Selected quad for the lemma: work_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
work_n	day_n	lord_n	week_n	6,148	5	10.2436	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A56710	A treatise of the nesssity and frequency of receiving the Holy Communion With a resolution of doubts about it. In three discourses begun upon Whit-Sunday in the cathedral church of Peterburgh. To press the observation of the fourth Rubrick after the communion office. By Symon Patrick, D.D. Dean of Peterburgh, and one of Hi [sic] Majesties Chaplains in Ordinary.	Patrick, Simon, 1626-1707.	1685 (1685)	Wing P859; ESTC R216671	69,078	263

of his Christian duty as much as hearing the Sermons of the Apostles and Prayers I am loth to spend the time in going about to prove against vain Cavillers that by breaking of bread is here meant this holy action of receiving the Communion and not their bare eating together But to give full satisfaction in that matter let it be briefly considered First that breaking of Bread is here placed in the midst between other holy actions preaching fellowship or communicating to one anothers necessities and prayers and therefore in all reason must be concluded to be it self of that nature not a common but an holy action And besides secondly their eating at a common Table if it be at all mentioned in this Chapter Acts ii under the phrase of breaking bread is spoken of v. 46. and therefore not intended here No nor there neither I shall show hereafter for even in those words also they continued daily with one accord in the Temple and breaking bread from house to house or at home c. the breaking of bread belongs to the holy Communion And to put all out of doubt thus the Syriack an ancient Translation understands it expresly turning it thus in the Eucharist As it doth also Act. xx 7. Vpon the first day of the week when the Disciples came together to break bread Paul preached unto them c. that is when they came to receive the Eucharist saith that Translation which was a part of their Lords days work nay the principal part for this was the thing for which the Disciples came together and not merely to hear the Apostle preach And who can give any reason why it should not be so now as it was then when in familiar speech it was as usual with them to say they would go to Church to receive the holy Communion as it is with us to say in these days we will go to Church to Prayers or to hear a Sermon III. But more than this not only the practice of the Apostles and first Believers after they were divinely inlightned by the Holy Ghost expounds the meaning and the obligation of this Precept to be perpetual but Christ himself showed it so to be after he went to Heaven and was exalted at Gods right hand For appearing to St. Paul to make him one of his Apostles and in order to it revealing himself and the whole Christian Religion to him which he gave him commission and authority to preach He declared this to be a part of his Will and a piece of his holy Religion For I have received of the Lord saith he in this Chapter v. 23 24. c. that which I also delivered unto you that the Lord Jesus the same night he was betrayed took bread and when he had given thanks he brake it and said Take eat this is my body which is broken for you this do in remembrance of me After the same manner also he took the Cup saying This is the New Testament c. Observe here an evident proof that what our Lord did with his Apostles at his last Supper he intended should be done by them and by others when he was gone For sending one who was not then with him nor had any knowledge of him while he was on Earth to preach his Gospel he gives him particular instructions about this matter to take care to see this done in remembrance of him So St. Paul who was the man to whom he appeared and gave a special Commission after he went to Heaven avows to the Corinthians in this place telling them that he delivered nothing to them but what he had received of the Lord and what he delivered to them was this that they should do what the Lord Jesus had done with his Apostles in remembrance of him This he received from him that is it was of the Lords Institution and to be practised by his order and special command and therefore called the Lord's Supper v. 20. When ye come together into one place this is not to eat the Lord's Supper Where it is called the Lord's Supper not because it was eaten by the Lord with his Apostles for at that Supper the Corinthians were not present nor was that now done in this place where they came together but because it was instituted by the Lord both then when he eat that Supper with his Apostles and now again when he appeared to St. Paul and required him to see this practised in the Churches which he converted And accordingly was now practised in this Church at Corinth to whom this Discourse of St. Paul is directed IV. In which we find many things more to prove this to be a necessary Christian Duty which was the fourth head mentioned in the beginning I shall single out two which will make it evidently appear to all unprejudiced minds I. The first is very remarkable that the Apostle takes a great deal of pains and spends a great deal of time in showing the manner how the holy Communion ought to be celebrated among them Which he would not have done if this had not been a necessary duty incumbent on them by vertue of Christs Command and a Divine Institution Do but consider this I beseech you and be at the pains to ponder at your leisure how serious earnest and laborious the Apostle is here in this eleventh Chapter of his Epistle to make the Corinthians sensible by a long Discourse about it after what manner they ought to approach to the Table of the Lord reproving their scandalous behaviour at the Communion directing them how to reform it and make a due preparation to receive the benefit thereof And then tell me or rather tell your selves was there any cause for a reasonable man to write so much to show how and after what manner the thing should be done if the very doing of the thing had not been necessary and under the obligation of a Command Can the manner and way of doing an action be matter of duty and yet that action it self be no duty at all Or can a man of common sense be very solicitous in giving directions how men should order themselves in a place and about a business into which they may never come but let it alone Can the Apostle be supposed to say so and so you ought to eat this Bread and drink this Cup and yet there be no command tying them to eat it and drink it at all And so and so you ought to prepare your selves to partake of Christs Body and Blood and yet after that preparation they might chuse whether they would do the thing for which they were to be prepared Surely we cannot imagine the Apostle to have had so much idle time to spare nay to be so impertinent as to busy himself in ordering the circumstances of an holy action if the action it self had not been a necessary nay a very weighty duty and of exceeding great moment which therefore he was highly concerned and took due care