Want of Church Government No Warrant for Omission of Lords Supper, Postscript
A Poſtſcript.
Chriſtian Reader,
I Thought good to acquaint thee that I have received from one Mr. Fulwood a pretended examination of my Arguments, for the lawfulneſſe of adminiſtring the Lords Supper in an Un-Presbyterated Church: and unto it I have pen'd a very large Reply, for which I am exceedingly blamed by my beſt and moſt knowing friends who unanimouſly tell me, that it is very unfit ſo worthleſſe a Paper ſhould have the honour of a Refutation. If the Author therof think that he hath any wrong by this cenſure, he may right himſelfe by making it as publike as he pleaſe. Moſt of what he ſaith, is either anſwered in this my book, or elſe the abſurdity of it is ſo groſſe and apparent as that it carrieth a refutation in its own forehead. Indeed there be but two things conſiderable in this pretended examination: An Anſwer, and an Objection.
The Anſwer is unto my Argument à Praecepto. The ſum of it is, That the Command to celebrate the Lords Supper is not immediate, but mediate and conditional; not binding, but upon pre-ſuppoſal of a preparative work of the Presbytery, &c
For reply unto this, firſt, all the proofe that he brings for its being a mediate Command, is in 1 Cor 14. ult. unto which I ſhall preſently give anſwer.
Secondly, An immediate Command doth not exclude the Command of all Antecedent duties, but only of ſuch upon which the Duty commanded hath an eſſentiall dependency; and anſwerably a mediate Command is that which obligeth not proximè & immediatè unto the performance of that which it commandeth, unleſſe there be performance of Antecedent duties upon which it hath an eſſentiall dependency, or an exiſtence of any other Antecedents that are before the duty enjoynd, in regard of that order which is of eſſential dependency.
To give an inſtance of this. The Command to be aſſured of our Juſtification, Vocation, &c. is only mediate, and doth not bind immediately, before there be a performance of an Antecedent duty, upon which it hath an eſſentiall dependence, to wit the faith of adherence, before there be an exiſtence of the Objects Vocation, Juſtification, &c. which are Antecedents unto this aſſurance, in regard of the order of eſſential dependency. It is not therefore the abſence of of every Antecedent that doth ſuſpend, much leſſe evacuate & annul the Obligation of a Command; but only the wants of Antecedents neceſſary by Phyſicall Obligation. A due ſerious and diligent preparation is enjoyned as an Antecedent unto hearing of the word, and unto publike and ſolemn Prayers; and yet I hope Mr Fullwood dare not ſay that upon want of preparation there is a ſuſpenſion of the Obligation of theſe Commands of God, to heare and pray: And that in ſuch a caſe not to heare, not to pray, are at the moſt but mediate ſins. It is generally reſolved by all the Caſuiſts that ever I ſaw, that when we come unto a duty and do not find our hearts prepared according unto that we do deſire; that we are not yet for that time to let go the duty, and forbeare the performance of it. If any one (ſaith Mr. Burrows in his Goſpel-Worſhip) in anſwer unto the Queſtion) performe a duty in Worſhip in that ſincerity and ſtrength that he is able to do, though he be not prepared as he ought, yet he is better to do it then to neglect it. And he applieth this his anſwer unto receiving of the Sacrament, as well as the Word and Prayer, as may be ſeen by his propoſall of the Queſtion.
Againe, There are divers things required in the call and Ordination of a Miniſter that are by Gods command to be Antecedent unto his preaching unto his flock. Some of which are wanting in ſuch Miniſters as were ordained by Biſhops.
But becauſe they are not Antecedents eſſentially neceſſary unto the preaching of the Word, by the want of them, the Obligation unto the preaching of the word is not ſuſpended, much leſſe annulled. And yet it is not denied but that the want of them is ſinful, for which ſuch Miniſters ought to be humbled. Scotus lib. 4, Diſtinct. 12 Queſt. 3. num. 32. thus limits this Propoſition. Deſtructo priori, destruitur poſterius. Vera eſt (ſaith he) de ſimpliciter priori, à quo ſcilicet dependet poſterius, non autem de illo quod aliquo modo eſt prius, à quo tamen poſterius non dependet eſſentialiter. He ſpeaks of things Natural and Phyſical, but it is alſo appliable unto things moral. The omiſſion of a duty that is by Gods command Antecedent unto another, doth not ſuſpend, much leſſe nullifie the Obligation unto the conſequent duty; unleſſe there be an eſſentiall dependency of the conſequent duty upon the Antecedent duty.
But now to make application of this unto the Lords Supper; Although the Presbyterating of a Church, and the exerciſe of Juriſdiction by an Elderſhip be enjoyned by God as Antecedents unto the adminiſtration and receiving of the Lords Supper; yet it doth not hereupon follow, that upon want of an Elderſhip, an omiſſion of the exerciſe of Juriſdiction, the command to adminiſter and receive is ſuſpended, much leſs extinguiſhed; unleſs you can prove, that there is an eſſential dependency of the adminiſtration and receiving of the Lords Supper upon the Presbyterating of the Church, in which it is adminiſtred, and the exerciſe of jurisdiction therein. It implieth a contradiction, and is utterly impoſſible for a thing to be without that upon which it eſſentially dependeth: But it doth not imply a contradiction, it is not impoſſible for the Lords Supper to be adminiſtred and received in an Un-Presbyterated Church; Therefore the adminiſtration and receiving of the Lords Supper doth not eſſentially depend upon the Presbyterating of a Church, upon its having Ruling-Elders; and conſequently the Command of adminiſtring and receiving the Lords Supper is not in reference unto the Command of ſetling an Elderſhip, only a mediate Command. Unto the proofe of this Mr Fullwood may apply thoſe Arguments alleadged by me to prove, That the excluſion of ſcandalous and groſſe ignorant perſons is not a neceſſary Antecedent unto the adminiſtration of the Lords Supper by Phyſical Obligation, unto which Mr Fullwood hath given no anſwer at all.
Thirdly, Suppoſe we ſhould grant, that the Command of adminiſtring and receiving the Lords Supper be mediate, with reference to the Presbyterating of a Church, yet Mr Fullwood will gaine little thereby, if he underſtand, as he muſt, the Command concerning the Presbyterating of a Church to be not de Eventu, but only de Conatu; and if withall he put a difference betwen guilty and innocent perſons, thoſe who hinder or do not what lyeth in them to farther the ſetling of an Elderſhip; and thoſe who pray, ſigh, and uſe all other lawfull meanes for the compaſſing of it. That the Command to have a Church Presbyterated, to have Ruling Elders, is to be taken only de Conatu, concerning an endeavour of it, will not, I think, be denied by Mr Fullwood. And indeed, it were not unreaſonable to underſtand it de Eventu, concerning the event, concerning an actual Presbyterating of the Church: for that may not be in our power to effect. The whole Church may be over-powred by the Magiſtrate, and the beſt affected Party in a Church may be over-borne by a Major part that may be diſ-affected unto Presbytery: Now if it ſhould be granted unto Mr Fullwood, That the Command to receive the Lords Supper did not bind immediately, but only mediately, upon pre-ſuppoſal that we had done our endeavour, and uſed all lawful meanes for the erecting of an Elderſhip; I do wonder what advantage ſuch a Conceſſion can yeild unto his cauſe But now if he ſhall contend, that after we have uſed our utmoſt endeavour to erect an Elderſhip, and cannot poſſibly prevaile, that we are then by that which is meerly the fault of others, diſ-obliged from the receiving the Lords Supper. Firſt, I ſay that for this aſſertion Mr Fullwood cannot bring ſo much as any colourable Argument. Then ſecondly, It makes the Lords Supper to have an eſſential dependence upon an Elderſhip, which I have before refuted.
The ſecond only thing that is conſiderable in Mr Fullwoods Book, is an Objection which I ſhall give you in his own words and then returne a brief anſwer unto it.
Mr Fullwood.
While we will uſe this Sacrament in a Church Ʋn-Presbyterated do we not thus directly oppoſe and violate that Command of the Spirit of God by the Apoſtle, 1 Cor. 4. ult. Let all things be done in order. We on both ſides acknowledge that there ſhould be the exerciſe and act of Juriſdiction, that there ſhould be Ruling Elders elected and ſetled in our Churches for the ſame end, for our more orderly proceeding in this holy exerciſe: But becauſe we cannot have an Elderſhip as, and ſo ſoon as we would, we will have the Sacrament as, and ſo ſoon as we can, If we cannot have it with, we will have it without our Saviours, or any order; how keep we then the named Precept, do all things, and this ſure amongſt the reſt, do all things in order. Firſt, ſettle Elderſhip, then upon their preparitive work, by the acts and exerciſe of their Juriſdiction adminiſter the Sacrament according unto our Saviours order.
Anſwer.
Theſe Miniſters and people that have done their endeavour and uſed all lawfull means for the ſetling of an Elderſhip, do not at all violate the command of the Spirit, 1 Cor. 14.40. Neither doth that which you ſay prove it at all, as will eaſily appear; if you pleaſe to put your Argument into forme; for then it ſtands thus. If there ſhould be the exerciſe and act of Jurisdiction, if there ſhould be Ruling-Elders elected and ſetled in our Churches for our more orderly proceeding in the adminiſtration of the Lords Supper; then thoſe that have uſed all lawfull means for the exerciſe of Juriſdiction, for the election and ſetling of Ruling-Elders and cannot prevaile, they directly oppoſe and violate that command of the Spirit. 1 Cor. 14.40. if they adminiſter and receive the Lords Supper. The conſequent is moſt extreamly falſe, and is not back'd ſo much as by any colour or ſhadow of reaſon. And indeed you can never make it good, unleſſe you can prove either that there is an eſſentiall dependency of the Lords Supper upon the Elderſhip, or elſe that there is a command to delay and deferre the adminiſtration of the Lords Supper until an Elderſhip be erected.
Mr. Fullwood.
Moreover this Command hath with it the force of a Negative, namely let nothing be done in diſorder.
Anſwer.
This Propoſition, Let nothing be done in diſorder is ambiguous and may be underſtood two wayes.
Firſt, as a prohibition of diſorder and confuſion in the Worſhip, and Ordinances of God; and ſo it is granted and the conceſſion of it will not prejudice any thing that I affirme.
Next it may be taken as a prohibition given generally unto every one of that Worſhip and Ordinances of God, wherein there is any diſorder committed by our ſelves or others, (though without our default) And ſo it is very untrue; and if granted concerning the diſorder of others, would open a gapp unto a totall neglect of publike prayers, hearing of the Word. For unto thoſe Ordinances wicked men come diſorderly, becauſe unpreparedly. Other mens violation and breach of order doth not diſoblige us from the Worſhip and Ordinances of God; eſpecially when we are innocent of ſuch their diſorder. Nay, if we underſtand the Words as a Prohibition of that Worſhip and Ordinance, wherin there is any diſorder committed: even ſo they are not generally true; for though we come with diſorder & unpreparednes unto the hearing of the Word, and publike prayers; yet we are not for this diſorder to omit publike prayers, and hearing of the Word: for this were the way not to prevent, but to multiply our ſin; and yet I do not deny, but that this diſorder & unpreparednes is a great ſin, for which we ought to be humbled.
FINIS.
End of the text · Henry Jeanes, Want of Church Government No Warrant for Omission of Lords Supper (1650)