A treatise of miscellany questions wherein many useful questions and cases of conscience are…A treatise of miscellany questions wherein many usefull questions and cases of conscience are…

Disciples, to whom he appeared after his resurrection (suppose I say, there had been so many communicants) yet he had given them all at once the elements, and had said but once, Take ye, eat ye, and that there had been no intermission at all, nor no partition into several successive Companies. If this can be proved, then they say much against the use of successive Tables, otherwise not. Fifthly, our dissenting brethren of the Independent way, who dislike our several and successive tables in one Congregation, as a dividing of those who ought to communicate all together, (for they would have none of the Communicants receive the cup, before all of the Congregation who communicate, have received the bread) these brethren, I say, may satisfy themselves from their own principles; For they hold, that although a Congregation increase so much, as that they cannot, or be so persecuted, that they may not meet safely in one place, for the Word and Sacraments, and supposing the Church of Jerusalem before the dispersion, Acts 8. 1. to have been so numerous, and to have ⟨p. 222⟩accressed to so many thousands, as could not receive the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, nor ordinarily assemble into one place for the Worship of God, (that they received the Lords Supper in several companies, and several houses, is ordinarily collected from Acts 2. 46. and breaking bread from house to house, which the Syriac expoundeth expressly of the Eucharist.) Yet all this (say they) breaks not the Church, but they are still one particular Church. Now if several companies of the same Church assembled, and receiving the Lords Supper in several places, be not a breaking or dividing of the Congregation, nor a deviation from the example of Christ, much less can they with any reason, charge our communicating by several companies at successive tables, in the same meeting place or Assembly, to be a breaking of the Congregation, or a deviation from Christs example. If one of their Congregations may receive the Sacrament in several houses, when (by reason of numerousness) they cannot all receive it together in one house, I cannot conceive why they may not much more allow us several successive tables in the Assembly, when the whole cannot communicate at one table, so much for my first argument taken from Christs example.

Disciples, to whom hee appeared after his resurrection (suppose I say, there had been so many communicants) yet he had given them all at once the elements, and had said but once, Take ye, eat yee, and that there had been no intermission at all, nor no partition into severall successive Companies. If this can be proved, then they say much against the use of successive Tables, otherwise not. Fifthly, our dissenting brethren of the Independent way, who dislike our severall and successive tables in one Congregation, as a dividing of those who ought to communicat all together, (for they would have none of the Communicants receave the cup, before all of the Congregation who communicat, have receaved the bread) these brethren, I say, may satisfie themselves from their owne principles; For they hold, that although a Congregation encrease so much, as that they cannot, or be so persecuted, that they may not meet safely in one place, for the Word and Sacraments, and supposing the Church of Ierusalem before the dispersion,