Selected quad for the lemma: sin_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
sin_n jesus_n lord_n remission_n 4,591 5 8.9977 5 false
View all documents for the selected quad

Text snippets containing the quad

ID Title Author Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) STC Words Pages
A41825 A defence of Christian liberty to the Lords table except in case of excommunication and suspension wherein many arguments, queres, supposition, and objections are answered by plain texts and consent of Scriptures ... / by John Graunt ... Graunt, John, 1620-1674. 1646 (1646) Wing G1592; ESTC R36548 25,052 34

There are 2 snippets containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

that which is anothers being not comitted into his hands presumes of himself and is an intruder but this is not proved to be the case of a beleever that is baptized to communicate in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper therefore the instance fails for your purpose Now to put an end to all further disputes upon these two points that Iudas did communicate or participate in the Lords Supper with the rest of the Apostles and that the Sacrament is of a teaching use and operation as strengthening and confirming I state both the questions affirmatively and negatively the affirmative of both questions that Iudas was present at the institution and distribution of the Lords Supper and that the externall elements are of teaching use is proved plainly by these two Scriptures Luke 22. 14. 21. 1 Cor. 11. 26. But I challenge the whole world to prove the negative that the elements of the Lords Supper do not teach and that Iudas was not present at the institution And by the way take notice that no absurdity can possibly be a consequence of truth but erring and mistaking admits of little else For it the ordinance of the Lords Supper have not a teaching and informing quality then it is uselesse to all the unregenerate yea to all the elect before reg●neration which is such an absu●dity to affirme t●at Gods outward and common ordinances are of no use but unprofitable And that God ordained any thing in vain this is so grolfe that it crosses all Scriptures for ●hey generally affirm that all that God hath made or ordained shew forth teach his glory Psa 75. 1. Again if none but the regenerate should communicate of the Supper of the Lord the paucity is such as the Scriptures witnesse that there is but one of a Citie and two of a Tribe yea it will also follow that he that blesseth and distributeth the bread and wine must know the receivers conversion or else he sinnes in communicating it these and an hundred more absurdities will follow that a wise man will blush to think of For if this be so then the same things that shew forth Christ under the Gospel shall not be so usefull to beleevers as the shadowes under the Law And this were to turn the day into night the light into darknesse The last thing I intended now to publish are some few short conferences I have met with in Citie and Countrey and all may be reduced into these two positions The first Position That selected congregations are Churches rightly ordained and truly constituted And that each congregation are free and independent either from other My defence to the first Position In this first Position we must consider foure things First that the gatherers and avouchers of selected congregations are Christians in profession not in authority but under Christian authority and members of Christian congregations in communion in all Gods externall ordinances and in all these respects are those also that they gather to themselves Secondly what is meant by congregations forasmuch as there are three sorts of them that is first anthorized congregations secondly selected or covenanted congregations in opposition to authority and thirdly spirituall or voluntary congregations the communion of Saints And the last part of the position is what is meant by congregationall Independency In the first place therefore we must confider that all selected congregations in England teachers and people are Christians in profession and already in communion and fellowship in the ordinances of the Gospel being all under Christian Authority And notwithstanding all this they doe take up and assume authority to themselves so to select and congregate as they doe in opposition to authority to which they are subjected of God And for proofe of this their practise they alledge the example of John the Baptist Mat. 3. 1 2 5. our Saviour Christ Mark 1. 14 15 16. and the Apostles Acts 2. 37 38 41 42. Acts 11. 20 21 22. Now I deny that any of these Scriptures come home to prove the state of your question or warrant your practice For John our Lord and the Apostles taught the doctrine of the Gospel that Jesus was the Christ the Messiah prophesied of to such Jewes as were not beleevers but opposers of it and them And such by their Ministery converted to the faith which faith is beleeved and confessed by such Christians as you select to your selves And secondly the Greeks that were converted Acts 11. 20. were so converted from heathenisme to Christianisme but this is not your case nor practice for you pervert Christians from sound and wholsome doctrines to vain janglings about words that edifie not And from those Assembles assigned by Christian authority to such as are of your own ordaining devising and constituting the matter and form thereof is not to be found in Gods word Now if any of you all could shew me a people that you have gained from among the Jewes and from among the Heathens to the acknowledgement and confession of the doctrine of our Lord Jesus Christ and that by your Ministery that they have not onely beleeved the truth but obeyed it in the power of it to the effecting in them repentance and remission of sinnes then I would speak and change my discourse to another sense but in regard you assume that which you are not I will onely testifie unto you that that which you doe is not warrantable by Scripture but it is your own carnall fancy and imagination Now the second thing in the Position is what is meant by Congregation and in the threefold distinction the first is Authorized congregations which are usually called Parishes and that is to say so many Families assigned by authority to make a congregation to communicate in Gods ordinances for the salvation of the people And to that end authority hath ordained a way that their teachers or teacher should be a man approved of for able gifts that a time or times in the week is appointed that men should dispense with neglect and lay aside their worldly imployments and affairs and meet together in the communion and participution of Gods ordinances to that end have appointed a place for prayer reading and expounding the Scriptures for doctrine exhortation and preaching as also for communion in baptisme and the Lords Supper And are not all these things in themselves good and lawfull And if they be so what ground have you then for dislike and separation Nay have we not ground by the word of God to give thanks for such governors that are in authority over us And are not their Ordinances and Rules such without which wee cannot communicate in the outward ordinances of God Wherefore let us acknowledge their authority and obey their rules But in the next place the selected congregations alledge 2 Cor. 6. 17. and Rev. 18. 4. for their separation and selection for as much as the holy Ghost saith Come out from amongst them meaning corrupt Christian congregations and be
may 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 date down again to them verse 12. of other discourses And to this accords S. Lukes witnesse 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 above said 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 Iohn 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 Jac●b 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 tbat day when I drink it new with you in my Fathers Kingdome Matth. 26. 29. Now Judas could 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