The Covenant Sealed, Treatise · Chapter 7 · Section 16

The Covenant Sealed · Treatise · Chapter 7 · Section 16

p. 249SECT. XVI. An enquiry into the power authorized to judge of mens meetneſſe for the Lords Supper.

THe adaequate ſubject of Sacraments being found out, and ſome diſcovery made of thoſe, that according to Scripture principles ſtand in a preſent aptitude for actual admiſſion; A great queſtion yet remains. Who muſt judge of this fitneſſe,Who are to judge of mens preſent aptitude. ſo as to approve of men as ſuch, and Authoritarively to refuſe, or paſſe by others; in which we may ſeem to be much in the dark, finding no one expreſſely ſet up for that work, nor any Scripture-precedent of any that have taken upon themſelves ſuch power. And herein men have been very different in their thoughts;The various claimes that are made to this power. The Church of England heretofore hath veſted the Miniſter in ſole power, as appears in Canon 26. which provides. That no Miniſter ſhall in any wiſe admit to the receiving of the holy communion, of his cure or flock, which be openly known to live in ſin, notorious without repentance nor any who have maliciouſly and openly contended with their neighbours, untiil they ſhall be reconciled. As alſo the Rubrick to the ſame purpoſe. It is true that thoſe that made it their buſineſſe to ſcrue up Epiſcopal power to that height that it could not bear, did interpret this of ſuch notorious offenders, that by the Ordinary had been ſo adjudged, and under preſent cenſure, expreſſely contrary to the very words of Canon 27. requiring every Miniſter ſo repelling any ſuch upon complaint or being required by the Ordinary to ſignifie the cauſe unto him and therein obey his direction; In caſe of ſuch a preceding cenſure upon the perſon thus refuſed, he had beforehand his direction, and complaint is then ſuppoſed to be made onelyonly for his obedience, in refuſing thoſe that according to command given, were to be denied. The Schoolmen generally go this way, putting the ſole power into the hands of a Miniſter, not ſo much diſputing it, (ſo farre as I have read) as taking it for granted. Suarez putting it to the queſtion,aaUtrum teneantur Miniſtri hujus Sacramenti non dare illud homini exiſtenti in p…c…ato mortali? Whether the Miniſters of this Sacrament are bound not to give it to a man in mortal ſinne? p. 250anſwers,bbreſpondetur certum eſſe habere Miniſtros hujus Sacramenti hanc obligationem ſimpliciter & abſolute loquendo. That they are ſimply and abſolutely under ſuch an obligation, mentioning none that are over them, or aſſiſtent to them in it. And in his firſt reaſon he ſaith, ThatccEx quibus ſequitur primo, hanc obligationem oriri ex ipſa lege naturali ac divina ſuppoſita tali Sacramenti inſtitutione, & poteſtate ac munere commiſſo Sacerdotibus. this obligation doth ariſe from natural and divine Law an inſtitution of the Sacrament being ſuppoſed, and ſuch commiſſion given to the Miniſters; ſo that he doth no more queſtion the Miniſters authority in this thing, then he doth the inſtitution of the Sacrament it ſelf, Suarez in tertiam partem Thomae, quaeſt. 89. diſput. 67. ſect. 1. And Thomas puts the queſtionddUtrum Sacerdos debeat denegare corpus Chriſti peccatori petenti? whether a Prieſt ought to give the body of Chriſt to a ſinner ſeeking it? part. tertia, quaeſt. 80. Art. 6 without mention of any other in power for it. The Fathers were alſo of the ſame judgement, we need not quote teſtimonies from them, of excluſion of men from the Sacraments, he that will be furniſhed. let him read Mr. Gilleſpy Aarons rod, lib. 3. cap. 17. And we read of no other joyned with the Miniſter for that work. Dionyſius Areo pagita, who is reckoned amongſt ancient Writers, though not of that ſtanding to be Pauls Scholar, Hierarch. Eccleſ. cap. 3. pag. 3 having ſpoken of thoſe that were poſſeſt with Devills and tormented, called Energumeni, and of flagitious perſons, ſaith,eePrimi igitur iſti & quidem rectius quam illi Miniſtri officio & voce ſeparentur. Let theſe therefore firſt, and much rather then the other, be ſeparated by the voice and office of the Miniſter. It was then accounted to be his office, to ſee to that work. That of Chryſoſtome frequently quoted for excluſion of ſcandalous perſons from this Supper ſpeaks fully to the power of diſpenſers for it, Homil. 83. in Matth. Let no cruel one, no unmerciful one, none any way impure, come unto it. I ſpeak theſe things to you that do receive, and alſo to you that do adminiſter, even to you this is neceſſary to be told, that with great care and heedfulneſſe you diſtribute theſe gifts: there doth no ſmall puniſhment abide you, if you permit any to partake of this Table, whoſe wickedneſſe you know, for his blood ſhall be required at your hands. Other reformed Churches place, for the greater part, this power in the Elderſhip, preaching and ruling Elders joyned together in Conſiſtory. Thoſe of the independant Congregational way, judge it meet, that the whole Church, even all the body of the faithful, ſhould have their vote in it. The beſt way for the diſcovery of truth, is to hear what each part have to ſay for themſelves, and then to p. 251examine proofs brought, together with inconveniencies that may be objected, and are like to follow from any one of theſe, by whom power is claimed: and laſtly, to pitch upon that which we judge to be moſt ſuitable to Scripture, and to anſwer the inconveniences charged upon it. For that party that can ſpeak moſt of reaſon according to Scripture-rule, and whoſe way is followed with feweſt inconveniences, may in all reaſon lay the faireſt claim to it. But to do this throughly, were an endleſſe labour, in which we might take in the whole diſpute about Church Government, which would be an outlet, farre bigger then this whole work. Thoſe that veſt the Paſtor in this power, ſay,

1. He is the ſteward of the Myſteries of God, 2 Cor. 4.1.Allegations for a Miniſters ſole power. And as ſtewards in great families, have the care of ordering the food of the whole houſehold: ſo they being called to this honour, are to have the like power in the Church of God.

2. They alone are to diſpenſe this ordinance, as upon a manifold account may be made good, and in due place (God willing) ſhall be ſpoken to.

3. The adminiſtration of Sacraments belongs to the power of order, wherewith Miniſters are ſolely veſted, and not to juriſdiction, as is granted; and therefore his prudence muſt guide him in diſcerning the parties that are to partake of it. A faithful and wiſe ſteward, diſcerns the ſeaſon when to give portions of meat to the houſehold, Luk. 12.42. as alſo the perſons to whom he is to impart it. This learned Mr. Jeans ſaith, is the opinion of the Schoolmen, though he is pleaſed to ſay, They are extreamly out in it, in denying the debarring from the Sacrament of the Lords Supper to notorious offenders, to be an act of juriſdiction; and and ſo they (ſaith he) put it into the hands and power of a Miniſter to deny it thoſe that he judgeth to be goſſe and ſcandalous ſinners. pag. 46. quoting a full and pertinent paſſage out of Suarez. in tertiam partem Thomae. tom. 3. diſput. 67. Sect. 3.Haec diſpenſatio vel denegatio Sacramenti non eſt conſideranda, ut actio jucialis, vel inflictiva poenae, ſed ſolum, ut prudens ac fidelis adminiſtratio Sacramenti; & ideo non pendet ex teſtibus aut probantionibus, ſed ſolum ex ea Scientia & cognitio ne quae prudenti exiſtimatione ſecundum occu…entes circumſtantias judicatur ſufficiens ut ſine inc…mmodo poſſit, & debeat negari Sacramentum. This diſpenſation, or denyal of the Sacrament, is no judicial act, or impoſition of a penalty; but onelyonly a prudent and faithful adminiſtration of it, and therefore doth not depend on witneſſes or proofs, but onelyonly on ſuch p. 252a knowledg and underſtanding of the thing; which by a prudential eſtimate according to emergent circumſtances may be judged ſufficient that without any inconvenience the Sacrament may be denied.

4. If this power be denyed to aM iniſter, many times it ſo falls out, that of neceſſity, either the adminiſtration of the Sacrament muſt be wholly ſuſpended, (which ſome of reverend worth have largely ſhewed to be of dangerous conſequence) or elſe the Miniſter muſt be neceſſitated to diſpenſe it to thoſe that are moſt unfit to partake of it. In abundance of places no ſuch power of juriſdiction is ſet up, nor can be expected, and food is neceſſary when we want a rod.

Allegations for the power of an Elderſhip.Thoſe that contend for the Elderſhips power in it, affirming that it belong to them and no other; Firſt, diſtinguiſh of the adminiſtration of the Sacrament, and admiſſion to it; confeſſing that adminiſtration belongs to the power of order; but admiſſion, as they ſay, belongs to juriſdiction. Now juriſdiction is in Elders, together with the Paſtor, not ſo narrow, as to be ſeated ſolely in the Paſtor; nor ſo large, as to take in all the people. Secondly, They diſpute largely from the inconveniences that will follow, in caſe it be left ſolely in the hands of the Miniſter, or put promiſcuouſly into the hands of the people; and therefore to avoid both of theſe extreams, they veſt the whole Elderſhip, and onelyonly the Elderſhip in power with it.

Allegations for the power of the people.Thoſe that plead for the power of the people, ſay; Firſt, that they muſt in duty avoid ſuch in their converſe, that are thus under cenſure; and therefore are to have a hand in, and to be called to counſel about it. Secondly, That in excommunication the people are to have a hand, (we find the Apoſtles direction for it, 1 Cor. 5.4.) and conſequently inſuſpenſion, and ſo they conclude, that the power is in all the faithful. I muſt freely profeſſe, that the firſt of theſe (which hath been longeſt in uſe) takes moſt with my judgement, as that which hath moſt ſtrength of reaſon for it, and attended (for ought I can yet ſee) with leaſt inconveniences. In which (I ſuppoſe) I ſhould yet have concealed my ſelf, had not the preſent juncture of time, and ſtate of things, put ſome neceſſity upon me (treating of theſe things) to ſpeak my thoughts. Were Elderſhips in Congragations ſetled in their deſired power, and that order ſet up, and accordingly followed, I ſhould ſo have prized the peace of the Church, as not p. 253to have caſt any bone of contention in a buſineſſe of this nature ſo diſputable; and where an error of that hand is, of no ſo great danger. As I have without ſcruple acted in that way, ſo I am not willing to caſt ſcruples into the thoughts of any; my reaſons will afterwards ſufficiently appear; But things being in that poſture as now they are, and for ought is ſeen, like enough to continue; Sacraments muſt be wholly diſcontinued, or anabſolute promiſcuous liberty granted to any man, woman, or child, to receive it; unleſſe it may appear that the Paſtor according to prudence may manage it. I ſhall therefore endeavour, 1. To ſatisfie the claimes that are made on the contrary for other intereſts. 2. I ſhall give anſwer to the objections brought againſt a Miniſters ſole and ſingle power. 3. I ſhalt limit this Doctrine with ſome needfull cautions to avoid miſtake. Firſt, I muſt ſpeak to them that ſay, power is committed of Jeſus non uni, ſed unitati; not to any ſingle preaching Elder or Paſtor, but to an Elderſhip; preaching and ruling Elders joyned together, for which (excepting the arguments drawn from the inconveniencies of placing it onelyonly in one) this is the ſumme of all that I find ſpoken;Allegations for the power of an Elderſhip taken into conſideration. That the power of Diſcipline is given by Chriſt, not to one Elder, but to the united company of Elders; and for one Miniſter to aſſume this power to himſelf, is to make himſelf the Church, it is to make himſelf a Congregational Pope: It is a bringing in of a power into the Church, that would have ſome reſemblance (as is objected) to auricular confeſſion. This argument takes that for granted which is moſt in queſtion, (and that which Mr. Jeans ſaith, the Schoolmen do deny, that this is an act of juriſdiction,) and belongs to the power of Diſcipline; and this being barely affirmed, or rather onelyonly ſuppoſed, it may be as eaſily denyed. But I would give ſome reaſons of my denyal of it, and then the whole of the argument falls.

Firſt,Reaſons evincing that admiſſion to the Lo…ds Supper is no act of juriſdiction. This power of juriſdiction ſuppoſed to be in the whole Elderſhip, is either reſpective to the whole buſineſſe of the Sacrament, or elſe ſolely to the admiſſion or refuſal of men for participation of it. If it reſpect the whole work, then thoſe that are not commiſſioned to preach Goſpel-promiſes, may yet apply Covenant-ſeales. They that have no call to open and ſhew forth the Myſtery, have authority to diſpenſe the Elements, Reaſon 1 which is againſt the judgement of the Learned of this opinion: If it barely reſpect admiſſion, and not adminiſtration, then (unleſſe p. 254we had expreſſely the mind of Chriſt to the contrary) it will appear to be the greateſt of ſoloeciſms, to give a man commiſſion for a work, and then to leave him to the courteſie of others, not otherwiſe intereſted in it, for the exerciſe of it. There did a complaint lye againſt Biſhops, giving commiſſion in Ordination large enough to preach the Goſpel; yet afterwards would not ſuffer it, without a licenſe from their Courts to be put into action. This at the firſt ſight looks much like it; when Miniſters ſhall receive power of order, which comprizes Word and Sacrament: the Goſpel with the ſeal; yet may not act in it, without an Elderſhip to overſee it, who as to adminiſtration are wholly Heterogeneous.

Secondly, If no other Miniſterial act, is to be preregulated Reaſon 2 (as I may ſay) by any power of Diſcipline, or the exerciſe of it to be ſuſpended, till they know the pleaſure of men in juridick place and power, then there is no reaſon ſingly and ſingularly to ſubject this of Sacramental adminiſtration to it. This propoſition hath all reaſon in it; But there is no other Miniſterial act that is to be thus preregulated, or the exerciſe of it thus ſuſpended; Ergo there is no reaſon ſingly and ſingularly to ſubject this of Sacramental adminiſtration to it.

Thirdly, If the diſpenſation of the promiſes be committed Reaſon 3 to the Miniſterial prudence of the diſpenſers, without any jurisdiction put upon them, or any other in a way of jurisdiction aſſociated with them, then there is no reaſon to be given but that they may according to Chriſtian prudence, in like manner diſpenſe the ſeales, without any ſuch juriſdiction or aſſociation. This I ſee not how any can deny, ſeeing the promiſes are delivered upon the ſame termes as the ſeales: But the diſpenſation of the promiſes is committed to their Miniſterial prudence, and no other aſſociated in juriſdiction with them; This cannot be denyed. It followes then, that according to Chriſtian prudence, they may diſpenſe the ſeals, without any aſſociated in any juriſdiction with them. If any ſhould object, that it will follow from hence, that the Sacraments are to be delivered unto all, to whom the promiſes are tendered; This I ſhall grant with theſe three limits. 1. That thoſe to whom they are tendered, profeſſedly accept them, otherwiſe the Sacraments may be delivered to Heathens. 2. That there be ſome competency of underſtanding of them, otherwiſe the moſt ignorant of the Catechumeni p. 255were not onelyonly to come to Baptiſme, but to the Lords Supper. 3. That they do not openly and reſolvedly in their courſe of life go againſt their engagements in them. In ſuch caſe the promiſe may be tendered to Heathens, to groſſely ignorant and flagitious ones, and yet the ſeal for preſent upon theſe grounds withheld.

Fourthly, Where power for any work is committed to one, Reaſon 4 and no other named to be imployed with him, there the work is left to the ſole care and prudence of him to whom it is committed, and not by power of juriſdiction veſted in many: But the work of adminiſtration of Sacraments is committed to one, and no other named to whom it is committed. The Propoſition cannot be denyed, and I know not how the Aſſumption can be anſwered. The concluſion then followes.

Fifthly, If Miniſters have not onelyonly been veſted with power Reaſon 5 for adminiſtration, but actually alſo have adminiſtred with approbation, without any juriſdiction, then it is no act of juriſdiction. This cannot be denyed, ſeeing that if it were the mind of Chriſt that a juriſdiction ſhould be ſet up for adminiſtration, then the diſpenſers muſt have ſtayed for it (as Saul ought to have done for Samuel) before adminiſtration: But Miniſters have not onelyonly been in power for adminiſtration of Sacraments, but have actually adminiſtred with approbation without any juriſdiction: They have done it in unofficed Churches, where no juriſdiction had place; this is evident. To ſay nothing of Johns Baptiſme, inſtance might be given in the baptiſme adminiſtred by Chriſts Diſciples we find the Eunuch, the Jayler, and others baptized, and no Elderſhip conſulted. Chriſt delivered the Lords Supper where no Elderſhip was ſet up; and in caſe, Act. 2.42. be underſtood of the Lords Supper, (as is generally conceived) there can be no contradiction; ſeeing that it is not imaginable that as yet that order was eſtabliſhed with them.

If any ſhall object, Object. that a command lay upon them to adminiſter the Sacraments, which muſt in this caſe of neceſſity be obeyed, and the duty not neglected, though an Elderſhip for a more orderly and regular carriage be wanting.

To this I anſwer, Sol. Omiſſions ſeem better to me then a prohibited, or a diſorderly proceeding, expreſſely againſt a Command, or Ordinance of Jeſus Chriſt; The Arke had better ſtayed where it was, then a new Cart ſhould have carried it in that diſorder p. 256to the place appointed for it; Better that Saul and Vzziah had let ſacrifice alone, then any to whom it did not appertain, ſhould have undertaken it. This therefore with me is not cogent, unleſſe it be confeſt, that there is no precept reſpective to ſuch juriſdiction, when there is a command for adminiſtration. I never ſaw ſufficient reaſon given, that a man ſhould break an expreſſe rule given in Command from God, rather then omit a duty of meer poſitive inſtitution: Jeroboam muſt rather have no ſacrifice then that Dan or Bethel ſhould be the place for it: And in caſe ſuch neceſſity may dſpenſe with irregularities, why may we not on the other hand be irregular? and in ſuch neceſſary want of a full and compleat order, the Miniſter who is one, and the firſt in the number of ſuch an Elderſhip, to take upon him the whole work, rather then on the one hand the adminiſtration ſhould wholly ceaſe, or on the other hand promiſcuouſly diſpenſed, where there can be no poſſible benefit received. To this I confeſſe, I was for ſome time much inclined, till that upon further examination and debate, reaſon enforced me to conclude, that the Miniſter by Divine appointment is authoritatively himſelf veſted in power for admiſſion or denyal. And if I be driven out of this, and all theſe arguments here laid down fully ſatisfied, I ſhall rather believe that the Miniſter who is one party in the power pleaded for, as before, may rather act alone in ſuch neceſſity, then either the authority it ſelf be wholly laid aſide, or Sacraments totally diſcontinued.

Object. If any ſhall further object, That Chriſt and his Apoſtles had virtually all offices in them, ſo that if that order could not ſo ſoon be eſtabliſhed among them; the defect in this impoſſible caſe was ſufficiently ſupplyed by the Apoſtolical Office.

Sol. I anſwer. What power ſoever was veſted in them, yet it appears not, that at once they exerciſed the power of all of them, but acted orderly in an aſſociation when it was required. Paul Ordained Timothy by laying on of hands, but not alone, but as aſſociated in a Presbytery, his hands were laid upon him, 2 Tim. 1.6. and the hands of the Presbytery were laid upon him, 1 Tim. 4.4. He ordered the inceſtuous Corinthians excommunication; but this he did not alone, but with the Church-Officers, 1 Cor. 5. And if the Apoſtles Office had virtually all in it, yet it may be queſtioned whether it were ſo with Philip, unleſſe we can make it good (which is by few believed) that he was Philip the Apoſtle.

p. 257Sixthly, That which hath neither any law in Scripture for it, Reaſon 6 nor any ſet up for execution of it, is no Church-cenſure to be proceeded in, by vertue of juriſdiction; This is plain: But in Scripture there is no Law enacted for proceeding in ſuch a cenſure, nor men ſet up for to proceed in ſuch a juridick way; Therefore it followes that this is no Church-Cenſure. If any ſay. The Keys imply this power, and thoſe that receive the keys, are ſet up in power; I anſwer, That Sacraments are within the power of order, which is diſtinct from juriſdiction, and contains no cenſure; and Keys in juriſdiction imply a letting in, and ſhutting out: now this is a Cenſure of thoſe that remain within, and neither ſerves for letting in, nor excluſion.

7^thly, If thoſe muſt be kept back from the Sacrament in a prudential Reaſon 7 way, on whom no ſentence in way of juriſdiction ought to paſs, then this rather belongs to prudence then to juriſdiction; This is plain: But thoſe are to be kept back on whom no ſentence in a way of juriſdiction ought to paſs; This is alſo plain, Juriſdiction for cenſure is not, but in caſe of crime, & many are detained upon defect in judgment, no criminal charge being laid againſt them: Ergo.

Eighthly, The detaining of that from, or denyal of it to any, Reaſon 8 which they cannot improve for their benefit, but viſibly tends to their danger, is no juridick act of penalty, but a prudential care for his advantage from whom it is thus detained, and to whom it is thus denyed; This is clear. To deny drink to an Hydropick perſon, or fleſh-meats to one in a Feaver, garlick or onions to a wounded perſon, or full of ulcerous ſores, is not to inflict a penalty, but to exerciſe a prudential care: But this denyal of the Sacrament to, or detaining it from the ignorant, &c. is onelyonly to withhold that which viſibly tends to danger, and cannot be improved for any advantage; Therefore it is no juridick penalty, but a buſineſſe of prudential care. And here an Objection which carries moſt colour of all that can be ſaid, is prevented, and already anſwered. To debar a man upon the grounds of ignorance, error or ſcandal from that which otherwiſe were his right, and proper intereſt, belongs to the power of juriſdiction; and is a cenſure: But in this a man for ignorance, error or ſcandal, is debarred of that which otherwiſe is his right, and therefore it belongs to the power of juriſdiction; and is a Church-Cenſure. To this upon the grounds before laid down, is anſwered, To debar a man of his right to his ſenſible prejudice, and to hold from him that which p. 258would be his preſent livelihood and comfort; is indeed a penalty or juridick cenſure; as to ſequeſter a man from his houſe and Lands, to disfranchiſe a man of his Trade, &c. But for a Parent, a Nurſe or Phyſician, to order dyet as moſt for health, and to withdraw ſome food when digeſtion will not bear it, and it evidently appears to be of danger, is an act of prudence, and no cenſure; and ſo a Miniſter is conſidered in the, adminiſtration of Word and Sacraments.

Reaſon 9 Ninthly, If admiſſion to, or excluſion from other Ordinances of eminent height and excellency, to which all are not promiſcuouſly admitted, be left to prudence, and not to the exerciſe of any Juridick power, then there is no reaſon to take this out of the Miniſters hand, and put it over to any ſuch powers: But excluſion from, and admiſſion to other Ordinances of eminent height and excellency, to which all are not promiſcuouſly admitted, as private Faſts, and doubtful diſputations, Matth. 9. Rom. 14. is left to prudence, and not to the exerciſe of any juridick power: Ergo.

Reaſon 10 Laſtly, If this be an act of juriſdiction to admit to the Sacrament, and keep off from it, then there muſt be a Law of Jeſus Chriſt in it, a Goſpel-Ordinance for it; This is plain: Jeſus Chriſt hath not left to his Officers an arbitrary Goverment, he hath left no Commiſſion to rule at pleaſure: as they are to ſpeak, ſo they are to act according to his will, and pleaſure known: But no ſuch Law, no ſuch Ordinance of Jeſus Chriſt is found in Scriptures. A command we have in the Goſpel for adminiſtration of Sacraments, as well Baptiſme as the Lords Supper; and Covenant-intereſt is our Directory (as you have heard) to lead us to thoſe that have fundamental, intereſt in them: But concerning excluſion of any thus enrighted, there is nothing by way of Ordinance written: Therefore this can be no act of juriſdiction. The Aſſumption is that which many will queſtion; It lyes upon them then to quote this Law, to make known this Ordinance of Jeſus Chriſt: But inſtead of that, I ſhall ſhew upon what grounds it yet appears to me that there is none at all. If any ſuch be, it is either in plain, and full words expreſt, ſuch as the Law given to Iſrael, to put out of the Camp every leper, and every one that hath an iſſue, or is defiled by the dead, Numb. 5.1, 2. or elſe it muſt be ſuch as is deduced by fair conſequence from the nature and uſe of the Sacrament, or preparation to it, or benefit received by it; That p. 259there is no Ordinance in ſuch plain, full words, needs not to be doubted; In all that enquiry into this ſo much controverted buſineſſe, it would have been long ſince produced. In caſe it be deduced from any ſuch conſequence as hath been ſpoken, it will hardly be made good to be an inſtituted Law, or conſtituted Ordinance. Mr. Firmin hath well excepted againſt the proof of inſtitutions by ſyllogiſmes, though to his great diſadvantage, in that diſpute of a Church-Covenant. Where there is an Ordinance in power, (as there was for excluſion from the Paſſeover) proof may be made up by conſequence for the latitude to diſcern who thoſe be that are within the verge of it, and concerned in it. But conſequences will hardly prove the enacting, and inſtituting of it: I ſhall be willing to gratifie Mr. Tombs in this, that parity of reaſon will ſet up no inſtitution. A good cauſe is wronged, when Ordinances of this nature are pretended, and cannot be produced; and on the other hand, when a Miniſteriall prudence in the Stewards of Chriſt is undervalued, which might ſupply it. Let it be granted, that there is no Ordinance to debar an unexcommunicated man from the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, yet a promiſcuous admiſſion will not follow; when the end and uſe of the Sacrament is conſidered, it will appear to them that have the care and charge about it, that ſome are not in a preſent aptitude for it. There is command for the preaching of the Word in a way to edification, 1 Cor. 143, 12. yet the particular way of application ſuitable to mens capacities, ſo as to give milk to babes and children, and ſtrong meat to thoſe of growth, that have their ſenſes exerciſed, to diſcern between good and evil, is not done by any vertue of any ſpecifick particular inſtitution, but the Miniſters prudence: VVhichWhich prudence was exerciſed by Paul, 1 Cor. 3.1, 2. Heb. 5.12. by Chriſt himſelf, Joh. 16 12. There is no Ordinance for admiſſion to, or excluſion from private Faſts, or punctual direction, who are to be called, and received, or who paſt by; yet our Saviour Chriſt from the high nature of the duty, concludes that it is not for novices in the faith. And as it is a point of prudence, not to put a piece of new cloth in an old garment, (unwrought cloth ſome underſtand) there will be a double inconvenience, the weakneſſe of the one will not bear the ſtrength of the other, and ſo the rent that was before will be made greater, and the whole garment become uncomely and unſuitable: nor yet to put new wine (which p. 260is windy, and working) into old bottles, the weakneſſe of ſuch a veſſel being not able to bear it: ſo neither had it been a point of prudence in our Saviour Chriſt, to have put ſuch an auſtere diſcipline upon the necks of his newly entred diſciples.

Matth. 7.6. vindicated.Matt 7:6If any ſhall object that Text, Matth. 7.6. Give not that which is holy unto dogs, neither caſt ye pearles before ſwine, as I know it is produced as an Ordinance for the withholding of this Sacrament from thoſe that are ignorant, and ſcandalous; I ſhall deſire the Reader, for anſwer, to take it into conſideration, whether it be not more agreeable to the Text, to make it an exhortation to an holy prudential circumſpection in the diſpenſation of holy things in general, (whether in a private, or a publick way) then to make it a diſtinct peculiar Ordinance about any one piece or part of worſhip. Making it a peculiar Ordinance, we ſhall run our ſelves upon inextricable difficulties: Our Saviour laying it down in an indefinite way, All whatſoever that is holy, muſt there be underſtood; and pearles, and holy things are the ſame, one being exegetical of the other; holy things excelling other things, as far as pearles excel acorns. And by doggs and ſwine, both which were unclean in the Law, we muſt underſtand all that Scripture comprehends under thoſe names; they are both put for one, 2 Pet. 1.21. and ſo the reſult of all is, that no perſon in viſible uncleanneſſe muſt taſte of any thing that is holy. From which it followes, that as Chriſt thought it not fit at that preſent to gratifie a Heathen with a miracle, when he ſaid, It is not meet to take the childrens bread, and caſt it unto doggs, Matth. 15.26. So it will at no time be meet, or lawfull to preach the Goſpel to any heathen, or impenitent and unclean Chriſtian, they being no other then dogs or ſwine, and the Goſpel the moſt precious of holy pearles; but underſtanding it as an exhortation to Chriſtian prudence, and obſerving the reaſon added, leſt they trample them under feet, and turn again and rent you, theſe abſurdities and ſnares will be avoided; and the reſult of all will be onelyonly this, that the holy things of God, and rich Goſpel-pearles, are not to be communicated, where there is no poſſible expectation of doing good: But all the iſſue of it will evidently be danger to him that doth impart them, and all ſcorn and contempt of the holy things themſelve; which was the Apoſtles way of dealing, when the Jewes were filled with envy, contradicting and blaſpheming, Act. 13. and is frequently p. 261given in counſel by the Wiſe man, Rebuke not a ſcornor, leſt he hate thee: He that rebuketh a ſconer, getteth to himſelf a blot, Prov. 9.7. And the words being thus underſtood, though the Sacrament be not ſolely intended, yet it is not wholly excluded, being of the number of thoſe holy things, about which there ſhould be all Chriſtian prudence.

That Text alſo, 1 Cor. 5.11. is produced by ſome,1 Cor. 5.11. vindicated.1 Cor 5:11 as holding out an Ordinance for ſuſpenſion from the Lords Supper, But now I have written unto you, not to keep company. If any man that is called a brother, be a fornicator, or covetous or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner, with ſuch an one no not to eat. But it is more then ſtrange, that when the Apoſtle ſpeaks not at all of the Lords Supper in that Chapter, that he ſhould in thoſe words (in ſuch a ſort delivered) make an Ordinance about it. And it is clear in the Text, that the Apoſtle gives direction about the common courſe of our life, to ſhun all voluntary and free converſe, out of choyce for that end which he ſpecifies, 2 Theſſ. 3.14. And if any man obey not our word by this Epiſtle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be aſhamed. I will not ſtand to diſpute any conſequence that may be drawn from civil commerce to that which is religious, ſeeing (as I have ſaid) conſequences will not bear any inſtitution, or new ſetting up of Ordinances; and here I know there can be none at all, ſeeing this which the Apoſtle forbids, or rather from which he diſſwades, is in our own choyce, where we may forbear; and that at the Lords Table is of neceſſity, where we muſt obey; we are not to forbear our duty, though another that ſhould be kept back doth obtrude himſelf. If thoſe, Numb. 9. which were defiled by a dead body, had come in their uncleanneſſe unto the Paſſeover, as thoſe of Iſſachar and Zebulun did, 2 Chr. 7.30. others for their ſakes ſhould not have kept abſent. Neither of theſe Texts therefore hold forth an Ordinance, but both of them Chriſtian prudence: one of them reſpecting things civil, the other that which is ſacred and religious. Thus I ſuppoſe that argument is taken off which is drawn from a ſuppoſition, that admiſſion to the Sacrament is an act of juriſdiction, in which I have been large, ſeeing I well know that many are of a different judgment. If any can produce reaſons of more ſtrength on the other hand, I ſhall be ready to yield. In the mean ſpace theſe with me are cogent, and p. 262force me to conclude, That this in queſtion is an act prudentiall, not juridicall.

Inconveniences objected againſt the ſole power of the Miniſter.As for the Objections that are brought from the inconveninces following from a Miniſters ſole and ſingle power in this action;

1. That before mentioned, that to put the Miniſter into any Object. 1 ſuch power, is to ſet him up as a Congregational Pope, is already anſwered, in denying it to be any act of juriſdiction, and many other things will difference him from any Lordly or Pope-like rule: 1. He may erre. In his adminiſtrations he is not infallible. 2. He may be call'd to queſtion upon mal-adminiſtration, and by an authoritative juridick determination be ordered to reform. If a Miniſter Pope it in all that he doth alone, he will be found Pope-like in many things that he doth according to the mind of Chriſt Jeſus.

Object. 2 2. As to the other that hath been mentioned, that it hath ſome reſemblance of auricular confeſſion; This reſemblance will be found to have very much diſſimilitude in it. We enquire after knowledge in the myſtery of Chriſt, and not acknowledgment of ſin. We declare to men known crimes, and do not adjure any by way of whiſper to make them known. Interlocutory Catechiſmes that are by queſtion, and anſwer, may be called by that name, as well as this practice.

Object. 3 3. Whereas it is ſaid, It is for one man to make himſelf the Church, it is a miſtake: It is no more then to make himſelf a ſteward in the Church; that is, to act in his own perſon, as a ſteward ſet in the Church by Chriſt Jeſus.

Object. 4 4. Men would not put their lands, nay, their goods and cattel into the hands of any one perſon; And we cannot then think that the Lord hath put the interereſt of his people in the body and blood of Chriſt to a private diſcretion. Anſwer 1. Men are many times put to it, to put their lands, goods, and cattel to the arbitrement of one and many judge it better to be in the hands of one, in ſuch a caſe (if of worth and place) then of many aſſociated; and have had experience of it. 2. It is not a Chriſtians intereſt in the body and blood of Chriſt, that is thus referred to the diſcretion of any. I would not put that into the hands of a general Councel; none but God is to be truſted with it: Nay it is not their intereſt in the elements, but their aptitude at preſent to partake, in which ſome muſt judge, or elſe all promiſcuouſly muſt communicate.

p. 2635. It is objected, it is like this way to go ill oftentimes with Object. 5 the deſerving members of the Church, and ſuch as moſt deſerve ſhall leaſt feel the ſeverity of this cenſure; wicked Miniſters would keep back whom they pleaſe. Anſwer 1. We can truſt it no where, but through corruption there will be danger, and no where ſo much as in the Congregational way; when a faction ſhall gain a plurality of votes & it becomes a Church, then all is without redreſſe, and Elderſhips oftentimes are as likely to over-rule a Miniſter for corrupt proceedings, as to ballaſt, and keep him from them. 2. What freedom ſoever the bad may hope to gain from any ſingle hand, the good for the moſt part may be without fear, ſeeing that in publick adminiſtrations goodneſs ſo far overawes, and mens own reputations that diſpenſe them ſo prevaile, that they are in little danger of ſuſpenſion. 3. Such a ſuppoſed wicked Miniſter acts either where there is a government over him, to call into queſtion his irregularity; ſo that the wronged may have right upon appeal and complaint, or elſe, where there is no government at all, but each mans will may be a rule. In caſe there be ſuch a government, there is a redreſſe; and what he would willingly do, that he is kept from doing. In caſe there be none ſuch, but all diſorder prevails, then there is no more danger in his adminiſtration at pleaſure, then in his delivery of Doctrine at pleaſure; there is more fear of him from the Pulpit, then from the Communion Table. And when it is committed to his prudence to divide the Word, I ſee no reaſon but that he may divide the Bread and Cup. So that all things conſidered, I ſuppoſe it to be moſt conſonant to Scripture, that it be left to a Miniſters prudence, according to Scripture-rule to manage it.

It is further ſaid, that this is to aſſume a power without any Object. 6 warrant, or power from Jeſus Chriſt. No text can be produced in which any ſuch power is given.

To this I anſwer, None that would take this power from the Miniſter, can own this objection: It is of equal force againſt any other hand. Let them ſhew where any other is ſet up for it, and we will preſently yeeld it. Thoſe onelyonly that are for promiſcuous adminiſtration, can with any pretended colour in this way object it: and to theſe I ſuppoſe enough hath been ſpoken, that it is a neceſſary reſult from that power that is given for adminiſtration of this Ordinance: All Ordinances muſt be ſo diſpenſed, p. 264that they may profit; where profit cannot follow, there is to be no diſpenſation.

Allegations for the power of the people taken into conſideration.As to the claime of thoſe of the Congregational way before mentioned the former failing, this falls with it: They both agree that it is an act of juriſdiction, in which one party will have all to vote, the other onelyonly the Elderſhip. But when it appears that it is an act of prudence, and not of juridick cenſure, either of both are at loſſe for their intereſt. If theſe have power by their vote to let in, and keep from the Sacraments, it is either as diſpenſers of theſe Myſteries, or by vertue of a juridick power of rule and government veſted in them. That it is not as diſpenſers, themſelves will acknowledge, for they cannot in a joynt way thus adminiſter: neither can it be by virtue of any juridick power of rule and government. In caſe it were granted, if all are in place of rule, where then are thoſe that are ruled, and under government? If every member be an eye, where is the foot? The Apoſtle ſalutes the Saints, and thoſe that rule over them, Heb. 13.24. Here are no Saints but what are Rulers: Obey them that are over you in the Lord, ſaith the Apoſtle: theſe muſt obey one another. If theſe thus govern, and this be an act of their government, then no man muſt be admitted to the Supper, but together with it he muſt be veſted in Church-power, and rule; None muſt be a member, unleſſe he be a Commander: Chriſt's Army muſt have all leaders, no followers; all Commanders, no common Souldiers: by this means either worthy Communicants muſt be ſhut out, or men unfit for rule promoted, ſeeing every godly man that hath the ſpirit of ſanctity, hath not preſently a ſpirit of rule. Hence will follow, that confuſion by the experience of many found, and complained of by Mr. Blackwood, Mr. Firmin and others, not to be ſuſpected of partiality; And when they argue from their power in excommunication, to their power in barring from this Ordinance, as the antecedent is to be denyed, ſo the conſequent is falſe. All the faithfull are not to decree excommunication: The meeting together mentioned, 1 Cor. 5.4. was not of members, but officers, there being more Congregations then one in Corinth, as is juſtly preſumed, and in ſome Churches is undenyably proved; and therefore their members could not meet about any act of government, but officers onelyonly. So alſo the conſequence is falſe, and though excommunication were in their power, yet the power of adminiſtration of Sacraments, p. 265and mens admiſſion may be in an other hand, as a prudential act. And ſo every part of the argument is found faultie. It is true that excommunication being a juridical ſuſpenſion from all Church-Communion, and Participation in Church-priviledges, comprizes in it ſuſpenſion from the Lords Table, as he that is caſt out of the houſe, is no more ordered for his diet in the houſe, but kept from it. Yet there may be a non-adminiſtration by the Miniſter where there is not any ſuch Church-cenſure. A Chriſtian in his minority (ſuppoſe of the age of ten, or twelve years) is not upon the account of his minority to be excommunicated, yet he is not of that age, as to be admitted to the Lords Supper. And whereas it is ſaid, that it is their dutie to avoid ſuch in their converſe, that are thus denyed; I anſwer, that were it granted to be a Church-cenſure formally executed, Mr. Rutherford hath ſufficiently anſwered, that their duty to avoid them under cenſure, is no argument that they are to have an hand in the cenſure: But being denyed to be any formal cenſure of the Church, there needs no further anſwer, and they are to avoid them no further then the manifeſtation of their condition, according to Scripture-grounds, gives them occaſion: So they muſt avoid children, youth and all others that are not competently inſtructed in Goſpel-wayes, and (according to the principles of many of them) all thoſe that are not highly verſ'd in Chriſtian Myſteries. And as for crimes that carry the name of ſcandal, the Miniſter is in a publick way to debar none, but upon known manifeſt evidences openly ſeen; of which any may be competent witneſſes. And in caſe they ſuffer wrong by the Miniſters imprudence or otherwiſe, they are not to ſuffer farther by other mens avoiding their ſociety, and communion. The community of the faithful therefore having no power of juridick cenſure, they have no colour of claime to it under any ſuch a notion. And being no formal cenſure, Elderſhips that have that power, are not formally qua rulers veſted in it. It therefore remains, that it is an act of prudence in the diſpenſer, and no act of juriſdiction in them that have right of cenſure, or inflicting of penalty.

Some cautions are here needful for a right underſtanding and to avoid miſtakes in that which hath been delivered.Cautions to be obſerved in theſe proceedings.

1. This which hath been ſpoken, muſt not any way be underſtood Cauti. 1 p. 266to be prejudicial to Church government, or the power of Church cenſure. For though Governours are not to be conſulted before theſe ſeals be diſpenſ'd, yet government ſtill ſtands in due power notwithſtanding; of this we have all cauſe to be tender, ſeeing whileſt ſome diſpute in what hand to place it, others take their advantage quite to aboliſh it: But that Scripture ſpeaks of a Government diſtinct from that which is in the hands of civil powers, is a truth that carries ſuch evidence, that it can with no colour of truth be oppoſed. As the Romans divided that ſtate into Senatum populumque Romanum, implying that ſome were in power of Governing, and others were to yield ſubjection; the Spirit of God himſelf makes like diviſion of the ſtate of Iſrael into Elders and people, Ruth. 4.9. So the Apoſtle to the Hebr. in like ſort diſtinguiſheth Chriſtians: Salute the Saints and thoſe that rule over you, Hebr. 13.24. Some were without any power for rule, and theſe are ſtyled Saints without any further addition; others are in power for Government, and theſe have their juſt title given them. The ſame title that is given to Cyrenius in Syria, to Pilate in Judea, Luke 2.2. Luke 3.1. is given by the Apoſtle to theſe here mentioned. A military or politicall word (ſaith one) which is ſpoken of a publick perſon who is poſſest of power either in Common Wealth, or Army. And if thoſe other texts of the Apoſtle be conſulted, Hebr. 13.17. 1 Tim. 5.17. 1 Tim. 5.19. 2 Cor. 2.6. and 5.12, 13. 1 Theſ. 5.12. (to mention no more) ſo much will eaſily be found in them, that ſpeaks a government within the Church it ſelf, not going out of its own limits. Whether ſome texts ordinarily produced hold out ſo large an enumeration, as is by ſome bottom'd upon them, may happily be diſputed; but that there ſhould not ſo much as any government at all be ſpoken to cannot be imagined: which thing in reaſon is alſo plain, 1. The Church is a ſociety, a viſible Kingdom, an incorporation, a body, and when all of theſe have their lawes, governours, cenſures, puniſhments, it cannot be thought that this ſociety ſhould herein ſo farre differ, and be ſo farre inferiour to all other ſocieties, as to be wholly deſtitute: when all others enjoy government, governours, for their ſtrength. defence and more compleat being, the Church alone ſhall be like that City which the Wiſe man ſpeaks of, broken down, and without walls, Prov. 25.28. 2. The Church conſiſts of men, as do other ſocieties ſubject to failings, p. 267yea, to enormities, and exorbitances in judgement and practice. There hath no age paſt in which the Church hath not had her ſchiſms, errors, and ſcandals. No ſociety or body politick is ſo like to run upon miſcarriages, ſeeing the lawes to which Chriſt ties, are ſo averſe to our natures, when we can bear others; we are apt to ſay, we will break theſe bonds, and caſt them away from us. Satan envies no other ſociety, or bond of men, as he doth the ſociety, or bond of Chriſtians. His kingdome will conſiſt together with all other ſtates and kingdomes; they may rule, and he rule likewiſe; onelyonly this of Chriſts Kingdome, is wholly averſe to Satans; and militates againſt it, for the ruine of it. 3. The Church from the beginning hath exerciſed this power within it ſelf, when all other powers were adverſe, and contrary to it. How long was it before the Church had a Chriſtian Magiſtrate, and lay under the perſecution of heathen ſtates? in all which time a diſcipline vvas yet kept up. If the Church had no ſuch povver, hovv could it then exerciſe it? 4. The Churches that have been remiſſe in their improvement of this povver, have had their check from Chriſt himſelf in glory. He manifeſts his diſpleaſure from heaven againſt the Church of Pergamos, that they had thoſe that held the doctrine of Balaam, and the doctrine of the Nicolaitans; and againſt the Church of Thyatira, becauſe they ſuffered Jeſabel to teach and ſeduce his ſervants, Rev. 2.14, 15, 20. The cenſure that lyes upon the Kings of Judah upon neglect of reformation in their time, argues that they vvere in povver for it. So the cenſure of theſe Churches upon like account argues their povver in like manner. Even thoſe that plead moſt for freedome of conſcience, and liberty in religion, vvith all impunity from the civil povver, yet confeſſe from theſe and like texts, a povver vvithin the Church it ſelf for cenſure of delinquencies. To all this ſome are ready to ſubſcribe (as being not able to gainſay the clear Scripture evidence of a povver Eccleſiaſtical) and confeſſe, that it vvas ſo in thoſe times, but novv they contend that the caſe is othervviſe. Providence hath ordered a change of things, and all is ſwallowed up in the hand of him that is chief in power, ſince the time that the Church hath enjoyed Kings for her nurſing fathers, and Queens for her nurſing mothers, not barely accuſing them of error that diſſent in opinion, but charging them to reſemble thoſe ſons of Belial, that upon the Iſraelites inſtitution of Kingſhip, were ungratefully asking this p. 268queſtion, How ſhall this man ſave us? 1 Sam. 10.27. Making good their aſſertion of a change of this nature by this ſimilitude, As in the firſt Church among the Jewes whileſt they were in a wandring condition, as their need was greater, ſo Gods perſonal providence, and guidance of them was more expreſſe, and apparent, and therefore whileſt they were in this Theocraty, their government was not to be managed by any ſetled univerſal authority, beſides that of God himſelf, or any one who took not in all weighty things immediate direction from him, until ſuch time as being throughly ſettled in peace, and ſecurity from their enemies he might make his receſſe, and permit and appoint to them a King of their own Nation; So in the firſt founding of the Chriſtian Church during the time of their perſecution, as their weakneſſe required, were in a Theocraty too, guided by the expreſſe direction of our Saviour himſelf given to the Apoſtles during the time of thoſe fourty daies that he was converſant with them upon earth; but now after the time that God hath perfected the time of the Churches deliverance, and free eſtabliſhment in peace, and reſt from all about her, and the Prophecy is fulfilled by appointing Kings her nurſing fathers, and Queens her nurſing mothers, and having ſons to be ſet as Princes in all Lands, ſo that now under Conſtantine the uproomes, and wandring Tabernacles, (as formerly under Solomon) are converted into ſtately temples, for men now to think of their running into their Wilderneſſe, and perſecuted condition, by entertaining thoſe temporary forms which unto that condition were moſt fit, doth import both ingratitude and murmur againſt God, and imprudence towards themſelves. Thus farre this ſimilitude. But thoſe of this opinion I doubt would take ill that free dealing toward themſelves, which they uſe toward others, and that upon their caſting off all Eccleſiaſtical government, under the notion of temporary forms, we ſhould apply that ſpeech of the Lord himſelf to Samuel, concerning the people of Iſrael upon their reſolution to make a change in government, 1 Sam. 8.7. They have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I ſhould not reign over them. And to make the diſſimilitude in this ſimile further apparent, it ſhould I ſuppoſe be taken into conſideration, that when God was pleaſed firſt to permit, and then appoint a King over Iſrael, that the former fabrick of Government written in the Law was not taken down, but the whole Levitical order ſtill ſtood, as to all purpoſes preſcribed of God; the change was no more, nor further but in him p. 269that rul'd in chief. Inſtead of one raiſed by an immediate hand of God, as their exigence required, they now had one after the manner of other Nations, of conſtant ſtanding. And God forbid that we ſhould murmur, that the Church hath her ſons for Princes, and that thoſe that rule over us, ſerve the Lord Jeſus with us. But we think that theſe ſervants of Chriſt thus raiſed in honour, ſhould ſee that what Chriſt hath ſet up ſhould be aright managed, and that they ſhould have that inſpection, as the Kings of Judah had, to rectifie what they find out of order, but not to pull down any thing that Jeſus Chriſt had raiſed up, no more then the praiſe-worthy Kings of Judah, did that which Moſes had preſcribed; eſpecially ſeeing the Lord Chriſt, even in the ſpace of thoſe forty daies before mentioned, aſſerting his pleni-potentiary power that he had received from his Father, and giving power to his Church, declares it to be of that laſting tenure, to continue to the end of the world, Matth. 28.18, 19, 20. And becauſe theſe words which import this continuance, are variouſly interpreted, and ſome will underſtand them with limit to the end of the Apoſtles age, ſeeing the age of a man is often ſet out by the word ſeculum, the ſports at Rome which were ſeen once in mans age, were called ludi ſeculares, and ſo we have this text againſt us. But againſt this interpretation let the Reader obſerve, 1. The frequent uſe of the phraſe, foreign, to the end of the world by this Evangeliſt, chap. 13.39. The harveſt is the end of the world, ver. 40. So ſhall it be in the end of this world, ver. 49. So ſhall it be in the end of the world; and, Matt. 24.3. Tell as when ſhall theſe things be, what ſhall be the ſign of thy coming, and of the end of the world? none of all which can be underſtood of the end of one, but of all ages. 2. Let the context there be conſidered; Chriſt there promiſes his preſence in the work of diſcipling all Nations, but that was not the work of one age onelyonly, many ages are paſt over, and yet many Nations are not diſcipled. His preſence is promiſed in the Word and Sacraments, which muſt have their continuance till Chriſts ſecond coming, 1 Cor. 11.26. The Apoſtles words, Heb. 9.26. may well ſerve for a comment on theſe words of our Saviour; the alone place (as Gomarus notes) where this phraſe is uſed, excepting the texts out of Matthew mentioned: But now once in the end of the world he hath appeared, to put away ſin by the Sacrifice of himſelf. There are two ages of the world, one determining upon Chriſts ſuffering, p. 270reſurrection, and aſcenſion; the other commencing at that time, and concluding at the end of all time; and therefore the ſpace betwixt Chriſts firſt and ſecond comming is ordinarily called the laſt daies. Chriſt dyed at the conſummation of the firſt, and the promiſe of his preſence is made till the conſummation of the ſecond; and the power given and received, is no otherwiſe temporary.

Cauti. 2 2. Neither is this to make for the prejudice of the office of ruling Elders,Ruling Elders not hereby prejudiced, Various opinions concerning them. concerning whom there is in the Church ſo hot diſpute. Some own no ſuch power, but make it to be a new device not heard of before this laſt age. Others plead a divine right for it, and produce Scriptures that appear to ſpeak very fair that way, though they meet with very ſhrewd objections. A third not inſiſting upon any ſuch formal inſtitution, being jealous that the texts held forth will ſcarce bear it out, yet concluding that the whole body of the faithful have their intereſt in government (Church Government being neither Monarchical, nor purely Ariſtocratical, but mixt with a Democraty) they bring in ruling Elders, not as officers ſet up by any immediate inſtitution, but as repreſenters of the people. So that as Knights appear in Parliament, not in their own names (as the Peers of the realm heretofore have done) but in the name of the reſpective Counties, and Burgeſſes in the name of their reſpective Corporations; ſo ruling Elders choſen by the vote of the people, have no other power, but what they exerciſe in the name and right of thoſe that ſet them up. Paſtors have their power primitively veſted in their own perſons by immediate appointment of Chriſt Jeſus. Theſe have power by way of delegation from them that authorize and appoint them; others yet are not at all diſpleaſed with this power, but upon neither of the former grounds, but as a prudential courſe for the more eaſy and orderly regulating of the affairs of the Church, in caſe either the chief Magiſtrate ſhall ſet them up, or the Church it ſelf by his appointment, allowance or connivance: Aſſerting a liberty in the chief Magiſtrate, or Church for this purpoſe, That as in the Jewiſh Sanedrim, there were of the people appointed to aſſiſt the Prieſts, both in civil, and ſacred affaires, ſo when nothing to the contrary appears in New Teſtament-times it may be ſtill ſo provided. As the Church might ſet up ſome to determine Controverſies, and prevent lawſuits, 1 Cor. 6.4. and might appoint a brother to be joyned with p. 271Apoſtles, to receive and disburſe the Churches Alms, 2 Cor. 8.9, 10. And the Church of Antioch might delegate ſome to be preſent at the debate, and determination of the Apoſtles and Elders of Jeruſalem in a caſe then controverted, Act. 15.2. ſo it is not unlawful with prudent limits to appoint ſome that may be aſſiſtant to carry on Church Government. I ſhall not determine on what bottome it is ſafeſt to fix them; I onelyonly ſay, that I do not ſee how the Church can well want them. And though Mr. Mede (whom ſome adore as their oracle for antiquity,Apparet ex his quae diximus in munere adſeſſorum, qui nonnullis in locis in uſu ſunt (quos diſtinctionis cauſa temporarios aut laicos praeſbyteros appellare poſſumus) nihil eſſe quod poſſit reprehendi. Non deeſſe in pia antiquitate exempla, quae ſi non plane conveniant, certe ad hunc morem accedunt. Quae urbs, ſi non prima foreign, certe praecipuos ejus defenſores edid…t. and all deſervedly magnifie) calls it a new device, yet Grotius of no leſſe eſteem, ſpeaks with more favour, Imper. Summar. poteſtat. circa Sacra. Cap. 11. After a large diſcourſe about them, He ſaith, that it appears by that which we have ſaid, that in the office of Aſſeſſors, which are in uſe in ſome places (whom for diſtinction ſake we may call temporary, or lay Elders) there is nothing that may be blamed. Affirming further, that there is not wanting in Sacred Antiquity examples which come very near to this cuſtome, though not wholly up to it. Neither does he make Geneva, with ſome others, the firſt Authors, but onelyonly the chief defenders of this order, inſtancing in the benefit that may hence ariſe both reſpective to the civil Magiſtrate, and Church Paſtors. The ſecond of theſe with me is very rational, and being fixt upon that bottome, though thoſe exceptions hold that are uſually taken againſt thoſe texts, on which their Divine autority is uſually built; yet the order may ſtill ſtand, and thoſe negative arguments which are brought againſt them, from the Apoſtles inſcription of his Epiſtle to the Philippians directed to Biſhops, and Deacons without mention of ruling Elders, as alſo from the diſtinct qualifications required in Biſhops and Deacons with their wives and families, when as to theſe Elders there is all ſilence, may be more eaſily anſwered in caſe it appear that theſe had not any conſtant ſtanding in this work. I onelyonly here ſay that on what bottome ſoever they ſtand, this which I have ſaid can nothing prejudice them.

3. Neither muſt this exempt admiſſion to, or excluſion from Cauti. 3 the Sacrament, from all cognizance of Church power, nor quite take it out of the verge of their cenſures,Not to be wholly exempted from all cogn…zance of Church-power. though thoſe in juridick place be not aforehand conſulted or taken into aſſociation in it. For though it be left ſolely to Paſtors to diſcern thoſe to whom they may diſtribute theſe Elements, as it is to divide the Word, and p. 272give every one his portion, yet upon mal-adminiſtration they may be called to queſtion. If pro imperio they ſhall keep back thoſe that are duly qualified, or admit ſuch that evidently according to Church-determination ſhould be denyed; they are liable to cenſure, as they are for corruption, or imprudence in doctrine. And therefore it was well provided, Canon 27. That he that ſhall repel any from the Sacrament, upon complaint, or being required by the Ordinary ſhall ſignifie the cauſe to him, and therein obey his direction. Preſuppoſing Church power to be veſted in him (who for the moſt part was a meer lay perſon, which might cauſe ruling Elders to ſtand more right in the eyes of ſome perſons) this was well determin'd. Should Paſtors be ſet up for this work, without any appeal or controul, it migbt then indeed be ſpoken to as a grievance.

Cauti. 4 4. It is a Miniſters wiſdome, if it may be, to ſee with more eyes then his own,A Miniſters prudence to take in aſſiſtants. and to take in to himſelf, if they may be had, aſſiſtants in this work; eſpecially to judge of men as to their converſations, and to be witneſſes of their promiſes and engagements in caſe admonition be needful for amendment and reformation. More eyes ſee more then one, and reaſon it ſelf ſuggeſts the convenience of all helps to be taken in to lighten the burden. Paul tells Timothy of the profeſſion that he had made before many witneſſes, 1 Tim. 6.12. as a Motive to be conſtant. An engagement made before witneſſes, carries authority with it, and poſſeſſes with ſhame upon violation of it. Thus the Paſtor alſo ſhall in a great part avoid that charge of partiality, that notwithſtanding all circumſpection he is like to ſuffer. If any object that this is to ſet up officers pro arbitrio, which will make way for the introduction of any upon like grounds of ſuppoſed prudence; I anſwer, this were ſomewhat if he ſhould make over his power from himſelf by delegation, being himſelf in office; But diſcharging his duty in his own perſon, he may doubtleſſe take in all uſefull helps. Paul may make uſe of Tertius to write Epiſtles to Churches, and yet not make him an Apoſtle; Aaron and Hur may ſtay up Moſes his hands, and yet not uſurp Cauti. 5 Moſes his place.

Where an Elderſhip is erected to imbrace them as helpers.5. Where an Elderſhip is erected, then gladly to imbrace them as helpers in the work. Happily they may think their power weakened, and their right denyed in caſe they joyn not in it. If the Paſtor be of another judgement, it is not yet his p. 273prudence to raiſe ſtirs about it. If others come in as aſſiſtant to carry on what he might otherwiſe do alone, he hath ſmall cauſe of grievance; it favours too much of arrogance, and of the ſpirit of ſuch as love preheminence to affect to be alone, though it is ordinarily moſt ſeen in reſolving, and attempting to overrule all where a man confeſſes himſelf to be no more then in aſſociation with others. And for thoſe that refuſe to come where an Elderſhip ſits, it argues too ſullen an humour. Were I an inhabitant in London or like place, I ſhould take my ſelf to be bound to paſſe through all the Elderſhips there, rather then hold out of Communion.

6. In making ſcrutiny into the knowledge of them that offer Cauti. 6 themſelves to deal with all gentleneſſe,To proceed with all gentleneſſe in tryall of mens knowledge. eſpecially towards ſuch as have been of a more mean education; many times ſuch know that which they can ſcarce expreſſe, and ſtrength of affection is often ſeen in plain hearts without any great light. Let theſe be holpen in their words, and let ſpeech be to them in words fitted to their capacity. Let not a queſtion be put of any thing ſave that which is needful to be known; when it appears that the creation is known, and particularly mans eſtate by creation in the image of God, and his fall by ſin, and redemption through Chriſt; ſo that the party can diſtinguiſh the Perſons in the Trinity, to give an account which of them is the Saviour of the world, that each perſon is God, the ſecond God, and man in aſſuming our nature; and withall able to give an account of the death of Chriſt in ſatisfaction for ſin, our way of intereſt by believing, the neceſſity of repentance and a new life, as qualifications of thoſe that ſhall be ſaved: knowing the outward ſigns in the Sacrament, and in ſome competent meaſure their ſignification and uſe; Such may be exhorted with tenderneſſe to grow in knowledge, but not to be kept back as ignorant ones.

7. Neither is a Miniſter upon whiſper of any ſcandal,Not to refuſe but upon known crimes. Nos a Communione quemquam prohibere non poſſumus niſi aut ſponte confeſſum aut in aliquo judicio Eccleſiatico vel ſeculari nominatum at que convictum to ſet Cauti. 7 upon proof by witneſſes, much leſſe to undertake the giving of oathes to that purpoſe, as hath been obſerved out of Suarez: But upon evidence of knowledge of a way in flagitious practices known to him, and ſcarce doubted by any. That of Auſtin is famous, We can forbid none Communion, unleſſe he voluntarily make p. 274confeſſion, and be called and convicted in ſome Court, either Eccleſiaſtical or Civil. I know this is produced by ſome, to prove that a ſingle Miniſter may not in any caſe withhold the Sacrament from any perſon. But this is a great miſtake, it onelyonly proves, that upon any particular charge it cannot be done without due proof, and proof cannot be made without power of judicature, either Civil or Eccleſiaſtical. Aquinas quotes this of Auſtin, Sum. 13. quaeſt. 80. art. 6. and yet he never doubted of the ſole power of the Paſtor in it. It plainly thence appears, that there were both Eccleſiaſtical and Civil Courts, then appointed to take cognizance of crimes, which ſome would make to be inconſiſtent; And that Miniſters did take occaſion upon convictions there, to deny Communion. It doth no more prove that a Miniſter hath no ſuch power, otherwiſe in an Eccleſiaſtical Conſiſtory, then it proves that he hath no power without ſtrength of a ſecular Judicatory. It indeed proves that which it is brought to overthrow, which is the Miniſters ſingle power: The Miniſter makes equal advantage in either Court in his prudentiall proceedings in adminiſtration of the Sacrament.

Cauti. 8 8. As it is concluded by many that place power of admiſſion in an Elderſhip, that a Miniſter wanting that aſſiſtance, may then deliver the Sacrament to thoſe from whom otherwiſe; he ſhould withdraw his hand; and a learned Treatiſe is written to that purpoſe wanting authority to do what regularly might be done; He is not withſtanding (as is ſaid) to do his duty in adminiſtration. So I might, I think, with as much reaſon ſay, that in caſe a Miniſter be overborn with power in his people, that he cannot do that in debarring of thoſe which his judgement leads him to deny,When a Miniſter cannot do what he would, he muſt do what he is able. without evident hazard of the utter diſturbance of the peace of his place, he is ſcarce to run the hazard; when he cannot do the good that he would, he muſt do the good that he can; he is to do ſo much the more in publick warning of the ſin, and the danger, as he can do the leſſe in authoritative denyal, and withholding his hand from them. If it might appeare to me that God hath veſted an Elderſhip, and no other in that truſt, I think it were ſcarce ſafe to put a mans ſelf without them upon adminiſtration, laſt it ſhould be like to that of Saul, when he forced himſelf to offer a burnt-offering, becauſe Samuel came not in the appointed time: But no ſuch thing appearing in Scripture, nor any ſufficient reaſon evincing it, I take it to be in p. 275the Miniſters hands ſo to diſpenſe it, as the Church may receive moſt of edification by it. And when he is ſo overruled that he cannot act as he would, he muſt act as he can. A Steward ſet over the houſe, and a Commander or Leader in any Army is ſometimes put upon ſuch neceſſities. Suarez is as zealous as any other againſt the delivery of the Sacrament to thoſe that are unworthy of it, yet bounds it with this caution, If the Miniſter may do it without inconvenience; And putting the objection, That not to give the Sacrament to an unworthy perſon is a negative precept, that binds ad ſemper, to all times, and therefore never to be done. He anſwers that this Precept is not ſimply Negative, but is to be reduced to an Affirmative, which is prudently and faithfully to diſpenſe this Sacrament, which being formally taken is alwayes to be obſerved, as often as this Sacrament is adminiſtred, and ſo it comes to paſſe that if it may be, it is to be denyed to thoſe that are unworthy, not that it is alwayes to be denyed upon any inconvenience whatſoever.

Nor let any charge me as being too indulgent to ſuch men, ſeeing none that I know of any party is of another mind. They that ſtand for Elderſhips, will have this done by the Miniſter, when the Elderſhip overrules it. And thoſe of the Congregrational way, when the Congregation in the majority, votes for it. And may not the Miniſter do the ſame thing when he ſees that he is put upon like or greater neceſſity in it? The Churches edification in the firſt place ſhould be conſidered, but the peace of the Church by no means neglected; alwayes provided, that unworthy ends of ſelf-advantage, puſillanimity, baſe compliances (which may be as ſoon ſeen in the majority of a multitude, as in one ſingle perſon) do not over-rule it, and may be our temptation in diſpenſation of the Word, as well as the Sacrament, and with all care, courage, ſtudy, prayer, to be avoided; That the Apoſtles ſevere charge, 1 Tim. 5.21. may be conſcienciouſly heeded, Doing nothing by partiality.