainly and briefly as I can If any think that I propound the Answer feeble I shall not be unwilling that they amend the proposall and adde what strength they can thereunto An answer may be grounded on what the Schoolmen say in secunda secundae Quest 43. Art 7. Where Thomas and all his Interpreters debate this Question An bona spiritualia sint propter scandalum dimittenda They resolve that some things in themselves dutyes and commanded by God to be done yet are to be omitted at some times for the avoyding of scandal Promulgation of a truth and Christian reproof are duties commanded by God and yet are sometimes to be abstained from for scandals taken by not only the weak but also malitious Reprove not a scorner least he hate thee Prov. 9.8 speak not in the ears of a fool for he will despise the wisdome of thy words Prov. 23.9 Give not that which is holy unto dogges neither east ye your Pearles before swine least they trample them under their feet and turne again and rent you Math. 7.6 Pro vitando scandalo cessat rigor disciplinae To avoyd scandal the rigor of disciplineceaseth To explaine this farther recourse must be had unto that old and golden Rule Affirmativa Praecepta semper obligant non ad semper Affirmative Precepts do alwayes bind but not to alwayes so that we are not bound to peforme alwayes what they enjoyne but only Loco tempore debitis when we have due time and place Now as by the intercurrency of other circumstances so especally by intercurrence of scandal there may not be opportunity seasonablenes of doing what we are urged unto by some Affirmative Precepts so these Precepts may pro hic nunc cease to be obligatory Now say they upon the administration of the Lords Supper in an Un-Presbyterated Church scandall will ensew a scandall tending to sin in the unworthy receiver who will be guilty of the body and bloud of the Lord a scandall tending to sorrow and vexation in the Well-affected whose spirits will be sadded at the communion of sinners For Reply First we must put a difference between a transgression of a Precept and a temporary partial or occasional forbearance of the matter commanded by a Precept No Precept whatsoever is for the eschewing the scandal of any to be truly broken or transgressed and if a Precept be not transgressed when what is enjoyned in it is wholly and altogether omitted I confesse I cannot divine when it can be transgressed Bonum per se saith Suarez praeferendum est ex genere suo bono per accidens Now to administer the Lords Supper is good per se ex genere suo I mean with a material objective or external goodnesse to omit the administration thereof is only good per accidens in a case of scandal And that which is only good by accident cannot always shut out that which is good per se Suppose then that the administration of the Lords Supper upon the emergency of scandal may pro hic nunc at some times and in some places be omitted may for a while be forborn untill we have used all means that lay in our power for the removing of the scandal yet it wil not hereupon follow that after such use of our utmost endeavours and the scandal continue still unremoved the administration of the Lords Supper is wholly and altogether to be forborn for five six or seven years or for the whole remaining space of our lives And it is only this latter that is broad enough to inferre that the Lords Supper is not to be administred at all in an un-Presbyterated Church For a Church may be un-Presbyterated for so long a space as we now speak of by means Partly of the divisions of the godly Party Partly because they may be oppressed by a predominant wicked Party within and persecuted by adversaries without either of which unlesse timely prevented is enough to retard the work of Reformation for more then the age of a man That those who talk only of a present suspension of this Sacrament do but shuffle and shift would be easily apparent if they would be pleased to speak out and tell us the latitude of this present suspension how long it shall last when it shall end I beleeve their opinion iffully discovered will accord with those of whom Musculus speaks on 1 Cor. 11. Now adays saith he thou shalt find very many who in many years do not so much as once partake of this Sacrament especially the Swenckfeldians who do so reject the Ecclesiastical Communion of whatsoever Churches that

All these former Arguments receive weight and strength from this consideration That the exercise of Discipline is not a necessary antecedent unto the exercise of other branches of the power of Order to wit the power of Preaching Baptizing c. Therefore to say without proof that it is a necessary antecedent unto the exercise only of this Branch of the power of Order is Petitio Principii a meer begging of the Question The fifth Principal Argument is taken from the end of the Lords Supper The 5. Arg. à fine The principall ends of the Lords Supper have place in and do belong unto an Un-Presbyterated Church and therefore likewise the Lords Supper it self The consequence is made good from that Maxime in Logick Posito fine ponuntur omnia media ad finem The Antecedent is manifest from an enumeration of the ends of the Lords Supper It will be an endlesse work to go over them all I shall therefore out of them all select two The first is that which by Christs most expresse command is to be the end of this Sacrament And it is to celebrate the memory of Christs Death and Passion that unvaluable price of our double Redemption Redemption from hell and Redemption to glory This do in remembrance of me And doth it not become Christians to celebrate with a frequent shall I say nay rather with an eternal memory the Author of their Redemption Shall so great and glorious a work be buried in a grave of oblivion And shall that I mean the Lords Supper which is by divine institution a Pledge and memorial of this so incomparable a mercy be neglected and quite thrown aside if the government of the Church by the iniquity of the times be not setled in our times Christs death is to be remembred with a memory both of faith and gratitude even in an Un-Presbyterated Church Therefore the Lords Supper which was by Christ instituted for the commemoration thereof is to be celebrated in an Un-Presbyterated Church Secondly I shall argue from another end of the Lords Supper The spiritual growth and nourishment of Christians The Lords Supper is defined by Ames to be the Sacrament of the nourishing and growth of the faithful in Christ Whereupon he inferres that it ought oftentimes to be administred to the same persons In an Un-Presbyterated Church Christians ought to grow in grace to nourish and improve their graces all they can Why then should they be denyed that which Christ himselfe hath appointed as an help and means of this growth and nourishment Me thinks it is somewhat a strange kind of reasoning because the rod of Discipline is wanting the children should be denyed bread yea but you will say dogges will eat the childrens bread Why will you therefore starve the children because dogges without your default may snatch the childrens portion Shall the children be debarred as I may say their daily bread because it will become accidentally poyson unto dogges Hither may we referre these words of the Bramble Berrie As it is better for Gods sheep to feed upon pasture where some weeds grow rather then starve for want of food So it is better for Gods shepheards to suffer some weeds to grow in the sheeps pastures if they cannot prevent it then to starve their flocks yea and as it is better for the sheep to feed among goats rather then starve So it is better the shepheards should suffer the goats to feed upon the sheeps pasture though it should poyson them then for the sheep to be kept from it It being as I said out of their power to reforme it Hither you may referre that place of Beccanus sum Theol. Part. 3. Tract 2. Cap. 23. Quest 4. Hoc praeceptum divinum tum maxime obligat cum prudenter judicatur Eucharistiae sumptionem necessariam esse homini ad eum finem ob quem instituta est nimirum ad conservandam roborandam vitam spiritualem contra tentationes Ratio est quia hoc est commune Praeceptis affirmativis ut tunc obligent quando urget necessitas finis propter quem instituta sunt The sixt Argument is drawn from the Object of the administration of the Lords Supper The sixth Argument Ab Objecto such as have these qualifications which the Scripture requireth in those to whom it is to be administred and these qualifications are especially two First Right unto Secondly Need of the Lords Supper Now in an Un-Presbyterated Church there are many who have right unto and need of the Lords Supper why then should it be with-held from them Because they have right unto it the Minister is tyed to give it them by an obligation of justice because they have need of it the Minister is bound to give it them by an obligation of charity First Many have right unto it not only jus adrem but also jus in re not only a right in actu primo but also a right in actu secundo which rendreth the person actually and presently capable of the thing that he is intituled to That which giveth such a right in Foro Dei is Eaith but in Foro Ecclesiastico profession of the Faith Now in an Un-Presbyterated Church there are many who are Beleevers and Professors of the Faith Ego many that have right unto the Lords Supper And we may argue from the right to the administration Philip did so to the Eunuch in case of Baptisme The Eunuch said here is water what doth hinder me to be baptized And Philip said If thou beleevest withall thine heart thou mayst So may we say here is bread and wine c. Peter also thus reasoneth Acts 10.47 Can any forbid water that these should not be baptized which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we So may we say can any man forbid bread and wine that these should not receive the Lords Supper which have received the Holy Ghost and have in some degree all spirituall qualifications requisite in Communicants They have the word of promise which is the greater who can inhibit the signe which is the lesse They are Mr. Geree his words for the Baptisme of Infants They are faederati therefore they must be signati It is Mr. Marshals argument upon the same subject and mutatis mutandis applyable to our purpose Perhaps you will say you would willingly give Beleevers their right but prophane and scandalous persons will also intrude who have no right What if they do If you have no power or authority from Christ to keep them back by your self If you have used the utmost of your power to erect an Eldership in the Congregation if you have used your power of Order to the utmost for keeping them back by exhortation if you mourne for their intrusion wherein are you to be blamed Because they do wrong will you do no right And shall the Saints be debarred their dues because these wretches without your allowance seise upon what is undue that unto which they have no