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 mâ—lâ— 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 imperativâ—em postulare Annunâ—iate donec venerit id est non solum vos sed etiam vos secuturi credentes usque ad finem mundi debâ—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
they themselves had none at all When at Auspurge I asked a Ring-leader of this sect when he had partaken with the Church of Christ of the Bread and Cup of the Lord He expressy answered he had then abstained about twelve years from this Communion Being demanded why he had done so he replied that he had not as yet found any Church which was inwardly and outwardly adorned with the gifts and vertues of the true spouse of Christ and that therefore he did put off and deferre his Communion until he could find such a Church rightly setled or ordered Here I shall once for all clearly prove that a Ministers universal and total abstinence from administration of the Lords Supper unto that flock or Church over which God hath made him an overseer is unlawful though for the eschewing of scandal No sinful omission of that which is commanded by an affirmative Precept is lawful for the eschewing of scandal But a Ministers total and universal abstinence from the administration of the Lords Supper unto that flock over which God hath made him overseer is a sinful omission of that which is commanded by an affirmative Precept therefore it is not lawful for the eschewing of scandal The major is confirmed from that of the Apostle Rom 3.8 Their damnation is just that say Let us do evill that good may come as also that of Aquinas secunda secundae Quaest 43. Art 7. Secundum ordinem charitatis plus debet homo suam salutem spiritualem diligere quà m alterius A well-ordered charity beginneth ever at home making a man chiefly to desire and endeavour the salvation of his own soul and consequently to be more solicitous how to avoid sin in himself then to prevent it in others See Rutherford more largely touching scandal pag. 84. The Minor is proved because it is necessary for my salvation to obey affirmative Precepts though not in all differences of time See Rutherford pag. 13.14 Praecepta affirmativa obligant though not ad semper yet ad aliquando Affirmative Precepts tie us to do the things they require though not at all times yet at some time or other And therefore universally and totally to abstaine from what they command is sinfully to omit what is commanded by them I cannot but here call to mind a Reply of the renowned Chamier to a shift of Cajetan which he brings to elude our Arguments against their Communion under one kind that are drawn from the command of the Cup. The Command saith Cajetan is but affirmative and affirmativa Praecepta utsi obligent semper non tamen ad semper Unto which Chamier replyeth very solidly and sharply Esto saith he sed quid tu appellas pro semper nullumne apud te discrimen est inter non semper nunquam The like Reply will serve unto those who go about to evade the Command of the Lords Supper by telling us that it is an affirmative Command and doth oblige semper but not adsemper It doth always bind but not to always for there is a wide difference between not always and never Now the upshot of these mens tenents is that if the Church be not Presbyterated the Command of the Lords Supper doth never bind during such its condition Suarez in Tertiam Part. Thom. Tom. 30. Disput 80. Sect. 1. as also Becanus in his Summae Theol. Scholastic Part. tertiae Tract secundo cap. 25. Part. secundae Quaest prima alledge divers reasons why all Priests whatsoever are bound to say Masse if you please to make such a change in them as to put Ministers for Priests and the Lords Supper for Masse you may make them Orthodox and so they will serve our turn First it seems to be a kind of spiritual Prodigality very dangerous to the soul for a minister to deprive himself of the use of the power of order and of the fruit of the Sacrament Unto this we may adde out of Dunand that it is a virtuall contempt of the great benefit that is offered in the Sacrament Secondly Seeing the power is for the Act it is an inordinate thing to receive the power of administring this Sacrament and not to use this power but to let it lye idle Thirdly It is against charity to deprive the Church of that great fruit and benefit which they might partake of by this Sacrament Lastly Because the Minister by vertue of his office takes upon his shoulders the burden of praying for his people of Preaching and administring the Sacraments unto them and therefore he sins if he never or seldome dischargeth these offices and duties of his calling A calling and office is for the work Ministry and service proper thereunto and therefore it is a great fault to neglect that work service or Ministry which is proper to a mans calling Secondly Not only a Ministers totall and universall abstinence from administration of the Lords Supper but also seldomnesse and unfrequency of administring it is unlawfull And the reason of this is because as I have proved and cleared There is a command for a frequent administration of the Lords Supper And a command of frequency in dispensation of an Ordinance is violated and transgressed not only when the Ordinance is wholly and altogether omitted but also when it is seldome or rarely dispensed when it is omitted for the date of many years Thirdly This objection of scandall holds as well against administration of the Lords Supper in a Presbyterated as in an Un-Presbyterated Church For a Minister may ordinarily foresee that scandall will follow in a Presbyterated Church in case there be a Mal-administration of discipline or else in case scandalous persons known to be such only unto the Minister himself or else unto some one godly person cannot be convicted or proved to be such either by their own confession or else by the testimony of two or three witnesses Fourthly It is a very unreasonable position that the administration of the Lords Supper ought to be suspended and deferred upon the likelyhood of the following of scandall for then a Minister shall be almost perpetually uncertaine whether he may administer the Lords Supper or no because likelyhood of scandall to follow will occurre if not alwayes yet very often When our Saviour tels us Mat. 13.41 that in the consummation or end of the world the Son of man shall send his Angels and they shall gather out of his Kingdom all scandals or all things that offend he doth clearly imply that till then there will be scandals even in his Kingdom in his Church And this holds not only of scandals in generall but also of such scandals as are likely to follow upon dispensation of Gods Ordinances unto the end of the world Some will be scandalized at the Ordinances of God The Word will be a savour of death unto death in them that perish Unworthy receivers will eat and drink their own judgment will be guilty of the body and blood of Christ Christ himself will be for a
instance in scandals tending unto sin occasioned by the forbearance of the Lords Supper First There is the scandal of the godly viz. their wants and weaknesse both of faith and grace from want of an Ordinance appointed and sanctified for the confirmation of faith and increase of grace by the donour of all faith grace Secondly Seperatists are hereby encouraged in their seperation from our Churches because we want a principal Ordinance of God which also is laid aside amongst us upon a principle of their own which was never granted them by the old Non-Conformists to wit that a worship is to be omitted for the sin of the worshippers an Ordinance for the sins of the partakers of the Ordinance Thirdly It staggers many weak ones amongst us and if not timely prevented will occasion their totall defection and seperation from us For though they approve not of their Tenents yet this will much sway with them That amongst them they may have an Ordinance which amongst us is withheld from them and of enjoying which they have not any the least hopes as long as they stay with us A fourth scandal is in that others take occasion by this forbearance of the Lords Supper to contemne the Lords Supper it self as being by this carriage induced to beleeve that Ministers despise it and do not so much for a while forbear as utterly disclaime the administration thereof Secondly Let us compare these scandals with the scandal which the wicked take by the administration of the Lords Supper and consider with which of them the Minister may most justly be charged A Minister can never wash his hands from these scandals which follow upon a totall forbearance of the Lords Supper whereas having done his duty for prevention of that scandal which the wicked take by administration of the Lords Supper he stands free from the guilt thereof My reason for this is because these scandals which follow upon a totall forbearance of the Lords Supper are active as well as passive given by the Minister as well as taken be the People whereas the scandal of the unworthy receiver consequent to administration of the Lords Supper is only Passive not Active taken by the unworthy receiver not given by the Minister The former scandals those which follow upon a totall forbearance of the Lords Supper flow per se naturally and kindly from the Ministers neglect or sinful omission of a necessary Ordinance of God The latter scandal the scandal of the wicked their being guilty of the body and blood of the Lord by occasion hereor is only by accident by reason either of their ignorance or sinfull corruption and evil disposition There is a young smatterer in both Divinity and Philosophy who hath taken great exceptions against this passage But he objected nothing worthy of the least digression I shall therefore take no notice of what he sayeth but only clear and explaine mine own meaning When I say the scandals consequent unto a totall forbearance of the Lords Supper flow naturally there from I mean congruenter nature that is sutably and agreeably unto the nature of such an omission The total omission of the Lords Supper is of itself apt and likely to occasion these above mentioned scandals following thereupon All sinful words deeds and all sinful omissions if discernable by others are in their own nature scandalous they are of themselves naturally apt to scandalize to occasion sin in others Now I have proved that a total forbearance of the administration of the Lords Supper is a sinful omission and therefore I think that it is no Paradox to affirme that it naturally occasioneth sin in others Again whereas I said that the scandal of the wicked or unworthy receiver was only by accident I meant in genere causae moralis For in genere causae Physicae the scandals consequent unto a total forbearance of the Lords Supper are by accident also To manifest this we must distinguish of a twofold cause of the scandal or fall of another into sin Physical and moral The Physical efficacious and neerest cause is only the ill-disposition and sinful corruption of the Party scandalized for all other mens words actions omissions are but occasions not causes of sin in genere Physico they work but objectively and that is no Physical and real influence And in this sense I readily grant that all passive scandals whatsoever are accidental in respect of the words deeds or omissions of others the most enticing practices of others that are even Satans temptations have no real and Physical influence upon our sins but this acception of accidental is utterly impertinent unto our present purpose In a second place then our sinful words actions omissions may be moral causes of other mens scandal or falling into sin they may scandalize to use the words of Rutherford morally by contributing a moral influence culpably to the scandalizing of others to speak plainly all words deeds and omissions of either that do sinfully and culpably occasion the scandal or fall of others into sin are moral causes of their scandal or fall into sin Moralis causa est quae verequidem non efficit sed tamen talis est ut ei imputetur effectus But now if a word or action do not sinfully culpably occasion the scandal the fall of another into sin but he only be scandalized thereby by his own default that scandal is only termed then per accidens accidental a passive scandal without an active a scandal taken not culpably given such was the scandal in the Capernaites at Christs preaching of eating his flesh and drinking his blood John 6.60 61. So also Christ crucified was to the Iews a stumbling block 1 Cor. 1.23 In like manner the Pharisees were scandalized at Christs doctrine concerning the cause of defilement Matth. 15.12 All these scandals were only ex accidente they were only accidental scandals Now to make application of all this to the matter in hand The scandals in the godly consequent upon forbearance of the administration of the Lords Supper however they come Physically from the sinful corruption and ill-disposition of the godly vet they proceed also morally from this total forbearance of the Lords Supper as a culpable and sinful occasion of them whereas now on the other side of the scandals in the wicked following upon administration of the Lords Supper the administration of the Lords Supper is not a culpable and sinful occasion not occasio data sed arrepta not an occasion sinfully given but sinfully taken even as sin is occasioned by the Commandement Rom. 7.11.13 So that they come therefrom only per accidens and therefore may fitly be termed only accidentall scandals I am willing to say all that I can in behalfe of them whom I oppose And therefore I shall desire you to consider the ground why such affirmative precepts as command duties relating to others do not bind to alwaies The duties that they command are principally to this end That they
do good to men for the curing of their evils Tombs of scandalizing pag. 167 168. for the farthering of Vertue in them Wherefore when Prudence sheweth that such actions will be fruitlesse in respect of the end or contrariwise harmfull they are to be forborne But now the administration of the Lords Supper is an un-Presbyterated Church is not only fruitlesse but harmfull unto the wicked a Minister reacheth out unto them but their poison they eat and drink their own damnation For answer unto this The great good and unspeakable benefit that redounds to the Godly by administration of the Lords Supper is a stronger and more binding Argument for administring it then the harme which comes unto the wicked thereby is for a totall forbearance or seldome and rare administration thereof To cleare this Two things are to be proved First That the great good and unspeakable benefit which redounds unto the godly by the administration of the Lords Supper is a convincing and should be a prevailing Argument for a Minister to administer it unto his stock notwithstanding the harme which comes unto the unworthy receivers who intrude against the will both of the Minister and the godly of his Congregation Secondly The harme which comes unto the wicked by the administration of the Lords Supper is a very weake and insufficient Argument to conclude a totall forbearance or a seldome administration of the Lords Supper to be warrantable The first is apparent from the end of the Lords Supper Secondly the duty of a Pastor Thirdly the end of the Pastorall Office First Next unto God and Christs glory the good of the Saints was the maine end of this Sacrament It was principally intended for the godly for their use comfort and edification and therefore they are not to be deprived of it although it is much against their wils accidentally prejudiciall unto wilfull and presuptuous intruders Secondly the duty of a Pastor is to feed the Church of God which he hath purchased with his own bloud with the food of the Sacrament as well as the Word Acts 20.28 Now we may do good to some though evill by accident thereby redound to others without our default Nay we must do that good unto which our Calling obligeth us let the issue or event of it unto others be what it will or can be Thirdly The end of the Pastoral Office is as you may see Ephes 4.11 12. for the perfecting of the Saints for the edifying of the body of Christ and therefore a Minister is diligently and frequently to use all meanes which Christ hath instituted for this purpose Of which the Lords Supper is one Neither is he to forbeare the use of such meanes because some without his fault and against his will by their abuse of them contract guilt and pull vengeance upon themselves And this brings me unto the second thing That the harme which comes unto the wicked by the administration of the Lords Supper is a very weak and insufficient Argument to conclude a totall forbearance or seldome administration of the Lords Supper to be warrantable And for this I shall give you these three reasons in which I shall presuppose that which I have already proved in my clearing of the Command The first reason Because a Minister is not guilty of nor accessory unto this harme which comes unto the wicked For in administring the Lords Supper unto his flock he doth but his duty and we suppose besides that he hath done his utmost for prevention of their unworthy receiving Secondly A Ministers totall forbearance or a seldome administration of the Lords Supper is a culpable occasion and so consequently a morall cause of the harme redounding unto the godly thereby For it is a neglect of an Ordinance enjoyned by Christ Thirdly if the accidental harme which comes unto the unworthy receiver can of it self without some other ground legitimate a neglect of administring the Lords Supper then there can be no certaine Rule given when a Minister is to administer the Lords Supper in any Church whether Presbyterated or un-Presbyterated And indeed this plea of harme accrewing unto unworthy receivers by the Lords Supper will hold as wel in a Presbyterated as an un-Presbyterated Church For if the Major part of Church-Officers be corrupt scandalous and unworthy receivers may be tolerated and so the Lords Supper may do them harme not good Shall the Minister then wholly refrain from administring the Lords Supper Unto this also you may adde That scandalous persons may be known to be such unto the Minister and yet he may not be able by sufficient testimony to prove them to be so In such a case he knoweth that these scandalous persons will without a miracle eate and drinke their own judgement and yet I hope you will not say that for this he is to forbeare dispensation of the Lords Supper untill their scandall can be detected either by proofe or their own confession And this of the first Argument The Commandement we have for the administration of the Lords Supper What if some did not beleeve saith the Apostle Shall their unbeliefe make the faith of God without effect Rom. 3.3 We may say What if some receive the Lords Supper unworthily shall their unworthy receiving make the Lords Command for administration thereof without effect In a second place we are to come to the Examples we have in Scripture for the administration of this Sacrament The second Argument ab Exemplo Now there is not throughout the whole Scripture any one example of the Omission of the Lords Supper in an un-Presbyterated Church And therefore there can lye upon us no Obligation from example for omission thereof But we shall argue from Examples not only negatively but also affirmatively and enquire what Patronage the administration of the Lords Supper in an un-Presbyteraâ—ed Church hath from them The first example that I shall instance in shall be that of the first administration of the Lords Supper by our Saviovr which was a patterne of all after-administrations and therefore most exact and perfect in point of essentials It wanted nothing essentially belonging unto the administration of the Lords Supper Whereupon it is that Paul 1 Cor. 1.23 disclaimes all obtruding of additionals unto the Precept and Practise of our Saviour herein I have received of the Lord saith he that which I delivered unto you But now it was by Christ administred unto a Church which was not Presbyterated If we understand the Terme in regard of Ruling Elders And therefore to have Ruling Elders in a Church is not essential but accidental unto the administration of the Lords Supper And therefore the meere absence or want of them especially when it is by the default of others only is no sufficient bar against administration of the Lords Supper I confesse that we cannot conclude exclusively from Christs Example That the Lords Supper ought to be administred only in an un-Presbyterated Church a Church void of Ruling Elders
not upon the Minister only For first every power is for its act and therefore power in a Minister of administring the Lords Supper is not to lie idle and unactive but to be exercised and actuated as often as there is a fit occasion and opportunity unlesse there be some such impediment as I spake of but now c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hoc est frustra quod sua natura in alterius gratiam est comparatum quando non perficit id cujus gratia est natura comparatum est Arist lib. 2. Phys Text 62. Now if that may be said in vaine which doth not reach that end unto which it was appointed much more may that be said so which is never used or applyed for the compassing of that end Secondly The edification of the Church of Christ is as the London Divines say well that eminent scope and end why Christ gave Church Government and all other Ordinances of the New Testament to the Church 2 Cor. 10.8 2 Cor. 13.10 The power then both of Order and Jurisdiction are both to be employed to the edification of the Church The power of Jurisdiction the Minister cannot exercise singly by himself without other Church Officers The power of Order he may For he alone is the seat and receptacle thereof And what is usually said of the power of Order in generall may be affirmed of the power of administring the Lords Supper in particular if there be any thing that varies the case in this branch of the power of Order let them produce it and prove it and I have done Now a Minister ought to exercise and employ for the edification of the Church all the power and authority that he may lawfully exercise For not to employ it were with the slothful servant in the Parable to hide his Talent in the earth But now according to this opinion which we oppose If the Church should chance not to be Presbyterated for a mans whole life then a Minister is bound during that space to suffer a branch of that power of Order which is seated singly in himself to be idle and unactive all his life and never to be exercised for the good and edification of the Church To avoid the dint of this Argument they whom we oppose distinguish between Administration of and admission unto the Lords Supper Administration of the Lords Supper they confesse a branch of the power of Order and only belonging to Ministers But admission to the Lords Supper is say they an act of the power of Jurisdiction and belongs not Vnised Vnitati to the Eldership For they only are to admit who exclude Now they say this Admission is a necessary Anticedent of this administration and Negato Antecedente necessario negabitur consequen◠In an Un-Presbyterated Church there can be no admission because there is no Eldership Ergo no administration We distinguish of admission It is either negative or positive negative is nothing else but a non-hinderance And though there be no Eldership the Minister may not hinder those whom he hath no power I meane no lawfull authority to hinder Now the Minister singly by himselfe hath no Authority to hinder keep back or cast out scandalous persons for so the power of Jurisdiction would be seated in him alone But now secondly There is an admission that is positive judiciall and implyeth a previous forensicall examination by the Eldership as of the parties admitted so sometimes of Witnesses and Authoritative declaration of fitnesse And this is to be only in Collegio Presbyteriali in the Colledge of Presbyters and Properly as they are in Court but not seperatim and out of Court Now I conceive that this juridical and Authoritative admission is not of absolute necessity unto administration of the Lords Supper By Baptisme the Baptized are admitted or entered into the Church visible 1 Cor. 12.13 By one spirit we are all baptized into one body See Rutherford in his due right of Presbyteries p. 254. Now in some cases the Lords Supper may be administred unto those of yeares that are baptized without any new authoritative judiciall admission of the Eldership First This may be gathered from Acts 2.41 42. Those three thousand soules whose Baptisme is mentioned verse 41. have their receiving of the Lords Supper recorded verse 42. And there is not a word of any juridical admission of them by the Eldership coming between their Baptisme and their receiving of the Lords Supper Secondly A persecution may be so hot as that it may scatter the Ruling Elders of a Church that they cannot convene in a spiritual Court to performe this juridicall admission and out of Court they have no Authoritative jurisdiction May not now the Minister having a competent number of his flock not yet admitted to the Sacrament meeting him who perhaps cannot stay long together for rage of the persecution without apparent danger of their lives May not now the Minister in such a case for their consolation administer the Lords Supper to them Nay if they demand it can he lawfully withold it from them And if in this case he may administer it to them then juridicall admission is not a necessary Antecedent of administration But because this juridicall and authoritative admission is inferred from the exclusion of grosly ignorant and scandalous persons from the Lords Supper we shall therefore enquire whether or no this exclusion be a necessary Antecedent of the administration of the Lords Supper And indeed if it be a necessary Antecedent thereof it seemes undeniably to follow that in an Un-Presbyterated Church there can be no administration because no exclusion of the scandalous and grosly ignorant For satisfaction to this we must distinguish of a necessary Antecedent A thing may be said to be a necessary Antecedent unto the administration of the Lords Supper either by Morall or Physicall obligation That is a necessary Antecedent unto the Lords Supper by morall Obligation that is morally required as a duty before the Lords Supper be administred That is a necessary Antecedent unto the Lords Supper by Physicall obligation which is essentially required for the Nature and Essence of the Lords Supper The distinction though applyed to another purpose you may find at large explained and applyed by Rutherford in his Peaceable Plea for Pauls Presbytery cap 9. Now we grant that exclusion of grosly ignorant and scandalous persons from the Lords Supper is morally required as a duty to go before the celebration of the Lords Supper But of whom I pray is it required You will say not of the Minister singly but of the whole Presbytery Indeed it is required also of the people as a duty that if they be Un-Presbyterated they do what lies in them for reformation of the condition of their Church by a choice of such Church Officers as are wanting But what advantage do our Antagonists gaine by all these concessions It is necessary that is commanded as a duty unto every Eldership to
exclude the scandalous and grosly ignorant before the Lords Supper be administred It is also necessary that is commanded to the People as a duty to labour Reformation by choice of Ruling-Elders But now it doth not follow from all this that it is necessary that is commanded as a duty to the Minister to for beare administration of the Lords Supper if either the Eldership sin in not excluding the unworthy or the People sin in not electing of Ruling Elders The Elders ought to exclude the scandalous and grosly ignorant The People ought to chuse an Eldership before the Lords Supper be administred and the Minister ought to forbeare the administration of the Lords Supper in case either Eldership or people do not performe their duties are three Propositions far wide and he that can make good the inference of the last from the two first shall have such credit with me as that I will renounce Aristotle and learn a new Logick of him without father stay then upon the first branch of the distinction I shall only say thus much That if the Eldership or People faile in their duty it is no warrant for the Minister to omit his But now perhaps they will say That it is not the Ministers duty to administer the Lords Supper but upon condition and presupposal that the Eldership have performed theirs To omit that this is spoken without any proofe this assertion makes exclusion essentially required as an Antecedent of the administration of the Lords Supper absolutely and indispensably necessary Against which I shall oppose these following Arguments First the Lords Supper is invalid and nul that is it cannot be at all without that which is essentially pre-required Where there is wanting any essential pre-requisite the pretended action is not the Lords Supper but a nullity In such a case the actions and the Elements are not Sacramentall But now the Lords Supper is not invalid and nul without this Exclusion therefore this exclusion is not essentially pre-required to the Lords Supper Secondly Administration of the Lords Supper is a more important and necessary duty then exclusion c. or any other part of the exercise of Discipline for it is more properly and immediately the Worship of God then the exercise of discipline as may be seen in the place before quoted out of Ames lib. 2. Theol cap. 13. n. 17 18. God is more worshipped by the administration of the Sacraments then by Church censures The Sacraments are a principall Worship of God Church censures and the exercise of Discipline lesse principal Now it is improbable that a lesse principal Worship of God should be a necessary Antecedent to a principal Worship There is saith Rada duplex ordo naturae alius ordo essentialis dependendentiae alius est ordo essentialis eminentiae perfectionis qualis est inter excedens excessum Now exclusion and we may say the like of all other acts of Discipline is not before the Lords Supper in regard of the order either of essential dependency or of essential eminency and perfection The Lords Supper hath not an essentiall dependency upon exclusion or any other acts of Discipline and it is in ratione cultus of more essential eminency and perfection as being more immediatly and properly the Worship of God And therefore it is apparent that exclusion is not a necessary Antecedent to it The omission therefore of exclusion by others without our default is no ground for us to omit that which is a more important and necessary duty and withall is in our power to performe Againe it is not probable that an ordinance which is more seperable from the Church then the Sacraments should be a necessary Antecedent to the administration of the Sacraments But the exercise of Discipline is more separable from the Church then the Sacraments as appeares by what our Divines write against the Papists touching the marks of the Church Whittaker de Eccles controv 2. Quaest 5. cap. 17. as also against those of the seperation Rutherford in his due right of Presbytery pag 287 288 Whittaker in the forequoted place makes the administration of the Sacraments to be in some sort and sense an essential mark of the Church withall he excludes Discipline from being so The exercise of Discipline saith Rutherford is not necessary for the essence of a visible Church but only necessary to the well-being of a Church But now All do say That the Sacraments are though not absolutely yet in some degrees necessary to the essence and being of a Church So then if you compare together these two duties exclusion of scandalous and ignorant persons from the Lords Supper and the celebration of the Lords Supper The Obligation unto the administration of the Lords Supper is of the two the greater and more weighty For the Lords Supper is more the Worship of God lesse separable from and more necessary to the Church then exclusion of scandalous and grosly ignorant persons from the Lords Supper Therefore it is altogether improbable that this latter viz. exclusion c. should be an Antecedent absolutely necessary unto the former viz. the celebration of the Lords Supper Againe Discipline and all branches of it are compared to a spiritual Rod 1 Cor. 4.21 The Lords Supper is compared to spirituall food or bread Now it is unlikely that a Rod should be a necessary Antecedent to food or bread that is that children be kept without bread untill a Rod be provided to whip the dogs and swine Thirdly As the celebration of the Lords Supper is a more important duty then exclusion c. or the exercise of any other branch of Discipline So the Commandement for the celebration of the Lords Supper is more cleare expresse and evident then that for the exercise of Discipline For the former is uncontroverted amongst all save some Popish Schoolmen whereas nothing can be more controverted then the latter Witnesse else those endlesse disputes touching Discipline by the Prelatical party Erastians Presbyterians Independents Now if it be in doubtful matters the best way to take the safest course I should conclude That a duty so wounderfully controverted is not an Antecedent absolutely necessary unto that which is uncontroverted by all generally granted to a duty Fourthly In the absence of the Ruling Elders of a persecuted Church the Minister may lawfully administer the Lords Supper unto the remainder of the scattered flock though some Professors who deserve exclusion be against the wils of the best affected joyned with them The persecution may be so hot as that those who stay behind may every houre be in jeopardy for their lives in danger to be haled unto a stake and how their Ministers staying with them can in such a case lawfully withold from them assembling themselves together to communicate in other Ordinances that Sacrament which Christ hath appointed for the strengthning comforting and confirming of his members especially when they begge call and cry for it I professe I cannot see
right I shall conclude this Argument with that of the Bramble Berry As it were better in our almes to relieve ten Counterfeits then let Christ go naked and hungry in any one member So it were better to admit ten Hypocrites to the Table of the Lord then deprive one Godly man of this soul nourishment To this Argument we may adde weight by considering that in an Un-Presbyterated Church Beleevers have not only a right to the Lords Supper but also need of it Their own necessities saith Mr. Pemble may perswade them to frequent celebration of this Sacrament if they can be sensible of their spiritual weaknesse and wants Let them look inward and see how great need they have of many and often confirmations of their faith renovations of their repentance of stirring up the graces of God in the soul to adde an edge and eagernesse to all spiritual affections after holinesse to get unto themselves the most powerful provocations unto obedience Every one that hath grace knows how frequently the power thereof is impared by temptations weakned by worldly distractions even of our lawful employments and overmastered by the force of sinful lusts so that they must needs discover a great deal of ignorance in their spiritual estate that feel not in their soules a pronenesse to a famishment as well as in their bodies at least they bewray intolerable carlesnesse that finding the emptinesse and leannesse of their souls yet neglect to repaire often unto this holy Table whereon is set forth the bread of life whereof when they have eaten their spirit may come again their hearts may be strengthned their souls may be replenished as with marrow and fatnesse The Ministers and Elders met together in the late Provinciall Assembly at London in their Vindication of the Presbyteriall Government consider the Sacrament under a four fold Notion First As it is a spirituall medicine to cure the remainders of our corruption Secondly As it is spirituall food to strengthen our weak graces Thirdly As it is a spirituall cordiall to comfort our distressed consciences Fourthly As it is a strong obligation and forcible engagement to all acts of thankfulnesse and obedience unto Jesus Christ Now Beleevers in an Un-Presbyterated Church have need of the Lords Supper under all these considerations First Their souls are perpetually diseased and therefore they stand in need of the frequent use of this Sacrament as a soveraigne medicine to heal them Secondly Their souls are naturally empty of all spirituall goodnesse their graces feeble and defective their faith weak and often staggering their hope fainting their love cold their zeal languishing And therefore the Lords Supper is frequently needful as spiritual food for the nourishing and strengthening of all their graces for the confirming of their faith quickning of their hope rowzing of their love and kindling of their zeal c. Thirdly The faith of the strongest Beleevers may be shaken their assurance ecclipsed with doubts their spirituall joy darkned with fears discomforts and afflictions They may walk in darknesse and see no light And in such a case the Lords Supper is necessary as a precious Cordiall to revive and chear up their sinking spirits to confirme their doubting and to comfort their distressed consciences Fourthly The hearts of the best of men are false and unsteadfast loose and deceitfull apt to start from God and his just commands They therefore want the Lords Supper for renuall of their Covenant with God that so thereby they may bind fasten and engage themselves a fresh unto God in the strength of Christ The seventh Argument is from comparison of the Lords Supper with Baptisme The seventh Argument A Comparatis It is a generally received Maxime amongst Divines that Baptisme ought to be administred but once for it is the seal of our new birth and we are borne but once The Lords Supper ought to be administred often for we stand in need continually of food nourishment confirmation c. Now by this Divinity that the Lords Supper is not to be administred in an Un-Presbyterated Church it will follow That if the Church wherein we live be not all our lives long Presbyterated that then in such a condition of the Church Baptisme is to be administred once the Lords Supper never The eight Argument is drawn from the consideration of the opposite of the administration of the Lords Supper The eight Argument Ab Opposito the non-administration thereof Non-administration of the Lords Supper in an Un-Presbyterated Church is unlawful Therefore administration in an Un-Presbyterated Church is lawful That non-administration of the Lords Supper I mean thereby at otal forbearance of the administration therefore is unlawful in an Un-Presbyterated Church I prove by these three following Arguments All unwritten Traditions in matters of Worship and Religion are unlawful But a totall forbearance of the administration of the Lords Supper in an Un Presbyterated Church is an unwritten Tradition having no precept or exmaple in Scripture to countenance it Ergo c. There is expresse Scripture for administration of the Lords Supper unto the Churches of God As for the restriction of it unto Presbyterated Churches it cannot be made good from Scripture And Commentaries Expositions of Scripture that are not by good consequence deducible therefrom are unwritten Traditions and humane Presumptions However we cannot argue negatively from humane testimonies we may yet from divine the Scriptures For they are able to make a man wise unto salvation and throughly to furnish the man of God a Minister to all good works able to give him sufficient direction when to performe when to omit duties And therefore seeing there is such a deep silence in the Scriptures concerning the totall forbearance of administring the Lords Supper in an Un-Presbyterated Church I cannot but conclude it to be unnecessary The Lord may say unto us who hath required this at your hand These two things differ wide First Scandalous persons ought to be excluded the Lords Supper Secondly If for want of an Eldership they cannot be excluded therefore we must wholly forbear administration of the Lords Supper The former is obvious in Scripture the latter an unwritten Tradition But you will say there is warrant for Omission of the Lords Supper c. The Passe over was omitted by the Children of Israel in the Wildernesse as also circumcision whence we may argue by way of Analogy and Proportion for Omission of the Lords Supper when the Church is in a Wildernesse and if ever she were in a Wildernesse then now First Arguments from meer and naked Analogy and Proportion without some other ground are not concludent otherwise we might argue for a Pope from the Jews High-Priest But as to the instances I wonder why omission of the Passeoves in the Wildernesse is alledged For after the first celebration thereof all future celebrations were by expresse plain command to be only in the land of Canaan Exod. 13.4 5. c. Deut. 16.
they either misgovern or neglect the exercise of discipline and by the Church if she in case she be unsetled and un-reformed do not endeavour the choice of Church-officers But there can be no rule broken by the Minister herein who hath done his duty for the keeping of them off for he had never any Rule or Command given unto him for denyal of the Lords Supper unto unworthy Persons that are not such Juridically or for delay and suspension of the Lords Supper in case an Eldership be not set up in a Congregation In modo recipiendi Sacramenti saith Suarez duo possunt considerari unum est ex parte ipsius Sacramenti scilicet quod vere integrè cum debitis circumstantiis fiat Aliud est ex parte effectus Sacramenti consequenter ex parte dispositionis suscipientis quae ad effectum est necessaria In tertiam part Thom. disp 17. sect 2. Now if a Minister give the Sacrament unto known unworthy Persons that are not such Juridically there is not hereby any transgression of the rule of Christ in regard of the Sacrament it selfe which notwithstanding this may fully and entirely be administred according to the command of Christ But there will follow a transgression of the Rule of Christ hereby in respect of the effect of the Sacrament and consequently the dispositions and qualifications required in receivers to make the Sacrament effectual but this is not a fault chargeable upon the Minister if he do his best to prevent it More plainly Corruption and defects or breaches of the command and rule of Christ in the administration of the Lords Supper are of two sorts Material or Personal First material when the Worship it self is corrupted as in the Popish maste where there is but one element Secondly Personal when the Worship it self is in every respect pure but the Persons communicating wanting in requisite qualifications the former are chargeable upon the Minister administring the Lords Supper not the latter so he prevent them as farre as in him lyeth Secondly it is objected that upon a Ministers giving of the Lords Supper unto known wicked Persons there will necessarily follow a pollution and a prophanation of that sacred ordinance the giving of it therefore unto them is a sin For answer The Lords Supper and so we may say the like of other Ordinances may be said to be polluted either intrinsecally or extrinsecally Intrinsecal pollutions are in ordinances themselves when they are so corrupted that whosoever partakes of them in the very partaking cannot but break Gods order And so the Lords Supper is polluted in the Popish Masse where the bread is adored where they have but one Element directly against Christ his institution Extrinsecal pollutions or prophanations of the Lords Supper and we may say the like of other ordinances are when for want of due qualifications they become sin unto the unworthy receiver even as the Prayers of the wicked are an abomination to him The Toleration of Drunkards and Swearers in the Lords Church and at his Table infecteth and is apt to leaven all with their evill conversation but doth not leaven the worship unto the fellow-worshippers Nor is the sin of private Persons yea nor of the Ministers who have no power to helpe them Rutherford in his due right of Presbyt But now these pollutions of the Lords Supper by unworthy receivers do not defile the Lords Supper in it self nor to others who receive it worthily He that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh damnation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to himself not to others This distinction thus premised First the consequence of the Argument in the objection is denyed because the pollution and prophanation of the Lords Supper that the objection speaks of is extrinsecal not in the Sacrament it self but only in the unworthy receiver And again we suppose that the Minister hath used all lawful likely means to prevent it And therefore it is without his default Secondly the Argument will hold against giving the Sacrament unto a secret and hidden sinner that is known only unto the Minister for such a one pollutes and prophanes the Sacrament as well as the open and known sinner and yet those who dissent from us will not affirme that the giving of it unto such a one is unlawful Thirdly it is objected that a Participation of or Communion with the sin of others is a grievous sin 1 Tim. 5.22 Be not Partakers of other mens sins keep thy self pure But to give the Lords Supper to a known wicked Person is to partake of his sin of unworthy receiving and therefore it is sinfull For answer first when other mens sins follow accidentally upon the performance of my duty this is no participation of other mens sins 2ly a man can't be said to partake of the sins of others Nullus te net u ut non alterius peccati particeps sit facere quod injustum injustum autem illud foret si ille solus arripiret sibi potestatem quam societati Presbyterorum crediderit Deus Bowls p. 192. when he hath used all due and obliged diligence for prevention and hinderance of them A man is only to do all that he can by his calling by Warrant and Commission from Christ to prevent sin in another A Minister therefore to prevent unworthy receiving in scandalous Persons is not to passe the bounds of his calling to play the Pope and usurp that power which God hath seated only in the Eldership Power being wanting the will stands for the deed 2 Cor. 8.12 This is also acknowledged by Mr. Gillespy lib. 3. cap. 15. The suffering of a mixture of known wicked Persons among the Godly in the Church doth sometime defile us with sin sometime not It doth not defile us when we use all lawful and possible remedies against it and namely when we exercise the discipline of excommunication and other Church-censures saith Augustine lib. contra Donatistas post collationem cap 4. Tom. 7. But it doth defile us and we incurre sinne and wrath when the means of redressing such known evils are neglected indisciplinata patientia it is Augustines word so to bear with wicked men as not to execute discipline against them that certainly makes us partake of their sin I mean in a reformed and well-constituted Church where the thing is feasable but where it cannot be done because of persecution or because of the invincible opposition either of authority or of a prevalent prophane multitude Minister per se loquâ—ndo non potest dare Sacramentum indgno ne cooperetur peccato illius Ratio est quia qui indignè recipit Sacramentum peccat mortaliter Ergo qui cooperatur ad talem receptionem cooperatur ad peccatum At nemo magis cooperatur ad talem receptionem quam Minister qui dat Sacramentum Becanus Nulla potest esse major cooperatio ad recipiendum quà m ipsumet dare Suarez we have only this comfort left us Blessed are
some sort glorified by the outward performance of the duties of wicked men Now he that cooperates with an action that is good in it self materially or objectively and only sinful by accident may be farre from cooperating with the sinfulnesse of that action For he may no ways be a cause thereof Lastly it is objected that upon giving the Lords Supper unto known scandalous sinners a religious Communion with them in worship will ensue therefore to give it to them is a sinne for what were this but to turn the Communion of Saints into a Communion of sinners For answer first this objection is taken from an Independent forge and will not be owned by Presbyterians that understand their own Principles The old non-Conformists writing against the separation resolve generally that the Lords Supper may be partaken of in a Church where scandals are tolerated For we are not say they to omit a Worship for the sins of our fellow-worshippers You may say as much in the Vindication of the Presbyterial Government and Ministers by the Ministers and Elders met together in the Provincial Assembly at London November 9. 1649. 134.135 136. Suppose say they there were some sinful mixtures at our Sacraments yet we conceive this is not a sufficient ground of a negative separation Secondly a full and sufficient answer you have to this objection in Mr. Ball pag. 200 201. In coming to Gods ordinance we have Communion with Christ principally who hath called us thither is there present by his grace and spirit to blesse his ordinance and with the faithful who are there met together at Gods Commandement in the name and by the authority of Jesus Christ with the wicked we have no Communion unlesse it be external and by accident because they are not or cannot be cast out Internall and essential Communion we have with Christ and the faithful only external with the wicked Our Communion with Christ and his faithful People is not free and voluntary but necessary enjoyned by God not left to our will or pleasure Our Communion with the wicked in the ordinances is unwilling on our part suffered not affected if we know how to hinder it lawfully God requireth attendance on him in his holy ordinances and to joyne with his Voluntaries assembled where he is present in the midst among them If we cannot appear before him as duty bindeth but we must have outward Communion with the wicked which should be expelled but cannot be kept back by us In this case our Communion with God is free and voluntary but our Communion with the wicked is suffered only or held in respect of the Will and Commandement of God who requireth that service at our hands A Postscript Christian Reader I Thought good to acquaint thee that I have received from one Mr. Fulwood a pretended examination of my Arguments for the lawfulnesse of administring the Lords Supper in an Un-Presbyterated Church and unto it I have pen'd a very large Reply for which I am exceedingly blamed by my best and most knowing friends who unanimously tell me that it is very unfit so worthlesse a Paper should have the honour of a Refutation If the Author therof think that he hath any wrong by this censure he may right himselfe by making it as publike as he please Most of what he saith is either answered in this my book or else the absurdity of it is so grosse and apparent as that it carrieth a refutation in its own forehead Indeed there be but two things considerable in this pretended examination An Answer and an Objection The Answer is unto my Argument à Praecepto The sum of it is That the Command to celebrate the Lords Supper is not immediate but mediate and conditional not binding but upon pre-supposal of a preparative work of the Presbytery c For reply unto this first all the proofe that he brings for its being a mediate Command is in 1 Cor 14. ult unto which I shall presently give answer Secondly An immediate Command doth not exclude the Command of all Antecedent duties but only of such upon which the Duty commanded hath an essentiall dependency and answerably a mediate Command is that which obligeth not proximè immediatè unto the performance of that which it commandeth unlesse there be performance of Antecedent duties upon which it hath an essentiall dependency or an existence of any other Antecedents that are before the duty enjoynd in regard of that order which is of essential dependency To give an instance of this The Command to be assured of our Justification Vocation c. is only mediate and doth not bind immediately before there be a performance of an Antecedent duty upon which it hath an essentiall dependence to wit the faith of adherence before there be an existence of the Objects Vocation Justification c. which are Antecedents unto this assurance in regard of the order of essential dependency It is not therefore the absence of of every Antecedent that doth suspend much lesse evacuate annul the Obligation of a Command but only the wants of Antecedents necessary by Physicall Obligation A due serious and diligent preparation is enjoyned as an Antecedent unto hearing of the word and unto publike and solemn Prayers and yet I hope Mr Fullwood dare not say that upon want of preparation there is a suspension of the Obligation of these Commands of God to heare and pray And that in such a case not to heare not to pray are at the most but mediate sins It is generally resolved by all the Casuists that ever I saw that when we come unto a duty and do not find our hearts prepared according unto that we do desire that we are not yet for that time to let go the duty and forbeare the performance of it If any one saith Mr. Burrows in his Gospel-Worship in answer unto the Question performe a duty in Worship in that sincerity and strength that he is able to do though he be not prepared as he ought yet he is better to do it then to neglect it And he applieth this his answer unto receiving of the Sacrament as well as the Word and Prayer as may be seen by his proposall of the Question Againe There are divers things required in the call and Ordination of a Minister that are by Gods command to be Antecedent unto his preaching unto his flock Some of which are wanting in such Ministers as were ordained by Bishops But because they are not Antecedents essentially necessary unto the preaching of the Word by the want of them the Obligation unto the preaching of the word is not suspended much lesse annulled And yet it is not denied but that the want of them is sinful for which such Ministers ought to be humbled Scotus lib. 4 Distinct 12 Quest 3. num 32. thus limits this Proposition Destructo priori destruitur posterius Vera est saith he de simpliciter priori à quo scilicet dependet posterius non
autem de illo quod aliquo modo est prius à quo tamen posterius non dependet essentialiter He speaks of things Natural and Physical but it is also appliable unto things moral The omission of a duty that is by Gods command Antecedent unto another doth not suspend much lesse nullifie the Obligation unto the consequent duty unlesse there be an essentiall dependency of the consequent duty upon the Antecedent duty But now to make application of this unto the Lords Supper Although the Presbyterating of a Church and the exercise of Jurisdiction by an Eldership be enjoyned by God as Antecedents unto the administration and receiving of the Lords Supper yet it doth not hereupon follow that upon want of an Eldership an omission of the exercise of Jurisdiction the command to administer and receive is suspended much less extinguished unless you can prove that there is an essential dependency of the administration and receiving of the Lords Supper upon the Presbyterating of the Church in which it is administred and the exercise of jurisdiction therein It implieth a contradiction and is utterly impossible for a thing to be without that upon which it essentially dependeth But it doth not imply a contradiction it is not impossible for the Lords Supper to be administred and received in an Un-Presbyterated Church Therefore the administration and receiving of the Lords Supper doth not essentially depend upon the Presbyterating of a Church upon its having Ruling-Elders and consequently the Command of administring and receiving the Lords Supper is not in reference unto the Command of setling an Eldership only a mediate Command Unto the proofe of this Mr Fullwood may apply those Arguments alleadged by me to prove That the exclusion of scandalous and grosse ignorant persons is not a necessary Antecedent unto the administration of the Lords Supper by Physical Obligation unto which Mr Fullwood hath given no answer at all Thirdly Suppose we should grant that the Command of administring and receiving the Lords Supper be mediate with reference to the Presbyterating of a Church yet Mr Fullwood will gaine little thereby if he understand as he must the Command concerning the Presbyterating of a Church to be not de Eventu but only de Conatu and if withall he put a difference betwen guilty and innocent persons those who hinder or do not what lyeth in them to farther the setling of an Eldership and those who pray sigh and use all other lawfull meanes for the compassing of it That the Command to have a Church Presbyterated to have Ruling Elders is to be taken only de Conatu concerning an endeavour of it will not I think be denied by Mr Fullwood And indeed it were not unreasonable to understand it de Eventu concerning the event concerning an actual Presbyterating of the Church for that may not be in our power to effect The whole Church may be over-powred by the Magistrate and the best affected Party in a Church may be over-borne by a Major part that may be dis-affected unto Presbytery Now if it should be granted unto Mr Fullwood That the Command to receive the Lords Supper did not bind immediately but only mediately upon pre-supposal that we had done our endeavour and used all lawful meanes for the erecting of an Eldership I do wonder what advantage such a Concession can yeild unto his cause But now if he shall contend that after we have used our utmost endeavour to erect an Eldership and cannot possibly prevaile that we are then by that which is meerly the fault of others dis-obliged from the receiving the Lords Supper First I say that for this assertion Mr Fullwood cannot bring so much as any colourable Argument Then secondly It makes the Lords Supper to have an essential dependence upon an Eldership which I have before refuted The second only thing that is considerable in Mr Fullwoods Book is an Objection which I shall give you in his own words and then returne a brief answer unto it Mr Fullwood While we will use this Sacrament in a Church Vn-Presbyterated do we not thus directly oppose and violate that Command of the Spirit of God by the Apostle 1 Cor. 4. ult Let all things be done in order We on both sides acknowledge that there should be the exercise and act of Jurisdiction that there should be Ruling Elders elected and setled in our Churches for the same end for our more orderly proceeding in this holy exercise But because we cannot have an Eldership as and so soon as we would we will have the Sacrament as and so soon as we can If we cannot have it with we will have it without our Saviours or any order how keep we then the named Precept do all things and this sure amongst the rest do all things in order First settle Eldership then upon their preparitive work by the acts and exercise of their Jurisdiction administer the Sacrament according unto our Saviours order Answer These Ministers and people that have done their endeavour and used all lawfull means for the setling of an Eldership do not at all violate the command of the Spirit 1 Cor. 14.40 Neither doth that which you say prove it at all as will easily appear if you please to put your Argument into forme for then it stands thus If there should be the exercise and act of Jurisdiction if there should be Ruling-Elders elected and setled in our Churches for our more orderly proceeding in the administration of the Lords Supper then those that have used all lawfull means for the exercise of Jurisdiction for the election and setling of Ruling-Elders and cannot prevaile they directly oppose and violate that command of the Spirit 1 Cor. 14.40 if they administer and receive the Lords Supper The consequent is most extreamly false and is not back'd so much as by any colour or shadow of reason And indeed you can never make it good unlesse you can prove either that there is an essentiall dependency of the Lords Supper upon the Eldership or else that there is a command to delay and deferre the administration of the Lords Supper until an Eldership be erected Mr. Fullwood Moreover this Command hath with it the force of a Negative namely let nothing be done in disorder Answer This Proposition Let nothing be done in disorder is ambiguous and may be understood two wayes First as a prohibition of disorder and confusion in the Worship and Ordinances of God and so it is granted and the concession of it will not prejudice any thing that I affirme Next it may be taken as a prohibition given generally unto every one of that Worship and Ordinances of God wherein there is any disorder committed by our selves or others though without our default And so it is very untrue and if granted concerning the disorder of others would open a gapp unto a totall neglect of publike prayers hearing of the Word For unto those Ordinances wicked men come disorderly because unpreparedly Other mens violation and breach of order doth not disoblige us from the Worship and Ordinances of God especially when we are innocent of such their disorder Nay if we understand the Words as a Prohibition of that Worship and Ordinance wherin there is any disorder committed even so they are not generally true for though we come with disorder unpreparednes unto the hearing of the Word and publike prayers yet we are not for this disorder to omit publike prayers and hearing of the Word for this were the way not to prevent but to multiply our sin and yet I do not deny but that this disorder unpreparednes is a great sin for which we ought to be humbled FINIS