The want of CHURCH-GOVERNMENT No warrant for a total omission Of the LORDS SUPPER. OR, A brief and Scholastical debate of that Question, which hath so wonderfully perplexed many, both Ministers and people.  
Whether or no, The Sacrament of the Lords Supper may (according to Presbyterial principles) be lawfully administered in an unpresbyterated Church, that is, a Church destitute of Ruling Elders.  
Wherein the Affirmative is confirmed by many Arguments, and cleared from Objections, especially such as are drawn from the unavoidableness of mixed communions without Ecclesiastical Discipline.  
By HENRY JEANES, Minister of God's Word at Chedzoy in Somerset shire.  
London, Printed for SAMUEL GELLIBRAND, at the Ball in Paul's Churchyard. 1650.   

An Approbation of the following Tractate, by that learned Divine Mr. ROBERT CROSS, late of Lincoln College in Oxford, unto whose censure it was submitted.  
Worthy friend,  
I Have somewhat heedfully perused your determination touching administering the Lords Supper in an Vn-Presbyterated Church; It seems to me both judicious and accurate. I was of your judgement (as to the main) before. But am now much more enlarged and confirmed in it: If humble sober-minded men be not yet of the same mind with you, it is (possibly) because they are unacquainted with your reasons; You shall therefore to my apprehension, do both a grateful and seasonable work; To make that of public use which may be, and I am confident will be of public benefit.  
Luckam, Novembr. 16. 1650. Your friend and neighbour ROBERT CROSS.   

To his honoured friend Col. John Pyne, A Member of the Parliament, and one of the Commissioners for the Militia, of the County of SOMERSET.  
A Principal end of prefixing your name unto the following piece, is, to give a public testimony of that deep obligation which lieth upon me, for those favours which you have vouchsafed unto me; not in myself only, but in others for my sake. These have been so many and so great, as that they may make just challenge for you, unto any thing of my performance. But indeed this Treatise is yours by a stricter tye of justice, then that of gratitude; For it is principally by your care and assistance, that it is brought unto the Press: and therefore to alienate it by any other inscription, would be not only an ungrateful, but an injurious part. I shall detain you no longer from your more weighty affairs; But with my most hearty prayers commending you and yours to the great Preserver of men, and beseeching him to make you a worthy instrument of the peace and justice of this County; I shall rest  
Yours in all humble observance, HENRY JEANES.   

To the Reverend our very much honoured Brother Mr. HENRY JEANES, Preacher of the Word at Chedzoy, These present.  
Reverend Sir,  
WE have met this day to debate whether there be any course warranted by the Word wherein Ministers may proceed to the administration of the Sacrament, as our case now stands, and what that is? We earnestly desire that you would be pleased to take the Question into your serious consideration, and to give your thoughts on it, or rather the state of it the fourth of July next ensuing, when we intent to meet again to consult farther about that thing. And we are the rather inclined to desire your particular resolution therein; Because we understand that you have administered that Sacrament, and therefore doubt not but you have some way satisfied yourself therein, which we earnestly desire that you would be pleased to impart unto  
Your affectionate Brethren, 

Tho. Gatchel.  
Rich. Newton.  
Tho. Court.  
Tho. Musgrove.  
Will. Mills  
John Gardner.  
George Newton.  
Barthol Safford.  
John Norman.  
George Bindon.   Taunton, June 13. 1649.   

ERRATA.  
PAge 2. line 21. for all read also for, p. 3 l. 5. for to r. so I. p. 5. l. 2. for by r. even by, p. 6 l. 35 for they r. they whom we oppose, p. 12 l. 14 for Are r. Is, p. 13 l. 6 for inductivum, r. inductivun p. 15 l. 24 for nature, r. naturae, p. 17 l. 18 for is, r. in, idem, l. 32 for flock, r. flock. p. 18 l. 11 for presuptuous, r. presumptuous, p. 27 l. 78 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 32 l. last, for a duty r. be a duty, p. 38. for example r. example p. 41 l. 11. for codclude r. conclude, p. 43 l. 12 for ut r. ad, p. 45. l. 16. for more r. most, p. 50. l, 20 for proceeded r. preceded p. 52 marg. l. 21 for peccatur r. peccator, p. 54 l. 11. for possible r. possibly, p. 55 l. 18. for cocunque r. quocunque, p. 57 l. 1. for directions r. direction, p. 60. l. 5. blot out the second, to, p. 61 l. 7 for sin r. sinners p. 63 marg. for te netu r. tenetur, p. 64 marg. l. ult. for high r. hic, p 65. l. 6. for stances r. instances, p. 66 l. 20 for say r. see, p. 67 l. 14 for know r. knew, p. 69. l. 35 for reeive rerecoive. p. 70 l. 29 blot out not, p. 72 l. 29 for committed r. committed by ourselves.  
These are the grossest faults, others of an inferior nature, being easily discernible by the Reader, are omitted.   

Whether or no the Sacrament of the Lords Supper may according to Presbyterial principles be lawfully administered in an unpresbyterated Church, that is, a Church destitute of Ruling Elders?  
TO go over the Topical places belonging to the Terms of the Question, will afford the greatest light: and upon a full and thorough survey of them, I resolve upon holding the Question affirmatively.  
There be two Terms in the Question considerable (viz.) Administration of the Lords Supper; and a Non-Presbyterated Church, or a Church destitute of ruling Elders: and I shall argue for the affirmative from both.  
First then Arguments evidencing the Affirmative may be drawn from the Lords Supper, and the Administration thereof.  
From the Command of, and Examples for the administration thereof.  
From the general Nature of the Lords Supper.  
From the Instrumental Cause, End, and Object of the administration thereof.  
From a Comparison of the Lords Supper with Baptism.  
From the consideration of the opposite of administration of the Lords Supper; the non-administration thereof. 
Primum â Praecepto.   
The first Argument shall be taken from Christ's Command, Luk. 22.19. 1 Cor. 11.24.25. This do in remembrance of me. All Christ's Commands are to be observed, even in an unpresbyterated Church, unless there be some dispensation from Christ himself to the contrary. The Charge that Christ gave to his Apostles at his ascension, Mat. 28.19, 20. was to teach those Nations they should baptise, to observe all things whatsoever he had commanded them. Now to administer the Lords Supper we have an express Commandment, and no dispensation that I know of, to lay it aside in an unpresbyterated Church. Ergo, etc.  
It is an old, and a good rule: Non distinguendum ubi lex non distinguit▪ We must not distinguish where the Law doth not distinguish. Limitations and restrictions of divine precepts that have no foundation in Scripture are indeed saucy presumptions, a taking upon us to tutor the Almighty.  
Unto this express Command for the administration of the Lords Supper the Schoolmen add a virtual and implicit precept from the necessity, 
Suarez▪  or at least profitableness of it unto salvation. The people are bound to make use of all means that are in any degree necessary to salvation; and a Minister being to watch for the souls of his People, is to make what provision he can, not only of things simply and absolutely necessary: but all things profitable & convenient for salvation.  
Before I meddle with the Answer which may be to this Argument, I will give it a little more strength. We have a Command not only for the celebration, but also for the frequent celebration of the Lords Supper. Mr Marshal in his Sermon of the Baptising of Infants argues for a repetition of the Lords Supper by way of Analogy and proportion from the Passeover. Pag. 35, 36.  
All Gods Commands and Institutions (saith he) about the Sacraments of the Jews bind us as much as they did them in all things which belong to the substance of the Covenant, and were not accidental to them: The Jewish Passeover being to be yearly repeated binds us to have a repetition of the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, which came in room of it: because this belongs to the substance of the Covenant (both of them being Sacraments for spiritual nourishment, growth, and continuance in the Covenant.) But we have no need to stand upon a virtual or analogical command for the frequent use of this Sacrament, seeing we have an express command of it, 1 Cor. 11.24, 25, 26. 
* Addit declarationem istius clausulae hoc facite. Annunciate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Sic m●l● quam Annunciatis, quasi dicat annunciare debetis, nam exponit illa verba, Hoc facite ad meirecordationem. Quod si reddas Annunciatis: erit rationatio cujus vis nulla apparet; Nempe vis Corinthii celebrantes Coenam Domini, Annunciatis mortem Domini: ergo Christus praecepit ut hoc faceretis. Quin & determinatie illa temporis videtur imperativ●em postulare, Annun●iate donec venerit, id est, non solum vos sed etiam vos secuturi credentes usque ad finem mundi deb●nt in celebranda sacra caena mortem Domini annunciare.  This do in remembrance of me. This do as oft as ye drink it in remembrance of me: for as often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, show ye the Lord's death until he come. For to choose rather to read the words as they are in the Margin then as they are in the Translation (ye do show:) you may see in Piscator two reasons for thus rendering the words. The meaning of them in brief is, Ye ought to show, declare, represent, and make known the death of the Lord by this sacred Supper. This is a duty lying not only upon you, but upon all Believers following you unto the end of the world. The Lord's Supper is then to be celebrated, even until the coming of Christ to judgement; and therefore there ought to be no interruption of the celebration of it at fit and convenient seasons, which is that which I mean by the frequent celebration thereof. That the frequent celebration of this Sacrament is a duty, is inferred from this Text by Tilemannus Heshusius, Fridericus Baldwinus, Peter Martyr, Calvin, Musculus, Aretius, Hiperius, Tossanus, Pareus, Piscator, Dickson and our own Pemble. And for this their inference I find these following reasons alleged: The first is pressed by Pareus upon the words, Cur saepius faciendum, quia mors domini perpetuis laudibus celebranda, etc. Christ death is so great, so important, so beneficial a mercy as that it calls for a frequent commemoration. Now this Sacrament of the Lords Supper was appointed purposely to quicken our memory therein; Do this in remembrance of me; therefore ought frequently to be administered.  
A second reason is of Mr David Dickson upon the place. Because Christ shall not bodily be present in the Church before the last judgement, he therefore commands that by this Sacrament the memory of the Redemption of the Church by his death should ever and anon be repeated, and celebrated until he come from the Heavens in the last day.  
A third reason is also in Pareus upon the place: How long ought this Sacrament to be administered, until the Lord come, till he come to judge the quick and the dead? For even as the Sacraments of the Old Testament continued until the first coming of Christ in the flesh; so shall the Sacraments of the New Testament continue till the second coming of him in glory.  
From these Arguments thus premised we may infer in the words of the learned & godly Pemble, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here implieth a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as often as ye do it, therefore do it often, not once in an age, as Baptism, never to be repeated; nor once a year and no more, as the Passeover; but many times in our Age, many times in a year, according as the Saints in the Primitive Church understood the meaning of these words, and not as some in these times (when Sophistry hath wrangled out Divinity) would seem to cavil that because the words run, Do it as oft as you eat this bread and drink this cup, therefore it is at their discretion to do it as seldom as they please; who these Cavillers are that he speaks of I know not: but Bellarmine hath some such evasion in his plea against the Cup in the Lord's Supper; and Bullinger also upon the place hath something sounding that way. By this word, As often, Christ (saith he) leaves a liberty unto the Churches when and how often they will celebrate the Lords Supper. For this he quotes a saying out of Augustine, Epist. 118. ad januarium; In which after repetition of some variety, or difference in the Churches of God about the time of administering this Sacrament, some administering it every day, and some only upon certain set days, he concludes that the best course for a prudent Christian herein is to conform himself unto the usage of that Church unto which he shall come. Unto Bullinger I might join Hiperius, who quotes Epiphanius affirming as much. But I believe that the liberty left to the Church which Bullinger and Hiperius speak of, is meant only concerning a prudent choice of fit and convenient seasons for administration of the Lords Supper; always provided that she keep within the Latitude of frequency in the administration thereof. If so be by it they understand an absolute unbounded liberty of administering it as seldom as she please, the collection is groundless and unreasonable, and confuted by Volkellius a Socinian: and therefore an undervalluer of this Sacrament. We must mark, faith he, that the Apostle doth not at all say, that it is free for us to use, or not to use the Lords Supper; but he teacheth us what we must do as often as according to the command of Christ we celebrate it (to wit, show forth the death of the Lord) so that if the Apostle seem here to grant any liberty, it doth not stand in the usage or neglect of this sacred rite or ceremony; otherwise he should be contrary to himself: For he saith that he received this Ordinance of the Lord, and that he delivered it unto the Corinthians, and in them unto all other succeeding Churches; that so it might be continued and used in the Assemblies of the faithful, even until the coming of Christ. I hope than you will give me leave to conclude, that howsoever 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth not absolutely, and universally imply 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: yet it doth imply it in this place. If any desire further proofs for the frequency of administering the Lords supper; I shall desire them to apply hereunto what I shall say touching the ends of the Lords supper. As also concerning the great need that Believers have thereof, even in an Unpresbyterated Church. In the mean time I take it to be sufficiently cleared, that we have here in the Apostle a peremptory command for the frequent celebration of the Lords Supper. And how we can obey this command, and yet omit the administration of it for 5,6,7. years together, nay perhaps for the whole space of the remainder of our days, I am yet to learn. To suppose that we shall never live to see the Churches of God here in England settled in a Presbyterian way, is a supposition of that which is neither impossible, nor improbable. Now if the fears that many have concerning this particular should prove true, What? shall the Lords Supper be for ever laid aside? Would not this be a goodly interpretation of the command, show ye the Lord's death till he come, that is, if you can get the Church to be Presbyterated, otherwise let there be a perpetual amnesty as to the external commemoration thereof? And yet this is the exposition of the words which those that dissent from me in this Question must hold, unless they will retract their opinion, and confess that the Lords Supper may be administered in an Unpresbyterated Church.  
I have bethought myself what may be answered to this Argument a Praecepto, and these my thoughts I shall communicate to you as plainly and briefly as I can. If any think that I propound the Answer feeble, I shall not be unwilling that they amend the proposal, and add what strength they can thereunto. An answer may be grounded on what the Schoolmen say, in secunda secundae, Quest. 43. Art. 7. Where Thomas and all his Interpreters debate this Question, An bona spiritualia sint propter scandalum dimittenda? They resolve that some things in themselves, duties, and commanded by God to be done, yet are to be omitted at some times for the avoiding of scandal.  
Promulgation of a truth, and Christian reproof are duties commanded by God; and yet are sometimes to be abstained from, for scandals taken, by not only the weak, but also malicious. Reprove not a scorner, lest he hate thee, Prov. 9.8. speak not in the ears of a fool; for he will despise the wisdom of thy words, Prov. 23.9. Give not that which is holy unto dogs, neither east ye your Pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you, Math. 7.6. Pro vitando scandalo cessat rigor disciplinae. To avoid scandal the rigour of disciplineceaseth▪ To explain this; farther recourse must be had unto that old and golden Rule, Affirmativa Praecepta semper obligant, non ad semper. Affirmative Precepts do always bind, but not to always; so that we are not bound to peforme always what they enjoin but only Loco & tempore debitis, when we have due time and place. Now as by the intercurrency of other circumstances, so especially by intercurrence of scandal, there may not be opportunity & seasonableness of doing what we are urged unto by some Affirmative Precepts; so these Precepts may pro hic & nunc, cease to be obligatory. Now say they upon the administration of the Lords Supper in an Unpresbyterated Church, scandal will ensue, a scandal tending to sin in the unworthy receiver, who will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord; a scandal tending to sorrow and vexation in the Well-affected, whose spirits will be sadded at the communion of sinners.  
For Reply. First we must put a difference between a transgression of a Precept, and a temporary, partial, or occasional forbearance of the matter commanded by a Precept. No Precept whatsoever is for the eschewing the scandal of any to be truly broken or transgressed; and if a Precept be not transgressed, when what is enjoined in it, is wholly and altogether omitted, I confess I cannot divine when it can be transgressed. Bonum per se (saith Suarez) praeferendum est ex genere suo bono per accidens. Now to administer the Lords Supper is good per se & ex genere suo, (I mean with a material objective or external goodness:) to omit the administration thereof is only good per accidens in a case of scandal. And that which is only good by accident cannot always shut out that which is good per se. Suppose then that the administration of the Lords Supper upon the emergency of scandal, may pro hic & nunc, at some times and in some places be omitted, may for a while be forborn, until we have used all means that lay in our power for the removing of the scandal, yet it will not hereupon follow that after such use of our utmost endeavours (and the scandal continue still unremoved) the administration of the Lords Supper is wholly and altogether to be forborn for five, six or seven years, or for the whole remaining space of our lives. And it is only this latter that is broad enough to infer, that the Lords Supper is not to be administered at all in an unpresbyterated Church. For a Church may be unpresbyterated for so long a space as we now speak of, by means, Partly of the divisions of the godly Party; Partly because they may be oppressed by a predominant wicked Party within, and persecuted by adversaries without: either of which (unless timely prevented) is enough to retard the work of Reformation for more than the age of a man. That those who talk only of a present suspension of this Sacrament, do but shuffle and shift, would be easily apparent, if they would be pleased to speak out, and tell us the latitude of this present suspension, how long it shall last, when it shall end. I believe their opinion iffully discovered, will accord with those of whom Musculus speaks, on 1 Cor. 11. Now adays, saith he, thou shalt find very many, who in many years do not so much as once partake of this Sacrament; especially the Swenckfeldians, who do so reject the Ecclesiastical Communion, of whatsoever Churches, that they themselves had none at all. When at Auspurge I asked a Ringleader of this sect, when he had partaken with the Church of Christ, of the Bread and Cup of the Lord; He expressy answered, he had then abstained about twelve years from this Communion. Being demanded why he had done so, he replied, that he had not as yet found any Church, which was inwardly and outwardly adorned with the gifts and virtues of the true spouse of Christ; and that therefore he did put off and defer his Communion, until he could find such a Church rightly settled or ordered.  
Here I shall once for all clearly prove, that a Ministers universal and total abstinence from administration of the Lords Supper unto that flock or Church over which God hath made him an overseer, is unlawful, though for the eschewing of scandal. No sinful omission of that which is commanded by an affirmative Precept is lawful for the eschewing of scandal: But a Ministers total and universal abstinence from the administration of the Lords Supper, unto that flock over which God hath made him overseer, is a sinful omission of that which is commanded by an affirmative Precept; therefore it is not lawful for the eschewing of scandal. The major is confirmed from that of the Apostle, Rom▪ 3.8. Their damnation is just, that say, Let us do evil that good may come: as also that of Aquinas secunda secundae. Quaest. 43. Art. 7. Secundum ordinem charitatis plus debet homo suam salutem spiritualem diligere, quàm alterius. A well-ordered charity beginneth ever at home, making a man chief to desire and endeavour the salvation of his own soul, and consequently to be more solicitous how to avoid sin in himself, then to prevent it in others; See Rutherford more largely touching scandal, pag. 84. The Minor is proved, because it is necessary for my salvation to obey affirmative Precepts, though not in all differences of time. See Rutherford, pag. 13.14. Praecepta affirmativa obligant, though not ad semper, yet ad aliquando. Affirmative Precepts tie us to do the things they require, though not at all times, yet at some time or other. And therefore universally and totally to abstain from what they command, is sinfully to omit what is commanded by them. I cannot but here call to mind a Reply of the renowned Chamier to a shift of Cajetan, which he brings to elude our Arguments against their Communion under one kind, that are drawn from the command of the Cup. The Command, saith Cajetan, is but affirmative; and affirmativa Praecepta, utsi obligent semper, non tamen ad semper. Unto which Chamier replieth very solidly and sharply. Esto (saith he) sed quid tu appellas pro semper? nullumne apud te discrimen est inter non semper? & nunquam? The like Reply will serve unto those who go about to evade the Command of the Lords Supper, by telling us that it is an affirmative Command, and doth oblige semper, but not adsemper. It doth always bind, but not to always: for there is a wide difference between not always and never. Now the upshot of these men's tenants, is, that if the Church be not Presbyterated, the Command of the Lords Supper doth never bind, during such its condition. Suarez in Tertiam Part. Thom. Tom. 30. Disput. 80. Sect. 1. as also Becanus in his Summae Theol. Scholastic. Part. tertiae Tract. secundo. cap. 25. Part. secundae. Quaest prima. allege divers reasons why all Priests whatsoever are bound to say Mass, if you please to make such a change in them, as to put Ministers for Priests, and the Lords Supper for Mass. you may make them Orthodox; and so they will serve our turn.  
First, it seems to be a kind of spiritual Prodigality, very dangerous to the soul, for a minister to deprive himself of the use of the power of order, and of the fruit of the Sacrament: Unto this we may add out of Dunand, that it is a virtual contempt of the great benefit that is offered in the Sacrament▪  
Secondly, Seeing the power is for the Act, it is an inordinate thing to receive the power of administering this Sacrament, and not to use this power, but to let it lie idle.  
Thirdly, It is against charity to deprive the Church of that great fruit and benefit which they might partake of by this Sacrament.  
Lastly, Because the Minister by virtue of his office, takes upon his shoulders the burden of praying for his people, of Preaching, and administering the Sacraments unto them; and therefore he sins if he never or seldom dischargeth these offices and duties of his calling. A calling and office is for the work▪ Ministry and service, proper thereunto; and therefore it is a great fault to neglect that work, service or Ministry which is proper to a man's calling.  
Secondly, Not only a Ministers total and universal abstinence from administration of the Lords Supper; but also seldomness and unfrequency of administering it, is unlawful. And the reason of this is, because as I have proved and cleared; There is a command for a frequent administration of the Lords Supper; And a command of frequency in dispensation of an Ordinance is violated and transgressed, not only when the Ordinance is wholly and altogether omitted, but also when it is seldom or rarely dispensed, when it is omitted for the date of many years.  
Thirdly, This objection of scandal holds as well against administration of the Lords Supper in a Presbyterated, as in an Unpresbyterated Church. For a Minister may ordinarily foresee, that scandal will follow in a Presbyterated Church in case there be a Maladministration of discipline, or else in case scandalous persons known to be such only unto the Minister himself, or else unto some one godly person, cannot be convicted, or proved to be such, either by their own confession, or else by the testimony of two or three witnesses.  
Fourthly, It is a very unreasonable position, that the administration of the Lords Supper ought to be suspended, and deferred upon the likelihood of the following of scandal; for then a Minister shall be almost perpetually uncertain whether he may administer the Lords Supper, or no; because likelihood of scandal to follow will occur, if not always; yet very often. When our Saviour tells us, Mat. 13.41. that in the consummation, or end of the world, the Son of man shall send his Angels, and they shall gather out of his Kingdom all scandals, or all things that offend; he doth clearly imply that till then, there will be scandals even in his Kingdom, in his Church. And this holds not only of scandals in general, but also of such scandals as are likely to follow upon dispensation of God's Ordinances unto the end of the world: Some will be scandalised at the Ordinances of God. The Word will be a savour of death unto death in them that perish: Unworthy receivers will eat and drink their own judgement; will be guilty of the body and blood of Christ. Christ himself will be for a stone of stumbling, and rock of offence. You see then that to affirm, that the administration of the Lords Supper is to be deferred upon the likelihood of ensuing of scandal, infers this gross absurdity, that the likelihood of scandal extinguisheth Christ's gracious Charter of this Ordinance unto the Church.  
Fifthly, If any one be not fully satisfied with that which I have said, but shall demand farther in what difference of time the command to administer the Lords Supper obligeth? Unto those I answer briefly; that when a Minister hath used all obliged means for prevention of scandal likely to follow upon his administration of the Lords Supper; that then he is bound frequently to administer it unto the flock, or Church over which God hath placed him, especially if they call and cry for it. In this case to delay it is a sinful omission, and my reason is; Because unless we pitch here, there can be no certain rule given, when a Minister is to administer the Lords Supper. As for the assertion of those who affirm that it is to be delayed in case of scandal consequent, it is very unsound and irrational; for if the lawfulness or unlawfulness of the administration of the Lords Supper must be determined by the scandal consequent thereupon; the administration then of it hangs upon a very slippery and an uncertain ground.  
Sixthly, We must distinguish of scandals; they are either Active, or Passive, Given, or only Taken. The scandal following the administration of the Lords Supper in an Unpresbyterated Church (especially when a Minister hath used all obliged means for prevention of the scandal) is only Passive or Taken; not Active, or Given. And for this I dare appeal unto any definition of active scandal, or scandal given in any writer; either Popish, or Protestant.  
An Active scandal, or a scandal given, is, when one culpably occasioneth the fall of another into sin: But a Minister in the administration of the Lords Supper in an Unpresbyterated Church, (after that he hath used all obliged means for prevention of scandal thereby) doth not culpably occasion the fall of another into sin; for he dispenseth a necessary Ordinance of God; he performeth a commanded duty, which he cannot omit without sin. Who ever, saith Rutherfurd, stumbles at the necessary Ordinances of God, they take a scandal which is not culpably given. Now how little regard is to be had of passive scandals, scandals only taken are generally proved by Divines from the account which our Saviour made of the scandal of the Pharisees. Matth. 15.12, 14. Know'st thou that the Pharisees were offended after they heard this saying? But he answered let them alone: If any one desire to know what the Schoolmen speak of Active scandal, a scandal given: I shall briefly acquaint them what there is in Aquinas, who is one of the chief of them; and make application of it to our matter in hand. In 2 da. 2 dae. Quest 43. Art 1. We have this definition of Active scandal out of Hierome. Scandalum est vel dictum, vel factum, minus rectum, praebens alteri occasionem ruinae. Two things I shall take notice of which he hath in the explication of this definition.  
First, Minus rectum non dicitur hoc quod ab aliquo alio superatur in rectitudine: Sed quod habet aliquem rectitudinis defectum, vel quia est secundum se ma●um; sicut peccatum, vel quia habet speciem mali; sicut cum aliquis recumbit in Idolo. From whence I thus argue, that wherein there is an Active scandal, a scandal given, hath some moral irrectitude in it, is some way or other morally irregular; either because it is evil in itself, or because it hath an appearance of evil: But the administration of the Lords Supper in an Unpresbyterated Church, is neither evil in itself, neither hath it a real appearance of evil, (for it is an Ordinance of God, a commanded duty.)  
Again, whereas it is objected that every word, or deed may occasion the fall of another into sin; Aquinas thus distinguisheth; Dictum vel factum alterius potest esse dupliciter altericausa peccandi, uno modo per se; alio modo per accidens; Per se quidem, quando aliquis suo malo verbo, vel facto intendit alium ad peccandum inducere; vel etiam si ipse hoc non intendat, ipsum factum est tale, quod de sui ratione habet; quod sit in ductivum ad peccandum: Puta cum aliquis publice facit peccatum, vel quod habet similitudinem peccati. Et tunc ille, qui hujusmodi actum facit, proprie dat occasionem ruinae: unde vocatur scandalum activum. Per Accidens autem aliquod verbum vel factum unius est alteri causa peccandi, quando & praeter intentionem operantis, & praeter conditionem operis, aliquis male dispositus ex hujusmodi opere induci●ur ad peccandum; puta cum aliquis invidet bonis. Et tunc ille qui facit hujusmodi actum rectum, non dat occasionem, quantum in se est: sed alius sumit occasionem. Et ideo hoc est scandalum passivum sine activo; quia ille qui recte agit, quantum est de se, non dat occasionem ruin, quam alter patitur. Out of all this we may briefly observe thus much for our present purpose, that in an action there is then only an Active scandal, when either from the intent of the Agent, or else from the nature of the Action in itself, it is inductive to sin. Now to say that the administration of the Lords Supper in an Unpresbyterated Church, is inductive to sin, from the intent of the Agent, is uncharitable: To say that it is inductive to sin from the nature of the Action in itself, is a gross blasphemy against an holy Ordinance of God.  
Seventhly, Whereas it is said we may forbear the practice of things commanded by affirmative precepts, hic & nunc, in some places, and at some times; it must always be taken with this proviso, that there be not incurred a greater and more perilous scandal by forbearance, then would probably be occasioned by practice of the thing commanded: which I believe is done in the forbearance of the administration of the Lords Supper, that is contended for.  
For first, if we speak of the scandal tending unto sorrow and vexation, more are scandalised at the forbearance, then in likelihood would be at the practice.  
And secondly, if we speak of the scandal tending unto sin, the scandal which the wicked take by the administration of of the Lords Supper is not to be compared with the scandals consequent upon a total forbearance of the Lords Supper. (I mean in reference unto the Minister as chargeable upon him.) Here I shall first instance in the scandals tending unto sin, occasioned by forbearance of the Lords Supper; and then compare them with those which follow upon administration of the Lords Supper; and consider of which the Minister is most guilty.  
First, I shall instance in scandals tending unto sin, occasioned by the forbearance of the Lords Supper.  
First, There is the scandal of the godly, viz. their wants, and weakness both of faith and grace, from want of an Ordinance appointed and sanctified for the confirmation of faith, and increase of grace by the donour of all faith & grace.  
Secondly, Separatists are hereby encouraged in their separation from our Churches; because we want a principal Ordinance of God, which also is laid aside amongst us upon a principle of their own, which was never granted them by the old Non-Conformists; to wit, that a worship is to be omitted for the sin of the worshippers, an Ordinance for the sins of the partakers of the Ordinance.  
Thirdly, It staggers many weak ones amongst us, and if not timely prevented, will occasion their total defection and separation from us. For though they approve not of their Tenants, yet this will much sway with them; That amongst them they may have an Ordinance, which amongst us is withheld from them, and of enjoying which, they have not any the least hopes, as long as they stay with us.  
A fourth scandal is, in that others take occasion by this forbearance of the Lords Supper, to contemn the Lords Supper itself, as being by this carriage induced to believe, that Ministers despise it, and do not so much for a while forbear, as utterly disclaim the administration thereof.  
Secondly, Let us compare these scandals with the scandal which the wicked take by the administration of the Lords Supper, and consider with which of them the Minister may most justly be charged. A Minister can never wash his hands from these scandals which follow upon a total forbearance of the Lords Supper; whereas having done his duty for prevention of that scandal, which the wicked take by administration of the Lords Supper, he stands free from the guilt thereof. My reason for this is, because these scandals which follow upon a total forbearance of the Lords Supper, are active as well as passive, given by the Minister, as well as taken be the People; whereas the scandal of the unworthy receiver consequent to administration of the Lords Supper, is only Passive, not Active; taken by the unworthy receiver, not given by the Minister. The former scandals, those which follow upon a total forbearance of the Lords Supper, flow per se naturally, and kindly from the Ministers neglect or sinful omission of a necessary Ordinance of God.  
The latter scandal, the scandal of the wicked, their being guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, by occasion hereor is only by accident, by reason, either of their ignorance, or sinful corruption, and evil disposition. There is a young smatterer in both Divinity, and Philosophy, who hath taken great exceptions against this passage; But he objected nothing worthy of the least digression: I shall therefore take no notice of what he sayeth, but only clear, and explain mine own meaning. When I say the scandals consequent unto a total forbearance of the Lords Supper, flow naturally there from: I mean congruenter nature; that is, suitably and agreeably unto the nature of such an omission. The total omission of the Lords Supper is of itself apt, and likely to occasion these above mentioned scandals following thereupon.  
All sinful words, deeds, and all sinful omissions, (if discernible by others) are in their own nature scandalous, they are of themselves naturally apt to scandalise, to occasion sin in others. Now I have proved that a total forbearance of the administration of the Lords Supper is a sinful omission; and therefore, I think that it is no Paradox to affirm, that it naturally occasioneth sin in others.  
Again, whereas I said, that the scandal of the wicked or unworthy receiver was only by accident: I meant in genere causae moralis. For in genere causae Physicae, the scandals consequent unto a total forbearance of the Lords Supper, are by accident also.  
To manifest this, we must distinguish of a twofold cause of the scandal, or fall of another into sin, Physical and moral; The Physical efficacious and nearest cause, is only the ill-disposition and sinful corruption of the Party scandalised; for all other men's words, actions, omissions are but occasions, not causes of sin in genere Physico, they work but objectively, and that is no Physical and real influence. And in this sense I readily grant, that all passive scandals whatsoever, are accidental in respect of the words, deeds, or omissions of others; the most enticing practices of others that are, even Satan's temptations, have no real and Physical influence upon our sins: but this acception of accidental, is utterly impertinent unto our present purpose. In a second place then our sinful words, actions, omissions, may be moral causes of other men's scandal, or falling into sin; they may scandalise (to use the words of Rutherford morally) by contributing a moral influence culpably to the scandalising of others; to speak plainly, all words, deeds, and omissions of either, that do sinfully and culpably occasion the scandal or fall of others into sin, are moral causes of their scandal or fall into sin. Moralis causa est, quae verequidem non efficit, sed tamen talis est, ut ei imputetur effectus. But now if a word or action, do not sinfully, culpably occasion the scandal, the fall of another into sin, but he only be scandalised thereby by his own default, that scandal is only termed then per accidens accidental, a passive scandal without an active, a scandal taken, not culpably given; such was the scandal in the Capernaites at Christ's preaching, of eating his flesh and drinking his blood▪ John 6.60, 61. So also Christ crucified was to the jews a stumbling block, 1 Cor. 1.23.  
In like manner the Pharisees were scandalised at Christ's doctrine concerning the cause of defilement, Matth. 15.12. All these scandals were only ex accident, they were only accidental scandals. Now to make application of all this to the matter in hand. The scandals in the godly consequent, upon forbearance of the administration of the Lords Supper, however they come Physically from the sinful corruption and ill-disposition of the godly; yet they proceed also morally from this total forbearance of the Lords Supper, as a culpable and sinful occasion of them; whereas now on the other side, of the scandals in the wicked following upon administration of the Lords Supper, the administration of the Lords Supper is not a culpable and sinful occasion not occasio data, sed arrepta, not an occasion sinfully given, but sinfully taken; even as sin is occasioned by the Commandment, Rom. 7.11.13. So that they come therefrom only per accidens, and therefore may fitly be termed only accidental scandals.  
I am willing to say all that I can in behalf of them whom I oppose; And therefore I shall desire you to consider the ground why such affirmative precepts, as command duties relating to others do not bind to always. The duties that they command are principally to this end; That they do good to men for the curing of their evils, 
Tombs of scandalising. pag. 167, 168.  for the farthering of Virtue in them. Wherefore when Prudence showeth that such actions will be fruitless in respect of the end, or contrariwise harmful, they are to be forborn. But now the administration of the Lords Supper is an unpresbyterated Church is not only fruitless, but harmful unto the wicked; a Minister reacheth out unto them but their poison; they eat and drink their own damnation.  
For answer unto this. The great good and unspeakable benefit that redounds to the Godly by administration of the Lords Supper, is a stronger, and more binding Argument for administering it, than the harm which comes unto the wicked thereby; is for a total forbearance, or seldom and rare administration thereof.  
To clear this: Two things are to be proved.  
First, That the great good, and unspeakable benefit which redounds unto the godly by the administration of the Lords Supper is a convincing, and should be a prevailing Argument for a Minister, to administer it unto his stock; (notwithstanding the harm which comes unto the unworthy receivers) who intrude against the will both of the Minister, and the godly of his Congregation.  
Secondly, The harm which comes unto the wicked by the administration of the Lords Supper is a very weak, and insufficient Argument to conclude a total forbearance, or a seldom administration of the Lords Supper to be warrantable.  
The first is apparent from the end of the Lords Supper. Secondly, the duty of a Pastor. Thirdly, the end of the Pastoral Office.  
First, Next unto God, and Christ's glory, the good of the Saints was the main end of this Sacrament: It was principally intended for the godly, for their use, comfort, and edification, and therefore they are not to be deprived of it, although it is much against their wills; accidentally prejudicial unto wilful and presuptuous intruders.  
Secondly, the duty of a Pastor is to feed the Church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood, with the food of the Sacrament, as well as the Word: Acts 20.28. Now we may do good to some, though evil by accident thereby redound to others without our default: Nay, we must do that good unto which our Calling obligeth us, let the issue or event of it unto others be what it will, or can be.  
Thirdly, The end of the Pastoral Office is, as you may see Ephes. 4.11, 12. for the perfecting of the Saints; for the edifying of the body of Christ; and therefore a Minister is diligently and frequently to use all means which Christ hath instituted for this purpose: Of which the Lord's Supper is one. Neither is he to forbear the use of such means, because some without his fault and against his will, by their abuse of them, contract guilt, and pull vengeance upon themselves.  
And this brings me unto the second thing; That the harm which comes unto the wicked by the administration of the Lords Supper is a very weak and insufficient Argument to conclude a total forbearance, or seldom administration of the Lords Supper to be warrantable. And for this I shall give you these three reasons, in which I shall presuppose that which I have already proved in my clearing of the Command.  
The first reason, Because a Minister is not guilty of, nor accessary unto this harm which comes unto the wicked. For in administering the Lords Supper unto his flock, he doth but his duty, and we suppose besides, that he hath done his utmost for prevention of their unworthy receiving.  
Secondly, A Ministers total forbearance, or a seldom administration of the Lords Supper is a culpable occasion, and so consequently a moral cause of the harm redounding unto the godly thereby; For it is a neglect of an Ordinance enjoined by Christ.  
Thirdly, if the accidental harm, which comes unto the unworthy receiver, can of itself without some other ground, legitimate a neglect of administering the Lords Supper; then there can be no certain Rule given when a Minister is to administer the Lords Supper in any Church, whether Presbyterated or unpresbyterated. And indeed this plea of harm accrueing unto unworthy receivers by the Lord's Supper, will hold as well in a Presbyterated, as an unpresbyterated Church. For if the Major part of Church-Officers be corrupt, scandalous and unworthy receivers, may be tolerated, and so the Lords Supper may do them harm, not good. Shall the Minister then wholly refrain from administering the Lords Supper? Unto this also you may add, That scandalous persons may be known to be such unto the Minister, and yet he may not be able by sufficient testimony to prove them to be so: In such a case he knoweth, that these scandalous persons will without a miracle eat and drink their own judgement; and yet I hope you will not say, that for this he is to forbear dispensation of the Lords Supper, until their scandal can be detected, either by proof, or their own confession. And this of the first Argument. The Commandment we have for the administration of the Lords Supper. What if some did not believe (saith the Apostle) Shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect? Rom. 3.3. We may say, What if some receive the Lords Supper unworthily, shall their unworthy receiving make the Lords Command for administration thereof without effect?  
In a second place we are to come to the Examples we have in Scripture for the administration of this Sacrament. 
The second Argument ab] Exemplo.  Now there is not throughout the whole Scripture any one example of the Omission of the Lords Supper in an unpresbyterated Church. And therefore there can lie upon us no Obligation from example for omission thereof. But we shall argue from Examples, not only negatively, but also affirmatively, and inquire what Patronage the administration of the Lords Supper in an un-Presbytera●ed Church hath from them.  
The first example that I shall instance in, shall be that of the first administration of the Lords Supper by our Saviour, which was a pattern of all after-administrations, and therefore most exact and perfect in point of essentials. It wanted nothing essentially belonging unto the administration of the Lords Supper. Whereupon it is, that Paul 1 Cor. 1.23. disclaims all obtruding of additionals unto the Precept and Practice of our Saviour herein: I have received of the Lord (saith he) that which I delivered unto you. But now it was by Christ administered unto a Church which was not Presbyterated. (If we understand the Term in regard of Ruling Elders.) And therefore to have Ruling Elders in a Church is not essential, but accidental unto the administration of the Lords Supper: And therefore the mere absence or want of them (especially when it is by the default of others only) is no sufficient bar against administration of the Lords Supper. I confess that we cannot conclude exclusively from Christ's Example, That the Lords Supper ought to be administered only in an unpresbyterated Church; a Church void of Ruling Elders: no more than we can infer that it is only to be administered to men or Ministers. But look, as because Christ gave the Lord's Supper only unto men; therefore it followeth, that it is lawful to administer the Lords Supper unto a Congregation made up only of men; which is a thing usual in ships at Sea, and amongst Merchants trading in remote parts: even so because Christ gave the Lord's Supper unto a Church destitute of Ruling Elders; therefore the administration of it unto a Church that now is destitute of Ruling Elders is lawful, as being agreeable unto the practice of Christ in the first administration thereof.  
A second Example is in Acts 2.42. They continued steadfastly in the Apostles Doctrine and Fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in Prayers. The breaking of bread here mentioned, is not, say Interpreters, a common, but a Sacred or Sacramental breaking of bread. And Mr Shepherd in his Doctrine of the Sabbath Part. 2. pag. 23. gives a reason for it. The bread was no more common than the continuance in the Apostles Doctrine and fellowship was common. Now, that the Church was then Presbyterated is spoken gratis, without any colour from the Text. But you will say the Apostles were clothed with a fullness of Jurisdiction. What if? First, It is not said, That the breaking of bread was by the Apostles only, or by their direction. And secondly, if it were: Did they act under the Notion of Apostles, extraordinary Ministers, or else as ordinary Ministers? For the former, no Argument appears in the Text, and for the latter, we have at least a probable Argument. A Connexis, The Doctrine or Preaching, and the Prayers there mentioned belong to the Apostles as Ministers, why not so also the breaking of bread?  
A third Example is Acts 20.7. And upon the first day of the week, when the Disciples came together to break bread. From this Example thus I argue. The Lord's day and all duties belonging thereunto are to be observed even in Unpresbyterated Churches; But the administration of the Lords Supper is a principal duty belonging to the Lords day: For Saint Luke describes therefrom, as its end; the Assembly of the Disciples upon that day, the first day of the week when the Disciples came together to break bread. And it were absurd to describe a thing, as from its end, by that which is unnecessary and less principal. It were absurd to describe a constant meeting upon such a day, as from its end, by that which is unusual upon the day. The evidence of this Argument is acknowledged by the London Divines in their Divine Right of Church Government, Pag. 20, 21. Whatsoever actions were done by Saints recorded in Scripture, upon such grounds as are of a moral, perpetual, and common concernment to one person as well as another, to one Church as well as another; These actions are obligatory to all, & a rule to after generations; and for an instance they bring the Text now under debate. Thus, say they, the Church's practice of Preaching the Word, and breaking Bread on the first day of the week, Acts 20.7. etc. is our rule for sanctifying the Lords day, by celebrating the Word, Sacraments, and other holy Ordinances at these times. Unto whom we may add Mr Shepherd in his Doctrine of the Sabbath Part. 2. pag. 22, 23. Here the breaking of bread is made mention of as the opus diei; or the especial business of the day; and the day is mentioned as the especial time for such a purpose. And therefore it is called in effect the day of meeting to break bread. Holy duties are here called breaking of bread by a Synecdoche of a part for the whole, and therefore comprehends all other Sabbath duties. For there is no more reason to exclude Prayer, Preaching, singing of Psalms, etc. Because these are not mentioned, then to exclude drinking of wine in the Sacrament: (as the blind Papists do) because this neither is here made mention of. Thus Mr Shepheard. But now we could not well take breaking of bread Synecdochycally for all Sabbath duties, unless it were a principal part of them. If we consult Ecclesiastical Stories, they inform us that the Lords Supper was administered every Lord's day. Paraeus proves as much out of Justin Martyr and Tertullian. Indeed there be many who affirm that the Lords Supper was celebrated by the Primitive Christians every day: But this strengtheneth my Argument, as is well collected by Nathaniel Eton in his disputation at Franeker, under the Moderation of Doctor Ames, de Sabbato & die Dominico. If the Lords Supper were daily administered in the Primitive Church, why then is there particular mention made of the celebration of it on the first day of the week? unless it be for the singular eminency of this day above others; and because Christians were bound by necessity of Command unto performance of this duty of celebrating the Lords Supper upon that day, whereas in other days they were left unto their liberty.  
The fourth and last Example is in the Church of Corinth, 1 Cor. 11. And how strongly conclusive this Example is for the administration of the Lords Supper in an Unpresbyterated Church you shall hear, when we come to a Comparison of an Unpresbyterated Church, with a Presbyterated Church; in which there is a Maladministration of Discipline: Unto which head we shall refer the consideration of this Example.  
The third principal Argument is taken from the general nature of the Lords Supper. It is an Ordinance of Christ, 
The third Argument, a genere.  one of those mysteries of God which we read of 1 Cor. 4.1, 2. A principal branch of God's positive and instituted Worship; a part of that Profession of faith which is required at our hands; And therefore to be administered even in an Unpresbyterated Church.  
First, the Ordinances of Christ may, nay, must be dispensed even in an Unpresbyterated Church, unless there be some dispensation to the contrary; For they are under a Command, have promises annexed, are appointed for God's honour, and our good: In the use of them we draw nigh unto God, and therefore omission of them must needs be transgression, if we may dispense them without sin, for it is a detracting the shoulder from God's burden, a neglecting an opportunity to glorify God, and so a sin against God and ourselves. But now the Lords Supper is an ordinance of Christ, and Ministers have no dispensation in Scripture to omit the administration thereof. Ergo, etc.  
Secondly, Ministers are to dispense the mysteries of God without any exception, that we read of, as well in an Unpresbyterated, as a Presbyterated Church, 1 Cor. 4.1, 2. Let a man so account of us, as of the Ministers of Christ, and Stewards of the mysteries of God. Moreover, it is required in Stewards that a man be found faithful; but the Lords Supper is a part of these mysteries. Ergo, etc.  
Thirdly, no principal part of God's positive and instituted Worship is to be omitted in an Unpresbyterated Church; But the Lord's Supper is a principal part of God's positive, and instituted Worship. Ergo, etc. The Minor is apparent out of what the incomparably learned Amesius saith, Lib. 2. Theol. c. 13. Num. 17.18. The means which God hath ordained in this kind; some of them do propperly and immediately make to the exercising and furthering of faith, hope, and charity; as public and solemn Preaching of the Word, celebration of Baptism, and the Lords Supper, and Prayer. And some of them are means for the right performance of these former, as the combination of the faithful into certain Congregations or Churches, Election, Ordination, and Ministration of Ministers ordained by God, together with the care of Ecclesiastical discipline.  
Those former are most properly the instituted Worship of God.  
Fourthly, No Sacraments of the New Testament are altogether to be forborn, omitted in an unpresbyterated Church. But the Lord's Supper is a Sacrament of the New Testament. Ergo, etc. The major is thus confirmed. Nothing necessary to salvation, both by the necessity of God's Command and as an ordinary means of salvation, is to be wholly and altogether omitted; But all Sacraments of the New Testament are necessary to salvation, both by necessity of command and as ordinary means of salvation, Ergo, etc. The minor is granted by all Protestants disputing against Papists, for maintaining the absolute necessity of baptism; they all yield that not only Baptism, but the Lords Supper also is necessary, necessitate tum Praecepti, tum medii ordinarii; as commanded duties, and as ordinary means of salvation, not of the purchase, but of the application of salvation. For they are seals assuring a believer of his salvation; they are powerful Provocations unto holiness, which is the way unto salvation; they serve for the nourishment and increase of all our graces, and therefore they may be said to be instrumental in the bringing us unto salvation itself; for by our graces and the exercise of them an entrance shall be ministered unto us abundantly, into the everlasting Kingdom of our Lord & Saviour Jesus Christ, 2 Pet. 1 11. See Whittaker Praelect. de Sacrament is in genere. Quaest. 2. c. 1.  
Fifthly, a Profession of faith in Christ may lawfully be made in an unpresbyterated Church, not only verbally, but also really, by observation of such ordinances as serve thereunto, amongst which the Lord's Supper may be reckoned one of the chief, for by it we show forth the Lords death. We declare and witness before all the world, that we own and are not ashamed of a crucified Christ; though unto the Jews a stumbling block, and unto the Greeks foolishness: that we embrace the faith, doctrine and worship of Christ, and that we utterly renounce all idolatrous worship whatsoever, 1 Cor. 10.21. By it we profess that our expectance of righteousness and salvation, is grounded only upon the satisfaction and merits of Christ's death and sufferings.  
I shall desire all that are otherwise minded, than I am in this controversy, seriously, and sadly to reflect upon these forementioned general attributions of the Lords Supper, and then to tell me with what warrant they neglect themselves, and withhold from others an Ordinance of Christ? because others the wicked abuse and profane it. Because they who keep aloof from God in their lives, approach his Table; will they therefore refuse to draw nigh unto God in the use of this holy and heavenly ordinance? how can they be accounted faithful stewards of the mysteries of God, who refuse to dispense unto God's People a principal part of these mysteries, Bread and Wine in the Lord's Supper? because others worship him amiss, will they not therefore worship him at all? because others do not sanctify God's name, but rather dishonour him by their unworthy receiving, will they therefore rob God of his honour by neglecting so necessary a part of his Worship? will they wholly omit an ordinary means of salvation, because some by accident therein eat and drink damnation? Lastly, will they forbear to make Profession of their faith in the death of Christ, by receiving the sign, and pledge thereof, only because some without their fault will join with them in making that Profession, who in works deny Christ?  
A fourth principal Argument is taken from the instrumental cause of the administration of the Lords Supper. viz. The Ministers of the Gospel, and the power which they have as Ministers to administer the Lords Supper. It is called by Divines Potestas ordinis or Potestas muneris specialis: and by the London Divines in their Divine right of Church-Government, is defined to be a Church-power more special, and particular to the office of some Church-governors' only, as the power of preaching the Cospel, & which they as Ministers may execute virtute officii: and it is distinguished from the power of Jurisdiction which is more general and common to the office of all Church-governors', as the power of Censures, wherein Ruling-Elders may act with Ministers. Now from this their definition of the power of order, I thus argue. The power of order may be exercised in an unpresbyterated Church: Ergo the power of dispensing the Sacrament.  
The Argument follows à toto ad parts. For power to dispense the Sacraments, is a part or branch of the power of order. The consequence than is undeniable. And as for the Antecedent, that may be confirmed by the  description of the power of order. That power which is only committed to the Ministers of the Gospel, and which they as Ministers may execute virtute officii; that power may be executed in an unpresbyterated Church, i. e. A Church destitute of Ruling-Elders; But such is the power of order, Ergo, etc. That which belongs to Ministers as Ministers, belongs to all Ministers, and always, in all states and conditions of the Church, as well in an unpresbyterated as a Presbyterated Church. For à quatenus ad de omni valet Argumentum: and the universality required in a Proposition, that is, de omni, is universalitas Posterioristica, as well as Prtoristica; Temporis, as well as Subjecti; Indeed this universality of time, this always is not to be understood, as in natural attributions, for that which is absolutely such in a mathematical latitude, but is to be taken (as usually it is) when it is applied to matters moral, for frequency or usualnesse. But some say, that however the power of order belong to a Minister in an unpresbyterated Church wholly and entirely; yet he can then exercise but a part of this power, power of preaching the Word and baptising; he cannot at all exercise the power of administering the Lords Supper. But this is spoken very unreasonably and groundlessly, unless in an unpresbyterated Church, there be some impediment, that by God's Word, or sound reason is a sufficient ground for non-administration of the Lords Supper: or unless the administration of the Lords Supper presuppose, as a necessary antecedent; a condition that dependeth upon the Eldership, and not upon the Minister only. For first every power is for its act, and therefore power in a Minister of administering the Lords Supper is not to lie idle and unactive; but to be exercised and actuated as often as there is a fit occasion and opportunity; unless there be some such impediment, as I spoke of but now, etc. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Hoc est frustra, quod sua natura in alterius gratiam est comparatum, quando non perficit id, cujus gratia est, & natura comparatum est. Arist. lib. 2. Phys. Text 62. Now if that may be said in vain which doth not reach that end, unto which it was appointed, much more may that be said so, which is never used or applied for the compassing of that end. Secondly, The edification of the Church of Christ is, as the London Divines say well, that eminent scope and end why Christ gave Church Government, and all other Ordinances of the New Testament to the Church, 2 Cor. 10.8. 2 Cor. 13.10. The power then both of Order and Jurisdiction are both to be employed to the edification of the Church. The power of Jurisdiction the Minister cannot exercise singly by himself, without other Church Officers. The power of Order he may: For he alone is the seat and receptacle thereof. And what is usually said of the power of Order in general may be affirmed of the power of administering the Lords Supper in particular; if there be any thing that varies the case in this branch of the power of Order, let them produce it, and prove it, and I have done. Now a Minister ought to exercise and employ for the edification of the Church all the power and authority that he may lawfully exercise. For, not to employ it, were with the slothful servant in the Parable to hid his Talon in the earth. But now according to this opinion which we oppose; If the Church should chance not to be Presbyterated for a man's whole life, than a Minister is bound during that space to suffer a branch of that power of Order which is seated singly in himself, to be idle and unactive all his life, and never to be exercised for the good, and edification of the Church.  
To avoid the dint of this Argument, they whom we oppose distinguish between Administration of, and admission unto the Lord's Supper. Administration of the Lords Supper they confess a branch of the power of Order, and only belonging to Ministers: But admission to the Lords Supper is, say they, an act of the power of Jurisdiction, and belongs not Vnised Vnitati, to the Eldership. For they only are to admit who exclude. Now they say, this Admission is a necessary Anticedent of this administration, and Negato Antecedente, necessario negabitur & consequent. In an Unpresbyterated Church there can be no admission, because there is no Eldership. Ergo no administration.  
We distinguish of admission: It is either negative or positive; negative, is nothing else but a non-hinderance; And though there be no Eldership, the Minister may not hinder those whom he hath no power, I mean no lawful authority to hinder. Now the Minister singly by himself hath no Authority to hinder, keep back, or cast out scandalous persons: for so the power of Jurisdiction would be seated in him alone. But now secondly, There is an admission that is positive, judicial, and implieth a previous forensical examination by the Eldership, as of the parties admitted, so sometimes of Witnesses, and Authoritative declaration of fitness: And this is to be only in Collegio Presbyteriali, in the College of Presbyters, and Properly as they are in Court, but not seperatim, and out of Court. Now I conceive that this juridical and Authoritative admission is not of absolute necessity unto administration of the Lords Supper. By Baptism the Baptised are admitted or entered into the Church visible, 1 Cor. 12.13. By one spirit we are all baptised into one body. See Rutherford in his due right of Presbyteries, p. 254. Now in some cases the Lords Supper may be administered unto those of years that are baptised without any new authoritative judicial admission of the Eldership.  
First, This may be gathered from Acts 2.41, 42. Those three thousand souls whose Baptism is mentioned, verse 41. have their receiving of the Lords Supper recorded, verse 42. And there is not a word of any juridical admission of them by the Eldership, coming between their Baptism, and their receiving of the Lords Supper.  
Secondly, A persecution may be so hot, as that it may scatter the Ruling Elders of a Church that they cannot convene in a spiritual Court to perform this juridical admission; and out of Court they have no Authoritative jurisdiction. May not now the Minister having a competent number of his flock, not yet admitted to the Sacrament, meeting him, who perhaps cannot stay long together for rage of the persecution without apparent danger of their lives: May not now the Minister in such a case for their consolation administer the Lords Supper to them? Nay, if they demand it, can he lawfully withhold it from them? And if in this case he may administer it to them, then juridical admission is not a necessary Antecedent of administration.  
But because this juridical and authoritative admission is inferred from the exclusion of grossly ignorant, and scandalous persons from the Lords Supper; we shall therefore inquire, whether or no this exclusion be a necessary Antecedent of the administration of the Lords Supper. And indeed if it be a necessary Antecedent thereof, it seems undeniably to follow, that in an Unpresbyterated Church, there can be no administration, because no exclusion of the scandalous and grossly ignorant.  
For satisfaction to this we must distinguish of a necessary Antecedent. A thing may be said to be a necessary Antecedent unto the administration of the Lords Supper, either by Moral, or Physical obligation. That is a necessary Antecedent unto the Lord's Supper by moral Obligation, that is morally required as a duty before the Lords Supper be administered: That is a necessary Antecedent unto the Lord's Supper by Physical obligation, which is essentially required for the Nature and Essence of the Lords Supper. The distinction though applied to another purpose you may find at large explained and applied by Rutherford in his Peaceable Plea for Paul's Presbytery, cap 9 Now we grant that exclusion of grossly ignorant and scandalous persons from the Lords Supper is morally required as a duty to go before the celebration of the Lords Supper. But of whom I pray is it required? You will say, not of the Minister singly, but of the whole Presbytery. Indeed it is required also of the people as a duty; that if they be Unpresbyterated they do what lies in them for reformation of the condition of their Church, by a choice of such Church Officers as are wanting. But what advantage do our Antagonists gain by all these concessions? It is necessary, that is, commanded as a duty unto every Eldership to exclude the scandalous and grossly ignorant before the Lords Supper be administered; It is also necessary, that is, commanded to the People as a duty to labour Reformation by choice of Ruling-Elders. But now it doth not follow from all this that it is necessary, that is, commanded as a duty to the Minister to for bear administration of the Lords Supper; if either the Eldership sin in not excluding the unworthy; or the People sin in not electing of Ruling Elders. The Elders ought to exclude the scandalous and grossly ignorant. The People ought to choose an Eldership before the Lords Supper be administered; and the Minister ought to forbear the administration of the Lords Supper, in case either Eldership or people do not perform their duties, are three Propositions far wide: and he that can make good the inference of the last from the two first shall have such credit with me, as that I will renounce Aristotle, and learn a new Logic of him, without father stay then upon the first branch of the distinction; I shall only say thus much, That if the Eldership or People fail in their duty, it is no warrant for the Minister to omit his.  
But now perhaps they will say, That it is not the Minister's duty to administer the Lords Supper, but upon condition and presupposal that the Eldership have performed theirs. To omit that this is spoken without any proof, this assertion makes exclusion essentially required as an Antecedent of the administration of the Lords Supper absolutely and indispensably necessary; Against which I shall oppose these following Arguments.  
First, the Lords Supper is invalid and nul, that is, it cannot be at all without that which is essentially pre-required. Where there is wanting any essential pre-requisite, the pretended action is not the Lords Supper, but a nullity. In such a case the actions and the Elements are not Sacramental: But now the Lords Supper is not invalid and nul without this Exclusion; therefore this exclusion is not essentially pre-required to the Lords Supper.  
Secondly, Administration of the Lords Supper is a more important and necessary duty than exclusion, etc. or any other part of the exercise of Discipline; for it is more properly and immediately the Worship of God than the exercise of discipline, as may be seen in the place before quoted out of Ames lib. 2. Theol cap. 13. n. 17, 18. God is more worshipped by the administration of the Sacraments then by Church censures; The Sacraments are a principal Worship of God; Church censures and the exercise of Discipline less principal. Now it is improbable that a less principal Worship of God should be a necessary Antecedent to a principal Worship. There is saith Rada, duplex ordo naturae; alius ordo essentialis dependendentiae; alius est ordo essentialis eminentiae. & perfectionis; qualis est inter excedens, & excessum. Now exclusion (and we may say the like of all other acts of Discipline) is not before the Lords Supper in regard of the order, either of essential dependency, or of essential eminency and perfection. The Lord's Supper hath not an essential dependency upon exclusion, or any other acts of Discipline: and it is in ratione cultus of more essential eminency and perfection; as being more immediately and properly the Worship of God. And therefore it is apparent that exclusion is not a necessary Antecedent to it. The omission therefore of exclusion by others without our default is no ground for us to omit that which is a more important and necessary duty, and withal is in our power to perform.  
Again, it is not probable that an ordinance which is more separable from the Church than the Sacraments, should be a necessary Antecedent to the administration of the Sacraments: But the exercise of Discipline is more separable from the Church than the Sacraments; as appears by what our Divines writ against the Papists touching the marks of the Church: Whittaker de Eccles controv. 2. Quaest. 5. cap. 17. as also against those of the separation. Rutherford in his due right of Presbytery, pag 287, 288, Whittaker in the forequoted place, makes the administration of the Sacraments to be in some sort and sense an essential mark of the Church; withal he excludes Discipline from being so. The exercise of Discipline, saith Rutherford, is not necessary for the essence of a visible Church, but only necessary to the well-being of a Church. But now, All do say, That the Sacraments are, though not absolutely, yet in some degrees necessary to the essence and being of a Church. So than if you compare together these two duties, exclusion of scandalous and ignorant persons from the Lords Supper, and the celebration of the Lords Supper. The Obligation unto the administration of the Lords Supper is of the two the greater and more weighty. For the Lords Supper is more the Worship of God, less separable from, and more necessary to the Church than exclusion of scandalous and grossly ignorant persons from the Lords Supper: Therefore it is altogether improbable that this latter, (viz.) exclusion, etc. should be an Antecedent absolutely necessary unto the former, (viz.) the celebration of the Lords Supper. Again, Discipline and all branches of it are compared to a spiritual Rod, 1 Cor. 4.21. The Lord's Supper is compared to spiritual food or bread; Now it is unlikely that a Rod should be a necessary Antecedent to food or bread, that is, that children be kept without bread until a Rod be provided to whip the dogs and swine.  
Thirdly, As the celebration of the Lords Supper is a more important duty than exclusion, etc. or the exercise of any other branch of Discipline: So the Commandment for the celebration of the Lords Supper is more clear, express, and evident then that for the exercise of Discipline. For the former is uncontroverted amongst all save some Popish Schoolmen, whereas nothing can be more controverted than the latter. Witness else those endless disputes touching Discipline by the Prelatical party, Erastians', Presbyterians, Independents. Now if it be in doubtful matters the best way to take the safest course, I should conclude, That a duty so wonderfully controverted is not an Antecedent absolutely necessary unto that which is uncontroverted, by all generally granted to a duty.  
Fourthly, In the absence of the Ruling Elders of a persecuted Church, the Minister may lawfully administer the Lord's Supper unto the remainder of the scattered flock; though some Professors, who deserve exclusion be against the wills of the best affected joined with them. The persecution may be so hot, as that those who stay behind, may every hour be in jeopardy for their lives, in danger to be haled unto a stake, and how their Ministers, staying with them, can in such a case lawfully withhold from them (assembling themselves together to communicate in other Ordinances) that Sacrament which Christ hath appointed for the strengthening, comforting, and confirming of his members; especially when they beg, call, and cry for it; I profess I cannot see.  
All these former Arguments receive weight and strength from this consideration; That the exercise of Discipline is not a necessary antecedent unto the exercise of other branches of the power of Order; to wit, the power of Preaching, Baptising, etc. Therefore to say without proof, that it is a necessary antecedent unto the exercise only of this Branch, of the power of Order, is Petitio Principii, a mere begging of the Question.  
The fifth Principal Argument is taken from the end of the Lords Supper. 
The 5. Arg. à fine.  The principal ends of the Lords Supper have place in, and do belong unto an Unpresbyterated Church; and therefore likewise the Lords Supper itself. The consequence is made good from that Maxim in Logic, Posito fine ponuntur omnia media ad finem; The Antecedent is manifest from an enumeration of the ends of the Lords Supper. It will be an endless work to go over them all; I shall therefore out of them all select two.  
The first is that which by Christ's most express command is to be the end of this Sacrament; And it is to celebrate the memory of Christ's Death and Passion, that unvaluable price of our double Redemption, Redemption from hell, and Redemption to glory: This do in remembrance of me. And doth it not become Christians to celebrate with a frequent (shall I say) nay rather with an eternal memory the Author of their Redemption? Shall so great and glorious a work be buried in a grave of oblivion? And shall that (I mean the Lords Supper, which is by divine institution, a Pledge and memorial of this so incomparable a mercy be neglected and quite thrown aside, if the government of the Church by the iniquity of the times be not settled in our times. Christ's death is to be remembered with a memory, both of faith and gratitude; even in an Unpresbyterated Church. Therefore the Lords Supper which was by Christ instituted for the commemoration thereof, is to be celebrated in an Unpresbyterated Church.  
Secondly, I shall argue from another end of the Lords Supper: The spiritual growth and nourishment of Christians. The Lord's Supper is defined by Ames, to be the Sacrament of the nourishing, and growth of the faithful in Christ: Whereupon he infers that it ought oftentimes to be administered to the same persons.  
In an Unpresbyterated Church Christians ought to grow in grace, to nourish, and improve their graces all they can? Why then should they be denied that, which Christ himself hath appointed, as an help and means of this growth and nourishment? Me thinks it is somewhat a strange kind of reasoning, because the rod of Discipline is wanting; the children should be denied bread; yea, but you will say, dogs will eat the children's bread, Why, will you therefore starve the children, because dogs without your default may snatch the children's portion? Shall the children be debarred (as I may say) their daily bread, because it will become accidentally poison unto dogs? Hither may we refer these words of the Bramble Berrie. As it is better for God's sheep to feed upon pasture, where some weeds grow, rather than starve for want of food: So it is better for God's shepherds to suffer some weeds to grow in the sheep's pastures, if they cannot prevent it, then to starve their flocks; yea, and as it is better for the sheep to feed among goats, rather than starve: So it is better the shepherds should suffer the goats to feed upon the sheep's pasture, though it should poison them, then for the sheep to be kept from it; It being as I said out of their power to reform it. Hither you may refer that place of Beccanus. sum. Theol. Part. 3. Tract. 2. Cap. 23. Quest. 4. Hoc praeceptum divinum tum maxime obligat, cum prudenter judicatur Eucharistiae sumptionem, necessariam esse homini ad eum finem, ob quem instituta est, nimirum ad conservandam, & roborandam vitam spiritualem contra tentationes. Ratio est, quia hoc est commune Praeceptis affirmativis, ut tunc obligent, quando urget necessitas finis, propter quem instituta sunt.  
The sixth Argument is drawn from the Object of the administration of the Lords Supper, 
The sixth Argument. Ab Objecto.  such as have these qualifications which the Scripture requireth, in those to whom it is to be administered, and these qualifications are especially two. First, Right unto; Secondly, Need of the Lords Supper. Now in an Unpresbyterated Church, there are many who have right unto, and need of the Lords Supper; why then should it be withheld from them? Because they have right unto it, the Minister is tied to give it them by an obligation of justice; because they have need of it, the Minister is bound to give it them, by an obligation of charity.  
First, Many have right unto it, not only jus adrem, but also jus in re; not only a right in actu primo, but also a right in actu secundo; which rendereth the person actually and presently capable of the thing that he is entitled to. That which giveth such a right in Foro Dei, is Eaith; but in Foro Ecclesiastico, profession of the Faith. Now in an Unpresbyterated Church, there are many who are Believers, and Professors of the Faith: Ego, many that have right unto the Lord's Supper. And we may argue from the right to the administration. Philip did so to the Eunuch in case of Baptism. The Eunuch said here is water, what doth hinder me to be baptised? And Philip said, If thou believest withal thine heart, thou mayst. So may we say; here is bread and wine, etc. Peter also thus reasoneth, Acts 10.47. Can any forbid water, that these should not be baptised, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? So may we say, can any man forbidden bread and wine, that these should not receive the Lords Supper, which have received the Holy Ghost; and have in some degree all spiritual qualifications requisite in Communicants. They have the word of promise▪ which is the greater; who can inhibit the sign which is the less? They are Mr. Geree his words for the Baptism of Infants. They are faederati, therefore they must be signati. It is Mr. Marshal's argument upon the same subject; and mutatis mutandis appliable to our purpose. Perhaps you will say, you would willingly give Believers their right; but profane and scandalous persons will also intrude who have no right: What if they do? If you have no power or authority from Christ to keep them back by yourself; If you have used the utmost of your power to erect an Eldership in the Congregation; if you have used your power of Order to the utmost for keeping them back by exhortation, if you mourn for their intrusion, wherein are you to be blamed? Because they do wrong, will you do no right? And shall the Saints be debarred their deuce, because these wretches without your allowance, seize upon what is undue, that unto which they have no right? I shall conclude this Argument with that of the Bramble Berry. As it were better in our alms to relieve ten Counterfeits, then let Christ go naked and hungry in any one member: So it were better to admit ten Hypocrites to the Table of the Lord, then deprive one Godly man of this soul nourishment.  
To this Argument we may add weight by considering, that in an Unpresbyterated Church; Believers have not only a right to the Lords Supper, but also need of it. Their own necessities (saith Mr. Pemble) may persuade them to frequent celebration of this Sacrament, if they can be sensible of their spiritual weakness and wants. Let them look inward and see how great need they have of many and often confirmations of their faith, renovations of their repentance, of stirring up the graces of God in the soul, to add an edge and eagerness to all spiritual affections after holiness, to get unto themselves the most powerful provocations unto obedience: Every one that hath grace, knows how frequently the power thereof is impaired by temptations, weakened by worldly distractions, even of our lawful employments, and overmastered by the force of sinful lusts; so that they must needs discover a great deal of ignorance in their spiritual estate, that feel not in their souls a proneness to a famishment, as well as in their bodies; at least they bewray intolerable carelessness, that finding the emptiness and leanness of their souls; yet neglect to repair often unto this holy Table, whereon is set forth the bread of life; whereof when they have eaten, their spirit may come again, their hearts may be strengthened, their souls may be replenished as with marrow and fatness.  
The Ministers and Elders met together in the late Provincial Assembly at London in their Vindication of the Presbyterial Government, consider the Sacrament under a four fold Notion.  
First, As it is a spiritual medicine to cure the remainders of our corruption.  
Secondly, As it is spiritual food to strengthen our weak graces.  
Thirdly, As it is a spiritual cordial to comfort our distressed consciences.  
Fourthly, As it is a strong obligation, and forcible engagement to all acts of thankfulness and obedience unto Jesus Christ.  
Now Believers in an Unpresbyterated Church, have need of the Lords Supper under all these considerations.  
First, Their souls are perpetually diseased, and therefore they stand in need of the frequent use of this Sacrament, as a sovereign medicine to heal them.  
Secondly, Their souls are naturally empty of all spiritual goodness, their graces feeble and defective; their faith weak and often staggering, their hope fainting, their love cold, their zeal languishing. And therefore the Lords Supper is frequently needful, as spiritual food for the nourishing and strengthening of all their graces; for the confirming of their faith, quickening of their hope, rowzing of their love, and kindling of their zeal. etc.  
Thirdly, The faith of the strongest Believers may be shaken, their assurance eclipsed with doubts, their spiritual joy darkened with fears, discomforts and afflictions. They may walk in darkness and see no light. And in such a case the Lords Supper is necessary, as a precious Cordial to revive and cheer up their sinking spirits, to confirm their doubting, and to comfort their distressed consciences.  
Fourthly, The hearts of the best of men are false and unsteadfast, lose and deceitful, apt to start from God and his just commands. They therefore want the Lords Supper for renuall of their Covenant with God; that so thereby they may bind, fasten and engage themselves a fresh unto God in the strength of Christ.  
The seventh Argument is from comparison of the Lords Supper with Baptism. 
The seventh Argument, A Comparatis.  It is a generally received Maxim amongst Divines, that Baptism ought to be administered but once, for it is the seal of our new birth, and we are borne but once. The Lord's Supper ought to be administered often, for we stand in need continually of food, nourishment, confirmation, etc. Now by this Divinity, that the Lords Supper is not to be administered in an Unpresbyterated Church, it will follow: That if the Church wherein we live be not all our lives long Presbyterated, that then in such a condition of the Church, Baptism is to be administered once, the Lords Supper never.  
The eight Argument is drawn from the consideration of the opposite of the administration of the Lords Supper; 
The eight Argument Ab Opposito.  the non-administration thereof. Non-administration of the Lords Supper in an Unpresbyterated Church is unlawful; Therefore administration in an Unpresbyterated Church is lawful. That non-administration of the Lords Supper (I mean thereby at otal forbearance of the administration therefore) is unlawful in an Unpresbyterated Church, I prove by these three following Arguments.  
All unwritten Traditions in matters of Worship and Religion are unlawful: But a total forbearance of the administration of the Lords Supper in an Un Presbyterated Church is an unwritten Tradition, having no precept, or exmaple in Scripture to countenance it: Ergo, etc. There is express Scripture for administration of the Lords Supper unto the Churches of God. As for the restriction of it unto Presbyterated Churches, it cannot be made good from Scripture. And Commentaries, Expositions of Scripture that are not by good consequence deducible therefrom, are unwritten Traditions, and humane Presumptions. However we cannot argue negatively from humane testimonies, we may yet from divine the Scriptures. For they are able to make a man wise unto salvation, and throughly to furnish the man of God (a Minister) to all good works; able to give him sufficient direction, when to perform, when to omit duties. And therefore seeing there is such a deep silence in the Scriptures, concerning the total forbearance of administering the Lords Supper in an Unpresbyterated Church; I cannot but conclude it to be unnecessary. The Lord may say unto us, who hath required this at your hand. These two things differ wide.  
First, Scandalous persons ought to be excluded the Lords Supper.  
Secondly, If for want of an Eldership they cannot be excluded, therefore we must wholly forbear administration of the Lords Supper. The former is obvious in Scripture, the latter an unwritten Tradition.  
But you will say there is warrant for Omission of the Lords Supper, etc. The Pass over was omitted by the Children of Israel in the Wilderness, as also circumcision: whence we may argue by way of Analogy and Proportion for Omission of the Lords Supper; when the Church is in a Wilderness, and if ever she were in a Wilderness, than now.  
First, Arguments from mere and naked Analogy and Proportion, without some other ground are not concludent; otherwise we might argue for a Pope from the Jews Highpriest. But as to the instances I wonder, why omission of the Passeoves in the Wilderness is alleged For after the first celebration thereof, all future celebrations were by express & plain command to be only in the land of Canaan, Exod. 13.4, 5. etc. Deut. 16. from verse 1. usque ad 8. Rivet. upon Exodus. vers. 5. clears this very well, whose words I shall take leave to insert. Moses declarat quo tempore solemnitatis illius celebrat●o inchoari debeat: nempe post introductionem Populi, in terra patribus promissa; Tum (inquit) coals, Deum nempe, isto cultu, in isto mense, non in deserto, sed in terrâ patribus tuis promissâ; Meminisse videtur, tot populorum, ut oppositâ promissione & potentiâ Dei, eos muniret adversus tentationem diffidentiae, quae obrepere potuisset, si simpliciter considerassent, quàm arduum esset negotium, tot nationes & suis sedibus deturbare. At inquit Moses, res adeo certa est, ut Deus cultum illum à vobis non requirat, quem nunc praescribit; nisi postquam promissum illudsuum impleverit. Hinc ergo apparet legem comedendi agnum, ut azymes panes, non obligasse Israelitas totis XL. annis, quibus vagabuntur in deserto instabiles, & rebus omnibus incompositis. Quod de plerisque statutis dicendum est, quae postea Deus per Mosem evulgavit, ut liquet, ex Deut. 12. vers. 1. Haec sunt illa statuta & judicia, quae observanter facturi estis in illâ terrâ, quam dat Deus majorum tuorum tibi ut haereditario possideas eam, omnibus diebus quibus victuri estis super terram. Antea enim quod ad oblationes, & similia attinebat, non potuit usque adeo in ambulatoriis Israelitarum castris observari, aut summo jure ab illis exigi: quod statutum erat, quo tempore etiam indultum est illis ut incircumcisi manerent. Hoc indicat Moses, ver. 8, 9 Non facietis secundum omnia quae facimus hodie, quisque quicquid videtur rectum in oculis suis: non adhuc enim ingressiestis ad locum illum quietis, & ad possessionem illam, quam jehova dat tibi, etc. Et certe non poterat Azymorū solemnitas servari, uti cum manna vescerentur, nullus erit usus fermenti cum triticeo pane, non vescerentur. Commode itaque haec declaratio annexa est, ne scrupulum aliquem conscientiis injiceret mandati illius omissio spacio annorum, XL.  
As for Circumcision, I demand whether their omission of it were with leave from God, or without leave? if without leave, than it was sinful, and so no Plea for the non-administration of the Lords Supper: if it were with leave, than it was either by special and extraordinary Revelation from God; or by some general rule and direction contained in the written law, or law of nature; if by especial and extraordinary Revelation, show some such warrant for forbearance of the Lords Supper, and I have done; if by some general rule and direction contained either in the written law, or law of nature, produce that rule and direction, & apply it to the present forbearance of the Lords Supper, & the controversy is at end.  
A second Argument; a negative separation, that is, a non-Communion with the Church in a lawful and commanded worship is unlawful; Therefore also a total forbearance of the administration of the Lords Supper in an unpresbyterated Church is unlawful. For the antecedent I shall refer you to all that writ against the separation, who generally distinguish separation into Negative and Positive; Negative, is a non-Communion in Ordinances. Positive, when we gather and grow into another body, and they codclude them both to be unlawful. The consequent will be evident, if you please to read those who have written against the separation; for you will find that many of their Arguments mutatis mutandis, may be saddled against this forbearance of the Lords Supper. I shall therefore desire you to make trial of this for proof of this Argument; And after you have made such trial, you will, I believe, conclude non-administration to be a greater evil than separation, because the Minister thereby not only neglects himself an Ordinance of God, but also keeps all others from it.  
Thirdly, it is unlawful for a Minister by himself to excommunicate so much as one member of his Church, with that which Divines call the lesser excommunication, which is exclusion from the Lords Supper; therefore his total forbearance of the administration of the Lords Supper in an unpresbyterated Church is unlawful. The Antecedent will not at all be denied by those whom I oppose; for the Minister by himself to exclude judicially from the Lord's Supper, what were it but to lord it over God's heritage? sole power of jurisdiction, Christ hath vouchsafed to no one Person on earth; and therefore Papal and Prelatical, for being so, hath been censured by the Orthodox to be unlawful and Antichristian. As for the consequence or sequel that is apparent; because a Minister by a total forbearance of the administration of the Lords Supper, doth exclude his whole Church from the Lords Supper. And therefore his non-administration of the Lords Supper, is a virtual Excommunication. Now we may argue from the less to the greater thus. If it be unlawful for a Minister to exclude by himself, one member from the Lords Supper, when he celebrates it; it is much more unlawful for him to exclude the whole Church, by refusal to celebrate it, if he cannot debar one Communicant; how lies it in his power to dis-common a whole Church? if a steward wrong one servant by thrusting him from the Table without Authority & Commission from his Lord; doth he not much more wrong the whole family, if he withhold from them meat and drink, and will not let them have their constant meals allowed them by their master? Neither is the matter any whit mended by saying, that there is a difference between an exclusion from the Lords Supper by positive and formal excommunication, and that exclusion which is by non-administration; For it is unlawful to exclude from the Lords Supper by a sinful omission or neglect of the exercise of the power of order, which is seated only in the Minister, as well as it is unlawful to exclude from the Lords Supper, by an unjust usurpation of sole power of jurisdiction, that belongs to the whole Eldership.  
And let this suffice for the first sort of Arguments drawn from the Lords Supper, and the administration thereof.   

A second sort of Arguments in which I will be brief, may be taken from the other term considerable in the question, a Non-Presbyterated Church. i.e. A Church destitute of Ruling-Elders.  
And here we may argue à Genere, ab Exemplo, à Comparatis.  
FRom the general nature of an unpresbyterated Church Unpresbyterated Churches, 
First à Genere, Cum in Abel, & Cain, inciperet divisio civitatis spiritualis Jerusalem, à civitate Babylonis, oportuit esse signa aliqua sacra, quibus distinguerentur cives Jerusalem, à civibus Babylonis: sicut videmus in aliis rebus: oves enim unius gregis, discernuntur ab ovibus alterius gregis, proprio signo; & sacrae aedes, à non sacris, propriis signis discernuntur; & civitas nobilis aliquo signo donati consuevit: ut civitas Romana, penula: & dignitas militaris accinctione gladii: & ossicium traditione virgae, vel clavium; ex quibus omnibus calligitur, quod Sacramenta fuerunt necessaria homini post lapsum, ad hoc ut discerneretur esse civis spiritualis Jerusalem, & de grege domini, es de militâ ●jus. Alexand. Alenj. Par. 4. q. 1. m. 2. ar. 2.  (such as our Churches generally in England) are true Churches; and therefore should have the marks of a true Church. Now administration of the Sacraments hath been always counted amongst the marks and signs of a true Church, by such as have written concerning the marks of the Church against Papists, as also by the old non-Conformists writing against those of the separation. Many of them have gone so fare, as to reckon the Sacraments amongst the essential notes of the Church. Which assertion is explicated the best and clearest by Aims, that ever I read in any. Adhibentur istae notae (saith he) scilicet vera praedicatio Evangelii; legitima administratio Sacramentorum; & legitima disciplina non ad veram. Ecclesiam militantem, quoad essentiam ejus internam, certo & necessario declarandam: sed ut visibilem aliquem coetum designandum, qui est Ecclesia particularis ex instituto Christi formata. But the Church ought to use these marks which God hath appointed, to distinguish her from the companies of Infidels and Pagans, as also from the Assemblies of Antichrist, though they be not simply essential and reciprocal. Mine Argument therefore stands in its full strength, though the Lords Supper were not an essential mark of the Church.  
The second Argument shall be taken from the example of an●un-Presbyterated Church. 
Ab Exemplo.  Suppose divers Christians of several Countries, yet understanding one language, should casually be together in some sea town of Turkey, Africa, etc. destitute of a constant minister; now suppose some godly Minister should come on shore to them out of some ship, who on make no long stay with them; I would willingly know whether they may not receive the Lords Supper from him, and he administer it to them; if they may, than we have one instance of an unpresbyterated Church, capable of the administration of the Lords Supper. And the truth of an universal negative is overthrown by one particular affirmative. I might also instance in Churches under the extremity of persecution, when the Saints have no constant abode, but are always in a wand'ring and flying posture from city to city; though by the extreme rage of the Persecution, Church's unpresbyterated have not opportunity to form themselves into a Presbytery; and in Churches Presbyterated, the Ruling-Elders are so scattered, as that they cannot convene in an Ecclesiastical Court: shall the People of God now in such a case be denied the comfort of the Lords Supper? because the world frowns on them, shall therefore the Pledges of God's favour be denied unto them? what is this but to add affliction to the afflicted?  
The last Argument strikes against the only reason pretended, 
The 3. Arg. à comparatis.  for forbearance of the administration of the Lords Supper in an unpresbyterated Church, which is, because scandalous Persons cannot there be excluded from the Lords Supper. And it is taken from a comparison of an unpresbyterated Church, with such a Presbyterated Church, wherein there is either neglect or maladministration of discipline. It is drawn à similibus, and built upon this maxim. Similium similis est ratio, si similia spectentur quâ talia sunt, seu quatenus similia sunt, & quoad illud tertium, in quo sit comparatio. There is a likeness as to the matter of sinful mixtures, betwixt an unpresbyterated and a Presbyterated Church, wherein there is either neglect or maladministration of discipline. In such a Church there will in all likelihood be sinful mixtures, for we suppose the major part of Church-officers to be corrupt, and likely to give countenance to scandalous and wicked Persons, to tolerate them in Church-Communion, to admit them unto the Lord's Supper; but now for these mixtures the administration of the Lords Supper is not to be forborn in a Presbyterated Church; therefore these mixtures are no sufficient argument against the administration of the Lords Supper in an unpresbyterated Church. That the admission of scandalous Persons to the Lords Supper in a Presbyterated Church, is no ground or warrant to forbear the administration thereof, may be made good by instancing in the Church of Corinth, where there were schisms and contentions; 1 Cor. 1.12, 13. Envying and strife, 1 Cor. 3.3. An incestuous Person, not cast out of Church-Communion, 1 Cor. 5. Going to law with the brethren before infidels, eating at the idols Table, 1 Cor. 8. denying of a fundamental point of faith, the Resurrection of the dead, 1 Cor. 15. And to give an instance more especially pertinent to the question in hand, many of them came to the Lords Table drunken, 1 Cor. 11.21. and so did eat and drink damnation: Notwithstanding this deluge of corruption the Sacrament was administered, and the Apostle gave no direction to the contrary, though he treated purposely and at large touching abuses about the Lords Supper, and gave them directions for reformation of them, delivering whatsoever he received of the Lord touching this Argument. It is plain therefore that forbearing the Lords Supper in such a case is no Apostolical practice. If this Tenent of our Antagonists were true, the easiest and more proper remedy that the Apostle could have advised them to, was to lay aside the Lords Supper until either the Church guides became more watchful, or the Church Members more reform in lives and Conversations. But now the Apostle falls upon other Remedies of this abuse.  
First, He calls upon the Church guides to cast out the scandalous, 1 Cor. 5. and then,  
Secondly, He exhorts private members to examine themselves, and so eat of this Bread and drink of this Cup.  
From the first remedy, we may, supplying some Propositions conclude; That in Unpresbyterated Churches Ministers should use their utmost endeavours for a Reformation for thee setting up of Presbytery in their Churches that may exclude scandalous persons from the Lords Supper. But a total forbearance of the Lords Supper, and an endeavour of reformation are things widely different. That this Argument thus drawn a comparatis may appear in its full strength; I shall desire you to consider what our Divines argue hence against separation in case of sufferance of scandalous persons in Church Communion, and you will find that mutatis mutandis, it will serve our turn against this Non-administration or total forbearance of administration, etc.  
Before I meddle with Objections, I shall first premise some Concessions which may save the labour of alleging many Arguments, in which there is that Fallacy which is termed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Ignoratio Elenchi, a proof of that which no way opposeth what I hold.  
First then, I grant that Persons grossly ignorant and notoriously scandalous and impenitent aught to be excluded from the Lords Supper, but it must be done by them only to whom God hath given this power, and in such order and manner as the Lord hath appointed. That is necessary (saith Mr Ball in his Trial of the grounds tending to separation, pag. 190.) to them that have received Commission from God, which is unlawful to them that want authority. In the Commonwealth the execution of justice is necessary; but private persons must not challenge the Sword of the Magistrate. In a Corporation no one must take that upon himself which belongeth to the Common-council. Holy things must not be given to profane persons; but every one at his pleasure must not deny holy things to unholy persons, but unholy persons must be debarred from holy things in such order as God hath prescribed. 
Haec dispensatio, vel denegatio Sacramenti nonest consideranda ut actio judicialis vel inflictiva paenae sed solum, ut prudens ac fidelis administratio Sacramenti, & ideo non pendet ex testibus, aut probationibus, sed solum ex câscientiâ, & cognition, quae prudenti existimatione secundum occurrentes circumst●●●tias judicatur sufficiens, ut sine, incommodo possit, & debeat negari Sacramentum. S●●●●es. in part. 3. Thom. Tom. 3. disp. 67. Sect. 3. pag. 856.  The Schoolmen are extremely out in this particular, for they deny the debarring of notorious offenders from the Lords Supper to be an act of Jurisdiction, and so they put it into the hands and power of the Minister to deny it unto those whom he judgeth to be gross and scandalous sinners.  
In a second place I also yield that in the permission of grossly ignorant and notoriously scandalous persons that are impenitent; there is a great sin committed by all those who have sufficient power to keep them back, and by all others that are any ways accessary thereunto. But now a man cannot be said to be guilty of that, to hinder which he hath done all that he can (I mean all that he can de jure, by right, and lawfully.)  
Which brings me to my third Concession: A Minister is bound to use all lawful probable means to keep grossly ignorant and notoriously scandalous impenitent sinners from the Lords Supper: But he is not, for prevention of their coming, obliged to use any unlawful means. We must not do evil that good may come thereof; commit sin ourselves, to prevent it in others. Now I have proved a total forbearance of administering the Lords Supper to be unlawful. And those with whom I deal in this Controversy must (unless they will go from their own principles) acknowledge, that for a Minister to exclude any singly and solely by himself, as also to separate and gather a Church are both unlawful.  
Having premised these Concessions, I come now unto the Objections, which may be reduced unto one principal Argument, and the other added as confirmations.  
It is unlawful to give the Lords Supper unto grossly ignorant and notoriously scandalous persons; but supposing that our Churches in England are generally mixed Congregations; it will be impossible (as long as they are destitute of Ruling-Elders) for the Minister to avoid giving the Lords Supper unto grossly ignorant and notoriously scandalous persons; unless he will either assume unto himself sole power of Jurisdiction, or else allow the whole power to exclude. Now the former would be Tyrannical, Prelatical, and Pope-like, the later would be a disclaiming of Presbytery, and a marching over unto the Tents of the Independents.  
That it is unlawful and sinful for a Minister to give the Lords Super unto grossly ignorant and notoriously scandalous persons, is endeavoured to be proved.  
First, from the fidelity and prudence required in Ministers as Stewards, which obligeth them not to dispense the Lords Supper unto such unto whom Christ would not have it to be given.  
Secondly, From the general nature of the Lords Supper. It is a holy thing, a Pearl of the Gospel, and therefore ought not to be given unto dogs and swine. It is a seal of the Covenant, and the Promises. And therefore to administer it unto those who visibly have as yet no share in them, is a visible and practical lie.  
Lastly, From the consequents of administering the Lords Supper unto grossly ignorant and notoriously scandalous persons. Hereupon will follow a Transgression of the Rule of Christ; pollution of the Sacrament, a participation of the sin of unworthy receivers. The Schoolmen here have divers objections which you may see in such of them as Comment in tertiam partem Aquinatis. quaest. 80. Art. 6.  
The first answer is by retortion. All these Arguments may be retorted upon our dissenting brethren. For they conclude also against administration of the Lords Supper in a Presbyterated Church, in case there be either neglect or Maladministration of Discipline: For then considering the Constitution of our Churches generally here in England how will you avoid giving the Lords Supper unto those grossly ignorant and scandalous persons upon whom the Presbytery hath passed no Censure if they should present themselves? And that you can by admonition keep them back is altogether unprobable.  
There be in this case but three effectual means which the Minister can take to prevent the giving of the Sacramental signs unto them. A total forbearance of the administration of the Lords Supper. The Minister's exclusion of unworthy persons singly and solely by himself. Or else separation and gathering of a more pure and reformed Church.  
Now of these possible means, I have proved the first to be unlawful: And by my brethren's own Principles the two last are unlawful also. If they can think of any other course, let them produce it and prove it, and I am confident it will fit our turn as well as theirs.  
Secondly some think that the supposed sin of giving the Lords Supper unto unworthy persons is easily avoided, if the Minister give not the Sacramental Elements to each Communicant out of his own hand; but the Communicants divide the Elements among themselves, which was approved of by the old Non-conformists; by Gillespy in his Aaron's Rod blossoming. Book 3. cap. 8.437.438. By Mr Bowles de Pastore Evangelico. lib. 4. cap. 5. By Mr Burrows in his Gospel-Worship, pag. 264, 265. and practised as Gerhard tells us out of Lavater by the Tigurine Church, Loc. Theol. Tom. 5. de Sacra Caena. cap. 15. Cajetan upon Matthew 26. thinks that this course is most agreeable to the example of Christ in the first administration of this Sacrament unto his Apostles; as also Salmeron, Jansenius, Cassander in Liturgicis. Suarez in part. 3. Thom. disp. 72. Sect. 1. with whom Maldonate upon Matthew accords. As concerning the Cup Johannes Buxtorfius junior in Exercitatione sacrâ in historiam institutionis coenae dominicae. Basil. editâ. 1642. thinks that Christ herein followed the custom of the Jews in the Passeover; where the Pater-familias blessed the bread and broke it; but they who eat the Passeover with him, took their portion with their own hands out of the dish or Platter. Indeed Christ gave both the Bread and the Cup to the Disciples. But we must distinguish between giving of a thing unto many in genere and conjunctim, in general and jointly; and the giving of it viritim & sigillatim, severally and to each man.  
It doth not appear that our Saviour gave the Sacramental Elements to his Apostles sigillatim & viritim; to each of them out of his own hand, but that he gave them unto them only conjunctim, and in genere, jointly, and in general; is at least made very probable by these following Arguments.  
First, There is not in either the Evangelists, or the 1 Cor. 11. any the least mention of our Saviour's distributing the Sacramental Elements particularly, and severally out of his own hand to each Communicant: Nay, the contrary rather is probable, because he speaks unto these, whom he gave the Supper unto, only jointly and in general. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
A second reason is given by Cajetan on Matthew 26. The Disciples received the Bread and Cup into their hands, not from the hand of Christ, but from the Table. For Christ is found sitting at one Table with his Disciples, unto whom he still sitting distributed the blessed Sacrament as unto his Communicants: But now they being so many sat, in all likelihood, at so great a distance as that the hand of Christ could not convey it into the hands of each Communicant; And therefore it is probable that Christ gave the dish or platter unto him that sat next unto him, from whom it was successively reached about unto the other Communicants.  
A third Argument is concerning the Cup: whence we may argue unto the Bread by way of Analogy: and it is taken out of Luk. 22.17. And he took the Cup and gave thanks, and said, take this and divide it among yourselves. Whereas some understand the Cup to be the Paschall Cup; others to be the Cup in the ordinary Supper. To me (saith Gillespy in the place above quoted) it is plain that it was the Eucharistical Cup; because that which Luke saith of that Cup, that Christ took it and gave thanks, and gave it to the Disciples, that they might all drink of it, and told them he would not drink with them any more of the fruit of the Vine till the Kingdom of God shall come. All this is the very same which Matthew and Mark record of the Eucharistical Cup.  
But now it is objected, That this is related before the taking and breaking of the Bread, and therefore it is not likely to be the Eucharistical Cup which was given after the Bread.  
Unto this Gillespy replieth, that it is but by an Anticipation or Pre-occupation occasioned by that which had proceeded, Verse 16. So to join the Protestation of not drinking again, with that of not eating again the Passeover with his Disciples. Wherefore Beza, Salmeron, Maldonate, and others following Augustine, and Euthymeus, do resolve, that it is an Anticipation, even as Paul mentioneth the Cup before the Bread. 1 Cor. 10.16. Thus Gillespy.  
Mr Burrows in the but now quoted place gives also three reasons why it is better to give it generally then particularly into every one's hand.  
First, Because that the giving of it once for all doth signify more fully the fellowship and Communion that they have together. As at a Table, it were a strange thing that every bit of meat must be given to every one particularly, no, but the dishes must be set before them and they must take it themselves. Indeed if they be children you cut every piece of meat and give it into their hands or mouths; but that is futable to a fellowship at Table, and Communion to have the meat set before them being blessed, and then for all to partake of it.  
And secondly, Besides this giving it into every one's hand, came to us from a Popish and Superstitious conceit of the Papists to bring more reverence to the Sacrament. Now there is a great deal of danger to bring in men's devices to cause more reverence.  
Thirdly, one would wonder that Ministers should give it in particular, and not in general to the Church; for by this means Ministers might abundantly ease themselves of a great deal of charge and guilt.  
Now if this way of distributing the Sacramental Elements in general be justifiable; then as Mr Bowles saith in the place above cited, Si quis se obtrudet, quem ut excluderet, fecit quod in se Pastor non tamille dare, quam hic arripere dicendus.  
But in a third place, Take giving of Sacramental Elements in what sense you please, we must distinguish of dogs and swine, grossly ignorant and scandalous impenitent sinners. They are either such indeed, and really, or else juridically by Church Censure. It is unlawful to give the Sacramental Elements to the latter sort, but not always unto the first. For though (saith Mr Ball, pag. 193.) in course of life they may be dogs, yet in public esteem they are not to be reputed dogs, nor used as dogs till the Church have so pronounced of them. And for this Aquinas part. 3. Quaest. 80. Art. 6, quotes Augustine Tom. 9 lib. de medicine. paeniaentiae, cap 3. Nos à Communione quenquam prohibere non possumus, nisi sponte confessum, aut in aliquo Judicio Ecclesiastico vel seculari nominatum atque convictum. Now if only such dogs and swine are to be denied the Lords Supper who are such juridically, than the alleged arguments will no way oppose my opinion; For in a Church without Ruling-Elders there cannot regularly be any such dogs and swine.  
That it is only unlawful for Ministers to give the Lords Supper unto such dogs and swine as are so Juridically, 
Ad commune bonum, & convenientem Ecclesiae vel cujusque reipublicae gubernationem pertinet; ut communia bona, quae publice dispensanda ac distribuenda sunt, juxta merita & dignitatem singularum personarum à publico Ministro ad hoc munus à Republica vel principe reipublicae destinato, dispensentur, non juxta privatam scientiam ipsius ministri, sed per publicam & notoriem: hujusmodi autem est dispensatio Sacramenti hujus, ut per se constat, ergo quando publice sit, non est regulanda per scientiam privatam, sed publicam. Maj●r propositio videtur ess● morale quoddam principium, sere ex ipsis terminis notum. Nis● haec regula in praedicta publica dispensatione servetur, talis dispensandi modus mor● litter loquendo, erit expositus multis scandalis, perturbationibus, & injuriis: ut ministri possent facile publice infamare, quos vellent, & peccatum, vel indignitatem fingere, ubi non esset. Et è contrariò possent fideles saepe formidare, & timere, ne à ministr●s hujus Sacramenti infamarentur. Et hac ratione quamvis peccatur absolute non habet jus ad petendum hoc Sacramentum, tamen quilibet fidelis haber jus, ut si publice p●●at, non repell●tur, nisi debito mod●, id est ex publica manifestatione, & scientia sui peccati: propter quod dixit recte divus Thomas, per peccatum mortale amitti jus petendi hoc Sacramentum, opportere tamen, ut in fancy Ecclesiae amittatur, scilicet ut in eadem facie Ecclesiae, id est publice denegari possit. Tandem explicatur, & confirmatur hoc, illo communi exemplo de judice, qui tenetur judicare secundum allegata & probata, etiam contra privatam scientiam, solum obsimile principium, quiae ad commune bonum necessarium est, ut illa publica actio reguletur publicâ scientiâ, & non privata, quoniam si aliter fieret, esset res exposita infinitis injuriis, & scandalis. This place of Suaraz is very well rendered by Ball, pag. 188, 189. See also 190, 191.  will I suppose, be acknowledged by all, both Presbyterians and Independents; for otherwise they will leave it to the Ministers discretion to exclude whom he thinks in his conscience unworthy: And what is this but to allow him the exercise of sole power of jurisdiction, contrary to the Rule of Christ, Mat. 18.17. and the pattern of the Primitive Apostolical Church, 1 Cor. 5. 2 Cor. 2.6.  
For a farther proof of this I shall cite an excellent Argument out of Suarez in part. 3 Thom. disp. 67. Sect. 4. which he bringeth to prove that the Eucharist is not to be denied unto a secret and hidden sinner; for it may very well be extended unto all scandalous sinners that are not such juridically.  
It is requisite for the common good, and convenient order both of Church and Commonwealth, that all common favours which are publicly to be disposed and distributed according to the dignity of private persons, should be dispensed by public Ministers designed thereunto, not according to the private knowledge of this or that man; neither of that Minister, but according to a public and notorious cognisance; And whosoever doth by his offence against God lose his right and interest to the holy things of God, he must lose it in the face of the Church, before it can be denied him in the face of the congregation; And he is to be judged (as in all other cases) not by any man's, nor by any Ministers private knowledge, but according to proofs and allegations. For the Common good necessarily requireth that such public actions of this nature should be regulated by a kind of public and not private knowledge, which once admitted into Judicature, would soon fill up the Church and State with a world of scandals, injuries, and inconveniences. For hereby a wicked or a peevish and pettish Minister may without control publicly disgrace and repel from the Lords Supper whom he please. He may falsely object unworthiness unto the most worthy, such as are best qualified and fitted of all the Congregation for receiving the Lords Supper. Men would be loath (saith Mr Ball, pag. 191.) to put their Lands, nay, their Goods and Cattles, and shall we think the Lord hath put their interest in the body and blood of Christ to a private discretion?  
To exclude from the Lords Supper is a kind of Ecclesiastical punishment, and therefore presupposeth an Ecclesiastical Censure; though men have deserved such a punishment, yet is it not to be inflicted on them until they be legally censured.  
But that a Minister may in some cases give the Lords Supper unto such persons as he knoweth to be unworthy and scandalous, will appear from the Concessions of our dissenting brethren.  
For first, If the Church be Presbyterated there may be a neglect, or Maladministration of Discipline, and then do the Minister what he can, there may be by the major part of the Eldership admitted unto the Lord's Supper such persons as the Minister knoweth to be dogs and swine, scandalous, and unworthy; and they not being so juridically, the Minister cannot debar them, unless he will either usurp sole power of Jurisdiction, or else run upon the rock of separation.  
Secondly, Suppose that the exercise of Discipline be never so rigid and strict; yet how will he keep from the Lords Supper secret and hidden sinners known only unto himself.  
Suppose a Minister by himself only, without any other witness, see a lurking Hypocrite of his Congregation commit a lewd and great scandal; the Minister after several admonitions (the party remaining obstinate and impenitent) complaineth of him to the Church, but he denies the fact: Whereupon the Church can do nothing in the business; For her Censures be to pass either upon the party's confession, or the testimony of two or three witnesses. In this case I demand whether or no a Minister may lawfully keep back this Hypocrite from the Lords Supper? If you say that he may lawfully in such a case keep him back, why then you will ascribe unto the Minister such a vast and boundless power, as any modest man will be loath to challenge, upon exercise of which, more mischiefs will ensue then can possible be foreseen. You will make the Ministers private judgement to be final, from which there is no appeal to any Court but the Court of heaven; for no earthly Court can lawfully proceed but Secundum allegata & probata. Such crimes as we cannot prove are reserved for the notice and vengeance of God.  
But if now on the other side you affirm that it is not lawful for the Minister to keep back this Hypocrite; it will follow then, that there may be some dogs and swine, unworthy receivers, whom the Ministers knows to be such, unto whom it may yet be lawful for him to give the Lords Supper, viz. such as he cannot convict for want of witnesses. And I conceive that it is altogether as lawful for him to give it unto such as he cannot convict for want of Judges.  
However, hereupon it is evident that this Proposition, That it is unlawful and sinful for a Minister to give the Lords Supper unto dogs and swine, unworthy and scandalous persons, is not, absolutely and universally true. Now if they will be pleased to limit the Proposition, and to show in what case it holds, and in what not; they may perchance say something that may cut the throat of all their Arguments.  
As for the Objections of the Schoolmen they will little advantage our dissenting brethren.  
For first, They leave it unto the discretion of the Minister to deny the Eucharist unto such, as he in his conscience thinks to be open and public scandalous sinners; and such a power our brethren will not allow unto any Minister singly by himself.  
Then secondly, they speak very doubtfully, and uncertainly, and leave a Minister in perplexity; for they say, it is lawful unto Ministers to give the Sacrament to the unworthy, when they cannot refuse them without scandal. Now (saith Mr. 
Aaron's Rod blossoming. lib. 3. cap. 10.  Gill●spy) If the lawfulness or unlawfulness of the thing must be determined by the scandal they go upon a very slippery ground. As slippery and uncertain is another restriction which they join unto the former, viz. That it is lawful for a Minister to give the Sacrament to the unworthy when they cannot keep them back, without great inconveniency or inexpediency. Suarez in 3am. part. Thom. disp. 67. sect. 1. Saith, that the precept of not giving this Sacrament unto the unworthy, is not simply negative, but is to be reduced unto an affirmative precept, of prudently, and faithfully dispensing this Sacrament. Quod praeceptum quidem formaliter sumptum (ut sic dicam) semper servandum est, quotiescunque hoc Sacramentum dispensatur: & hinc fit ut si commodè possit, debeat indigno denegari, non tamen quod semper denegari debeat cum cocunque in commodo & sine ulla exceptione. These last words of Suarez together with those of Gillespy, will serve to answer all the Arguments of the Schoolmen, so fare as they are urged against us. For in an Unpresbyterated Church, the Lords Supper cannot be denied unto unworthy persons without scandal, great inconveniences; nay, I believe, sin.  
And this for a general answer unto all the Arguments, I shall next examine each argument a part.  
The first Argument is taken from that fidelity and prudence required in Ministers as stewards of the mysteries of God, 1 Cor. 4.1, 2. and it is urged by Suarez in 3am. partem Thom. disp. 18. sect. 2. disp. 67. sect. 1. As also by Becanus, sum. Theolog. part 3 jam. tract. 2. cap. 5. Quaest. 8. 
* Praeceptum naturale est ut dispensator qui bona Domini sui dispensat, sit fidelis & prudens in dispensando ergo praeceptum naturale est ut non dispenset homini indigno contra voluntatem & insiitutionem sui domini quia hoc esset contra fidelitatem & prudentiam quam indispensando debet servare cum ergo non velit Sacramenta sua dispensari indignis non potest Minister si fidelis esse vult, contra hanc voluntatem facere.  Stewards (say they) ought to be faithful and prudent in distribution of the goods of their Lord and Master; and therefore they should not dispense them against his will and appointment. Now for Ministers to give the Lords Supper unto known unworthy receivers, is to distribute it against the will and appointment of their Lord and Master Christ Jesus. And therefore a violation of that prudence and fidelity which is required at their hands.  
For answer. First, I shall desire you to apply unto this Argument the general Answers, and then the Argument may be retorted upon our Antagonists. Prudence and fidelity obligeth stewards, all such as have committed unto them the dispensation of the goods, food, etc. of their Master unto the household; not to go beyond their commission, not to usurp the exercise of a power, which their Master hath forbidden them by themselves, only to meddle with as being given in commission jointly with them unto their fellow Stewards. Now they should go beyond their commission, and assume a power for which they can show no warrant from their Lord and Master, if they should singly and solely by themselves debar any from the Lords Supper.  
Secondly, There would be little colour in the Argument, if it were not for the ambiguity that is in the term Gods will. Here if the Objection, conclude any thing against us: The Will of God must be taken Metonimycally for that which they call Voluntas signi, in particular the Command of God; and then the Argument is nothing but a pitiful and miserable begging of the Question. For that there is a command unto the Minister, not to give the Lords Supper unto unworthy persons, who are not such juridically, is not so much as attempted to be proved.  
A second Objection is taken from the general nature of the Lords Supper. It is a holy thing, a Pearl of the Gospel, a Seal of the Covenant of grace.  
First, It is a holy thing, a Pearl of the Gospel, and our Saviour's command is, Matth. 7.6. Give not that which is holy unto dogs, neither cast ye your Pearl before swine.  
Sufficient satisfaction is given unto this place by the general Answers, yet because it is much stood upon, I shall say something unto it apart.  
First, this place, as appears both by the Coherence, as also by the reason annexed is principally intended concerning admonitions and reproof. For if you look upon the words foregoing, you shall find a direction for the reprover, that he be not spotted with greater faults, than those which he reproveth in others. Then in this Verse there is directions concerning the persons to be reproved, that they be not dogs and swine. But the reason annexed lest they turn again, and rend you, makes the matter quite out of Question: For the giving of the Lords Supper unto the profanest wretches almost that are, is not likely to occasion any such carriage.  
But yet I will not deny that the place may be extended and applied unto the giving of the Lords Supper unto unworthy receivers; but than it must be cum grano salis.  
Giving of the Lords Supper may be taken either for the authoritative and juridical admission unto, or else for the Ministerial distribution of the Lords Supper.  
First then, if you take it for the juridical and authoritative admission unto the Lord's Supper, than indeed it is true that the Lords Supper ought not to be given unto swine or dogs: they ought not authoritatively or juridically to be admitted thereunto; but then we say that the Commandment is not given unto the Minister solely, but unto the whole Eldership, and thus Mr. Bowles answereth the place. Praeceptum, de non dando quod sanctum canibus, eos duntaxat obligat, quibus Deus a sacris arcendi canes potestatem demandavit; & haec non uni alicui, sed pluribus à Christo tradita. With reference unto this is it that Mr. Ball tells us. pag. 204.205. that the Minister if he have done the office of a private Christian, and a public Minister, and afterward he reach the Sacrament unto an unworthy Communicant, he doth not so much give it him, as suffer his Communion, because he hath not power or authority to put him back: He reacheth him the signs, as that which he cannot withhold, because he is held in by the most prevailing power, without which he cannot be debarred. In this case the Minister is neither actor nor consenter in his admission, because he doth it not in his own name, but according to the Order established by God, who will not have any member of the Congregation publicly denied his interest and right to the holy things of God, by the knowledge, will and pleasure of one singular Minister. If a Minister know a man to be unworthy, he may yet receive him, because he cannot yet manifest it to the Church: And for the same reason, if his unworthiness be notorious, if it be not so judged by them that have authority, he must administer the Sacramental signs unto him, not as unto one worthy, or unworthy, but as unto one yet undivided from them.  
If you take giving of the Lords Supper for the Ministerial distribution of the Elements; why then again I grant the Lords Supper is not to be given unto dogs and swine, provided that they be such juridically by Church censure, and so this precept binds not absolutely, but conditionally upon a condition that dependeth upon the Eldership, and not upon the Minister solely.  
And thus again the reverend Bowls answereth the place: 
Qui omnium pessim●, usque dum Ecclesia eos suâ sententiâ decretoriâ pro cambus & porcis habendos declaraverit, non mihi cum illis ut canibus & porcis agendum. Latronem, qui mortem commeruit, nullus jure de vita tollat, usque dum judex & reum declaraverit, & sententiam tulerit.  I am not to deal with the worst of men, as dogs and swine, until the Church hath sentenced them to be such. Suppose a fellow hath deserved death, yet the Sheriff himself cannot lawfully execute him until he be tried, and the judge hath condemned him.  
If any should argue from this place for a Ministers not giving of the Lords Supper unto such dogs and swine as are not so by Church censure; I hope they desire to be understood not absolutely, but limitedly, so fare forth as it lieth in a Minister. And this I readily yield unto, as no way impugning my opinion. I do confess that a Minister is to keep dogs and swine from the Sacrament, so fare as in him lieth (that is, he is to do all that God hath required at his hands for prevention thereof:) But I am very confident that this grant of mine will no ways prejudice my cause, or advantage that of my opposites; because God for prevention of wicked men's Sacramental approaches nowhere requireth a Minister to usurp a power which is none of his, a sole power of jurisdiction, in foro Ecclesiastico externo.  
But the Schoolmen endeavour to prove not only from the but now mentioned place of Scripture, but also from reason: That it is a sin to give the Lords Supper unto such as a man knows to be unworthy receivers.  
Great is the dignity and holiness of this blessed Sacrament, 
Obligatio exhibendi reverentiam huic Sacramento, & digne illud tractandi, naturalis est, ex intrinsecâ ipsius Sacramenti dignitate orta; ad hanc vero pertinet obligatio non dandi Sacramentum hoc indignis: Sicut non projicere illud in locum immundum, & similia. Suarez in tertiam part. Thom. disp. 67. sect. 1. Is dicitur sacrilegium committere qui violat rem Sacram per aliquam irreverentiam. D. Thom. 2.2. Q. 99 a. 2.3. Atqui Minister conferens Sacramentum homini indigno, violate rem Sacram per quandam irreverentiam; ergo sacrilegium committit. Becanus so mma Theol. par. 3. tract. 2. cap. 5. Sect. 8.  and therefore it should be handled in a meet, decent, reverend, and devout manner. Now it were a very undecent and unreverent part to take the Elements assoon as consecrated and wittingly to throw them into a noisome sink; but it is a point of greater irreverence, nay, it is a kind of Sacrilege, to take them and give them unto known unworthy receivers: for no sink is so foul, dirty and stinking as a sinful, earthy and uncleansed soul.  
For answer, I deny that there is any sacrilege or irreverence in a Ministers giving the Sacrament unto unworthy persons, who are not such juridically; provided still that he use all lawful likely means to keep them off. And the Schoolmen themselves confess as much concerning hidden and secret sinners; as also when a Minister cannot avoid the giving of it unto them without scandal or some other great inconvenience. Indeed the dignity and holiness of the Sacrament is sacrilegiously violated by the irreverence of unworthy receivers; But God hath not left his Church infallible means to keep his Name and Ordinances from irreverence: And the Minister is not guilty of this irreverence in unworthy receiving, though he give them the Sacramental Elements, if he do what lieth in him to keep them off, and when he cannot hinder them he give them the Elements with regret, with a mourning and bleeding heart; I shall conclude my answer unto this Objejection with that of Suarez praedictâ disputatione Section. 4. Ipsemet Christus vult ut aliqua ejus injuria potius permittatur, quàm indebito modo ac ordine caveatur. It is Christ's will rather that there should be a permission of wrongs and injuries unto his Name, Ordinances and Sacraments, then that they should be prevented by unlawful means, in an undue either order or manner.  
A second general Attribution of the Lords Supper, from whence it is endeavoured to conclude to the sinfulness of giving it in any case, unto such as are known by the Minister to be unworthy receivers, is, its being a seal of the Covenant of Grace, the righteousness of Faith. For hence think some, it followeth that administration of the Lords Supper unto known scandalous and wicked persons, is a practical and visible lie, a confirmation of an untruth, because it seals the Covenant and Promises to those who have visibly no share in them.  
For answer, The Lords Supper may be said to be a seal of the Covenant, or Promise of Grace, either absolutely, or conditionally. The truth of the Covenant and Promises in themselves, our obligation to gratitude and obedience, are sealed absolutely by the Lord's Supper; but interest in the Covenant and Promises of Grace, the Lords Supper sealeth unto those that partake thereof, but conditionally, so they believe: Unto wicked men the Promises are as propounded, so sealed but conditionally. Sacramenta (saith Amesius) non sunt Testimonia completa & absoluta nisicredentibus. They are (saith Rutherford) seals unto the wicked, not in actu secundo, but only in actu primo. See Mr. Martial in his defence of Infant Baptism against Tombs pag. 117.118.  
The last sort of Objections proving that it is a sin to give the Lords Supper unto known scandalous sinners, is drawn from the consequents that will follow upon distribution of the Sacramental Elements unto them.  
First, transgression of the Rule of Christ.  
Secondly, pollution of the Sacrament.  
Thirdly, a participation of the sin of unworthy receivers.  
Fourthly, a Communion with wicked men in worship, etc.  
First then upon a Ministers giving the Sacramental elements unto them, there will follow a transgression of the Rule of Christ, which by my own confession excludeth scandalous sinners, etc.  
For answer; Upon a Ministers giving the Sacramental elements unto known scandalous sinners, that are not such by Church censure (for of such only we speak) there will follow a transgression of the Rule of Christ: but by whom? by the known scandalous sin in unworthy receiving, by the church-guide in case the Church be Presbyterated, if they either misgovern or neglect the exercise of discipline; and by the Church, if she (in case she be unsettled and un-reformed) do not endeavour the choice of Church-officers. But there can be no rule broken by the Minister herein, who hath done his duty for the keeping of them off; for he had never any Rule or Command given unto him, for denial of the Lords Supper unto unworthy Persons, that are not such Juridically; or for delay and suspension of the Lords Supper, in case an Eldership be not set up in a Congregation. In modo recipiendi Sacramenti (saith Suarez) duo possunt considerari: unum est ex parte ipsius Sacramenti; scilicet quod vere, integrè & cum debitis circumstantiis fiat; Aliud est ex parte effectus Sacramenti, & consequenter ex parte dispositionis suscipientis, quae ad effectum est necessaria. In tertiam part. Thom. disp. 17. sect. 2.  
Now if a Minister give the Sacrament unto known unworthy Persons, that are not such Juridically, there is not hereby any transgression of the rule of Christ, in regard of the Sacrament itself, which notwithstanding this, may fully and entirely be administered according to the command of Christ. But there will follow a transgression of the Rule of Christ hereby, in respect of the effect of the Sacrament, and consequently the dispositions and qualifications required in receivers to make the Sacrament effectual: but this is not a fault chargeable upon the Minister if he do his best to prevent it. More plainly; Corruption and defects, or breaches of the command and rule of Christ in the administration of the Lords Supper, are of two sorts; Material, or Personal. First material, when the Worship itself is corrupted, as in the Popish mast, where there is but one element. Secondly Personal, when the Worship itself is in every respect pure, but the Persons communicating, wanting in requisite qualifications; the former are chargeable upon the Minister administering the Lords Supper; not the latter, so he prevent them as fare as in him lieth.  
Secondly, it is objected that upon a Ministers giving of the Lords Supper unto known wicked Persons, there will necessarily follow a pollution and a profanation of that sacred ordinance; the giving of it therefore unto them is a sin.  
For answer; The Lord's Supper (and so we may say the like of other Ordinances) may be said to be polluted either intrinsically, or extrinsecally.  pollutions are in ordinances themselves when they are so corrupted, that whosoever partakes of them, in the very partaking, cannot but break God's order. And so the Lords Supper is polluted in the Popish Mass, where the bread is adored, where they have but one Element, directly against Christ his institution.  pollutions or profanations of the Lords Supper, (and we may say the like of other ordinances) are, when for want of due qualifications, they become sin unto the unworthy receiver, even as the Prayers of the wicked are an abomination to him. 
The Toleration of Drunkards and Swearers in the Lord's Church, and at his Table, infecteth, and is apt to leaven all with their evil conversation, but doth not leaven the worship unto the fellow-worshippers; Nor is the sin of private Persons, yea, nor of the Ministers, who have no power to help them. Rutherford in his due right of Presbyt.  But now these pollutions of the Lords Supper by unworthy receivers, do not defile the Lords Supper in itself, nor to others who receive it worthily. He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to himself, not to others.  
This distinction thus premised; First the consequence of the Argument in the objection is denied; because the pollution and profanation of the Lords Supper, that the objection speaks of, is , not in the Sacrament itself, but only in the unworthy receiver. And again, we suppose that the Minister hath used all lawful likely means to prevent it. And therefore it is without his default.  
Secondly, the Argument will hold against giving the Sacrament unto a secret and hidden sinner, that is known only unto the Minister (for such a one pollutes and profanes the Sacrament, as well as the open and known sinner) and yet those who descent from us, will not affirm that the giving of it unto such a one is unlawful.  
Thirdly, it is objected that a Participation of, or Communion with the sin of others, is a grievous sin, 1 Tim. 5.22. Be not Partakers of other men's sins, keep thyself pure. But to give the Lords Supper to a known wicked Person, is to partake of his sin of unworthy receiving; and therefore it is sinful.  
For answer, first when other men's sins follow accidentally upon the performance of my duty, this is no participation of other men's sins.  
2ly. a man can't be said to partake of the sins of others, 
Nullus te net u ut non alterius peccati particeps sit facere quod injustum: injustum autem illud foret, si ille solus arripiret sibi potestatem, quam societati Presbyterorum crediderit Deus. Bowls p. 192.  when he hath used all due and obliged diligence for prevention and hindrance of them; A man is only to do all that he can by his calling, by Warrant and Commission from Christ to prevent sin in another. A Minister therefore, to prevent unworthy receiving in scandalous Persons, is not to pass the bounds of his calling, to play the Pope, and usurp that power which God hath seated only in the Eldership. Power being wanting, the will stands for the deed, 2 Cor. 8.12. This is also acknowledged by Mr. Gillespy. lib. 3. cap. 15. The suffering of a mixture of known wicked Persons among the Godly in the Church, doth sometime defile us with sin, sometime not. It doth not defile us, when we use all lawful and possible remedies against it: and namely when we exercise the discipline of excommunication and other Church-censures, saith Augustine. lib. contra Donatistas post collationem. cap 4. Tom. 7. But it doth defile us, and we incur sin and wrath, when the means of redressing such known evils are neglected, indisciplinata patientia (it is Augustine's word) so to bear with wicked men, as not to execute discipline against them; that certainly makes us partake of their sin (I mean in a reformed and well-constituted Church, where the thing is feasable;) but where it cannot be done because of persecution, or because of the invincible opposition, either of authority, or of a prevalent profane multitude, 
Minister per se loqu●ndo non potest dare Sacramentum indgno, ne cooperetur peccato illius. Ratio est: quia qui indignè recipit Sacramentum, peccat mortaliter. Ergo qui cooperatur ad talem receptionem cooperatur ad peccatum. At nemo magis cooperatur ad talem receptionem, quam Minister qui dat Sacramentum. Becanus. Nulla potest esse major cooperatio ad recipiendum quàm ipsumet dare. Suarez.  we have only this comfort left us, Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after righteousness; And, in magnis voluisse sat est.  
But this objection is somewhat more speciously urged by the schoolmen. He partakes of the sin of another, who knowingly cooperates thereunto; but a Minister that gives the Lord's Supper unto such Persons as he knows to be unworthy, cooperates unto their unworthy receiving; for a man can hardly more cooperate unto the receiving of a thing, then by giving it. Thus Suarez and Becanus.  
For answer I may reserre you unto the schoolmen themselves; 

Qui autem moraliter non potest negare, sed sola necessitate coactus, dat alteri Sa●tamentum, non cooperatur ad indignam susceptionem, solum Physice ad nudam actionem ●●cipientis. Becanus.  
In aliquocasu accid●repotest, ut Minister moraliter non possit negare Sacramentum homini iniquo petentip●opter scandalum vel similem causam. Et tunc quamvis ille det, non cooperatur iniquae receptioni ut iniqua est, sed solum ut receptio Sacramenti est. Suarez in part. 3. Thom-disp 18 sect. 2. But more fully disp. 67. sect. 4. Respondetur actionem dandi Eucharistiam homini indigno non semper esse intrinsecè malum, sed tunc solum quando ipse qui dat Sacramentum est aliquo modo causa indignae susceptionis, vel quando commode vel debito modo exercendo munus suum potest vitare, & non facit. Ac denique quando illi constat, eum, qui petit, esse indignum ea scientia & modo quo opus est. At vero quando moraliter vitare non potest actionem dandi, quia prava dispositio petentis non est illo modo cognita, quo opus est, tum act●● dandi non est mala ex parte dantis, & intentio ej●s est bona, quamvis ex parte recipientis receptio sit mala, quod null● modo imputatur danti, quia nullo modo est causa, quòd alius indigne sumat, neque cum actione ejus est per se & necessariò conjunct a indigna susceptia. Quamobrem i●i est nulla conperatio ad malum, sed sola permissio quae moraliter vitari non potest. Nam qui dat Sacramentum solum cooperatur, ut hic homo sumat, non tamen ut in dignè sumat: Poss●t enim si vellet digne Jumere, quam●is autem sacerdoti constet, high & nunc indigne sumpturum, tamen quia non potestid vitare, ideo neque te●etur, neque ulla censetur cooperatio sed permissio.   what they say, I shall give you in brief; one may be said to cooperate unto known wicked Persons their unworthy receiving either Morally or Physically; he only cooperates unto it morally, that is a cause of the unworthiness of their receiving; and so do all they, and only they, who do not use all enjoined means to hinder: but now if a Minister hath given all due and obliged dilgence, to prevent the unworthy receiving of wicked Persons, though he gave them the Sacrament, yet he concurreth unto their unworthy receiving only Physically, not Morally, that is, he cooperates with their receiving it, not with the unworthiness of their receiving it. He cooperates with it as it is an action; but if you look upon it as a sinful and depraved action, so he doth not cooperate with it, but only permit it much against his will, it not being in his power to help it. If any think that this is but a school nicety, a world of stances from common experience will condemn them. Subordinate officers may cooperate Physically to the execution of an unjust sentence, who yet may have no moral concurrence unto the injustice thereof. Subjects may cooperate Physically not morally, unto an unjust war of the supreme Magistrate. The Head of a College having no negative voice, and being over-voted by the major part of fellows, may pro formâ give admission unto an unworthy fellow, and yet not be guilty of any sin in his admission. For he admits him not in his own name, but in the name of the major part, who have overborne him, he cooperates then unto his admission Physically, not morally.  
If a Minister have done all that lawfully he may for the keeping back of unworthy receivers; and they will notwithstanding crowd in amongst the worthy: if after this he reach out the Sacramental elements unto them: although he be active in a Physical sense, he is only passive in a moral sense. It may be a great grief and burden to his spirit, but yet it is not his sin. Those holy Virgins mentioned in Ecclesiastical history, which to escape ravishment laid violent hands on themselves, are deservedly blamed. For we are not to commit one sin for the avoiding of another. When we have done as much as lawfully we may, for the resisting of sin, than whatsoever befalleth, may be (as Augustine said of those Virgins) our vexation and misery, but not our sin. This answer may receive strength from this consideration, that receiving of the Lords Supper by wicked and ungodly Persons is a sin not ex objecto & intrinsece, but only by accident, 
Vtcunque agere videtur, qui Sacramentum indigno inter dignosg● tim se admiscenti porrigit, cum tamen fecerit quod ei fas ut arceret pastor, non revera agit sed patitur. Sanctae illae virgins, quae sibi, nè constuprarentur manu● inj●cere violentas, merit ò culpantur: nec enim quis malo obsistendo tenetur, ulera quam fas progredi; ubi fecerit quantum jure potest renitendo, quicquid ultra fit (ut de illis Virgimbus olim Augustinus) ejus vexatio non peccatum. Bowls 290.291. Sacramenti ceenoe finis quod ad deum, primarius est, ut mors domini commemoretur, ejus recordatio à quam plurimis fiat; quidni vel ex eo gloria accedat deo, cum à frequentiori coetu utcunque non ut oportebat expurgato, sacrum hoc epulum celebratur? Si enim vel ex corvis per instinctum Deum invocantib us, gloria ●i accrescit; sic enim Creator, ut sons omnium bonorum agnoscitur; quidni cum confertìm in unum conveniunt homines, de quibus id lugendum, quod non omni modo ad Christi opus redemptorium celebrandum idonei? fateor, deo ex eo auctior cederet gloria si ab iis, qui vitae puritate splendescerent, cultus hic exhiberetur; at, vel ex eo, nonnibil deoredundat gloriae, cum ut mundi per Christum redemptor a cunctis agnoscieur. Ad tam excellentis beneficii memoriam in Ecclesiâ perpetuendam, conveniunt coetus, utcunque non debite praeparatus, numerosior. Bowls 293, 294.  ex prava dispositione subjecti; besides as Mr. Bowls observeth, their receiving the Lords Supper may someways conduce unto the primary end thereof, in regard of God: the external showing and representation of Christ's death, the public celebration of the work of our Redemption, and so may redound somewhat unto the honour and glory of God: for God is in some sort glorified by the outward performance of the duties of wicked men. Now he that cooperates with an action that is good in itself materially or objectively, and only sinful by accident, may be fare from cooperating with the sinfulness of that action. For he may no ways be a cause thereof.  
Lastly, it is objected that upon giving the Lords Supper unto known scandalous sinners, a religious Communion with them in worship will ensue; therefore to give it to them is a sin; for what were this but to turn the Communion of Saints into a Communion of sinners?  
For answer; first this objection is taken from an Independent forge, and will not be owned by Presbyterians that understand their own Principles. The old non-Conformists writing against the separation, resolve generally that the Lords Supper may be partaken of in a Church, where scandals are tolerated. For we are not (say they) to omit a Worship for the sins of our fellow-worshippers. You may say as much in the Vindication of the Presbyterial Government and Ministers, by the Ministers and Elders met together in the Provincial Assembly at London, November 9 1649. 134.135, 136. Suppose (say they) there were some sinful mixtures at our Sacraments, yet we conceive this is not a sufficient ground of a negative separation.  
Secondly, a full and sufficient answer you have to this objection in Mr. Ball, pag. 200 201. In coming to God's ordinance we have Communion with Christ principally, who hath called us thither, is there present by his grace and spirit to bless his ordinance; and with the faithful, who are there met together at God's Commandment, in the name and by the authority of Jesus Christ: with the wicked we have no Communion, unless it be external and by accident, because they are not, or cannot be cast out. Internal and essential Communion we have with Christ and the faithful only; external with the wicked. Our Communion with Christ and his faithful People is not free and voluntary, but necessary, enjoined by God, not left to our will or pleasure. Our Communion with the wicked in the ordinances is unwilling on our part, suffered not affected, if we know how to hinder it lawfully. God requireth attendance on him in his holy ordinances, and to join with his Voluntaries assembled, where he is present in the midst among them. If we cannot appear before him as duty bindeth, but we must have outward Communion with the wicked, which should be expelled, but cannot be kept back by us: In this case our Communion with God is free and voluntary, but our Communion with the wicked is suffered only, or held in respect of the Will and Commandment of God, who requireth that service at our hands.   

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 lawfulness of administering the Lords Supper in an Unpresbyterated Church: and unto it I have penned 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 worthless a Paper should have the honour of a Refutation. If the Author thereof think that he hath any wrong by this censure, he may right himself by making it as public as he please. Most of what he saith, is either answered in this my book, or else the absurdity of it is so gross 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 proof 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 essential dependency; and answerably a mediate Command is that which obligeth not proximè & immediatè unto the performance of that which it commandeth, unless there be performance of Antecedent duties upon which it hath an essential dependency, or an existence of any other Antecedents that are before the duty enjoined, 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, etc. is only mediate, and doth not bind immediately, before there be a performance of an Antecedent duty, upon which it hath an essential dependence, to wit the faith of adherence, before there be an existence of the Objects Vocation, Justification, etc. 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 less evacuate & annul the Obligation of a Command; but only the wants of Antecedents necessary by Physical Obligation. A due serious and diligent preparation is enjoined as an Antecedent unto hearing of the word, and unto public 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 hear and pray: And that in such a case not to hear, 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 forbear the performance of it. If any one (saith Mr. Burrows in his Gospel-Worship) in answer unto the Question) perform 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 proposal of the Question.  
Again, There are divers things required in the call and Ordination of a Minister that are by God's 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 less 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 God's command Antecedent unto another, doth not suspend, much less nullify the Obligation unto the consequent duty; unless there be an essential dependency of the consequent duty upon the Antecedent duty.  
But now to make application of this unto the Lord's Supper; Although the Presbyterating of a Church, and the exercise of Jurisdiction by an Eldership be enjoined 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 administered, 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 administered and received in an Unpresbyterated 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 administering and receiving the Lords Supper is not in reference unto the Command of settling an Eldership, only a mediate Command. Unto the proof of this Mr Fullwood may apply those Arguments alleged by me to prove, That the exclusion of scandalous and gross 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 administering and receiving the Lords Supper be mediate, with reference to the Presbyterating of a Church, yet Mr Fullwood will gain 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 withal he put a difference between guilty and innocent persons, those who hinder or do not what lieth in them to farther the settling of an Eldership; and those who pray, sigh, and use all other lawful means 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 overpowered 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 means for the erecting of an Eldership; I do wonder what advantage such a Concession can yield unto his cause But now if he shall contend, that after we have used our utmost endeavour to erect an Eldership, and cannot possibly prevail, that we are then by that which is merely 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 Lord's 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 return a brief answer unto it.  
Mr Fullwood.  
While we will use this Sacrament in a Church Vn-Presbyterated do we not thus directly oppose and violate that Command of the Spirit of God by the Apostle, 1 Cor. 4. ult. Let all things be done in order. We on both sides acknowledge that there should be the exercise and act of Jurisdiction, that there should be Ruling Elders elected and settled 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 Saviour's, 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 preparative work, by the acts and exercise of their Jurisdiction administer the Sacrament according unto our Saviour's order.  
Answer.  
These Ministers and people that have done their endeavour and used all lawful means for the settling 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 form; for than it stands thus. If there should be the exercise and act of Jurisdiction, if there should be Ruling-Elders elected and settled in our Churches for our more orderly proceeding in the administration of the Lords Supper; then those that have used all lawful means for the exercise of Jurisdiction, for the election and settling of Ruling-Elders and cannot prevail, 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 extremely false, and is not backed so much as by any colour or shadow of reason. And indeed you can never make it good, unless you can prove either that there is an essential dependency of the Lords Supper upon the Eldership, or else that there is a command to delay and defer 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 ways.  
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 affirm.  
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 ourselves or others, (though without our default) And so it is very untrue; and if granted concerning the disorder of others, would open a gap unto a total neglect of public prayers, hearing of the Word. For unto those Ordinances wicked men come disorderly, because unpreparedly. Other men's 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, wherein there is any disorder committed: even so they are not generally true; for though we come with disorder & unpreparedness unto the hearing of the Word, and public prayers; yet we are not for this disorder to omit public 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 & unpreparedness is a great sin, for which we ought to be humbled.  
FINIS.