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
The want of CHURCH-GOVERNMENT No warrant for a totall omission Of the LORDS SVPPER OR A brief and Scholastical debate of that Question which hath so wonderfully perplexed many both Ministers and people Whether or no The Sacrament of the Lords Supper may according to Presbyterial principles be lawfully administred in an un-Presbyterated Church that is a Church destitute of Ruling Elders Wherein the Affirmative is confirmed by many Arguments and cleared from Objections especially such as are drawn from the unavoidablenesse of mixt communions without Ecclesiastical Discipline By HENRY JEANES Minister of Gods Word at Chedzoy in Sommerset shire London Printed for SAMUEL GELLIBRAND at the Ball in Pauls Church-yard 1650. An Approbation of the following Tractate by that learned Divine Mr. ROBERT CROSSE late of Lincolne College in Oxford unto whose censure it was submitted Worthy friend I Have somewhat heedfully perused your determination touching administring the Lords Supper in an Vn-Presbyterated Church It seems to me both judicious and accurate I was of your judgment as to the main before But am now much more enlarged and confirmed in it If humble sober-minded men be not yet of the same mind with you it is possibly because they are unacquainted with your reasons You shall therefore to my apprehension do both a grateful and seasonable work To make that of publike use which may be and I am confident will be of publike benefit Luckam Novembr 16. 1650. Your friend and neighbour ROBERT CROSSE To his honoured friend Col. John Pyne A Member of the Parliament and one of the Commissioners for the Militia of the County of SOMMERSET A Principall end of prefixing your name unto the following piece is to give a publike testimony of that deep obligation which lieth upon me for those favours which you have vouchsafed unto me not in my selfe only but in others for my sake These have beene so many and so great as that they may make just challenge for you unto any thing of my performance But indeed this Treatise is yours by a stricter tye of justice then that of gratitude For it is principally by your care and assistance that it is brought unto the Press and therfore to alienate it by any other inscription would be not only an ungrateful but an injurious part I shall deteine you no longer from your more weighty affairs But with my most hearty prayers commending you and yours to the great Preserver of men and beseeching him to make you a worthy instrument of the peace and justice of this County I shall rest Yours in all humble observance HENRY JEANES To the Reverend our very much honoured Brother Mr. HENRY JEANES Preacher of the Word at Chedzoy These present Reverend Sir WE have met this day to debate whether there be any course warranted by the Word wherein Ministers may proceed to the administration of the Sacrament as our case now stands and what that is We earnestly desire that you would be pleased to take the Question into your serious consideration and to give your thoughts on it or rather the state of it the fourth of July next ensuing when we intend to meet again to consult farther about that thing And we are the rather inclined to desire your particular resolution therein Because we understand that you have administred that Sacrament and therefore doubt not but you have some way satisfied your self therein which we earnestly desire that you would be pleased to impart unto Your affectionate Brethren Tho. Gatchel Rich. Newton Tho. Court Tho. Musgrove Will. Mills John Gardner George Newton Barthol Safford John Norman George Bindon Taunton June 13. 1649. ERRATA PAge 2. line 21. for all read also for p. 3 l. 5. for to r. so I. p. 5. l. 2. for by r. even by p. 6 l. 35 for they r. they whom we oppose p. 12 l. 14 for Are r. Is p. 13 l. 6 for in-ductivum r. inductivū p. 15 l. 24 for nature r. naturae p. 17 l. 18 for is r. in idem l. 32 for slock r. flock p. 18 l. 11 for presuptuous r. presumptuous p. 27 l. 78 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 32 l. last for a duty r. be a duty p. 38. for example r. example p. 41 l. 11. for codclude r. conclude p. 43 l. 12 for ut r. ad p. 45. l. 16. for more r. most p. 50. l 20 for proceeded r. preceded p. 52 marg l. 21 for peccatur r. peccator p. 54 l. 11. for possible r. possibly p. 55 l. 18. for cocunque r. quocunque p. 57 l. 1. for directions r. direction p. 60. l. 5. blot out the second to p. 61 l. 7 for sin r. sinners p. 63 marg for te net-u r. tenetur p. 64 marg l. ult for hi r. hic p 65. l. 6. for stances r. instances p. 66 l. 20 for say r. see p. 67 l. 14 for know r. knew p. 69. l. 35 for re-eive rerecoive p. 70 l. 29 blot out not p. 72 l. 29 for committed r. committed by our selves These are the grossest faults others of an inferiour nature being easily discernable by the Reader are omitted Whether or no the Sacrament of the Lords Supper may according to Presbyterial principles be lawfully administred in an un-Presbyterated Church that is a Church destitute of Ruling Elders TO go over the Topical places belonging to the Termes of the Question will afford the greatest light and upon a full and thorow survey of them I resolve upon holding the Question affirmatively There be two Termes in the Question considerable viz. Administration of the Lords Supper and a Non-Presbyterated Church or a Church destitute of ruling Elders and I shall argue for the affirmative from both First then Arguments evidencing the Affirmative may be drawn from the Lords Supper and the Administration thereof From the Command of and Examples for the administration thereof From the general Nature of the Lords Supper From the Instrumental Cause End and Object of the administration thereof From a Comparison of the Lords Supper with Baptisme From the consideration of the opposite of administration of the Lords Supper the non-administration thereof Primum â Praecepto The first Argument shall be taken from Christs Command Luk. 22.19 1 Cor. 11.24.25 This do in remembrance of me All Christs Commands are to be observed even in an un-Presbyterated Church unlesse there be some dispensation from Christ himselfe to the contrary The Charge that Christ gave to his Apostles at his ascension Mat. 28.19 20. was to teach those Nations they should baptize to observe all things whatsoever he had commanded them Now to administer the Lords Supper we have an expresse Commandement and no dispensation that I know of to lay it aside in an un-Presbyterated Church Ergo c. It is an old and a good rule Non distinguendum ubi lex non distinguit We must not distinguish where the Law doth not distinguish Limitations and restrictions of divine praecepts
but he teacheth us what we must do as often as according to the command of Christ we celebrate it to wit shew forth the death of the Lord so that if the Apostle seem here to grant any liberty it doth not stand in the usage or neglect of this sacred rite or ceremony otherwise he should be contrary to himself For he saith that he received this Ordinance of the Lord and that he delivered it unto the Corinthians and in them unto all other succeeding Churches that so it might be continued and used in the Assemblies of the faithfull even untill the coming of Christ I hope then you will give me leave to conclude that howsoever 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth not absolutely and universally imply 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet it doth imply it in this place If any desire further proofes for the frequency of administring the Lords supper I shall desire them to apply hereunto what I shall say touching the ends of the Lords supper As also concerning the great need that Beleevers have thereof even in an Un-Presbyterated Church In the mean time I take it to be sufficiently cleared that we have here in the Apostle a peremptory command for the frequent celebration of the Lords Supper And how we can obey this command and yet omit the administration of it for 5,6,7 years together nay perhaps for the whole space of the remainder of our dayes I am yet to learn To suppose that we shall never live to see the Churches of God here in England setled in a Presbyterian way is a supposition of that which is neither impossible nor improbable Now if the feares that many have concerning this particular should prove true What shall the Lords Supper be for ever laid aside Would not this be a goodly interpretation of the command shew ye the Lords death till he come that is if you can get the Church to be Presbyterated otherwise let there be a perpetuall amnesty as to the externall commemoration thereof And yet this is the exposition of the words which those that dissent from me in this Question must hold unlesse they will retract their opinion and confesse that the Lords Supper may bee administred in an Un-Presbyterated Church I have bethought my self what may be answered to this Argument a Praecepto and these my thoughts I shall communicate to you as plainly and briefly as I can If any think that I propound the Answer feeble I shall not be unwilling that they amend the proposall and adde what strength they can thereunto An answer may be grounded on what the Schoolmen say in secunda secundae Quest 43. Art 7. Where Thomas and all his Interpreters debate this Question An bona spiritualia sint propter scandalum dimittenda They resolve that some things in themselves dutyes and commanded by God to be done yet are to be omitted at some times for the avoyding of scandal Promulgation of a truth and Christian reproof are duties commanded by God and yet are sometimes to be abstained from for scandals taken by not only the weak but also malitious Reprove not a scorner least he hate thee Prov. 9.8 speak not in the ears of a fool for he will despise the wisdome of thy words Prov. 23.9 Give not that which is holy unto dogges neither east ye your Pearles before swine least they trample them under their feet and turne again and rent you Math. 7.6 Pro vitando scandalo cessat rigor disciplinae To avoyd scandal the rigor of disciplineceaseth To explaine this farther recourse must be had unto that old and golden Rule Affirmativa Praecepta semper obligant non ad semper Affirmative Precepts do alwayes bind but not to alwayes so that we are not bound to peforme alwayes what they enjoyne but only Loco tempore debitis when we have due time and place Now as by the intercurrency of other circumstances so especally by intercurrence of scandal there may not be opportunity seasonablenes of doing what we are urged unto by some Affirmative Precepts so these Precepts may pro hic nunc cease to be obligatory Now say they upon the administration of the Lords Supper in an Un-Presbyterated Church scandall will ensew a scandall tending to sin in the unworthy receiver who will be guilty of the body and bloud of the Lord a scandall tending to sorrow and vexation in the Well-affected whose spirits will be sadded at the communion of sinners For Reply First we must put a difference between a transgression of a Precept and a temporary partial or occasional forbearance of the matter commanded by a Precept No Precept whatsoever is for the eschewing the scandal of any to be truly broken or transgressed and if a Precept be not transgressed when what is enjoyned in it is wholly and altogether omitted I confesse I cannot divine when it can be transgressed Bonum per se saith Suarez praeferendum est ex genere suo bono per accidens Now to administer the Lords Supper is good per se ex genere suo I mean with a material objective or external goodnesse to omit the administration thereof is only good per accidens in a case of scandal And that which is only good by accident cannot always shut out that which is good per se Suppose then that the administration of the Lords Supper upon the emergency of scandal may pro hic nunc at some times and in some places be omitted may for a while be forborn untill we have used all means that lay in our power for the removing of the scandal yet it wil not hereupon follow that after such use of our utmost endeavours and the scandal continue still unremoved the administration of the Lords Supper is wholly and altogether to be forborn for five six or seven years or for the whole remaining space of our lives And it is only this latter that is broad enough to inferre that the Lords Supper is not to be administred at all in an un-Presbyterated Church For a Church may be un-Presbyterated for so long a space as we now speak of by means Partly of the divisions of the godly Party Partly because they may be oppressed by a predominant wicked Party within and persecuted by adversaries without either of which unlesse timely prevented is enough to retard the work of Reformation for more then the age of a man That those who talk only of a present suspension of this Sacrament do but shuffle and shift would be easily apparent if they would be pleased to speak out and tell us the latitude of this present suspension how long it shall last when it shall end I beleeve their opinion iffully discovered will accord with those of whom Musculus speaks on 1 Cor. 11. Now adays saith he thou shalt find very many who in many years do not so much as once partake of this Sacrament especially the Swenckfeldians who do so reject the Ecclesiastical Communion of whatsoever Churches that
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
stone of stumbling and rock of offence You see then that to affirme that the administration of the Lords Supper is to be deferred upon the likelyhood of ensewing of scandall inferres this grosse absurdity that the likelyhood of scandall extinguisheth Christs gracious Charter of this Ordinance unto the Church Fifthly If any one be not fully satisfied with that which I have said but shall demand farther in what difference of time the command to administer the Lords Supper obligeth Unto those I answer briefly that when a Minister hath used all obliged means for prevention of scandall likely to follow upon his administration of the Lords Supper that then he is bound frequently to administer it unto the flock or Church over which God hath placed him especially if they call and cry for it In this case to delay it is a sinfull omission and my reason is Because unlesse we pitch here there can be no certain rule given when a Minister is to administer the Lords Supper As for the assertion of those who affirme that it is to be delayed in case of scandal consequent it is very unsound and irrational for if the lawfulnesse or unlawfulnesse of the administration of the Lords Supper must be determined by the scandal consequent thereupon the administration then of it hanges upon a very slippery and an uncertain ground Sixthly We must distinguish of scandals they are either Active or Passive Given or only Taken The scandal following the administration of the Lords Supper in an Un-Presbyterated Church especially when a Minister hath used all obliged means for prevention of the scandal is only Passive or Taken not Active or Given And for this I dare appeale unto any definition of active scandal or scandall given in any writer either Popish or Protestant An Active scandal or a scandal given is when one culpably occasioneth the fall of another into sin But a Minister in the administration of the Lords Supper in an Un-Presbyterated Church after that he hath used all obliged means for prevention of scandal thereby doth not culpably occasion the fal of another into sin for he dispenseth a necessary Ordinance of God he performeth a commanded duty which he cannot omit without sin Who ever saith Rutherfurd stumbles at the necessary Ordinances of God they take a scandal which is not culpably given Now how little reguard is to be had of passive scandals scandals only taken are generally proved by Divines from the account which our Saviour made of the scandall of the Pharisees Matth. 15.12 14. Knowst thou that the Pharisees were offended after they heard this saying But he answered let them alone If any one desire to know what the Schoolmen speak of Active scandal a scandal given I shall briefly acquaint them what there is in Aquinas who is one of the cheif of them and make application of it to our matter in hand In 2 da. 2 dae Quest 43. Art 1. We have this definition of Active scandal out of Hierome Scandalum est vel dictum vel factum minus rectum praebens alteri occasionem ruinae Two things I shall take notice of which he hath in the explication of this definition First Minus rectum non dicitur hoc quod ab aliquo alio superatur in rectitudine Sed quod habet aliquem rectitudinis defectum vel quia est secundum se maâ—um sicut peccatum vel quia habet speciem mali sicut cum aliquis recumbit in Idolo From whence I thus argue that wherein there is an Active scandal a scandal given hath some morall irrectitude in it is some way or other morally irregular either because it is evil in it self or because it hath an appearance of evil But the administration of the Lords Supper in an Un-Presbyterated Church is neither evil in it self neither hath it a real appearance of evil for it is an Ordinance of God a commanded duty Again whereas it is objected that every word or deed may occasion the fall of another into sin Aquinas thus distinguisheth Dictum vel factum alterius potest esse dupliciter altericausa peccandi uno modo per se alio modo per accidens Per se quidem quando aliquis suo malo verbo vel facto intendit alium ad peccandum inducere vel etiam si ipse hoc non intendat ipsum factum est tale quod de sui ratione habet quod sit in ductivum ad peccandum Puta cum aliquis publice facit peccatum vel quod habet similitudinem peccati Et tunc ille qui hujusmodi actum facit proprie dat occasionem ruinae unde vocatur scandalum activum Per Accidens autem aliquod verbum vel factum unius est alteri causa peccandi quando praeter intentionem operantis praeter conditionem operis aliquis male dispositus ex hujusmodi opere induciâ—ur ad peccandum puta cum aliquis invidet bonis Et tunc ille qui facit hujusmodi actum rectum non dat occasionem quantum in se est sed alius sumit occasionem Et ideo hoc est scandalum passivum sine activo quia ille qui recte agit quantum est de se non dat occasionem ruine quam alter patitur Out of all this we may briefly observe thus much for our present purpose that in an action there is then only an Active scandal when either from the intent of the Agent or else from the nature of the Action in it self it is inductive to sin Now to say that the administration of the Lords Supper in an Un-Presbyterated Church is inductive to sin from the intent of the Agent is uncharitable To say that it is inductive to sin from the nature of the Action in it self is a grosse blasphemy against an holy Ordinance of God Seventhly Whereas it is said we may forbear the practice of things commanded by affirmative precepts hic nunc in some places and at some times it must alwayes be taken with this proviso that there be not incur'd a greater and more perilous scandal by forbearance then would probably be occasioned by practise of the thing commanded which I beleeve is done in the forbearance of the administration of the Lords Supper that is contended for For first if we speak of the scandal tending unto sorrow and vexation more are scandalized at the forbearance then in likelyhood would be at the practise And secondly if we speak of the scandal tending unto sin the scandal which the wicked take by the administration of of the Lords Supper is not to be compared with the scandals consequent upon a total forbearance of the Lords Supper I mean in reference unto the Minister as chargeable upon him Here I shall first instance in the scandals tending unto sin occasioned by forbearance of the Lords Supper and then compare them with those which follow upon administration of the Lords Supper and consider of which the Minister is most guilty First I shall
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
Un-Presbyterated Church But the Lords Supper is a principal part of Gods positive and instituted Worship Ergo c. The Minor is apparent out of what the incomparably learned Amesius saith Lib. 2. Theol. c. 13. Num. 17.18 The meanes which God hath ordained in this kind some of them do propperly and immediately make to the exercising and furthering of faith hope and charity as publike and solemn Preaching of the Word celebration of Baptisme and the Lords Supper and Prayer And some of them are meanes for the right performance of these former as the combination of the faithful into certain Congregations or Churches Election Ordination and Ministration of Ministers ordained by God together with the care of Ecclesiastical discipline Those former are most properly the instituted Worship of God Fourthly No Sacraments of the New Testament are altogether to be forborn omitted in an un-Presbyterated Church But the Lords Supper is a Sacrament of the New Testament Ergo c. The major is thus confirmed Nothing necessary to salvation both by the necessity of Gods Command and as an ordinary means of salvation is to be wholly and altogether omitted But all Sacraments of the New Testament are necessary to salvation both by necessity of command and as ordinary means of salvation Ergo c. The minor is granted by all Protestants disputing against Papists for maintaining the absolute necessity of baptisme they all yield that not only Baptisme but the Lords Supper also is necessary necessitate tum Praecepti tum medii ordinarii as commanded duties and as ordinary means of salvation not of the purchase but of the application of salvation For they are seals assuring a beleever of his salvation they are powerful Provocations unto holinesse which is the way unto salvation they serve for the nourishment and increase of all our graces and therefore they may be said to be instrumental in the bringing us unto salvation it selfe for by our graces and the exercise of them an entrance shall be ministred unto us abundantly into the everlasting Kingdom of our Lord Saviour Jesus Christ 2 Pet. 1 11. See Whittaker Praelect de Sacrament is in genere Quaest 2. c. 1. Fifthly a Profession of faith in Christ may lawfully be made in an un-Presbyterated Church not only verbally but also really by observation of such ordinances as serve thereunto amongst which the Lords Supper may be reckoned one of the chief for by it we shew forth the Lords death We declare and witnesse before all the world that we owne and are not ashamed of a crucified Christ though unto the Jews a stumbling block and unto the Greeks foolishnesse that we embrace the faith doctrine and worship of Christ and that we utterly renounce all idolatrous worship whatsoever 1 Cor. 10.21 By it we professe that our expectancy of righteousnesse and salvation is grounded only upon the satisfaction and merits of Christs death and sufferings I shall desire all that are otherwise mind ed then I am in this controversie seriously and sadly to reflect upon these forementioned general attributions of the Lords Supper and then to tell me with what warrant they neglect themselves and withhold from others an Ordinance of Christ because others the wicked abuse and prophane it Because they who keep aloof from God in their lives approach his Table will they therefore refuse to draw nigh unto God in the use of this holy and heavenly ordinance how can they be accounted faithful stewards of the mysteries of God who refuse to dispence unto Gods People a principal part of these mysteries Bread and Wine in the Lords Supper because others worship him amisse will they not therefore worship him at all because others do not sanctifie Gods name but rather dishonour him by their unworthy receiving will they therefore rob God of his honour by neglecting so necessary a part of his Worship will they wholly omit an ordinary means of salvation because some by accident therein eat and drink damnation Lastly will they forbear to make Profession of their faith in the death of Christ by receiving the signe and pledge thereof only because some without their fault will joyne with them in making that Profession who in works deny Christ A fourth principal Argument is taken from the instrumental cause of the administration of the Lords Supper viz. The Ministers of the Gospel and the power which they have as Ministers to administer the Lords Supper It is called by Divines Potestas ordinis or Potestas muneris specialis and by the London Divines in their Divine right of Church-Government is defined to be a Church-power more speciall and particular to the office of some Church-governours only as the power of preaching the Cospel which they as Ministers may execute virtute officii and it is distinguished from the power of Jurisdiction which is more general and common to the office of all Church-governours as the power of Censures wherein Ruling-Elders may act with Ministers Now from this their definition of the power of order I thus argue The power of order may be exercised in an un-Presbyterated Church Ergo the power of dispensing the Sacrament The Argument follows à toto ad partes For power to dispense the Sacraments is a part or branch of the power of order The consequence then is undeniable And as for the Antecedent that may be confirmed by the above-mentioned description of the power of order That power which is only committed to the Ministers of the Gospel and which they as Ministers may execute virtute officii that power may be executed in an un-Presbyterated Church i. e. A Church destitute of Ruling-Elders But such is the power of order Ergo c. That which belongs to Ministers as Ministers belongs to all Ministers and always in all states and conditions of the Church as well in an un-Presbyterated as a Presbyterated Church For à quatenus ad de omni valet Argumentum and the universality required in a Proposition that is de omni is universalitas Posterioristica as well as Prtoristica Temporis as well as Subjecti Indeed this universality of time this always is not to be understood as in natural attributions for that which is absolutely such in a mathematical latitude but is to be taken as usually it is when it is applyed to matters moral for frequency or usualnesse But some say that however the power of order belong to a Minister in an un-Presbyterated Church wholly and entirely yet he can then exercise but a part of this power power of preaching the Word and baptizing he cannot at all exercise the power of administring the Lords Supper But this is spoken very unreasonably and groundlesly unlesse in an un-Presbyterated Church there be some impediment that by Gods Word or sound reason is a sufficient ground for non-administration of the Lords Supper or unlesse the administration of the Lords Supper presuppose as a necessary antecedent a condition that dependeth upon the Eldership and
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
All these former Arguments receive weight and strength from this consideration That the exercise of Discipline is not a necessary antecedent unto the exercise of other branches of the power of Order to wit the power of Preaching Baptizing c. Therefore to say without proof that it is a necessary antecedent unto the exercise only of this Branch of the power of Order is Petitio Principii a meer begging of the Question The fifth Principal Argument is taken from the end of the Lords Supper The 5. Arg. Ã fine The principall ends of the Lords Supper have place in and do belong unto an Un-Presbyterated Church and therefore likewise the Lords Supper it self The consequence is made good from that Maxime in Logick Posito fine ponuntur omnia media ad finem The Antecedent is manifest from an enumeration of the ends of the Lords Supper It will be an endlesse work to go over them all I shall therefore out of them all select two The first is that which by Christs most expresse command is to be the end of this Sacrament And it is to celebrate the memory of Christs Death and Passion that unvaluable price of our double Redemption Redemption from hell and Redemption to glory This do in remembrance of me And doth it not become Christians to celebrate with a frequent shall I say nay rather with an eternal memory the Author of their Redemption Shall so great and glorious a work be buried in a grave of oblivion And shall that I mean the Lords Supper which is by divine institution a Pledge and memorial of this so incomparable a mercy be neglected and quite thrown aside if the government of the Church by the iniquity of the times be not setled in our times Christs death is to be remembred with a memory both of faith and gratitude even in an Un-Presbyterated Church Therefore the Lords Supper which was by Christ instituted for the commemoration thereof is to be celebrated in an Un-Presbyterated Church Secondly I shall argue from another end of the Lords Supper The spiritual growth and nourishment of Christians The Lords Supper is defined by Ames to be the Sacrament of the nourishing and growth of the faithful in Christ Whereupon he inferres that it ought oftentimes to be administred to the same persons In an Un-Presbyterated Church Christians ought to grow in grace to nourish and improve their graces all they can Why then should they be denyed that which Christ himselfe hath appointed as an help and means of this growth and nourishment Me thinks it is somewhat a strange kind of reasoning because the rod of Discipline is wanting the children should be denyed bread yea but you will say dogges will eat the childrens bread Why will you therefore starve the children because dogges without your default may snatch the childrens portion Shall the children be debarred as I may say their daily bread because it will become accidentally poyson unto dogges Hither may we referre these words of the Bramble Berrie As it is better for Gods sheep to feed upon pasture where some weeds grow rather then starve for want of food So it is better for Gods shepheards to suffer some weeds to grow in the sheeps pastures if they cannot prevent it then to starve their flocks yea and as it is better for the sheep to feed among goats rather then starve So it is better the shepheards should suffer the goats to feed upon the sheeps pasture though it should poyson them then for the sheep to be kept from it It being as I said out of their power to reforme it Hither you may referre that place of Beccanus sum Theol. Part. 3. Tract 2. Cap. 23. Quest 4. Hoc praeceptum divinum tum maxime obligat cum prudenter judicatur Eucharistiae sumptionem necessariam esse homini ad eum finem ob quem instituta est nimirum ad conservandam roborandam vitam spiritualem contra tentationes Ratio est quia hoc est commune Praeceptis affirmativis ut tunc obligent quando urget necessitas finis propter quem instituta sunt The sixt Argument is drawn from the Object of the administration of the Lords Supper The sixth Argument Ab Objecto such as have these qualifications which the Scripture requireth in those to whom it is to be administred and these qualifications are especially two First Right unto Secondly Need of the Lords Supper Now in an Un-Presbyterated Church there are many who have right unto and need of the Lords Supper why then should it be with-held from them Because they have right unto it the Minister is tyed to give it them by an obligation of justice because they have need of it the Minister is bound to give it them by an obligation of charity First Many have right unto it not only jus adrem but also jus in re not only a right in actu primo but also a right in actu secundo which rendreth the person actually and presently capable of the thing that he is intituled to That which giveth such a right in Foro Dei is Eaith but in Foro Ecclesiastico profession of the Faith Now in an Un-Presbyterated Church there are many who are Beleevers and Professors of the Faith Ego many that have right unto the Lords Supper And we may argue from the right to the administration Philip did so to the Eunuch in case of Baptisme The Eunuch said here is water what doth hinder me to be baptized And Philip said If thou beleevest withall thine heart thou mayst So may we say here is bread and wine c. Peter also thus reasoneth Acts 10.47 Can any forbid water that these should not be baptized which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we So may we say can any man forbid bread and wine that these should not receive the Lords Supper which have received the Holy Ghost and have in some degree all spirituall qualifications requisite in Communicants They have the word of promise which is the greater who can inhibit the signe which is the lesse They are Mr. Geree his words for the Baptisme of Infants They are faederati therefore they must be signati It is Mr. Marshals argument upon the same subject and mutatis mutandis applyable to our purpose Perhaps you will say you would willingly give Beleevers their right but prophane and scandalous persons will also intrude who have no right What if they do If you have no power or authority from Christ to keep them back by your self If you have used the utmost of your power to erect an Eldership in the Congregation if you have used your power of Order to the utmost for keeping them back by exhortation if you mourne for their intrusion wherein are you to be blamed Because they do wrong will you do no right And shall the Saints be debarred their dues because these wretches without your allowance seise upon what is undue that unto which they have no
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.
from verse 1. usque ad 8. Rivet upon Exodus vers 5. clears this very well whose words I shall take leave to insert Moses declarat quo tempore solemnitatis illius celebratâ—o inchoari debeat nempe post introductionem Populi in terra patribus promissa Tum inquit coles Deum nempe isto cultu in isto mense non in deserto sed in terrâ patribus tuis promissâ Meminisse videtur tot populorum ut oppositâ promissione potentiâ Dei eos muniret adversus tentationem diffidentiae quae obrepere potuisset si simpliciter considerassent quà m arduum esset negotium tot nationes suis sedibus deturbare At inquit Moses res adeo certa est ut Deus cultum illum à vobis non requirat quem nunc praescribit nisi postquam promissum illudsuum impleverit Hinc ergo apparet legem comedendi agnum ut azymes panes non obligasse Israelitas totis XL. annis quibus vagabuntur in deserto instabiles rebus omnibus incompositis Quod de plerisque statutis dicendum est quae postea Deus per Mosem evulgavit ut liquet ex Deut. 12. vers 1. Haec sunt illa statuta judicia quae observanter facturi estis in illâ terrâ quam dat Deus majorum tuorum tibi ut haereditario possideas eam omnibus diebus quibus victuri estis super terram Antea enim quod ad oblationes similia attinebat non potuit usque adeo in ambulatoriis Israelitarum castris observari aut summo jure ab illis exigi quod statutum erat quo tempore etiam indultum est illis ut incircumcisi manerent Hoc indicat Moses ver 8 9. Non facietis secundum omnia quae facimus hodie quisque quicquid videtur rectum in oculis suis non adhuc enim ingressiestis ad locum illum quietis ad possessionem illam quam Iehova dat tibi c. Et certe non poterat AzymoruÌ„ solemnitas servari uti cum manna vescerentur nullus erit usus fermenti cum triticeo pane non vescerentur Commode itaque haec declaratio annexa est ne scrupulum aliquem conscientiis injiceret mandati illius omissio spacio annorum XL. As for Circumcision I demand whether their omission of it were with leave from God or without leave if without leave then it was sinful and so no Plea for the non-administration of the Lords Supper if it were with leave then it was either by special and extraordinary Revelation from God or by some general rule and direction contained in the written law or law of nature if by especial and extraordinary Revelation shew some such warrant for forbearance of the Lords Supper and I have done if by some general rule and direction contained either in the written law or law of nature produce that rule and direction apply it to the present forbearance of the Lords Supper the controversie is at end A second Argument a negative separation that is a non-Communion with the Church in a lawful and commanded worship is unlawful Therefore also a total forbearance of the administration of the Lords Supper in an un-Presbyterated Church is unlawful For the antecedent I shall referre you to all that write against the separation who generally distinguish separation into Negative and Positive Negative is a non-Communion in Ordinances Positive when we gather and grow into another body and they codclude them both to be unlawful The consequent will be evident if you please to read those who have written against the separation for you will find that many of their Arguments mutatis mutandis may be sadled against this forbearance of the Lords Supper I shall therefore desire you to make tryal of this for proofe of this Argument And after you have made such tryall you will I beleeve conclude non-administration to be a greater evil then separation because the Minister thereby not only neglects himself an Ordinance of God but also keeps all others from it Thirdly it is unlawful for a Minister by himself to excommunicate so much as one member of his Church with that which Divines call the lesser excommunication which is exclusion from the Lords Supper therefore his total forbearance of the administration of the Lords Supper in an un-Presbyterated Church is unlawful The Antecedent wil not at all be denyed by those whom I oppose for the Minister by himself to exclude judicially from the Lords Supper what were it but to lord it over Gods heritage sole power of Iurisdiction Christ hath vouchsafed to no one Person on earth and therefore Papal and Prelatical for being so hath been censured by the Orthodox to be unlawful and Antichristian As for the consequence or sequel that is apparent because a Minister by a total forbearance of the administration of the Lords Supper doth exclude his whole Church from the Lords Supper And therefore his non-administration of the Lords Supper is a virtual Excommunication Now we may argue from the lesse to the greater thus If it be unlawful for a Minister to exclude by himself one member from the Lords Supper when he celebrates it it is much more unlawful for him to exclude the whole Church by refusal to celebrate it if he cannot debarre one Communicant how lies it in his power to dis-common a whole Church if a steward wrong one servant by thrusting him from the Table without Authority Commission from his Lord doth he not much more wrong the whole family if he withhold from them meat and drink and will not let them have their constant meals allowed them by their master Neither is the matter any whit mended by saying that there is a difference between an exclusion from the Lords Supper by positive and formal excommunication and that exclusion which is by non-administration For it is unlawful to exclude from the Lords Supper by a sinful omission or neglect of the exercise of the power of order which is seated only in the Minister as well as it is unlawful to exclude from the Lords Supper by an unjust usurpation of sole power of Iurisdiction that belongs to the whole Eldership And let this suffice for the first sort of Arguments drawne from the Lords Supper and the administration thereof A second sort of Arguments in which I will be brief may be taken from the other terme considerable in the question a Non-Presbyterated Church i.e. A Church destitute of Ruling-Elders And here we may argue à Genere ab Exemplo à Comparatis FRom the general nature of an un-Presbyterated Church Un-Presbyterated Churches First à Genere Cum in Abel Cain inciperet divisio civitatis spiritualis Hierusalem à civitate Babylonis oportuit esse signa aliqua sacra quibus distinguerentur cives Hierusalem à civibus Babylonis sicut videmus in aliis rebus oves enim unius gregis discernuntur ab ovibus alterius gregis proprio signo sacrae aedes à non sacris
propriis signis discernuntur civitas nobilis aliquo signo donati consuevit ut civitas Romana penula dignitas militaris accinctione gladii ossicium traditione virgae vel clavium ex quibus omnibus calligitur quod Sacramenta fuerunt necessaria homini post lapsum ad hoc ut discerneretur esse civis spiritualis Hierusalem de grege domini es de militâ â—jus Alexand. Alenj Par. 4. q. 1. m. 2. ar 2. such as our Churches generally in England are true Churches and therefore should have the marks of a true Church Now administration of the Sacraments hath been always counted amongst the marks and signes of a true Church by such as have written concerning the marks of the Church against Papists as also by the old non-Conformists writing against those of the separation Many of them have gone so farre as to reckon the Sacraments amongst the essential notes of the Church Which assertion is explicated the best and clearest by Ames that ever I read in any Adhibentur istae notae saith he scilicet vera praedicatio Evangelii legitima administratio Sacramentorum legitima disciplina non ad veram Ecclesiam militantem quoad essentiam ejus internam certo necessario declarandam sed ut visibilem aliquem coetum designandum qui est Ecclesia particularis ex instituto Christi formata But the Church ought to use these marks which God hath appointed to distinguish her from the companies of Infidels and Pagans as also from the Assemblies of Antichrist though they be not simply essential and reciprocal Mine Argument therefore stands in its full strength though the Lords Supper were not an essentiall mark of the Church The second Argument shall be taken from the example of anâ—un-Presbyterated Church Ab Exemplo Suppose divers Christians of severall Countryes yet understanding one language should casually be together in some sea town of Turky Africa c. destitute of a constant minister now suppose some godly Minister should come on shore to them out of some ship who on make no long stay with them I would willingly know whether they may not receive the Lords Supper from him and he administer it to them if they may then we have one instance of an un-Presbyterated Church capable of the administration of the Lords Supper And the truth of an universal negative is overthrown by one particular affirmative I might also instance in Churches under the extremity of persecution when the Saints have no constant abode but are always in a wandring and flying posture from city to city though by the extream rage of the Persecution Churches un-Presbyterated have not opportunity to forme themselves into a Presbytery and in Churches Presbyterated the Ruling-Elders are so scattered as that they cannot convene in an Ecclesiastical Court shall the People of God now in such a case be denied the comfort of the Lords Supper because the world frowns on them shall therefore the Pledges of Gods favour be denied unto them what is this but to adde affliction to the afflicted The last Argument strikes against the only reason pretended The 3. Arg. à comparatis for forbearance of the administration of the Lords Supper in an un-Presbyterated Church which is because scandalous Persons cannot there be excluded from the Lords Supper And it is taken from a comparison of an un-Presbyterated Church with such a Presbyterated Church wherein there is either neglect or mal-administration of discipline It is drawn à similibus and built upon this maxime Similium similis est ratio si similia spectentur quâ talia sunt seu quatenus similia sunt quoad illud tertium in quo sit comparatio There is a likenesse as to the matter of sinful mixtures betwixt an un-Presbyterated and a Presbyterated Church wherein there is either neglect or mal-administration of discipline In such a Church there will in all likelihood be sinful mixtures for we suppose the major part of Church-officers to be corrupt and likely to give countenance to scandalous and wicked Persons to tolerate them in Church-Communion to admit them unto the Lords Supper but now for these mixtures the administration of the Lords Supper is not to be forborn in a Presbyterated Church therefore these mixtures are no sufficient argument against the administration of the Lords Supper in an un-Presbyterated Church That the admission of scandalous Persons to the Lords Supper in a Presbyterated Church is no ground or warrant to forbear the administration thereof may be made good by instancing in the Church of Corinth where there were schismes and contentions 1 Cor. 1.12 13. Envying and strife 1 Cor. 3.3 An incestuous Person not cast out of Church-Communion 1 Cor. 5. Going to law with the brethren before infidels eating at the idols Table 1 Cor. 8. denying of a fundamental point of faith the Resurrection of the dead 1 Cor. 15. And to give an instance more especially pertinent to the question in hand many of them came to the Lords Table drunken 1 Cor. 11.21 and so did eate and drink damnation Notwithstanding this deluge of corruption the Sacrament was administred and the Apostle gave no direction to the contrary though he treated purposely and at large touching abuses about the Lords Supper and gave them directions for reformation of them delivering whatsoever he received of the Lord touching this Argument It is plaine therefore that forbearing the Lords Supper in such a case is no Apostolical practice If this Tenent of our Antagonists were true the easiest and more proper remedy that the Apostle could have advised them to was to lay aside the Lords Supper untill either the Church guides became more watchfull or the Church Members more reformed in lives and Conversations But now the Apostle falls upon other Remedies of this abuse First He cals upon the Church guides to cast out the scandalous 1 Cor. 5. and then Secondly He exhorts private members to examine themselves and so eate of this Bread and drink of this Cup. From the first remedy we may supplying some Propositions conclude That in Un-Presbyterated Churches Ministers should use their utmost endeavours for a Reformation for thee setting up of Presbytery in their Churches that may exclude scandalous persons from the Lords Supper But a totall forbearance of the Lords Supper and an endeavour of reformation are things widely different That this Argument thus drawn a comparatis may appeare in its full strength I shall desire you to consider what our Divines argue hence against separation in case of sufferance of scandalous persons in Church Communion and you will find that mutatis mutandis it will serve our turne against this Non-administration or totall forbearance of administration c. Before I meddle with Objections I shall first premise some Concessions which may save the labour of alleadging many Arguments in which there is that Fallacy which is termed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ignoratio Elenchi a proofe of that
which no way opposeth what I hold First then I grant that Persons grosly ignorant and notoriously scandalous and impenitent ought to be excluded from the Lords Supper but it must be done by them only to whom God hath given this power and in such order and manner as the Lord hath appointed That is necessary saith Mr Ball in his Tryal of the grounds tending to separation pag. 190. to them that have received Commission from God which is unlawfull to them that want authority In the Common-wealth the execution of justice is necessary but private persons must not challenge the Sword of the Magistrate In a Corporation no one must take that upon himself which belongeth to the Common-Councell Holy things must not be given to prophane persons but every one at his pleasure must not deny holy things to unholy persons but unholy persons must be debarred from holy things in such order as God hath prescribed Haec dispensatio vel denegatio Sacramenti nonest consideranda ut actio judicialis vel inflictiva paenae sed solum ut prudens ac fidelis administratio Sacramenti ideo non pendet ex testibus aut probationibus sed solum ex câscientiâ cognitione quae prudenti existimatione secundum occurrentes circumstâ—â—â—tias judicatur sufficiens ut sine incommodo possit debeat negari Sacramentum Sâ—â—â—â—es in part 3. Thom. Tom. 3. disp 67. Sect. 3. pag. 856. The Schoolmen are extremely out in this particular for they deny the debarring of notorious offenders from the Lords Supper to be an act of Jurisdiction and so they put it into the hands and power of the Minister to deny it unto those whom he judgeth to be grosse and scandalous sinners In a second place I also yeeld that in the permission of grosly ignorant and notoriously scandalous persons that are impenitent there is a great sin committed by all those who have sufficient power to keep them back and by all others that are any waies accessary thereunto But now a man cannot be said to be guilty of that to hinder which he hath done all that he can I meane all that he can de jure by right and lawfully Which brings me to my third Concession A Minister is bound to use all lawfull probable meanes to keep grosly ignorant and notoriously scandalous impenitent sinners from the Lords Supper But he is not for prevention of their coming obliged to use any unlawful meanes We must not do evill that good may come thereof commit sin our selves to prevent it in others Now I have proved a totall forbearance of administring the Lords Supper to be unlawfull And those with whom I deale in this Controversie must unlesse they will go from their own principles acknowledge that for a Minister to exclude any singly and solely by himself as also to separate and gather a Church are both unlawfull Having premised these Concessions I come now unto the Objections which may be reduced unto one principall Argument and the other added as confirmations It is unlawful to give the Lords Supper unto grosly ignorant and notoriously scandalous persons but supposing that our Churches in England are generally mixt Congregations it will be impossible as long as they are destitute of Ruling-Elders for the Minister to avoid giving the Lords Supper unto grosly ignorant and notoriously scandalous persons unlesse he will either assume unto himselfe sole power of Jurisdiction or else allow the whole power to exclude Now the former would be Tyrannical Prelaticall and Pope-like the later would be a disclaiming of Presbytery and a marching over unto the Tents of the Independents That it is unlawfull and sinful for a Minister to give the Lords Super unto grosly ignorant and notoriously scandalous persons is endeavoured to be proved First from the fidelity and prudence required in Ministers as Stewards which obligeth them not to dispense the Lords Supper unto such unto whom Christ would not have it to be given Secondly From the general nature of the Lords Supper It is a holy thing a Pearle of the Gospel and therefore ought not to be given unto dogs and swine It is a seale of the Covenant and the Promises And therefore to administer it unto those who visibly have as yet no share in them is a visible and practicall lye Lastly From the consequents of administring the Lords Supper unto grosly ignorant and notoriously scandalous persons Hereupon will follow a Transgression of the Rule of Christ pollution of the Sacrament a participation of the sin of unworthy receivers The Schoolmen here have divers objections which you may see in such of them as Comment in tertiam partem Aquinatis quaest 80. Art 6. The first answer is by retortion All these Arguments may be retorted upon our dissenting brethren For they conclude also against administration of the Lords Supper in a Presbyterated Church in case there be either neglect or Mal-administration of Discipline For then considering the Constitution of our Churches generally here in England how will you avoid giving the Lords Supper unto those grosly ignorant and scandalous persons upon whom the Presbytery hath passed no Censure if they should present themselves And that you can by admonition keep them back is altogether unprobable There be in this case but three effectual meanes which the Minister can take to prevent the giving of the Sacramentall signes unto them A totall forbearance of the administration of the Lords Supper The Ministers exclusion of unworthy persons singly and solely by himself Or else separation and gathering of a more pure and reformed Church Now of these possible meanes I have proved the first to be unlawful And by my Brethrens own Principles the two last are unlawfull also If they can think of any other course let them produce it and prove it and I am confident it will fit our turne as well as theirs Secondly some think that the supposed sin of giving the Lords Supper unto unworthy persons is easily avoided if the Minister give not the Sacramentall Elements to each Communicant out of his own hand but the Communicants divide the Elements among themselves which was approved of by the old Non-conformists by Gillespy in his Aarons Rod blossoming Book 3. cap. 8.437.438 By Mr Bowles de Pastore Evangelico lib. 4. cap. 5. By Mr Burrows in his Gospel-Worship pag. 264 265. and practised as Gerhard tels us out of Lavater by the Tigurine Church Loc. Theol. Tom. 5. de Sacra Caena cap. 15. Cajetan upon Matthew 26. thinks that this course is most agreeable to the example of Christ in the first administration of this Sacrament unto his Apostles as also Salmeron Jansenius Cassander in Liturgicis Suarez in part 3. Thom. disp 72. Sect. 1. with whom Maldonate upon Matthew accords As concerning the Cup Johannes Buxtorfius junior in Exercitatione sacrâ in historiam institutionis coenae dominicae Basil editâ 1642. thinks that Christ herein followed the custome of the Jews in the Passeover where
the Pater-familias blessed the bread and brake it but they who eate the Passeover with him took their portion with their own hands out of the dish or Platter Indeed Christ gave both the Bread and the Cup to the Disciples But we must distinguish between giving of a thing unto many in genere and conjunctim in generall and jointly and the giving of it viritim sigillatim severally and to each man It doth not appeare that our Saviour gave the Sacramentall Elements to his Apostles sigillatim viritim to each of them out of his own hand but that he gave them unto them only conjunctim and in genere jointly and in generall is at least made very probable by these following Arguments First There is not in either the Evangelists or the 1 Cor. 11. any the least mention of our Saviours distributing the Sacramentall Elements particularly and severally out of his own hand to each Communicant Nay the contrary rather is probable because he speaks unto these whom he gave the Supper unto only jointly and in general 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A second reason is given by Cajetan on Matthew 26. The Disciples received the Bread and Cup into their hands not from the hand of Christ but from the Table For Christ is found sitting at one Table with his Disciples unto whom he still sitting distributed the blessed Sacrament as unto his Communicants But now they being so many sate in all likelihood at so great a distance as that the hand of Christ could not convey it into the hands of each Communicant And therefore it is probable that Christ gave the dish or platter unto him that sate next unto him from whom it was successively reach'd about unto the other Communicants A third Argument is concerning the Cup whence we may argue unto the Bread by way of Analogy and it is taken out of Luk. 22.17 And he took the Cup and gave thanks and said take this and divide it among your selves Whereas some understand the Cup to be the Paschall Cup others to be the Cup in the ordinary Supper To me saith Gillespy in the place above quoted it is plaine that it was the Eucharistical Cup because that which Luke saith of that Cup that Christ took it and gave thanks and gave it to the Disciples that they might all drink of it and told them he would not drink with them any more of the fruit of the Vine till the Kingdom of God shall come All this is the very same which Matthew and Mark record of the Eucharisticall Cup. But now it is objected That this is related before the taking and breaking of the Bread and therefore it is not likely to be the Eucharistical Cup which was given after the Bread Unto this Gillespy replyeth that it is but by an Anticipation or Pre-occupation occasioned by that which had proceeded Vers 16. So to joine the Protestation of not drinking again with that of not eating againe the Passeover with his Disciples Wherefore Beza Salmeron Maldonate and others following Augustine and Euthymeus do resolve that it is an Anticipation even as Paul mentioneth the Cup before the Bread 1 Cor. 10.16 Thus Gillespy Mr Burrows in the but now quoted place gives also three reasons why it is better to give it generally then particularly into every ones hand First Because that the giving of it once for all doth signifie more fully the fellowship and Communion that they have together As at a Table it were a strange thing that every bit of meat must be given to every one particularly no but the dishes must be set before them and they must take it themselves Indeed if they be children you cut every peece of meat and give it into their hands or mouths but that is futable to a fellowship at Table and Communion to have the meat set before them being blessed and then for all to partake of it And secondly Besides this giving it into every ones hand came to us from a Popish and Superstitious conceit of the Papists to bring more reverence to the Sacrament Now there is a great deale of danger to bring in mens devices to cause more reverence Thirdly one would wonder that Ministers should give it in particular and not in generall to the Church for by this meanes Ministers might abundantly ease themselves of a great deale of charge and guilt Now if this way of distributing the Sacramental Elements in general be justifiable then as Mr Bowles saith in the place above cited Si quis se obtrudet quem ut excluderet fecit quod in se Pastor non tamille dare quam hic arripere dicendus But in a third place Take giving of Sacramentall Elements in what sense you please we must distinguish of dogs and swine grosly ignorant and scandalous impenitent sinners They are either such indeed and really or else juridically by Church Censure It is unlawfull to give the Sacramental Elements to the latter sort but not alwaies unto the first For though saith Mr Ball pag. 193. in course of life they may be dogs yet in publike esteeme they are not to be reputed dogs nor used as dogs till the Church have so pronounced of them And for this Aquinas part 3. Quaest 80. Art 6 quotes Augustine Tom. 9. lib. de medicin paeniaentiae cap 3. Nos à Communione quenquam prohibere non possumus nisi sponte confessum aut in aliquo Judicio Ecclesiastico vel seculari nominatum atque convictum Now if only such dogs and swine are to be denyed the Lords Supper who are such juridically then the alleadged arguments will no way oppose my opinion For in a Church without Ruling-Elders there cannot regularly be any such dogs and swine That it is only unlawfull for Ministers to give the Lords Supper unto such dogs and swine as are so Juridically Ad commune bonum convenientem Ecclesiae vel cujusque reipublicae gubernationem pertinet ut communia bona quae publice dispensanda ac distribuenda sunt juxta merita dignitatem singularum personarum à publico Ministro ad hoc munus à Republica vel principe reipublicae destinato dispensentur non juxta privatam scientiam ipsius ministri sed per publicam notoriem hujusmodi autem est dispensatio Sacramenti hujus ut per se constat ergo quando publice sit non est regulanda per scientiam privatam sed publicam Majâ—r propositio videtur essâ— morale quoddam principium sere ex ipsis terminis notum Nisâ— haec regula in praedicta publica dispensatione servetur talis dispensandi modus morâ— liter loquendo erit expositus multis scandalis perturbationibus injuriis ut ministri possent facile publice infamare quos vellent peccatum vel indignitatem fingere ubi non esset Et è contrariò possent fideles saepe formidare timere ne à ministrâ—s hujus Sacramenti infamarentur Et hac ratione quamvis peccatur absolute
non habet jus ad petendum hoc Sacramentum tamen quilibet fidelis haber jus ut si publice pâ—â—at non repellâ—tur nisi debito modâ— id est ex publica manifestatione scientia sui peccati propter quod dixit recte divus Thomas per peccatum mortale amitti jus petendi hoc Sacramentum opportere tamen ut in facie Ecclesiae amittatur scilicet ut in eadem facie Ecclesiae id est publice denegari possit Tandem explicatur confirmatur hoc illo communi exemplo de judice qui tenetur judicare secundum allegata probata etiam contra privatam scientiam solum obsimile principium quiae ad commune bonum necessarium est ut illa publica actio reguletur publicâ scientiâ non privata quoniam si aliter fieret esset res exposita infinitis injuriis scandalis This place of Suaraz is very well rendred by Ball pag. 188 189. See also 190 191. will I suppose be acknowledged by all both Presbyterians and Independents for otherwise they will leave it to the Ministers discretion to exclude whom he thinks in his conscience unworthy And what is this but to allow him the exercise of sole power of jurisdiction contrary to the Rule of Christ Mat. 18.17 and the pattern of the Primitive Apostolical Church 1 Cor. 5. 2 Cor. 2.6 For a farther proofe of this I shall cite an excellent Argument out of Suarez in part 3 Thom. disp 67. Sect. 4. which he bringeth to prove that the Eucharist is not to be denyed unto a secret and hidden sinner for it may very well be extended unto all scandalous sinners that are not such juridically It is requisite for the common good and convenient order both of Church and Common-wealth that all common favours which are publikly to be disposed and distributed according to the dignity of private persons should be dispensed by publike Ministers designed thereunto not according to the private knowledge of this or that man neither of that Minister but according to a publike and notorious cognisance And whosoever doth by his offence against God lose his right and interest to the holy things of God he must lose it in the face of the Church before it can be denied him in the face of the congregation And he is to be judged as in all other cases not by any mans nor by any Ministers private knowledge but according to proofes and allegations For the Common good necessarily requireth that such publike actions of this nature should be regulated by a kind of publike and not private knowledge which once admitted into Judicature would soone fill up the Church and State with a world of scandals injuries and inconveniences For hereby a wicked or a peevish and pettish Minister may without controul publikely disgrace and repell from the Lords Supper whom he please He may falsely object unworthinesse unto the most worthy such as are best qualified and fitted of all the Congregation for receiving the Lords Supper Men would be loath saith Mr Ball pag. 191. to put their Lands nay their Goods and Cattels and shall we think the Lord hath put their interest in the body and bloud of Christ to a private discretion To exclude from the Lords Supper is a kind of Ecclesiasticall punishment and therefore presupposeth an Ecclesiastical Censure though men have deserved such a punishment yet is it not to be inflicted on them untill they be legally censured But that a Minister may in some cases give the Lords Supper unto such persons as he knoweth to be unworthy and scandalous will appeare from the Concessions of our dissenting brethren For first If the Church be Presbyterated there may be a neglect or Mal-administration of Discipline and then do the Minister what he can there may be by the major part of the Eldership admitted unto the Lords Supper such persons as the Minister knoweth to be dogs and swine scandalous and unworthy and they not being so juridically the Minister cannot debar them unlesse he will either usurp sole power of Jurisdiction or else run upon the rock of separation Secondly Suppose that the exercise of Discipline be never so rigid and strict yet how will he keep from the Lords Supper secret and hidden sinners known only unto himselfe Suppose a Minister by himself only without any other witnesse see a lurking Hypocrite of his Congregation commit a lewd and great scandall the Minister after several admonitions the party remaining obstinate and impenitent complaineth of him to the Church but he denies the fact Whereupon the Church can do nothing in the businesse For her Censures be to passe either upon the parties confession or the testimony of two or three witnesses In this case I demand whether or no a Minister may lawfully keep back this Hyppocrite from the Lords Supper If you say that he may lawfully in such a case keep him back why then you will ascribe unto the Minister such a vast and boundlesse power as any modest man will be loath to challenge upon exercise of which more mischiefes will ensue then can possible be foreseen You will make the Ministers private judgement to be final from which there is no appeale to any Court but the Court of heaven for no earthly Court can lawfully proceed but Secundum allegata probata Such crimes as we cannot prove are reserved for the notice and vengeance of God But if now on the other side you affirme that it is not lawfull for the Minister to keep back this Hyppocrite it will follow then that there may be some dogs and swine unworthy receivers whom the Ministers knows to be such unto whom it may yet be lawfull for him to give the Lords Supper viz. such as he cannot convict for want of witnesses And I conceive that it is altogether as lawfull for him to give it unto such as he cannot convict for want of Judges However hereupon it is evident that this Proposition That it is unlawfull and sinful for a Minister to give the Lords Supper unto dogs and swine unworthy and scandalous persons is not absolutely and universally true Now if they will be pleased to limit the Proposition and to shew in what case it holds and in what not they may perchance say something that may cut the throat of all their Arguments As for the Objections of the Schoolemen they will little advantage our dissenting brethren For first They leave it unto the discretion of the Minister to deny the Eucharist unto such as he in his conscience thinks to be open and publike scandalous sinners and such a power our brethren will not allow unto any Minister singly by himself Then secondly they speak very doubtfully and uncertainly and leave a Minister in perplexity for they say it is lawfull unto Ministers to give the Sacrament to the unworthy when they cannot refuse them without scandall Now saith Mr. Aarons Rod blossoming lib. 3. cap. 10. Gillâ—spy If the lawfulnesse or unlawfulnesse
of the thing must be determined by the scandall they go upon a very slippery ground As slippery and uncertain is another restriction which they joyne unto the former viz. That it is lawful for a Minister to give the Sacrament to the unworthy when they cannot keep them back without great inconveniency or inexpediency Suarez in 3am part Thom. disp 67. sect 1. Saith that the precept of not giving this Sacrament unto the unworthy is not simply negative but is to be reduced unto an affirmative precept of prudently and faithfully dispensing this Sacrament Quod praeceptum quidem formaliter sumptum ut sic dicam semper servandum est quotiescunque hoc Sacramentum dispensatur hinc fit ut si commodè possit debeat indigno denegari non tamen quod semper denegari debeat cum cocunque in commodo sine ulla exceptione These last words of Suarez together with those of Gillespy will serve to answer all the Arguments of the Schoolmen so farre as they are urged against us For in an Un-Presbyterated Church the Lords Supper cannot be denyed unto unworthy persons without scandall great inconveniences nay I beleeve sinne And this for a general answer unto all the Arguments I shall next examine each argument a part The first Argument is taken from that fidelity and prudence required in Ministers as stewards of the mysteries of God 1 Cor. 4.1 2. and it is urged by Suarez in 3am partem Thom. disp 18. sect 2. disp 67. sect 1. As also by Becanus summ Theolog. parte 3 ia tract 2. cap. 5. Quaest 8. * Praeceptum naturale est ut dispensator qui bona Domini sui dispensat sit fidelis prudens in dispensando ergo praeceptum naturale est ut non dispenset homini indigno contra voluntatem insiitutionem sui domini quia hoc esset contra fidelitatem prudentiam quam indispensando debet servare cum ergo non velit Sacramenta sua dispensari indignis non potest Minister si fidelis esse vult contra hanc voluntatem facere Stewards say they ought to be faithful and prudent in distribution of the goods of their Lord and Master and therefore they should not dispense them against his will and appointment Now for Ministers to give the Lords Supper unto known unworthy receivers is to distribute it against the will and appoyntment of their Lord and Master Christ Jesus And therefore a violation of that prudence and fidelity which is required at their hands For answer First I shall desire you to apply unto this Argument the generall Answers and then the Argument may be retorted upon our Antagonists Prudence and fidelity obligeth stewards all such as have committed unto them the dispensation of the goods food c. of their Master unto the houshold not to go beyond their commission not to usurp the exercise of a power which their Master hath forbidden them by themselves only to meddle with as being given in commission joyntly with them unto their fellow Stewards Now they should go beyond their commission and assume a power for which they can shew no warrant from their Lord and Master if they should singly and solely by themselves debarre any from the Lords Supper Secondly There would be little colour in the Argument if it were not for the ambiguity that is in the terme Gods will Here if the Objection conclude any thing against us The Will of God must be taken Metonimycally for that which they call Voluntas signi in particular the Command of God and then the Argument is nothing but a pitifull and miserable begging of the Question For that there is a command unto the Minister not to give the Lords Supper unto unworthy persons who are not such juridically is not so much as attempted to be proved A second Objection is taken from the generall nature of the Lords Supper It is a holy thing a Pearle of the Gospel a Seal of the Covenant of grace First It is a holy thing a Pearle of the Gospel and our Saviours command is Matth. 7.6 Give not that which is holy unto dogges neither cast ye your Pearle before swine Sufficient satisfaction is given unto this place by the general Answers yet because it is much stood upon I shall say something unto it apart First this place as appears both by the Coherence as also by the reason annexed is principally intended concerning admonitions and reproofe For if you look upon the words foregoing you shall finde a direction for the reprover that he be not spotted with greater faults then those which he reproveth in others Then in this Verse there is directions concerning the persons to be reproved that they be not dogges and swine But the reason annexed lest they turne again and rent you makes the matter quite out of Question For the giving of the Lords Supper unto the prophanest wretches almost that are is not likely to occasion any such carriage But yet I will not deny that the place may be extended and applyed unto the giving of the Lords Supper unto unworthy receivers but then it must bee cum grano salis Giving of the Lords Supper may be taken either for the authoritative and juridicall admission unto or else for the Ministeriall distribution of the Lords Supper First then if you take it for the juridicall and authoritative admission unto the Lords Supper then indeed it is true that the Lords Supper ought not to be given unto swine or dogges they ought not authoritatively or juridically to be admitted thereunto but then we say that the Commandment is not given unto the Minister solely but unto the whole Eldership and thus Mr. Bowles answereth the place Praeceptum de non dando quod sanctum canibus eos duntaxat obligat quibus Deus a sacris arcendi canes potestatem demandavit haec non uni alicui sed pluribus à Christo tradita With reference unto this is it that Mr. Ball tels us pag. 204.205 that the Minister if he have done the office of a private Christian and a publique Minister and afterward he reach the Sacrament unto an unworthy Communicant he doth not so much give it him as suffer his Communion because he hath not power or authority to put him back He reacheth him the signes as that which he cannot with-hold because he is held in by the most prevailing power without which he cannot be debarred In this case the Minister is neither actor nor consenter in his admission because he doth it not in his own name but according to the Order established by God who will not have any member of the Congregation publiquely denyed his interest and right to the holy things of God by the knowledge will and pleasure of one singular Minister If a Minister know a man to be unworthy he may yet receive him because he cannot yet manifest it to the Church And for the same reason if his unworthynesse be notorious if it be not
so judged by them that have authority he must administer the Sacramentall signes unto him not as unto one worthy or unworthy but as unto one yet undivided from them If you take giving of the Lords Supper for the Ministerial distribution of the Elements why then again I grant the Lords Supper is not to be given unto dogs and swine provided that they be such juridically by Church censure and so this precept binds not absolutely but conditionally upon a condition that dependeth upon the Eldership and not upon the Minister solely And thus again the reverend Bowles answereth the place Qui omnium pessim◠usque dum Ecclesia eos suâ sententiâ decretoriâ pro cambus porcis habendos declaraverit non mihi cum illis ut canibus porcis agendum Latronem qui mortem commeruit nullus jure de vita tollat usque dum judex reum declaraverit sententiam tulerit I am not to deal with the worst of men as dogs and swine until the Church hath sentenced them to be such Suppose a felon hath deserved death yet the Sheriffe himself cannot lawfully execute him untill he be tryed and the judge hath condemned him If any should argue from this place for a Ministers not giving of the Lords Supper unto such dogs and swine as are not so by Church censure I hope they desire to be understood not absolutely but limitedly so farre forth as it lyeth in a Minister And this I readily yeeld unto as no way impugning my opinion I do confesse that a Minister is to keep dogges and swine from the Sacrament so farre as in him lyeth that is he is to do all that God hath required at his hands for prevention thereof But I am very confident that this grant of mine will no wayes prejudice my cause or advantage that of my opposites because God for prevention of wicked mens Sacramentall approaches nowhere requireth a Minister to usurp a power which is none of his a sole power of jurisdiction in foro Ecclesiastico externo But the Schoolmen endeavour to prove not only from the but now mentioned place of Scripture but also from reason That it is a sinne to give the Lords Supper unto such as a man knowes to be unworthy receivers Great is the dignity and holinesse of this blessed Sacrament Obligatio exhibendi reverentiam huic Sacramento digne illud tractandi naturalis est ex intrinsecâ ipsius Sacramenti dignitate orta ad hanc vero pertinet obligatio non dandi Sacramentum hoc indignis Sicut non projicere illud in locum immundum similia Suarez in tertiam part Thom. disp 67. sect 1. Is dicitur sacrilegium committere qui violat rem Sacram per aliquam irreverentiam D. Thom. 2.2 Q. 99. a. 2.3 Atqui Minister conferens Sacramentum homini indigno violat rem Sacram per quandam irreverentiam ergo sacrilegium committit Becanus su mma Theol. par 3. tract 2. cap. 5. Sect. 8. and therefore it should be handled in a meet decent reverent and devout manner Now it were a very undecent and unreverent part to take the Elements assoone as consecrated and wittingly to throw them into a noysome sinke but it is a point of greater irreverence nay it is a kind of Sacriledge to take them and give them unto known unworthy receivers for no sink is so foule dirty and stinking as a sinful earthy and uncleansed soul For answer I deny that there is any sacriledge or irreverence in a Ministers giving the Sacrament unto unworthy persons who are not such juridically provided still that he use all lawfull likely means to keep them off And the Schoolmen themselves confesse as much concerning hidden and secret sinners as also when a Minister cannot avoid the giving of it unto them without scandall or some other great inconvenience Indeed the dignity and holinesse of the Sacrament is sacrilegiously violated by the irreverence of unworthy receivers But God hath not left his Church infallible means to keep his Name and Ordinances from irreverence And the Minister is not guilty of this irreverence in unworthy receiving though he give them the Sacramental Elements if he do what lyeth in him to keep them off and when he cannot hinder them he give them the Elements with regret with a mourning and bleeding heart I shall conclude my answer unto this Objejection with that of Suarez praedictâ disputatione Section 4. Ipsemet Christus vult ut aliqua ejus injuria potius permittatur quà m indebito modo ac ordine caveatur It is Christs will rather that there should be a permission of wrongs and injuries unto his Name Ordinances and Sacraments then that they should be prevented by unlawfull means in an undue either order or manner A second generall Attribution of the Lords Supper from whence it is endeavoured to conclude to the sinfulnesse of giving it in any case unto such as are known by the Minister to be unworthy receivers is its being a seal of the Covenant of Grace the righteousnesse of Faith For hence think some it followeth that administration of the Lords Supper unto known scandalous and wicked persons is a practicall and visible lye a confirmation of an untruth because it seals the Covenant and Promises to those who have visibly no share in them For answer The Lords Supper may be said to be a seal of the Covenant or Promise of Grace either absolutely or conditionally The truth of the Covenant and Promises in themselves our obligation to gratitude and obedience are sealed absolutely by the Lords Supper but interest in the Covenant and Promises of Grace the Lords Supper sealeth unto those that partake thereof but conditionally so they beleeve Unto wicked men the Promises are as propounded so sealed but conditionally Sacramenta saith Amesius non sunt Testimonia completa absoluta nisicredentibus They are saith Rutherford seals unto the wicked not in actu secundo but only in actu primo See Mr. Marshall in his defence of Infant Baptisme against Tombs pag. 117.118 The last sort of Objections proving that it is a sin to give the Lords Supper unto known scandalous sinners is drawn from the consequents that will follow upon distribution of the Sacramentall Elements unto them First transgression of the Rule of Christ Secondly pollution of the Sacrament Thirdly a participation of the sinne of unworthy receivers Fourthly a Communion with wicked men in worship c. First then upon a Ministers giving the Sacramental elements unto them there will follow a transgression of the Rule of Christ which by my owne confession excludeth scandalous sinners c. For answer Upon a Ministers giving the Sacramental elements unto known scandalous sinners that are not such by Church censure for of such only we speak there will follow a transgression of the Rule of Christ but by whom by the known scandalous sin in unworthy receiving by the Church-guides in case the Church be Presbyterated if
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