A47576:1006
The Jewish Sabbath abrogated, or, The Saturday Sabbatarians confuted in two parts
The Jewish Sabbath abrogated, or, The Saturday Sabbatarians confuted in two parts : first, proving the abrogation of the old seventh-day Sabbath : secondly, that the Lord's-Day is of divine appointment : containing several sermons newly preached upon a special occasion, wherein are many new arguments not found in former authors / by Benjamin Keach.The Jewish Sabbath abrogated, or, The Saturday Sabbatarians confuted in two parts : first, proving the abrogation of the old seventh-day Sabbath : secondly, that the Lord's-Day is of divine appointment : containing several sermons newly preach'd upon a special occasion, wherein are many new arguments not found in former authors / by Benjamin Keach.
London: printed by John Marshall, 1700
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
4. We know the celebration of the Lord's-Supper is called breaking of Bread, Acts 2. nor is there reason to conceive it was any other sort of breaking of Bread, but that this is meant here.
4. We know the celebration of the Lord's-Supper is call'd breaking of Bread, Acts 2. nor is there reason to conceive it was any other sort of breaking of Bread, but that this is meant here.
That it was no festival Day, not the first day of unleavened Bread, Mr. Hughes has proved. But there is reason,1 saith he, to believe this was sacramental Bread; for the Church came together to break this Bread (so they were never said to do in breaking any other kind of Bread) and Paul brake that which was properly Bread among them; but for breaking of Bread to the hungry, it is not always meant of Bread literally, ⟨p. 229⟩but of means whereby they may procure them Bread and Necessaries. Neither, saith he, did the Church purposely come together for this, but rather sent it from House to House. Nothing hinders then but that this Bread broken, put synecdochically as a part for the whole, doth note the Lord's-Supper. Take what Dr. Du-Veil has said.
That it was no festival Day, not the first day of unleavened Bread, Mr. Hughes has proved. But there is reason,1 saith he, to believe this was sacramental Bread; for the Church came together to break this Bread (so they were never said to do in breaking any other kind of Bread) and Paul brake that which was properly Bread among them; but for breaking of Bread to the hungry, it is not always meant of Bread literally, ⟨p. 229⟩