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 [Page 2]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 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 [Page 3]Sacrament, seeing we have an expresse command of it, 1 Cor. 11.24, 25, 26. Addit decla­rationem istius clausulae hoc fa­cite. Annunci­ate [...]. Sic m [...]l [...] 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 impera­tiv [...]em postulare, Annun [...]iate do­nec venerit, id est, non solum vos sed etiam vos secuturi credentes usque ad finem mundi deb [...]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 [Page 5]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; 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 [Page 6]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 [Page 7]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 [Page 8]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, quàm 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, [Page 9]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 [Page 11]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 [Page 12]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 2da. 2dae. 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 ma [...]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 [Page 13]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 induci [...]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, [Page 14]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 instance in scandals tending unto sin, occasio­ned by the forbearance of the Lords Supper.

First, There is the scandal of the godly, viz. their wants, and weaknesse both of faith and grace, from want of an Or­dinance appointed and sanctified for the confirmation of faith, and increase of grace by the donour of all faith & grace.

Secondly, Seperatists are hereby encouraged in their sepe­ration from our Churches; because we want a principal Or­dinance of God, which also is laid aside amongst us upon a principle of their own, which was never granted them by the old Non-Conformists; to wit, that a worship is to be omitted for the sin of the worshippers, an Ordinance for the sins of the partakers of the Ordinance.

Thirdly, It staggers many weak ones amongst us, and if not timely prevented, will occasion their totall defection and seperation from us. For though they approve not of their Tenents, yet this will much sway with them; That amongst them they may have an Ordinance, which amongst us is with­held from them, and of enjoying which, they have not any the least hopes, as long as they stay with us.

A fourth scandal is, in that others take occasion by this forbearance of the Lords Supper, to contemne the Lords Sup­per it self, as being by this carriage induced to beleeve, that Ministers despise it, and do not so much for a while forbear, as utterly disclaime the administration thereof.

Secondly, Let us compare these scandals with the scandal which the wicked take by the administration of the Lords Supper, and consider with which of them the Minister may most justly be charged. A Minister can never wash his hands from these scandals which follow upon a totall forbearance of [Page 15]the Lords Supper; whereas having done his duty for preven­tion of that scandal, which the wicked take by administration of the Lords Supper, he stands free from the guilt thereof. My reason for this is, because these scandals which follow upon a totall forbearance of the Lords Supper, are active as well as passive, given by the Minister, as well as taken be the People; whereas the scandal of the unworthy receiver consequent to administration of the Lords Supper, is only Passive, not Active; taken by the unworthy receiver, not given by the Minister. The former scandals, those which follow upon a totall for­bearance of the Lords Supper, flow per se naturally, and kindly from the Ministers neglect or sinful omission of a neces­sary Ordinance of God.

The latter scandal, the scandal of the wicked, their being guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, by occasion hereor is only by accident, by reason, either of their ignorance, or sin­full corruption, and evil disposition. There is a young smatterer in both Divinity, and Philosophy, who hath taken great exceptions against this passage; But he objected nothing worthy of the least digression: I shall therefore take no notice of what he sayeth, but only clear, and explaine mine own meaning. When I say the scandals consequent unto a totall forbearance of the Lords Supper, flow naturally there from: I mean congruenter nature; that is, sutably and agreeably unto the nature of such an omission. The total omission of the Lords Supper is of itself apt, and likely to occasion these above mentioned scandals following thereupon.

All sinful words, deeds, and all sinful omissions, (if discern­able by others) are in their own nature scandalous, they are of themselves naturally apt to scandalize, to occasion sin in o­thers. Now I have proved that a total forbearance of the ad­ministration of the Lords Supper is a sinful omission; and therefore, I think that it is no Paradox to affirme, that it natu­rally occasioneth sin in others.

Again, whereas I said, that the scandal of the wicked or unworthy receiver was only by accident: I meant in genere causae moralis. For in genere causae Physicae, the scandals con­sequent unto a total forbearance of the Lords Supper, are by accident also.

To manifest this, we must distinguish of a twofold cause of the scandal, or fall of another into sin, Physical and moral; The Physical efficacious and neerest cause, is only the ill-dispo­sition and sinful corruption of the Party scandalized; for all other mens words, actions, omissions are but occasions, not causes of sin in genere Physico, they work but objectively, and that is no Physical and real influence. And in this sense I readily grant, that all passive scandals whatsoever, are accidental in re­spect of the words, deeds, or omissions of others; the most enticing practices of others that are, even Satans temptations, have no real and Physical influence upon our sins: but this acception of accidental, is utterly impertinent unto our pre­sent purpose. In a second place then our sinful words, actions, omissions, may be moral causes of other mens scandal, or fal­ling into sin; they may scandalize (to use the words of Ru­therford morally) by contributing a moral influence culpa­bly to the scandalizing of others; to speak plainly, all words, deeds, and omissions of either, that do sinfully and culpably occasion the scandal or fall of others into sin, are moral causes of their scandal or fall into sin. Moralis causa est, quae vere­quidem non efficit, sed tamen talis est, ut ei imputetur effectus. But now if a word or action, do not sinfully, culpably occasion the scandal, the fall of another into sin, but he only be scanda­lized thereby by his own default, that scandal is only termed then per accidens accidental, a passive scandal without an a­ctive, a scandal taken, not culpably given; such was the scan­dal in the Capernaites at Christs preaching, of eating his flesh and drinking his blood▪ John 6.60, 61. So also Christ crucified was to the Iews a stumbling block, 1 Cor. 1.23.

In like manner the Pharisees were scandalized at Christs do­ctrine concerning the cause of defilement, Matth. 15.12. All these scandals were only ex accidente, they were only acci­dental scandals. Now to make application of all this to the matter in hand. The scandals in the godly consequent, upon forbearance of the administration of the Lords Supper, how­ever they come Physically from the sinful corruption and ill­disposition of the godly; vet they proceed also morally from this total forbearance of the Lords Supper, as a culpable and [Page 17]sinful occasion of them; whereas now on the other side, of the scandals in the wicked following upon administration of the Lords Supper, the administration of the Lords Supper is not a culpable and sinful occasion not occasio data, sed arrepta, not an occasion sinfully given, but sinfully taken; even as sin is occa­sioned by the Commandement, Rom. 7.11.13. So that they come therefrom only per accidens, and therefore may fitly be termed only accidentall scandals.

I am willing to say all that I can in behalfe of them whom I oppose; And therefore I shall desire you to consider the ground why such affirmative precepts, as command duties re­lating to others do not bind to alwaies. The duties that they command are principally to this end; That they do good to men for the curing of their evils, Tombs of scan­dalizing. pag. 167, 168. for the farthering of Vertue in them. Wherefore when Prudence sheweth that such acti­ons will be fruitlesse in respect of the end, or contrariwise harmfull, they are to be forborne. But now the admini­stration of the Lords Supper is an un-Presbyterated Church is not only fruitlesse, but harmfull unto the wicked; a Mi­nister reacheth out unto them but their poison; they eat and drink their own damnation.

For answer unto this. The great good and unspeakable benefit that redounds to the Godly by administration of the Lords Supper, is a stronger, and more binding Argument for administring it, then the harme which comes unto the wic­ked thereby; is for a totall forbearance, or seldome and rare administration thereof.

To cleare this: Two things are to be proved.

First, That the great good, and unspeakable benefit which redounds unto the godly by the administration of the Lords Supper is a convincing, and should be a prevailing Argument for a Minister, to administer it unto his stock; (notwithstand­ing the harme which comes unto the unworthy receivers) who intrude against the will both of the Minister, and the godly of his Congregation.

Secondly, The harme which comes unto the wicked by the administration of the Lords Supper is a very weake, and in­sufficient Argument to conclude a totall forbearance, or a [Page 18]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 [Page 19]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 [Page 20]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-Presbytera [...]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: 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 [Page 21]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 [Page 22]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 [Page 23]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 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 [Page 24]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 [Page 25]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 [Page 26]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 [Page 27]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 [Page 28]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 Ʋnised Ʋnitati, 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. [Page 30]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 [Page 31]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, [Page 32]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. à 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 [Page 34]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 [Page 35]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 [Page 36]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 M^r. Geree his words for the Baptisme of Infants. They are faederati, therefore they must be signati. It is M^r. 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, [Page 37]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 [Page 38]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 non­administration 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 [Page 39]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 celebrat [...]o inchoari debeat: nempe post introductionem Populi, in terra pa­tribus [Page 40]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, quàm 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 Azymorū 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, [Page 41]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 [Page 42]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.

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 [...]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 [Page 43]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 an [...]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 [Page 44]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 [Page 45]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 circumst [...]tias judicatur sufficiens, ut sine, incommodo possit, & debeat negari Sacra­mentum. S [...]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, [Page 49]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 [Page 50]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. Maj [...]r propositio videtur ess [...] morale quoddam principium, sere ex ipsis terminis notum. Nis [...] haec regula in praedicta publica dispensatione servetur, talis dispensandi modus mor [...] 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 ministr [...]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 p [...]at, non repell [...]tur, nisi debito mod [...], 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 [Page 52]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 [Page 53]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 [Page 54](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 M^r. Aarons Rod blossoming. lib. 3. cap. 10. Gill [...]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 3^am. 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 3^am. 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 [Page 57]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 M^r. 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 M^r. 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 [Page 58]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: [Page 59]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, quàm indebito modo ac ordine caveatur. It is Christs will ra­ther that there should be a permission of wrongs and injuries [Page 60]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 M^r. 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 [Page 61]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 Church­guides in case the Church be Presbyterated, if they either mis­govern or neglect the exercise of discipline; and by the Church, if she (in case she be unsetled and un-reformed) do not endea­vour the choice of Church-officers. But there can be no rule broken by the Minister herein, who hath done his duty for the keeping of them off; for he had never any Rule or Command given unto him, for denyal of the Lords Supper unto unwor­thy Persons, that are not such Juridically; or for delay and suspension of the Lords Supper, in case an Eldership be not set up in a Congregation. In modo recipiendi Sacramenti (saith Suarez) duo possunt considerari: unum est ex parte ipsius Sa­cramenti; scilicet quod vere, integrè & cum debitis circumstan­tiis fiat; Aliud est ex parte effectus Sacramenti, & consequen­ter ex parte dispositionis suscipientis, quae ad effectum est necessa­ria. In tertiam part. Thom. disp. 17. sect. 2.

Now if a Minister give the Sacrament unto known unwor­thy Persons, that are not such Juridically, there is not hereby any transgression of the rule of Christ, in regard of the Sacra­ment it selfe, which notwithstanding this, may fully and en­tirely be administred according to the command of Christ. But there will follow a transgression of the Rule of Christ hereby, in respect of the effect of the Sacrament, and conse­quently the dispositions and qualifications required in recei­vers to make the Sacrament effectual: but this is not a fault chargeable upon the Minister if he do his best to prevent it. More plainly; Corruption and defects, or breaches of the com­mand and rule of Christ in the administration of the Lords Sup­per, are of two sorts; Material, or Personal. First material, when the Worship it self is corrupted, as in the Popish maste, where there is but one element. Secondly Personal, when the Worship it self is in every respect pure, but the Persons [Page 62]communicating, wanting in requisite qualifications; the former are chargeable upon the Minister administring the Lords Supper; not the latter, so he prevent them as farre as in him lyeth.

Secondly, it is objected that upon a Ministers giving of the Lords Supper unto known wicked Persons, there will necessarily follow a pollution and a prophanation of that sacred ordinance; the giving of it therefore unto them is a sin.

For answer; The Lords Supper (and so we may say the like of other Ordinances) may be said to be polluted either intrinse­cally, or extrinsecally. Intrinsecal pollutions are in ordinances themselves when they are so corrupted, that whosoever par­takes of them, in the very partaking, cannot but break Gods order. And so the Lords Supper is polluted in the Popish Masse, where the bread is adored, where they have but one Element, directly against Christ his institution. Extrinsecal pollutions or prophanations of the Lords Supper, (and we may say the like of other ordinances) are, when for want of due qualifications, they become sin unto the unworthy receiver, even as the Prayers of the wicked are an abomination to him. The Toleration of Drunkards and Swearers in the Lords Church, and at his Table, infe­cteth, and is apt to leaven all with their evill conversation, but doth not leaven the worship unto the fellow-worship­pers; Nor is the sin of private Persons, yea, nor of the Ministers, who have no power to helpe them. Rutherford in his due right of Presbyt. But now these pollutions of the Lords Supper by un­worthy receivers, do not defile the Lords Supper in it self, nor to others who receive it worthily. He that eateth and drink­eth unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation, [...] to himself, not to others.

This distinction thus premised; First the consequence of the Argument in the objection is denyed; because the pollution and prophanation of the Lords Supper, that the objection speaks of, is extrinsecal, not in the Sacrament it self, but only in the unworthy receiver. And again, we suppose that the Minister hath used all lawful likely means to prevent it. And therefore it is without his default.

Secondly, the Argument will hold against giving the Sa­crament [Page 63]unto a secret and hidden sinner, that is known only unto the Minister (for such a one pollutes and prophanes the Sacrament, as well as the open and known sinner) and yet those who dissent from us, will not affirme that the giving of it unto such a one is unlawful.

Thirdly, it is objected that a Participation of, or Commu­nion with the sin of others, is a grievous sin, 1 Tim. 5.22. Be not Partakers of other mens sins, keep thy self pure. But to give the Lords Supper to a known wicked Person, is to par­take of his sin of unworthy receiving; and therefore it is sin­full.

For answer, first when other mens sins follow accidentally upon the performance of my duty, this is no participation of other mens sins.

2^ly. a man can't be said to partake of the sins of others, Nullus te net u ut non alterius peccati parti­ceps sit facere quod injustum: injustum autem illud foret, si ille solus arripi­ret sibi potesta­tem, quam so­cietati Presby­terorum credi­derit Deus. Bowls p. 192. when he hath used all due and obliged diligence for prevention and hinderance of them; A man is only to do all that he can by his calling, by Warrant and Commission from Christ to pre­vent sin in another. A Minister therefore, to prevent unwor­thy receiving in scandalous Persons, is not to passe the bounds of his calling, to play the Pope, and usurp that power which God hath seated only in the Eldership. Power being wanting, the will stands for the deed, 2 Cor. 8.12. This is also acknow­ledged by Mr. Gillespy. lib. 3. cap. 15. The suffering of a mix­ture of known wicked Persons among the Godly in the Church, doth sometime defile us with sin, sometime not. It doth not defile us, when we use all lawful and possible reme­dies against it: and namely when we exercise the discipline of excommunication and other Church-censures, saith Augustine. lib. contra Donatistas post collationem. cap 4. Tom. 7. But it doth defile us, and we incurre sinne and wrath, when the means of redressing such known evils are neglected, indiscipli­nata patientia (it is Augustines word) so to bear with wicked men, as not to execute discipline against them; that certainly makes us partake of their sin (I mean in a reformed and well-constituted Church, where the thing is feasable;) but where it cannot be done because of persecution, or because of the invin­cible opposition, either of authority, or of a prevalent pro­phane [Page 64]multitude, Minister per se loqu [...]ndo non potest dare Sacramentum indgno, ne co­operetur pecca­to illius. Ratio est: quia qui indignè recipit Sacramentum, peccat mor­taliter. Ergo qui cooperatur ad talem recep­tionem cooperatur ad peccatum. At nemo magis cooperatur ad talem receptionem, quam Mi­nister qui dat Sacramentum. Becanus. Nulla potest esse major cooperatio ad recipiendum quàm ipsumet dare. Suarez. we have only this comfort left us, Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after righteousnesse; And, in magnis voluisse sat est.

But this objection is somewhat more speciously urged by the schoolmen. He partakes of the sinne of another, who knowingly cooperates thereunto; but a Minister that gives the Lords Supper unto such Persons as he knows to be unwor­thy, cooperates unto their unwo [...]thy receiving; for a man can hardly more cooperate unto the receiving of a thing, then by giving it. Thus Suarez and Becanus.

For answer I may reserre you unto the schoolmen them­selves; Qui autem moraliter non potest negare, sed sola necessi­tate coactus, dat alteri Sa­ [...]tamentum, non cooperatur ad indignam sus­ceptionem, so­lum Physice ad nudam actio­nem [...]cipien­tis. Becanus. In aliquocasu accid [...]repotest, ut Minister moraliter non possit negare Sacramentum homini iniquo petentip [...]opter scandalum vel similem causam. Et tunc quamvis ille det, non coopera­tur iniquae receptioni ut iniqua est, sed solum ut receptio Sacramenti est. Suarez in part. 3. Thom-disp 18 sect. 2. But more fully disp. 67. sect. 4. Respondetur actionem dandi Eu­charistiam homini indigno non semper esse intrinsecè malum, sed tunc solum quando ipse qui dat Sacramentum est aliquo modo causa indignae susceptionis, vel quando commode vel debito modo exercendo munus suum potest vitare, & non facit. Ac denique quando illi constat, eum, qui petit, esse indignum ea scientia & modo quo opus est. At vero quando moraliter vi­tare non potest actionem dandi, quia prava dispositio petentis non est illo modo cognita, quo o­pus est, tum act [...] dandi non est mala ex parte dantis, & intentio ej [...]s est bona, quamvis ex parte recipientis receptio sit mala, quod null [...] modo imputatur danti, quia nullo modo est cau­sa, quòd alius indigne sumat, neque cum actione ejus est per se & necessariò conjunct a indigna susceptia. Quamobrem i [...]i est nulla conperatio ad malum, sed sola permissio quae moraliter vita­ri non potest. Nam qui dat Sacramentum solum cooperatur, ut hic homo sumat, non tamen ut in dignè sumat: Poss [...]t enim si vellet digne Jumere, quam [...]is autem sacerdoti constet, hi & nunc indigne sumpturum, tamen quia non potestid vitare, ideo neque te [...]etur, neque ulla censetur cooperatio sed permissio. what they say, I shall give you in brief; one may be said to cooperate unto known wicked Persons their unworthy receiving either Morally or Physically; he only cooperates unto it morally, that is a cause of the unworthinesse of their recei­ving; and so do all they, and only they, who do not use all en­joyned means to hinder: but now if a Minister hath given all due and obliged dilgence, to prevent the unworthy receiving of wicked Persons, though he gave them the Sacrament, yet he concurreth unto their unworthy receiving only Physically, not Morally, that is, he cooperates with their receiving it, not [Page 65]with the unworthinesse of their receiving it. He cooperates with it as it is an action; but if you look upon it as a sinful and depraved action, so he doth not cooperate with it, but only permit it much against his will, it not being in his power to help it. If any think that this is but a school nicety, a world of stances from common experience will condemne them. Sub­ordinate officers may cooperate Physically to the execution of an unjust sentence, who yet may have no moral concurrence unto the injustice thereof. Subjects may cooperate Physically not morally, unto an unjust warre of the supream Magistrate. The Head of a Colledge having no negative voice, and being over-voted by the major part of fellows, may pro formâ give admission unto an unworthy fellow, and yet not be guilty of any sin in his admission. For he admits him not in his owne name, but in the name of the major part, who have overborn him, he cooperates then unto his admission Physically, not mo­rally.

If a Minister have done all that lawfully he may for the keeping back of unworthy receivers; and they will not­withstanding crowd in amongst the worthy: if after this he reach out the Sacramental elements unto them: although he be active in a Physical sense, he is only passive in a moral sense. It may be a great grief and burthen to his spirit, but yet it is not his sin. Those holy Virgins mentioned in Ecclesiasti­cal history, which to escape ravishment laid violent hands on themselves, are deservedly blamed. For we are not to commit one sinne for the avoiding of another. When we have done as much as lawfully we may, for the resisting of sinne, then whatsoever befalleth, may be (as Augustine said of those Vir­gins) our vexation and misery, but not our sinne. This an­swer may receive strength from this consideration, that re­ceiving of the Lords Supper by wicked and ungodly Persons is a sin not ex objecto & intrinsece, but only by accident, Vtcunque agere videtur, qui Sacramentum indigno inter dignosg [...] tim se admis­centi porrigit, cum tamen fe­cerit quod ei fas ut arceret pastor, non re­vera agit sed patitur. San­ctae illae virgi­nes, quae sibi, nè constupra­rentur manu [...] inj [...]cere violentas, merit ò culpantur: nec enim quis malo obsistendo tenetur, ulera quam fas progredi; ubi fecerit quantum jure potest renitendo, quicquid ultra fit (ut de illis Virgimbus olim Augustinus) ejus vexatio non peccatum. Bowls 290.291. Sacra­menti ceenoe finis quod ad deum, primarius est, ut mors domini commemoretur, ejus recorda­tio à quam plurimis fiat; quidni vel ex eo gloria accedat deo, cum à frequentiori coetu utcun­que non ut oportebat expurgato, sacrum hoc epulum celebratur? Si enim vel ex corvis per in­stinctum Deum invocantib us, gloria [...]i accrescit; sic enim Creator, ut sons omnium bonorum agnoscitur; quidni cum confertìm in unum conveniunt homines, de quibus id lugendum, quod non omni modo ad Christi opus redemptorium celebrandum idonei? fateor, deo ex eo aucti­or cederet gloria si ab iis, qui vitae puritate splendescerent, cultus hic exhiberetur; at, vel ex eo, nonnibil deoredundat gloriae, cum ut mundi per Christum redemptor a cunctis agnosci­eur. Ad tam excellentis beneficii memoriam in Ecclesiâ perpetuendam, conveniunt coetus, ut­cunque non debite praeparatus, numerosior. Bowls 293, 294. ex prava dispositione subjecti; besides as Mr. Bowls observeth, their re­ceiving the Lords Supper may someways conduce unto the pri­mary end thereof, in regard of God: the external shewing [Page 66]and representation of Christs death, the publike celebration of the work of our Redemption, and so may redound somewhat unto the honour and glory of God: for God is in some sort glorified by the outward performance of the duties of wicked men. Now he that cooperates with an action that is good in it self materially or objectively, and only sinful by accident, may be farre from cooperating with the sinfulnesse of that a­ction. For he may no ways be a cause thereof.

Lastly, it is objected that upon giving the Lords Supper unto known scandalous sinners, a religious Communion with them in worship will ensue; therefore to give it to them is a sinne; for what were this but to turn the Communion of Saints into a Communion of sinners?

For answer; first this objection is taken from an Indepen­dent forge, and will not be owned by Presbyterians that un­derstand their own Principles. The old non-Conformists wri­ting against the separation, resolve generally that the Lords Supper may be partaken of in a Church, where scandals are tolerated. For we are not (say they) to omit a Worship for the sins of our fellow-worshippers. You may say as much in the Vindication of the Presbyterial Government and Ministers, by the Ministers and Elders met together in the Provincial As­sembly at London, November 9. 1649. 134.135, 136. Suppose (say they) there were some sinful mixtures at our Sacraments, yet we conceive this is not a sufficient ground of a negative separation.

Secondly, a full and sufficient answer you have to this ob­jection [Page 67]in Mr. Ball, pag. 200 201. In coming to Gods ordi­nance we have Communion with Christ principally, who hath called us thither, is there present by his grace and spirit to blesse his ordinance; and with the faithful, who are there met together at Gods Commandement, in the name and by the authority of Jesus Christ: with the wicked we have no Com­munion, unlesse it be external and by accident, because they are not, or cannot be cast out. Internall and essential Com­munion we have with Christ and the faithful only; exter­nal with the wicked. Our Communion with Christ and his faithful People is not free and voluntary, but necessary, enjoy­ned by God, not left to our will or pleasure. Our Communi­on with the wicked in the ordinances is unwilling on our part, suffered not affected, if we know how to hinder it law­fully. God requireth attendance on him in his holy ordinan­ces, and to joyne with his Voluntaries assembled, where he is present in the midst among them. If we cannot appear before him as duty bindeth, but we must have outward Communion with the wicked, which should be expelled, but cannot be kept back by us: In this case our Communion with God is free and voluntary, but our Communion with the wicked is suffered on­ly, or held in respect of the Will and Commandement of God, who requireth that service at our hands.