Selected quad for the lemma: order_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
order_n	church_n	part_n	power_n	2,531	5	5.1803	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A87512	The want of church-government no warrant for a totall 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 administred in an un-presbyterated 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 unavoidablenesse of mixt communions without ecclesiastical discipline. / By Henry Jeanes, minister of Gods Word at Chedzoy in Sommerset-shire.	Jeanes, Henry, 1611-1662.	1650 (1650)	Wing J511; Thomason E618_6; ESTC R202652	58,879	80

Un-Presbyterated Church But the Lords Supper is a principal part of Gods positive and instituted Worship Ergo c. The Minor is apparent out of what the incomparably learned Amesius saith Lib. 2. Theol. c. 13. Num. 17.18 The meanes 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 publike and solemn Preaching of the Word celebration of Baptisme and the Lords Supper and Prayer And some of them are meanes 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 un-Presbyterated Church But the Lords Supper is a Sacrament of the New Testament Ergo c. The major is thus confirmed Nothing necessary to salvation both by the necessity of Gods 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 c. The minor is granted by all Protestants disputing against Papists for maintaining the absolute necessity of baptisme they all yield that not only Baptisme 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 beleever of his salvation they are powerful Provocations unto holinesse 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 it selfe for by our graces and the exercise of them an entrance shall be ministred 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 un-Presbyterated Church not only verbally but also really by observation of such ordinances as serve thereunto amongst which the Lords Supper may be reckoned one of the chief for by it we shew forth the Lords death We declare and witnesse before all the world that we owne and are not ashamed of a crucified Christ though unto the Jews a stumbling block and unto the Greeks foolishnesse 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 professe that our expectancy of righteousnesse and salvation is grounded only upon the satisfaction and merits of Christs death and sufferings I shall desire all that are otherwise mind ed then I am in this controversie 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 prophane 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 dispence unto Gods People a principal part of these mysteries Bread and Wine in the Lords Supper because others worship him amisse will they not therefore worship him at all because others do not sanctifie Gods 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 signe and pledge thereof only because some without their fault will joyne 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 speciall and particular to the office of some Church-governours 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-governours 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 un-Presbyterated Church Ergo the power of dispensing the Sacrament The Argument follows à toto ad partes For power to dispense the Sacraments is a part or branch of the power of order The consequence then is undeniable And as for the Antecedent that may be confirmed by the above-mentioned 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 un-Presbyterated Church i. e. A Church destitute of Ruling-Elders But such is the power of order Ergo c. 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 un-Presbyterated 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 applyed to matters moral for frequency or usualnesse But some say that however the power of order belong to a Minister in an un-Presbyterated Church wholly and entirely yet he can then exercise but a part of this power power of preaching the Word and baptizing he cannot at all exercise the power of administring the Lords Supper But this is spoken very unreasonably and groundlesly unlesse in an un-Presbyterated Church there be some impediment that by Gods Word or sound reason is a sufficient ground for non-administration of the Lords Supper or unlesse 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 administring 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 unlesse there be some such impediment as I spake of but now c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 vaine which doth not reach that end unto which it was appointed much more may that be said so which is never used or applyed 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 generall may be affirmed of the power of administring 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 hide his Talent in the earth But now according to this opinion which we oppose If the Church should chance not to be Presbyterated for a mans whole life then 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 Lords Supper Administration of the Lords Supper they confesse 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 consequen● In an Un-Presbyterated 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 meane no lawfull authority to hinder Now the Minister singly by himselfe 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 judiciall and implyeth a previous forensicall examination by the Eldership as of the parties admitted so sometimes of Witnesses and Authoritative declaration of fitnesse And this is to be only in Collegio Presbyteriali in the Colledge 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 Baptisme the Baptized are admitted or entered into the Church visible 1 Cor. 12.13 By one spirit we are all baptized into one body See Rutherford in his due right of Presbyteries p. 254. Now in some cases the Lords Supper may be administred unto those of yeares that are baptized without any new authoritative judiciall admission of the Eldership First This may be gathered from Acts 2.41 42. Those three thousand soules whose Baptisme 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 Baptisme 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 performe this juridicall 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 withold it from them And if in this case he may administer it to them then juridicall admission is not a necessary Antecedent of administration But because this juridicall and authoritative admission is inferred from the exclusion of grosly ignorant and scandalous persons from the Lords Supper we shall therefore enquire 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 seemes undeniably to follow that in an Un-Presbyterated Church there can be no administration because no exclusion of the scandalous and grosly 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 Morall or Physicall obligation That is a necessary Antecedent unto the Lords Supper by morall Obligation that is morally required as a duty before the Lords Supper be administred That is a necessary Antecedent unto the Lords Supper by Physicall obligation which is essentially required for the Nature and Essence of the Lords Supper The distinction though applyed to another purpose you may find at large explained and applyed by Rutherford in his Peaceable Plea for Pauls Presbytery cap 9. Now we grant that exclusion of grosly 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 Un-Presbyterated 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 gaine by all these concessions It is necessary that is commanded as a duty unto every Eldership to

they themselves had none at all When at Auspurge I asked a Ring-leader 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 vertues of the true spouse of Christ and that therefore he did put off and deferre his Communion until he could find such a Church rightly setled 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 evill 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 chiefly 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 abstaine 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 replyeth 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 mens tenents 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 alledge divers reasons why all Priests whatsoever are bound to say Masse if you please to make such a change in them as to put Ministers for Priests and the Lords Supper for Masse 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 adde out of Dunand that it is a virtuall 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 administring this Sacrament and not to use this power but to let it lye 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 vertue of his office takes upon his shoulders the burden of praying for his people of Preaching and administring the Sacraments unto them and therefore he sins if he never or seldome 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 mans calling Secondly Not only a Ministers totall and universall abstinence from administration of the Lords Supper but also seldomnesse and unfrequency of administring it is unlawfull 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 seldome or rarely dispensed when it is omitted for the date of many years Thirdly This objection of scandall holds as well against administration of the Lords Supper in a Presbyterated as in an Un-Presbyterated Church For a Minister may ordinarily foresee that scandall will follow in a Presbyterated Church in case there be a Mal-administration 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 likelyhood of the following of scandall for then a Minister shall be almost perpetually uncertaine whether he may administer the Lords Supper or no because likelyhood of scandall to follow will occurre if not alwayes yet very often When our Saviour tels 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 generall but also of such scandals as are likely to follow upon dispensation of Gods Ordinances unto the end of the world Some will be scandalized 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 judgment will be guilty of the body and blood of Christ Christ himself will be for a

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 Baptizing c. 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 meer begging of the Question The fifth Principal Argument is taken from the end of the Lords Supper The 5. Arg. à fine The principall ends of the Lords Supper have place in and do belong unto an Un-Presbyterated Church and therefore likewise the Lords Supper it self The consequence is made good from that Maxime in Logick 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 endlesse work to go over them all I shall therefore out of them all select two The first is that which by Christs most expresse command is to be the end of this Sacrament And it is to celebrate the memory of Christs 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 setled in our times Christs death is to be remembred with a memory both of faith and gratitude even in an Un-Presbyterated Church Therefore the Lords Supper which was by Christ instituted for the commemoration thereof is to be celebrated in an Un-Presbyterated Church Secondly I shall argue from another end of the Lords Supper The spiritual growth and nourishment of Christians The Lords Supper is defined by Ames to be the Sacrament of the nourishing and growth of the faithful in Christ Whereupon he inferres that it ought oftentimes to be administred to the same persons In an Un-Presbyterated Church Christians ought to grow in grace to nourish and improve their graces all they can Why then should they be denyed that which Christ himselfe 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 denyed bread yea but you will say dogges will eat the childrens bread Why will you therefore starve the children because dogges without your default may snatch the childrens portion Shall the children be debarred as I may say their daily bread because it will become accidentally poyson unto dogges Hither may we referre these words of the Bramble Berrie As it is better for Gods sheep to feed upon pasture where some weeds grow rather then starve for want of food So it is better for Gods shepheards to suffer some weeds to grow in the sheeps 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 then starve So it is better the shepheards should suffer the goats to feed upon the sheeps pasture though it should poyson them then for the sheep to be kept from it It being as I said out of their power to reforme it Hither you may referre 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 sixt 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 administred and these qualifications are especially two First Right unto Secondly Need of the Lords Supper Now in an Un-Presbyterated Church there are many who have right unto and need of the Lords Supper why then should it be with-held from them Because they have right unto it the Minister is tyed 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 rendreth the person actually and presently capable of the thing that he is intituled to That which giveth such a right in Foro Dei is Eaith but in Foro Ecclesiastico profession of the Faith Now in an Un-Presbyterated Church there are many who are Beleevers and Professors of the Faith Ego many that have right unto the Lords Supper And we may argue from the right to the administration Philip did so to the Eunuch in case of Baptisme The Eunuch said here is water what doth hinder me to be baptized And Philip said If thou beleevest withall thine heart thou mayst So may we say here is bread and wine c. Peter also thus reasoneth Acts 10.47 Can any forbid water that these should not be baptized which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we So may we say can any man forbid bread and wine that these should not receive the Lords Supper which have received the Holy Ghost and have in some degree all spirituall qualifications requisite in Communicants They have the word of promise which is the greater who can inhibit the signe which is the lesse They are Mr. Geree his words for the Baptisme of Infants They are faederati therefore they must be signati It is Mr. Marshals argument upon the same subject and mutatis mutandis applyable to our purpose Perhaps you will say you would willingly give Beleevers their right but prophane 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 your self 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 mourne 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 dues because these wretches without your allowance seise upon what is undue that unto which they have no

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 coles 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 Iehova dat tibi c. 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 then it was sinful and so no Plea for the non-administration of the Lords Supper if it were with leave then 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 shew 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 controversie 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 un-Presbyterated Church is unlawful For the antecedent I shall referre you to all that write 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 sadled against this forbearance of the Lords Supper I shall therefore desire you to make tryal of this for proofe of this Argument And after you have made such tryall you will I beleeve conclude non-administration to be a greater evil then 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 un-Presbyterated Church is unlawful The Antecedent wil not at all be denyed by those whom I oppose for the Minister by himself to exclude judicially from the Lords Supper what were it but to lord it over Gods heritage sole power of Iurisdiction 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 lesse 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 debarre 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 Iurisdiction that belongs to the whole Eldership And let this suffice for the first sort of Arguments drawne 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 terme 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 un-Presbyterated Church Un-Presbyterated Churches First à Genere Cum in Abel Cain inciperet divisio civitatis spiritualis Hierusalem à civitate Babylonis oportuit esse signa aliqua sacra quibus distinguerentur cives Hierusalem à civibus Babylonis sicut videmus in aliis rebus oves enim unius gregis discernuntur ab ovibus alterius gregis proprio signo sacrae aedes à non sacris

autem de illo quod aliquo modo est prius à quo tamen posterius non dependet essentialiter He speaks of things Natural and Physical but it is also appliable unto things moral The omission of a duty that is by Gods command Antecedent unto another doth not suspend much lesse nullifie the Obligation unto the consequent duty unlesse there be an essentiall dependency of the consequent duty upon the Antecedent duty But now to make application of this unto the Lords Supper Although the Presbyterating of a Church and the exercise of Jurisdiction by an Eldership be enjoyned by God as Antecedents unto the administration and receiving of the Lords Supper yet it doth not hereupon follow that upon want of an Eldership an omission of the exercise of Jurisdiction the command to administer and receive is suspended much less extinguished unless you can prove that there is an essential dependency of the administration and receiving of the Lords Supper upon the Presbyterating of the Church in which it is administred and the exercise of jurisdiction therein It implieth a contradiction and is utterly impossible for a thing to be without that upon which it essentially dependeth But it doth not imply a contradiction it is not impossible for the Lords Supper to be administred and received in an Un-Presbyterated Church Therefore the administration and receiving of the Lords Supper doth not essentially depend upon the Presbyterating of a Church upon its having Ruling-Elders and consequently the Command of administring and receiving the Lords Supper is not in reference unto the Command of setling an Eldership only a mediate Command Unto the proofe of this Mr Fullwood may apply those Arguments alleadged by me to prove That the exclusion of scandalous and grosse ignorant persons is not a necessary Antecedent unto the administration of the Lords Supper by Physical Obligation unto which Mr Fullwood hath given no answer at all Thirdly Suppose we should grant that the Command of administring and receiving the Lords Supper be mediate with reference to the Presbyterating of a Church yet Mr Fullwood will gaine little thereby if he understand as he must the Command concerning the Presbyterating of a Church to be not de Eventu but only de Conatu and if withall he put a difference betwen guilty and innocent persons those who hinder or do not what lyeth in them to farther the setling of an Eldership and those who pray sigh and use all other lawfull meanes for the compassing of it That the Command to have a Church Presbyterated to have Ruling Elders is to be taken only de Conatu concerning an endeavour of it will not I think be denied by Mr Fullwood And indeed it were not unreasonable to understand it de Eventu concerning the event concerning an actual Presbyterating of the Church for that may not be in our power to effect The whole Church may be over-powred by the Magistrate and the best affected Party in a Church may be over-borne by a Major part that may be dis-affected unto Presbytery Now if it should be granted unto Mr Fullwood That the Command to receive the Lords Supper did not bind immediately but only mediately upon pre-supposal that we had done our endeavour and used all lawful meanes for the erecting of an Eldership I do wonder what advantage such a Concession can yeild unto his cause But now if he shall contend that after we have used our utmost endeavour to erect an Eldership and cannot possibly prevaile that we are then by that which is meerly the fault of others dis-obliged from the receiving the Lords Supper First I say that for this assertion Mr Fullwood cannot bring so much as any colourable Argument Then secondly It makes the Lords Supper to have an essential dependence upon an Eldership which I have before refuted The second only thing that is considerable in Mr Fullwoods Book is an Objection which I shall give you in his own words and then returne a brief answer unto it Mr Fullwood While we will use this Sacrament in a Church 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 setled in our Churches for the same end for our more orderly proceeding in this holy exercise But because we cannot have an Eldership as and so soon as we would we will have the Sacrament as and so soon as we can If we cannot have it with we will have it without our Saviours or any order how keep we then the named Precept do all things and this sure amongst the rest do all things in order First settle Eldership then upon their preparitive work by the acts and exercise of their Jurisdiction administer the Sacrament according unto our Saviours order Answer These Ministers and people that have done their endeavour and used all lawfull means for the setling of an Eldership do not at all violate the command of the Spirit 1 Cor. 14.40 Neither doth that which you say prove it at all as will easily appear if you please to put your Argument into forme for then it stands thus If there should be the exercise and act of Jurisdiction if there should be Ruling-Elders elected and setled in our Churches for our more orderly proceeding in the administration of the Lords Supper then those that have used all lawfull means for the exercise of Jurisdiction for the election and setling of Ruling-Elders and cannot prevaile they directly oppose and violate that command of the Spirit 1 Cor. 14.40 if they administer and receive the Lords Supper The consequent is most extreamly false and is not back'd so much as by any colour or shadow of reason And indeed you can never make it good unlesse you can prove either that there is an essentiall dependency of the Lords Supper upon the Eldership or else that there is a command to delay and deferre the administration of the Lords Supper until an Eldership be erected Mr. Fullwood Moreover this Command hath with it the force of a Negative namely let nothing be done in disorder Answer This Proposition Let nothing be done in disorder is ambiguous and may be understood two wayes First as a prohibition of disorder and confusion in the Worship and Ordinances of God and so it is granted and the concession of it will not prejudice any thing that I affirme Next it may be taken as a prohibition given generally unto every one of that Worship and Ordinances of God wherein there is any disorder committed by our selves or others though without our default And so it is very untrue and if granted concerning the disorder of others would open a gapp unto a totall neglect of publike prayers hearing of the Word For unto those Ordinances wicked men come disorderly because unpreparedly Other mens violation and breach of order doth not disoblige us from the Worship and Ordinances of God especially when we are innocent of such their disorder Nay if we understand the Words as a Prohibition of that Worship and Ordinance wherin there is any disorder committed even so they are not generally true for though we come with disorder unpreparednes unto the hearing of the Word and publike prayers yet we are not for this disorder to omit publike prayers and hearing of the Word for this were the way not to prevent but to multiply our sin and yet I do not deny but that this disorder unpreparednes is a great sin for which we ought to be humbled FINIS