The Government of the Churches of Christ, Book 7 · Chapter 7
CHAP. VII.
Whether a Church of Christ may lawfully make an Agreement among themselves to to divide themselves into several parts, and to have the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper Administred to one of these Parts one Lord's day, and so successively to every part of the Church.
I Need not prove the first principle of a Congregational Church, and its being appointed by God as the seat of his publick worship and ordinances. I have already proved it, and may take it for granted by these, who profess Congregational principles with difference from others.
The Papists professing a visible Church Catholick, &c. do allow the dispensation of this ordinance of the Lord's Supper Vage and unlimitedly; Hence they have private Masses, and they think a Priest, and one more, to be enough for the performance of them and also for the giving and receiving the Sacrament.
Our Episcopal Divines, professing a National Church, allow a private communion to a party that is sick in case of that necessity.
Our Presbyterian Brethren that profess a National principle and that every ordained Minister is a Minister to the whole Church, do assert, that if several Christians meet and one such Minister be with them, he may (especially in difficult Times) administer the ordinance to them, though he hath no special Relation of being a Minister to them as a Congregational Church, and tho' those Christians have no particular Relation of members one to another.
In Scotland, also, a good and holy Minister, in repute, cometh to a place, and when thousands of people gather about him from far and near to hear him preach, ordinarily such a Minister useth to administer to them the Sacrament also.
That which is my design is to find out what of a Church is the true and proper seat of this ordinance of the Lord's Supper.
The Seat impowered for this, or any ordinance, is a matter of great moment, and it is not a Circumstance such as a local place is, and as houses to eat and drink in are. This is but a meer Circumstance of place, but (as the Apostle speaks) of this Ordinance the Church of God is unalterably the seat, as the opposition there shews, 1 Cor. 11. 22. Such Circumstances the Church may and doth appoint but the proper seat of an Ordinance instituted is another manner of thing.
The Passover (which this ordinance doth succeed) had an whole family appointed for the seat of it, Exod. 12. 46. In one house shall it be eaten, thou shalt not carry forth ought of the Flesh abroad out of the house, &c. Afterwards it must not be celebrated in any City but in a Family in Jerusalem, Deut. 16. 5. 6. Thou mayst not Sacrifice the passover within any of thy gates which the Lord thy God giveth thee. But at the place which the Lord thy God shall choose to place his name in there thou shalt Sacrifice the Passover at even at the going down of the Sun, at the season that thou camest forth out of Egypt. Unto which (as holy Ainsworth says in his discourse of the communion of Saints) a new Testament Church answers as the seat of ordinances.
Now that which I shall first do, is, to find out whether this ordinance of the Lord's Supper hath not a proper seat for it, with difference from other ordinances of worship that may be administred every where. I mean not as to the Circumstance of place, for of that the Apostle hath determined, 1 Tim. 2. 8. I will men pray every where, as to place, and so the Sacrament may be administred any where for place. But as the ordinances of discipline have, beside the circumstance of place for meeting, a proper seat of a Church (Do not you judge them within, 1 Cor. 5. that is within yourselves and that are of you?) So the enquiry is whether this Ordinance also hath not a sedes propria, A seat proper to it with difference from other Ordinances, and what that may be?
This enquiry I shall manage by considering.
1. Our own commonly received principles hitherto, & see what they do necessarily (if retained) drive us up unto.
2. I shall consider how the Scriptures will fall in, to confirm and suit with that, which by those principles shall be found to be the Propria sedes of this Ordinance.
We use to make a Statue by cutting away of matter, as in carving a Statue out of free-stone, and so in what is left a form ariseth and it bears the image of what we intend (as well as we do it by adding to of matter as in making a statua of Playster, &c.) and so here Praescindendo or by cutting away what will not serve for a sedes; the true form in such and such a matter will discover it self.
Now according to our Congregational principles received I believe we will agree in these particulars that follow, and if not, let the breach be made where any one thinks meet to make it upon them.
I shall in the first place set them down by way of Narration; the use and benefit of which Narrative will be to help us to discern the special value and tendency of this Ordinance of the Lord's Supper, which, when all is done, must regulate this case. And also by degrees each of those particulars added to others coming up so far to the conclusion, thereby both the state of the Question will be seen, yea and perhaps some demonstration of it spring out of all at least to convince your judgments of the final conclusion which is this.
A Congregational body to Christ, or Church, considered as such, and met as such, is the proper sole seat of this Ordinance of the Lord's Supper, with difference from other Ordinances of worship and other meetings. Now towards the proof of this I advance by these steps.
1. That if the whole Congregational Church were met it must be a Minister who must dispense this ordinance, let the necessity of the Ordinance be what it will. Observe this that in cases of the most absolute necessity none will admit any other than a Minister to administer it; and your best ground for that is (which I shall own) that weread not that any other but such administred it, or baptism in the New Testament, and every where we read that where the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was administred it was by an whole Church, and so the argument for the negative is for this cause as good as for that other, viz. that Ministers only should administer it: Nay, we have more instances for the one than the other. And this also shews a manifest difference of the Lord's Supper from other ordinances. For if we consider publique prayers or preaching, gifted Brethren in cases of necessity may administer them, and yet you will not say this is common to the Lord's Supper which none but a Minister may administer. However for this first difference betwixt this and other Ordinances there must be some reason in the nature of the Ordinances themselves (for that it is the thing which in the first place I enquire) that should require and admit such a difference.
2. The qualification of being a Church-member, or of being in the order (as I may call it, Col. 2. 5.) of that state, is also as requisite as to a persons receiving the Lord's Supper; as that the person administring it should be in the order of preaching Eldership. This is acknowledged also, insomuch that the holyest man in the world (and who is known to all that society to be such, and to be utterly remote from the least jealousy of Scandal) who owneth not a Relation to some Church-membership, would not be admitted to this Sacrament by any of our Churches when met together.
3. The third case is this, If some Members out of each or all Congregational Churches in England were met together in a Town, and a Minister of that Town were met with them (where some one Congregational Church resides, but yet, where at that time that Church he belongs unto as Minister are not met, but yet there is such a full Congregation of such Saints mentioned with testimonials from their respective Churches) he, according to our principles could not administer the Lord's Supper to them, and yet they are all qualified for it in this respect, that they are in the order of a Church, and in a Church-state as Church-members, so as the defect that it was in, in the former case, is taken away also hereby.
And if it be said they cannot be administred unto, because he that is the Minister is not their proper Minister, but not because they are not capacitated themselves for it, I add these steps more still by putting further Cases in the way of answer to this, and to shew that this defect is ultimately resolved into this, that, indeed, they are not a Church, for that is the ground of any Man's being their proper Minister.
4. If any Apostle were present he could not administer this Ordinance to them. We may make this supposition, for in the primitive times it might de facto have fallen out: Therefore, the above-mentioned defects doth not lye in their not having a proper Minister, for an Apostle, having an universal Relation of Office to all Churches and Saints, would be (so far as being a Minister of all parts therein lyes) sufficiently qualified.
5. But still there is a defect why this company of men could not have the Lord's Supper administred to them, and that, although qualified in being each a member of some Church; and where lyes the obstacle but in this, that they are not one particular Church, or members of one and the same Church amongst themselves? so that an Apostle's presence and power doth not extend to supply that defect, any more than to make a company of Disciples a Church without their Co-alition first so to be. We use to say that a company of Elders met in a Synod cannot have the Sacrament together, if Paul were with them, although they each do represent particular Churches. So as still (according to us) the Administration of the Sacrament farther depends upon these being one in the same, individual, particular Church-fellowship, which can be said of no ordinance else whatever.
6. If two or three of that Church were met, and a teaching Elder with them, he might pray with them, preach to them, &c. but not administer this ordinance. The Evangelist Philip and the Eunuch alone went together, and he could baptize him, but he could not have administred the Lord's Supper to him, so as still it is not sufficient that members of the same individual Church be met with a Teaching Elder. Thus still the administration of this Ordinance advanceth it self and climbeth up further and further towards its having for its seat that company of believers which ought to be accounted an whole particular Church.
7. It is not a number of the Members of the same Church met with a teaching Elder which your priniples will allow capacitated for the Administration of this Ordinance. Yea, tho' it be supposed a number of so many and of such persons, that if there were a Church to be begun, there were a sufficient number for to make a Church (be it the minimum quod sic of seven (as Mr. Cotton says) or of ten, as in a Synagogue, or of eleven, as Christ's Disciples were when Judas was gone forth.) Yet your principles will not allow it. For,
1. Then any such number met with a teaching Elder for other Religious worship might in the end say, Let us have the Sacrament also in the close, since God hath been with us in the other ordinances, and we are sufficient for number. But this you would not allow.
2. If there be a Church of five hundred, and as many teaching Officers as were in the Church of Antioch, Acts 13. 1. who would accordingly meet in so many several parcels as they had Teaching-Elders over them (one teaching Elder meeting with one parcel of many of them, another with a second many, a third with a third many, and so on) and would multiply their meetings according to the number of their Elders, this you would not allow neither, especially you would not admit such several Meetings for the Lord's upper at one and the same time. This yet is a case supposable and it may be put. S
Now by cases put, we having brought the matter thus high, and thus near, it is to be considered what is here yet wanting or to be superadded to capacitate and endow them with power for this that the Lord's Supper may be administred in this case? Let any man of us either make a breach upon some or all of these principles, or assign wherein the defect lyes, and as Peter said, what should forbid, that these should not be baptized? so let us enquire what doth forbid or hinder why these should not be the Seat of the Lord's Supper when so met; and when there are all requisites materially for it.
1. Saints in the Order of Church-fellowship.
2. In the same individual Church-fellowship, and Members one of another in that respect.
3. A Teaching-Elder in proper Relation unto them.
4. A need (perhaps) of Edification of many of them, yea, and an earnest, spiritual and special longing after it at the meeting, and a great preparation made by other Ordinances unto it.
5. The common Warrant (as for time) to receive this Ordinance oft (as oft as ye receive, &c. 1 Cor. 11. 26.) and so, both season and time do meet also. There is,
6. A sufficient number as to the Matter of a Church to make an whole Church according unto that, to which any principles of any profession amongst us Episcopalian, Presbyterian, or Anabaptists will say is required for a Church, and so it is in that respect equivalent unto an whole Church. Wherein should the impediment lye? I press any man to assign it; but he that doth it must assign such a Ratio or Condition of this company to be superadded yet to them, as (taking into his eye all the fore-mentioned cases) shall carry with it a difference and distinct ground founded in the nature of the things, and he must compare them together.
1. With the Case of many Members of several other Churches so met with an Apostle, who yet may not receive the Lord's Supper.
2. With the cases of two or three (but not arising to many) of their own Church met with their own Elder, &c, who yet may not.
And yet 3. All these may enjoy any other Ordinance of worship, prayer, &c. but not this.
And 4. He must consider all these meetings to be of a distinct nature from a Church meeting of the whole Church, that is so acknowledged, in which, not the Lord's Supper only, but any or all other Ordinances of Discipline, Excommunication, &c. may be administred, which cannot be in any of the other Companies. Let any, I say, whoever, weighing the premises, assign what Notio, conceptus, or Ratio (taking Ratio for the Modus, Relation or respect put upon a thing) is a-new or farther requisite to this Company of many, &c. specified, and such a Notio also as will bear warrant and afford a true ground of difference of such a Church, both from the other Assemblies mentioned, and will also state a difference of this ordinance of the Lord's Supper from the other Ordinances, according to the variation of the cases put, and he will find himself driven up to what I shall by and by assign.
For, bring me two half-crown-pieces, the one stampt the other unstampt (which yet for matter and all such requisites belonging to the matter, &c. is, in valore, in value, equivalent unto an half-crown that is stamped) yet the unstampt piece is not constituted currant as Money to that purpose of payment as the other is; so it is in the present case.
The 7th. case propounded presents you with a many of Members of one and the same Church enough to begin a Church, &c. and yet you would not (out of times of persecution) in the modes of them propounded allow them capacitated for this administration, and yet they are, in valore, in value every way equivalent unto a Church which is immediately capable of this Administration. Let any Man now say what is the stamp that is to be superadded unto such a Company or Companies? Till others assign theirs I shall present what I conceive in abstracto this formal reason to be, viz. that a company of Saints, &c. met, must be indued with this superadded Formality, with this Nova ratio formalis instituta; That it is a distinct body unto Christ, wherein the Members are united to one another as such, with distinction from other Churches that are also Instituted bodies to Christ. And this is that company which having a… Officer or Teaching Elder over them are the propria sedes, the proper seat, for the Administration of this Sacrament, and unless this consideration is, or can be justified to be in such, or in any company, they are not capacitated for this Ordinance of the Lord's Supper. For otherwise it is not their Number, and their being members of one and the same Church and their meeting with an Elder, who is their own Elder, that will impower them for this Ordinance.
1. In General, that there must be some farther formalis Ratio, some conceptus, or notion superadded unto the materials of former instances (especially that last put) is evident.
1. Because all things that go to compleat the matter do meet in that last instance.
There is, 1. A many. 2. Many of the same Church. 3. They are met with their own teaching Elder, and yet they are defective, and are not the proper seat of the Lord's Supper.
2. Because there must some difference and distinction arise (besides what ariseth from these persons as the matter in this company) whereby they do and may become Propria sedes of this Ordinance with difference from all the former instances. Now differences arise properly from the form, and so it must be Nova Ratio formalis.
2. It must be something instituted, a Ratio formalis instituta, (as I said.)
1. Because it is that which must make a difference and distinction from,
1. A Company of Saints in no Church-Fellowship.
2. A Company of Saints in several Church-Fellowships.
3. From two or three of the same Church-Fellowship.
4. From a many of the same.
5. And so as that whereas any such Company of the former may partake of any other Ordinance of worship, yet not of this. That which must be, to put the difference, must be Ratio formalis, instituta, as take as many men for number and (every way qualified and enabled, &c.) as are sufficient to make a Corporation fit to enjoy such or such priviledges, yet they must over and above be empowred by Charter, and over and above have superadded the seat of their being a Corporation by a Civil Institution; So it is here.
2. Now secondly, for the demonstration of that particular formalis ratio instituta assigned, viz. That an instituted body to Christ considered as such is the only proper seat for this Ordinance, I shall proceed.
1. By removing all suppositions I can think of or that have been suggested; or what may be pretended to give the stamp or institution, so as it will still remain that nothing else but such a company as I have before defin'd, may assume and take on them to be an instituted body to Christ.
1. It is not a Par Ratio a parity of Reason. The Church is said to have prayed for Peter, Acts 12. 5. Peter therefore was kept in prison, but prayer was made without ceasing of the Church unto God for him; and this was done by two several meetings at least and so by parts of the Church, v. 12. He came to an house where many were gathered together praying; and another company was elsewhere, as appears from what Peter says v. 17. Go tell these things unto James and to the Brethren; and the words that follow are, And he departed and went into another place. But yet all this will no way come up to evince the matter we are upon, nor warrant that the stamp of being a Church may be put upon every assembly of many, nor will it follow that the Church may meet in parts for the Lord's Supper.
1. Because prayer is such an ordinance as may be exercised by a Church by parcels, and those parcells may be fewer or more, whether their Office is met with them or not, as in one of the former instances was alledged that one Elder meeting with one sick person may pray with him, whereas if all the Elders met with that person they would not be capacitated to administer the Lord's Supper to that sick person. For if this had been the manner then, or an apostolical Practice, the Apostle James had as fit an occasion to have made mention of it and to have enjoyned it to be administred also by them, as well as to prayer over them, &c. For the Sacrament is as needful for the Soul of such a Person as prayer, &c. is for their body.
It may also be said that any two of the Church and the whole Church by two and two may meet to pray for any business of importance, but you will not say they may do so for this Ordinance; Yea they may do so without any Officer, as, two or three may meet for prayer, but not so for this Sacrament. And one reason is because this Ordinance is a Communion of Christ's body, and of one with another therein; but it is not so in the other Ordinance of Prayer, so as there is disparitas, a disparity of Reason. For it would be a strange Assertion to say that two may meet for a Communion of Christ's body as well as to pray, and thereby exercise the Communion of Saints, which cannot be done apart, as well as by all, or many together.
Object. But the Phrase of Acts 12: 5. is urged, that prayer was made of the Church unto God for Peter (which how it was done the 12th. and 17th. verses shew, viz. That it was by parcels) and therefore the Church may be said to meet in several parcels; The reply is.
Answ. 1. A Question may justly be made whether that phrase of Prayer being made of the Church without ceasing, refers us unto those Prayers that are afterward instanced to have been made by parcels of the Church, or whether that phrase is not intended to shew how the whole Church had during his being in prison met and made prayers for him; for unto the former whole time of his having been in prison doth that speech refer (view the words and compare, verse 4.) and those after-passages (v. 12, 17.) are but what fell out to be that night afore he was to appear next morning, verse 6. But I will not at all insist on this but will suppose that during this time of persecution all their meetings were by parcels as well as that night; though I believe that the assertion in the Answer given can never be disproved. But,
2. Prayer may be said to be made by the Church in parcels, and yet it may be affirmed that none of them were meetings of the Church as a Church. Tho', yet, if two by two had in such minute parcels met, yea if privately only one had earnestly prayed it might have been said, That prayer had been made by the Church thus distributed.
For, 1. The word Church in such a way of speech is taken materially for the members of the Church, whether singly or otherwise, and when a thing is done by them generally either one way or another it may be said, The Church prayed, and it cannot be inferr'd that they prayed as met together, no more than to say, Prayer was made by the Churches, would argue they all met together for one prayer. And that the phrase of Church is so used in this Book of the Acts is evident, for when 'tis said (Acts 8. 1.) that there was a great persecution against the Church. The word Church is materially taken. So as the phrase (v. 5.) and those compared with it (v. 12. and 17.) will no way evidence that these meetings were Church-meetings or that they met qua Church, and so they had not the stamp which we seek: They were barely meetings of several members of that Church, and so the whole Church, indeed, might be materially in the one and in the other, but still it was not there qua Church.
2. The nature of the duty of prayer is unquestionably such, as will admit a Church to perform it by parcels greater or lesser, yea in its members singly. And how then can we interpret this phraseology, in Acts 12. to serve that purpose for which it is urg'd.
3. Nay 3. The Holy Ghost hath warily penned it to present such an interpretation, for he styles the meeting of those in verse 12. (where it is said, Many were gathered together praying) in distinction from being a Church, or the Church, or a Church-meeting, and so it in reality comes up but to that seventh or last instance we gave of many of the same Church-meeting, to whom yet you would not give the Supper. And as for the other company, who are called James and the Brethren, we will suppose them met as these Many (v. 12.) were, and yet so much is not said there, but the meaning may be that Peter bid them to go to their several houses. They are but the Brethren with James, not the Church, though James, their chief Elder, had been met with them.
Yea, 4. There will fall out this contradiction to what is said in the 5th. v. if you say that these were each formal Church-meetings. For then it must have been said that they met in distinct Churches, and not that that Church, in singulari met in each of these meetings, v. 5.
2 It is not the will or consent of that which we must call the whole Church (the foreign) that can have authority to set this new stamp of a Church upon such partial Meetings of its own Members.
For 1. Tho' in Law Estates or Titles are convey'd, both by the will of man in making his will, and by inheritance, yet here, the adopting any or all of these meetings apart, into the priviledge of a Church, goes not by the will of Man. But look what Company is so met as by the will, and institution of God, the inheritance falls upon, they only are the Church. The Church's will gives not the stamp, but it must be such in the reality afore God.
2. If the will of the Church had this pretended authority, then the whole Church may say of any such few or many of the members at any time met, that they are a Church, and that others, tho' many, are not so. Yea,
3. Then it may be said of as many several Companys that have each an elder with them, that they are so many Churches; and if all these receive at the same time the Sacrament, they would be so many Churches made by that one whole Church and belonging to that one Church; whereas an instituted Church consists in Indivisibili.
4. It is not considered enough that the authority of being a Church is not Potestas vicaria nor deputata, A vicarious, or deputed power. Therefore the whole Church cannot say, This shall be your Church at such or such a time, for such or such an end.
3. It is not a case of necessity for the Ordinance, that will be argument sufficient for the administration of it to any such divided parcels of a Church. For put this case that many of the same Church are in case of great disconsolation and therefore need this ordinance, or that they have not had this Ordinance of a long time administred to them, and one of their proper Ministers were with them. Yea, put the case of necessity which the Papists and our Episcopal Divines put, that two or three or more are sick and weak in a great Family belonging to one Church, and being near death in all view, they as greatly long for, yea, more need this ordinance, in agone mortis, in an agony of death, than any other company of Church-Members in case of persecution: neither of these cases will be allowed to be such a necessity as would make or constitute such a meeting to be a Body unto Christ, instituted with difference from another part of that Church.