not agreeable to that orui,or equall honour and dignation, which all the communicants ought to have.Naturall decency a's well as Scripturall warrants are of equall concernment to all the communicants. The fecond Quare was, for what end and ufe ought there to be a material! table: Is it meerly to be a cupboard for holding the vessels and cups which containe the Elements,and that the Minister may cary them from the Table to thofe who are to receive? Then it is no Table, for pawe« is a Table which we dine or fup at, no by-boord for holding things which fervants are to prefent unto those who fit at the Table.What then? Is the Table of the Lord in the new Testament intended for the fame end and use as the Table of the Lord in the old Teftament, Mal: 1.7. The table of the Lord is contemptible: If fo, then we make the Table an Altar, and the Sacrament a facrifice. For the Sacrifice was Gods meat eaten up by fire from Heaven, and the Altar Gods Table, because it contained his meat.But now the Table of the Lord must have another fenfe in the new Teftament; the Lords Supper being no facrifice, but epulum ex oblatis, a feaft upon the body and blood of Chrift offered upon the croffe for us. Of this nature of the Lords Supper, Mr Cudworth hath learnedly difcourfed in a Treatife printed Anno 1642. I conclude the Table which we fpeak of, is not for a facrifice, but for a Sacrament, for a feaft, for meat which God offers to us not wee to him. Therefore we ought to come unto the Table of the Lord to receive the myfticall food in the Sacrament, als well as we come to our ordinary Table for our ordinary food. Otherwife what ever ufe we may devife for a Table in the Sacrament, fure it ferves not forthe use of a table,at least not to all the Communicants.

Fourthly, I offer alfo this argument. The comming to and receiving at the Table ferveth to set foorth the communion of Saints with Chrift and among themselves, which is a princi Fall thing intended in this Sacrament,and without fuch a fym.

Ff2

bole

CHAP. 18 bole as I now plead for,is not plainly and clearly fet foorth in this Ordinance. To eat in the fame houfe,and of the fame meat, is nothing.near fuch a figne of fellowship or communion, as to cat at the fame Table. This difference is noted between Martha and Lazarus, Job. 12. 2. when they made a fupperto Jefus in Bethany, Martha ferved, but Lazarus was one of them who fate at the Table with him. Lazarus therefore had more fellowship with Chrift at that time. Peter Martyr on 1.Cor: 10. noteth out of Chryfoftome that communicare doth imply fodali tium, and is more then participare, to communicat is more then to partake, forone may partake of the fame bread, who doth not communicat in the fame bread. Hee that eateth of the fame thing, but not at the fame Table, cannot be altogether or properly called ὁμοτράπεζος-OF, συντράπεζος you fhame them that have not, (or them that are poore) faith the Apoftle. What shall I fay toyour thall I praife you in this? I praise you not. 1 Cor: 11:22. So fay I thofe that receive the Sacrament in their Pewes, fhame the poor that have no Pewes, wherein they are not to be praised, Sure it were more cómunion like to fit & receive at one Table. It is the most futeable & fignificant setting foorth of the communion of Saints, when the children of God are like Olive plants round about his Table,Pfal:128.3. Therefore the Apostle having mentioned our partaking of one bread, 1 Cor. 10. 17. addeth verfe 21. our partaking of one Table, which is the Lords Table. When Communicants come not to the Table, but abide in their Pewes, fome here, fome there, this is indeed a dividing of the congregation in varias partes partiumque particulas: Neither can they be faid to divide the cup amongft themselves, (which by the inftitution they ought to doe in te ftimony of their communion) when they are not within reach, yea oftentimes not within fight of one another. There is nothing like a dividing it amongst themselves, where they come not to the Table, and there give the cup each to other. I know

fome

fome have fcrupled whether our Saviours words, Luke 22.17. Take this and divide it amongst your felves; be meant of the Eu charifticall cup,or of the Pafchall. But they goe upon furer reafons who put it out of queftion,that it is meant of the Eucha rifticall cup(which is there mentioned by Luke by way of Anticipation, I fhall for the prefent give but this reafon, which I know hath fatisfied fome who were of another opinion (although much more might be faid) that which Luke recordeth to have been spoken by Chrift concerning that cup, which he bade them divide amongst themfelves, the very fame doe Mat ¬ thew and Mark record to have been fpoken by him, concerning the Eucharifticall cup, which was drunk laft of all,and after the Pafchall fupper,viz. That thencefoorth he would not drink of the fruit of the Vine untill he should drink it in the Kingdome of God, which doth not hold true if understood of the Pafchall cup,therefore thofe other Evangelifts plainly ap ply it to the Eucharifticall cup, and there withall they clofe the hiftorie of the Sacrament,adding only that a hymne was fung, Math:26.27,28,29. Mark, 14.23,24,25.with Luke 22. 17,18. And if notwithstanding fome will not be perfwaded that the words, divide it amongst your felves, were meant of the Eucharifticall cup,as I am confident they are in a mistake, so I hope they will at laft yeeld this argument, a fortiori. If there was fuch a fymbole of communion in the Pafcall cup, that the receivers were to divide it amongst themselves,fure this ought to have place much more in the Eucharifticall cup, for the Lords fupper doth more clearly and fully fet forth the communion of Saints,then the Paffeover did.

The fifth Argument I fhall draw from the words which Christ used in the diftribution, Take ye, eat ye, this is my body which is broken for you, and of the cup,Drink ye all of it. The inftitution is our rule and patterne, and tis high prefumption for any man to be wiser than the Sonne of God, or to fpeak to the

Ff3

com-.

communicants individually in the diftribution, Take thou, eat thou, This is the Lords body broken for thee, &c. When Chrift thought fit in the diftribution to speak in the plurall, Take yee, eat ye, &c. Tis no answer to say, that the words, Take ye, ezt yee, &c. are ufed in the confecration, for then they are but related Hiftorically. Here is the ftrength of the Argument, Chrift spoke fo in the act of diftribution, and by way of ap plication to the Communicants in a demonstrative enunciation, therefore fo fhould we. But now this cannot be, where the communicants do not receave at the Table,but in their feverall Pewes: This very thing hath occafioned the change of the words of the inftitution, from the plurall to the fingular.

Sixthly, we have fome light from antiquity alfo in this particular, for which purpose there are fome notable paffages in Chryfoftome, tom: 5. de Diverf Nov. Teft locis. Ser: 21. where opening these abuses in the matter of love-feats, reproved in the Corinthians, who joyned together with these the Sacrament, 1 Cer: 11. this he much infifts upon as a principall abufe, that they did eat xa9, savrès by themfelves, or feverally: and rána piyinrau nows the table is not madeCommon, for. the rich did eat by themfelves, not together with the poore. Christ did not fo with his Disciples in his last Supper, iv exáivas γὰρ τῶ δειπνω και δεσπότης καί δῆλοι πάντες δὲ κατέκειντο. For inthat Sup per, both the Master and all the fervants fate together. Chryfofome fheweth further from the Churches cuftome and forme obferved in the administration ofthe Lords Supper, how justly the Apostle challengeth that abufe in the love feasts. For in the Lords-Supper all approach unte, and receave at the fame table For, faith he, that fpirituall and holy Table is com mon to all, both rich and poore―uía Tuì ndı πpósodos pía, there is the fame honour, the fame acceße and approach for all. Kaìus av máYTES

μετασχῶσι και κοινωνήσωσι τῆς πνευματικῆς και ιερᾶς ταύτης τραπέζης, ἐσυςέλλεται τα προκείμενα ἀλλὰ ἑσήκασιν οἱ ἱερεῖς ἀπαντες και τον πάντων πενέσερον και ευτελέςερον ανομέ

way,

arquévortes. And untill all doe partake of this fpirituall and holy Table, the things which are fet upon the Table, are not taken abut all the Priefts, (or Ministers) stand expecting even kim who is the poorest or smallest of all. So that according to this form and cuftome which he holdeth forth unto us, the Ministers did not goe about with the Elements unto the feverall pewes of the Communicants, but they stood still at the table, and all the Communicants, both poore and rich come to the Table.

CHAP.

XIX.

That there was among the fewes ajurifdiction and government Ecclefiafticall,diftinct from the civill.

Irft, they had Elders who were Spirituall or Ecclefi asticall (not civill) rulers. Whence it is that Salmafius de primatu papa, pag: 3. and long before Am brofe in 1 Tim: 5. doeth paralell the Jewish Elders not to the Chriftian Magiftrate, but to the Elders of the Christian Church ordained by the Apoftles. I do not fay that they had no Elders who were civill Magiftrates; but they had some Elders who were Church Governours, or had an Ecclefiaftical jurifdiction. Which I prove 1.By the arguments brought before, Book 1 chap: 3. pag: 26.27.

2. The Jewes when they had loft their State,power, and civill Government, had ftill under the Romane Emperours their Presbyteri and Archifynagogi. Whereof Mr. Selden in Eutych: pag: 15.16. brings cleare inftances under Arcadius and Honorius. Now the Romane Emperours did not permit to the Jewes their owne civill Government, but onely an Autonomy in Religion Soibid: pag: 34. he fheweth us that the Kings of England have permitted to the Jewes in England their Presbyteratus, which he doth not deny, but halfe yeeld,to have been the fame with their Sacerdotium. 3 Al