YOur Queſtions were, I ſuppoſe, ſent abroad in expectation of an Anſwer. Untill you receive a better from ſome other hand, you may pleaſe to make uſe of this. If it ſatisfie not, I neither challenge nor refuſe a Reply. Our Readers, I hope, will be gainers, if impartiall, whether you or I winne or loſe. Nor will I deſpaire of gaining you over to that Truth, which as yet you acknowledge not. And if my Anſwer be in part by way of Queſtions, you will not blame me, your ſelfe have led the way.

Firſt then, whereas in your Title you ſay, Queſtions &c. propounded to the Reverend Aſſembly, and the like afterward in your Preface: I ask, whether you do not know that the Reverend Aſſembly have no power to take notice of any Queſtions for debate and determination, unleſſe ordered ſo to do by one or both Houſes of Parliament; and therefore not till then in a capacity of returning Anſwers to ſuch Quaeres? A friend to the Aſſembly ſhould have thought of this before he had ſpread ſuch a paper before all the world to their prejudice.

Next, whether the Titles of the Reverend Aſſembly, and our Venerable Aſſembly (unleſſe put upon them in ſcorne, as they have been by others) in a buſineſſe which you acknowledge to be of much difficulty, and requiring a very circumſpect handling, and upon which accordingly they have ſpent ſo much time, and laid ſo much weight upon their deſires of it, might not juſtly have kept you from publiſhing in print, under the guiſe of Queſtions, your private judgement, and (it may be) ſudden thoughts, againſt them, without ever hearing of them?

Thirdly, it ſeems ſtrange, that you, profeſſing ſuch circumſpection to be neceſſary in handling this point, ſhould yet ſo ſpeak of it, as one not ſufficiently acquainted either with the Advice of the Aſſembly, or Reſolutions of the Parliament, concerning it. For, in two maine things at leaſt, you quite miſtake: As firſt, you ſeem to take for granted (and eſpecially Qu. 3.) that it is deſired, the power of Suſpenſion ſhould be in a ſingle Miniſter, or in Miniſters alone, according to their private judgement: whereas the advice and deſire of the Aſſembly is expreſly contrary; they place it in the whole Elderſhip, nor may they doe it but upon due proofe. Secondly, you ſeem to bend your ſtrength wholly againſt Suſpenſion before Excommunication, as granting the latter; but ſuppoſing that ſuch an antecedent Suſpenſion is the only thing ſtuck at, and unfit to be eſtabliſhed; whereas the Parliament hath already agreed on ſuch a Suſpenſion, in the caſe of ſeven ſinnes by name, which I preſume you have heard of; ſo that you have beſtowed Arguments, not only againſt the humble advice and deſires of the Aſſembly, but the Votes of both Houſes of Parliament, which I hope you will hereafter forbeare.

Fourthly, whereas you ſeem to load that advice of the Aſſembly with many reproachfull Inſinuations, of an Arbitrary, Ʋnlimited, Tyrannicall, Papall domineering over the Conſciences and the spirituall priviledges of Chriſtians; I deſire to know, Firſt, whether much of this was not wont to bee ſaid of the conſcientious and zealous preaching of Practicall truths, and charging ſinne upon men and women, in Books, for things in which they had a minde to be free, as Stage-playes, Lovelocks, drinking Healths, and ſuch like? Secondly, why a generall power of binding Conſciences by Cenſures (purely Eccleſiaſticall, as Suſpenſion queſtionleſſe is) ſhould be more reproached for Arbitrary, &c. then a generall power of binding Conſcience by preaching, wherein certainly every Miniſter hath his Commiſſion from Chriſt, without any limitation, but to keep within the bounds of the Word; and the wills of men have nothing to do to reſtrain him? Thirdly, whether it be not be true way of preventing Tyranny, not to deny the Power Chriſt hath left to his Miniſters and Elders, but to uſe it in Claſſes and Synods, in cenſuring any that exerciſe Tyranny, and if need be the Parliament may put to their help to repreſſe Tyranny in this kinde as well as in any other. Fourthly, as for Papall or Prelaticall Domineering, and claiming ſuch a Power as our very Lordly Prelates never durſt to claime, 1. Why, I pray, do you borrow this curteous language from the Independents, with which they moſt familiarly grace the Preſbyteriall Government? Sure you are not Independent I think, or if you were, you might have forborn this reproach, ſince in this deſire there was a full Harmony in the Aſſembly between them and the Presbyterians, as became brethren that deſired to ſee the firſt and maine Foundation of the Reformation ſurely laid; which is not done till this be done which is deſired. 2. Papall or Prelaticall Domineering over Conſciences, is power, 1 engroſſed into one hand, 2 to command things, and 3 forbid things without Chriſts Word, or 4 even againſt it; whereas there is not here the leaſt ſhadow of any ſuch thing pleaded for; but only a Power in a Community (the Elderſhip, entruſted by Chriſt with Church-Government) to binde the Conſciences of ſinners by Cenſures, who are firſt bound by the Word. This the Prelates did not care for further then to get money, or vex Conſciences of men; which they had power enough for by one way or other, if not full out as much Power for all ſcandals. Fifthly, If all Chriſtians may claime, as one of their ſpirituall priviledges to come to the Sacrament till they are excommunicated, or to be on no pretence kept from it if they doe deſire it; Then how ſhall the Parliament be juſtified, as not wronging Drunkards or Adulterers (and the reſt of the ſinners upon whom their Votes are already paſt) in their spirituall priviledges? I am confident they muſt either recall thoſe Votes, as not warranted by Scripture, and leave all to come when they liſt; or the ſame Scriptures that prove thoſe ſeven ſinnes to be matter of Suſpenſion, will prove altogether as much as the Aſſembly ever did adviſe or deſire.

Fifthly, you deſire this matter ſhould be ſetled with caution and moderation, certainly as little as poſſible therein left to any mans Diſcretion. Some of this you would have ſpared, I ſuppoſe, if you had ſeen the ſundry Rules which the Aſſembly hath adviſed to be obſerved about this power; which they think none will deny but to ſavour of much Moderation and Caution. Withall you may remember (for ſure you know it) that in all Courts of Equity or Conſcience (as they are called) much is, and neceſſarily muſt be left to the diſcretion of the Iudge: which is in ſome Courts with leſſe certainty, and leſſe remedy alſo (of Appeale in caſe of wrong or Tyrannie) then could be in Elderſhips, if the power deſired were ſettled in them.

Sixthly, you adviſe the Avoyding of Extremes, and the ſeeming Affectation of a greater Lording power over the Conrciences and Priviledges of Chriſtians and Brethren, then of right belongs to them. I anſwer, 1. Surely no Lording power at all over Conſciences and Priviledges of right belongs to any in the Church of Chriſt; But a Miniſteriall Power of judging and cenſuring ſcandalous ſinners belongs to Church-Officers, according to the Word; as your ſelfe cannot but grant, if you grant Excommunication at all: And if you do not grant Excommunication at all, why do you ſo ſedulouſly bring in the mention of that in three of your Queſtions? and lay ſo much weight upon it, as you plainly do? 2. Do not you your ſelf know, even by experience, that no man can ſhew zeal againſt ſcandalous ſinnes but by ſome, and even too many, he will ſeem to runne into Extremes, and to affect a Lording over mens Conſciences?

Finally, to end theſe preparatory Animadverſions and Anſwers to your Title, Preface, and other circumſtantiall Paſſages of your Paper; you will be pleaſed ſadly and ſeriouſly to conſider, that all this reproach obliquely caſt upon the Aſſembly in the forementioned Infinuations and others in this Paper, do in like fort asperſe all the Reformed Churches of Chriſt, that have any Eccleſiaſticall Diſcipline, who all practiſe what the Aſſembly hath deſired: And yet further, diſgraces all the Diſcipline of the Primitive Church in her purest times, which was rather more ſtrict then leſſe: as hath been in part already manifeſted to the Parliament, and may be more fully, if they ſhall require it.

And now I come to your four Grand Queſtions in their order, whereof the firſt is this, [Whether Matth. 18.16, 17. or 1 Cor. 5.5.11. 1 Tim. 1.20. be meant properly of Excommunication, or Suspenſion from the Sacrament only?] I anſwer, firſt, This, under your favour, is a very impertinent Queſtion to your propounded ſcope of avoyding Arbitrary, Tyrannicall domineering over Conſciences and Priviledges. For if they prove Excommunication properly, which is a greater cenſure then Suſpenſion; then either a greater power proved by the Word, muſt be reproached with Tyranny and Arbitrary unlimitedneſſe &c. or elſe that load was unjuſtly caſt upon a leſſer Power (a power of a leſſe cenſure;) for ſure you will not ſay, that it is Tyranny and an Arbitrary unlimited Domineering, to deny a Childa meales meat when it would hurt him, and none to turn him quite out of doores, whereby he may be in danger to ſtarve. So that if there be any uſe of this Queſtion in this diſpute, it ſeems to me to be only to perplex the Reader, and entangle the buſineſſe. And ſo I might diſmiſſe it.

But I ſhall anſwer diſtinctly to your Texts. Firſt, Matth. 18. ſpeaks properly (as I ſuppoſe) of Excommunication, as your Quaere intimates. Meane while your Gloſſe you give in a Parentheſis will not hinder it to be meant of either. For firſt, though the words are, Let him be to thee; yet this is not Excluſive (to thee and no other) but Reſpective, to thee who haſt been ſcandalized. And from thence the Argument will be ſtrong. 1. If to thee for reſuſing to heare the Church, then to all others who know that he hath refuſed to heare them; for that makes it as much a ſcandall to them, as before it was to thee, when thou only knewſt it. 2. Alſo binding on earth, and binding in heaven, when known by the publication of the Churches ſentence; and thy holding him thereupon as a Heathen and Publican, will reach to make him ſo to others as well as to thee the Complainant. Secondly, though the words be, If thy brother treſpaſſe againſt thee; yet neither is this excluſive, (nor yet Luke 17.) ſo as that this Rule ſhould extend only to peſonall private treſpaſſes between man and man; But contrarily, here alſo the Argument is ſtrong (à minori ad majus) If thou maiſt complaine for a private perſonall trespaſſe, and finally repute him a Heathen and Publican for impenitent obſtinacy, and not hearing the Church; then much more is this to be done in publike ſcandalous ſins againſt the Congregation: or elſe the publikeneſſe and ſcandalouſneſſe of the ſin, which are fearfull Aggravations, ſhall obtaine an Impunity and Immunity from that complaint and cenſure which belongs to a leſſer and more private offence; which is abſurd to imagine. But, ſuppoſing it to be as you contend, Let him be to thee, not to the Church; and that it is for a private treſpaſſe, not a publike ſcanda; yet how doth this tend to prove, that the place is meant properly of Excommunication, and not of Suſpenſion from the Lords Supper only?

Secondly, 1 Cor. 5.5. and 1 Tim. 1.20. which ſpeak of delivering to Satan, are properly meant of Excommunication; yet neither do they deny Suſpenſion, by way of endeavour to prevent the higheſt cenſure, and for the preſent preventing of miſchiefes to the Offender, and the Congregation, or thoſe that know his offence, or of the diſhonour of Chriſt, if ſuch an one (being as yet not penitent) ſhould approach his holy Table, to partake of his Body and Blood; of which he will be guilty infallibly, if he ſo come in his ſinne.

Thirdly, 1 Cor. 5.11. With ſuch an one no not to eat, inferres Suſpenſion firſt, and after, Excommunication, upon the grounds now mentioned; and afterward to be enlarged and applyed even to this Text, and proved by it.

Under your former Queſtion you have another, which hath alſo two branches (and ſo we have three Queſtions in ſtead of one in this one Section, and we ſhall ſee the like afterward) You ask What warrant here is in Scripture, for Miniſters or others to ſuſpend men from the Sacrament, and not from the Congregation, and all other Ordinances with it? A. Becauſe Excommunication is the higheſt cenſure of the Church, to which men ſhould not proceed till extreme neceſſity, from the Offenders obſtinacy, compell. Mean time it may be evident, that if he ſhould be admitted, he would diſhonour Chriſt in ſtead of worſhiping him, and miſchiave his owne ſoule, in ſtead of doing it good. And therefore may fitly in this Interim be ſuſpended for the preventing thereof, till it doe appeare whether there will be a neceſſity of cutting him off by Excommunication. And againſt this none of the forementioned places, which you do annex, do make oppoſition. And among them, 1 Cor. 5. and 2 Theſ. 3. will give great approbation to Suſpenſion. The one requiring, no not to eat with a Brother (at a common table) that is a Fornicator, if I can avoid it, and therfore certainly, not to ſuffer him to eat with me at the Lords Table, even becauſe the Church muſt endeavour to keep the Feast without leaven, celebrate the Supper without the mixture of ſcandalous wicked perſons. The other commanding to with-draw from, and keep no company with a diſorderly walker, requires that he be not ſuffered to keep the Church company in their partaking of the moſt Sacred Priviledges. The Reaſon is moſt ſtrong, that he may be aſhamed; which certainly he is not like to be, ſo long as he may as freely as ever come to the Sacrament and higheſt priviledge of Chriſtians. And as for Numb. 12. out of the Old Teſtament, which is an example of a Leper &c. this brings to minde a plaine Type of Suſpenſion; namely, the ſhutting up of a ſuſpected Leper ſeven dayes, and again ſeven dayes ſometimes, before he is a together to be ſhut out. What is this, but firſt a Tryall (and prevention of infection) by Suſpenſion, before actuall and finall caſting out. And I wonder you who appeare to be read in Antiquity, ſhould affirme, that ſcandalous perſons were ever excommunicated and wholly caſt out of the Church, never barely ſequestred from the Sacrament; whereas it is cleare, that they had Abstenſion, & abstenti, both before Excommunication; witneſſe Cyprian in diyers places: And after Excommunication, before Abſolution, the Poenitentes (as they are called) were kept ſome of them a long time, Abſtenti, from the Sacrament, and yet allowed to heare the Word among the faithfull, and even to joyne in ſome prayers though not in all.

Neither do the Schoolmen deny this, however they define Excommunication, ſc. the Major Excommunicatio, (for they had a Minor Excom. which was only Suſpenſion; and ſo ſome of our Latter Divines call Suſpenſion.) Befides, that is not greatly materiall how they determine in matters of Conſcience. As for Aretius, he apparantly defines it wrong, making it an Excluſion from Communion in all both ſacred and prophane or worldly matters. Whenas it cannot be denied, nor is by any but Papiſts, but in manifold prophane or common matters, Communion may be & muſt be held by the faithfuleſt perſons with the moſt ſcandalous, even when excommunicated with the higheſt Cenſure of the Church: and ſo for ſome ſacred matters; at which even Heathens might be preſent 1 Cor. 14.23, 24. elſe how ſhould they be converted? And ſo I have done with your firſt Queſtion, and its branches and amplifications.

The ſecond followes. By what divine Authority can any keep back any Chriſtian from the Sacrament, who earneſtly deſires to receive it? (This is all that is materiall in your Queſtion: although you mention a Miniſter ſingle, and his private judgement, and the perſon kept away not yet excommunicated: but to all this I have ſpoken already, and ſo ſpare tautology.) To which I anſwer, The deſire of any, whoſoever he be, or how earneſt ſoever it be, is no protection to ſecure him from being kept back, while the thing that he would doe will certainly be to the Diſhonour of Chriſt (making that perſon guilty of his body and blood) and to the parties owne miſchiefe, by his eating and drinking judgement and damnation to himſelfe. In Conſcience, Sir, would you have a man in a frenzie not kept back, or a man extremely drunk? Yet either of them may earneſtly deſire to be admitted. I knew a woman, that in the depth of malice and deteſtable prophanneſſe, took the Bread out of her mouth and carried it home in a clout, and only toucht the Cup without drinking at all, and afterward boaſted of it, and vowed the Sacrament ſhould never come within her body, till ſhe had ſatisfaction for the wrong done her; and yet afterward, without the leaſt ſhew of Reconciliation toward the party with whom ſhe had a quarrell, or of Remorſe for her abominable practice, offered to come to the Sacrament, and conteſted for it; would you have had me to have admitted her upon thoſe teimes? If you ſay, No, then you may anſwer your Queſtion your ſelfe by Matth. 7. Give not that which is holy to dogs, (for certainly ſhe ſhewed her ſelfe a dog or ſwine in this) or by any other Text you will; and then all your Arguments to the contrary (preſently to be conſidered) fall to the ground: If you ſay, Yes, you ſhall give me leave to ſay, you ſhall be no Caſuiſt in this to ſatisfie my conſcience: And yet I beleeve you walk by rules of Conſcience in other matters; only I know not how you ſwarve in this great Queſtion.

But you ſay We read of no circumciſed perſon that was ever debard from the Paſſeever by the Prieſts, that was willing or deſirous to eat it. Anſ. Sure you have forgotten (for you have certainly read it) Numb. 9. a caſe of perſons unclean, deſirous to Receive, and yet kept back, and a Rule made upon it for time to come, that ſuch ſhould be kept back. And 2 Chron. 20. Officers ſet by that Godly Reformer Jehojadah the high Prieſt, to keep away the Uncleane from the Temple. And if you ſay, This was only for Legall not Morall uncleanneſſe; I would for the preſent ask you, whether this were not written for our learning (and imitation) and what this Typicall Law did ſignifie, but out contended for Suſpenſion. And as for thoſe 2 Chron. 30. admitted, though not purified after the purification of the Sanctuary. If the Prieſt knew any to be unclean, you dare not (I think) ſay, but that they ſinned in admitting them, contrary to the forementioned expreſſe Law. And God ſhewed ſome ſigne of diſpleaſure, till upon Hezekiahs prayer he healed them.

Next you ſay, Chriſt himſelfe admitted Judas to it, though he knew him to be a Devill and a Traytor. I grant it (and that Luk. 22. proves it, though many argue the contrary from the other Evangeliſts,) But Chriſt had not convicted Iudas to be ſuch an one (nor yet named him to any, till by the Sop he inſinuated him to Iohn) which wholly alters the caſe: For the Aſſembly would not have any man kept away by the Miniſter upon his owne private knowledge (though never ſo certaine) but upon juſt proofe and conviction before the Elderſhip.

But you adde, that Paul uſurped no other authority to himſelfe, nor gave authority to others to keep unworthy Receivers from the Sacrament, but only admoniſhed them &c. I anſwer: Sure Paul never uſurped any authority at all, neither this nor any other; but his delivering the Inceſtuous Corinthian, alſo Hymeneus and Alexander to Satan, was at leaſt a keeping them from the Sacrament, whatever it was more. For I cannot beleeve your ſelfe can think, that a man while ſo in the Devils poſſeſſion may be admitted to the Lords Table, to partake of the pledges of his Body and Blood. And for giving power to others, he doth it not in ſyllables in that Chapter; But in declaring openly, ſuch as are openly unworthy Receivers, to be ſuch Offenders againſt Chriſt, and Enemies to themſelves in the very Act of Receiving; he muſt needs imply that thoſe who are to judge thoſe that are within (1 Cor. 5.12.) ought to keep ſuch away from adding ſinne to ſinne, and miſchiefe to miſchiefe.

Therefore your ſubordinare Queſtion (Whether a Miniſter by admonition and dehortation hath not diſcharged his full duty and conſcience) is ſoone anſwered. In a Doctrinall way, as a Preacher to him, he hath; but not, as he is one to whom, with the reſt of the Elderſhip, the Rule and Care of the Church of God is committed 1 Tim. 3. 1 Tim. 5.17. unleſſe he have, what in him lies, judged (according to prooſe) and cenſured a ſcandalous Offender, and ſo kept him from the Sacrament; which, I take it, S. Paul threatens to doe to ſuch Impenitents as he ſhould finde when he next came to Corinth, 2 Cor. 12. and Chap. 13. And your cited Text of 1 Cor. 11. ſaith nothing to the contrary. For Ezek. 33. and Acts 20. they are ſpoken only of the Duty of Preaching, that a Prophet or Preacher, in reference to that duty, hath delivered his ſoule when he hath given warning: But ſo farre as he hath a further power, he is not quit, if he uſe it not. Witneſſe Elyrs ſinne and judgement, who yet gave his ſonnes as grave and ſerious a warning as could be, 1 Sam. 2. but becauſe being a Judge he reſtrained them not, by cenſures ſutable to their ſcandals, God charged guilt heavily upon him and all his Family.

But I wonder much (I ſay not quâ fide, but quâ curâ) you ſay the Lyturgies of our owne and the French Churches in their Exhortations before the Sacrament, both intimate and reſolve what you affirme; that a Miniſter hath diſcharged his full duty and conſcience by admonition and dehortation. When firſt, you know that in expreſſe words in the Rubrick before the Sacrament in our late Book of Common prayer, the Curate (a ſingle Miniſter) is expreſly charged, not to admit an obſtinate uncharitable perſon And ſecondly, all the world knowes (or may know) that the Diſcipline of the French Churches, charges Miniſters with the reſt of the Elderſhip, to ſuſpend all ſcandalous perſons from the Sacrament when proved ſo before them. And accordingly they doe ſo in all the Reformed Churches in France, and all others of that Nation in Holland or elſewhere: And ſo have done in England over ſince K. Edward the ſixth time (except in Q. Maries) by the allowance of our Princes. As for the Exhortations before the Sacrament, they ſerve to warne thoſe whoſe ſinnes are ſecret and not proved, and not to ſtand for all Diſcipline toward thoſe that are notoriouſly ſcandalous. I adde, if it were meant to be the only barre of open ſcandals, it would be ridiculous to ſuch as knew themſelves to be ſuch, and knew that others knew it alſo, to ſay, If any of you be a Blaſphemer, or an Adulterer &c. bewaile your ſinnes, and come not to this holy Table &c. as it was in our Lyturgy: Or much more to ſay, I excommunicate ſuch and ſuch (as in the French Liturgy) and yet I ſee them and know them, and ſo doth all the Congregation, and let them communicate notwithſtanding. The very Pagans were never ſo careleſſe of their Sacra, as to let thoſe they counted prophane, to partake in them. If Chriſtians ſhould, will not they riſe up in judgement againſt us?

Your third Queſtion is, Whether unprofitable and unworthy hearing of the Word be not as great, as dangerous, as damning a ſinne, as the unworthy Receiving of the Sacrament? Whereunto you adde diverſe Texts Mat. 10.14.15. Mark 16.15, 16. Luk. 8.18. Heb. 2.1, 2, 3. and 3.7, 8, 12. and 6.6, 7, 8. and (after) two ſubordinate Queſtions in the ſame Paragraph. I anſwer to them all. Firſt, to your maine Queſtion I ſay, That every ſingle Act of unprofitable and unworthy hearing of the Word, is not ſo great, ſo dangerous, ſo damning a ſinne, as unworthy Receiving the Sacrament. Becauſe 1. thoſe ſinnes are greateſt upon which the Spirit of God puts the greateſt weight; But the Spirit of God puts no where ſuch weight upon a ſingle Act of unprofitable hearing. For all your Texts, every one of them, ſpeak only of habituall and cuſtomary, and ſome of them only of finall unprofitable hearing. But 1 Cor. 11, 27, 29. ſpeaks of every ſingle act of Receiving the Lords Supper unworthily. 2. Againe, whoever receives the Sacrament unworthily, hath firſt received the Word unworthily (and that, it may be, not once, but many times) and ſo hath added a further ſinne to it. But a man may receive the Word unworthily, who receives not the Sacrament at all, and ſo ſins but a ſingle ſin; whereas the unworthy Receiver of the Sacrament ſins certainly double. 3. Moreover the matter preached oftentimes, is but a Particular of leſſer conſequence, and ſo the ſin leſſe to receive it unworthily: But the matter of the Sacrament is the higheſt of all Chriſtianity, and therefore the ſin is the greater to receive it unworthily. 4. Further, ſuppoſe the Sermon was of the Grace of Chriſt, and the benefit of his Body and Blood; yet is it a greater fin to receive the Sacrament unworthily, becauſe in that is a further manifeſtation of Gods love, and Chriſts Grace, a ſeale to the Word. Therefore to deſpiſe it, and receive it unworthily, is a further manifeſtation of obſtinate impenitency unbeliefe, and ſleighting the Grace of Chriſt, and the Love of God. 5 Once more, The Receiver of the Sacrament doth more ſolemnly pretend faith in Chriſt, and owning him as his Lord, then the hearer of the Word: he ſeales outwardly to God and Chriſt, as well as receives outward ſeales; which the Hearer doth not by the act of his hearing (for a Heathen may come in to heare, 1 Cor. 14.) Therefore he ſins a greater, more dangerous, more damning ſinne, then any man that this or that time, receives the Word unprofitably and unworthily.

Next, if you would compare a customary unworthy hearing, with a ſingle act of unworthy Receiving, and ask whether it bee not as great a ſinne, &c. To this I ſhall anſwer, by conſidering your two ſubordinate Queſtions, which are, 1 Whether Miniſters upon ſome pretence may not as well keep the people from preaching, and refuſe to preach to them, &c? And 2 What ſubſtantiall difference they can produce warranted by Scripture, why they may not deny the Word as well as the Sacrament? I anſwer, Firſt, there is an expreſſe charge to preach the Gospell to every creature, that is, even to Pagans and Infidels while remayning ſuch: you will not ſay, there is the like for giving the Sacrament, while ſuch. Secondly, there is a like Charge of inſtructing in meekneſſe thoſe that oppoſe themſelves, which will hold, I beleeve, even to profeſſed Chriſtians, for they are but too often oppoſers, and you will not ſay but ſuch muſt ſtill be inſtructed, if at any time God will give them repentance, &c. But there is no ſuch charge to adminiſter the Sacrament to oppoſers or impenitents. 3 That which gives a warrant not to baptize a man (though pretending to deſire it) will, from the parity of the nature of both the Sacraments, give warrant to deny him the Lords Supper. Had Philip manifeſtly ſeen Act. 8. that which Peter did afterward, that Simon Magus was in the gall of bitterneſſe and bond of iniquity; doubtleſſe he would not have baptized him, though he ſhould have offered himſelfe. An ignorant man, or a prophane man is to be preached to, but not to be baptized, till he have gotten knowledge and expreſſed repentance: Therfore by the ſame reaſon, one equally ignorant or prophane (though baptized) is not to be admitted to the Lords Supper: and if you would ſay, yes, his baptiſm gives him right, and nothing can after deprive him of it; I pray, would not this furniſh the Anabaptiſts with a moſt forcible argument againſt baptizing of infants? That ſuch baptizing them makes parents and others careleſſe of their education, and themſelves of their behaviour when grown up? And I remember this was once urged to me. To which no rationall anſwer that I know can be given, if upon this baptiſm they may chalenge the Lords Supper at ſuch an age, how ignorant ſoever they remain, and how ſcandalous ſoever they grow. Were not this the way to make all that are zealous of Chriſts honour and the good of ſoules, to abhorre ſuch baptiſm as hardening parents and children both in impiety and contempt of God? I pray conſider it. 4 But I adde, the word is the proper Ordinance to convert men, which therefore muſt be preached even to pagans and oppoſers (till they grow altogether deſperate.) But the Lords Supper is a Seal for confirmation of thoſe that are or ſeem to be beleevers and penitents. If therefore any relapſe into ſinne and remain impenitent, the Word is the proper meanes ſtill to be offerd to him for his recovery, which muſt be ſpoken as to an impenitent: but the Sacrament is to be denied him (and that deniall is alſo a concurrent meanes of this recovery, as proclaiming him to his conſcience unworthy of it, and ſo to others, if the Suſpenſion be publiſht, as it muſt ſometimes be publiſht to all the Congregation, but not alwaies,) and that becauſe it cannot be given but as an actuall Seal of Gods forgiveneſſe, which for the preſent he declares himſelf to be uncapable of. 5 Finally, the Word hath a power (often manifeſted) to conquer obſtinate ſinners, and there are many promiſes of it, though the diſpenſation of this power be not at every Sermon, or to every perſon, but when and to whom God pleaſes: But there is no ſuch power mentioned in Scripture accompanying the Sacrament; it is for living men (and ſuch as are not in a ſwoon neither, but ſomewhat lively and hungty) to feed upon that banquet; not to be put into dead mens mouths or hands, or thoſe whoſe mouthes (that is, their hearts) appeare to be ſhut againſt it: But the word preached hath rayſed dead ſoules, thouſands, millions, (according to the propheſie and promiſe John 5) even all that ever come to life in an ordinary way. Here is difference enough to fatisfy both your Queſtions. And for your Arguments added to the firſt of them, I anſwer briefly, firſt a Miniſter is no way partaker of any ones unprofitable hearing, or guilty of his damnation, being commanded to preach to him for his good; as it may be, how ill ſoever he be when he begins to preach to him: But he, and the Elderſhip, are partakers of the ſin of the unworthy Communicant, if they admit him, of whom they have ſuch proofe that they know he will be guilty of Chriſts body and blood, and will eat and drink damnation to himſelfe; for they are no where commanded to admit ſuch to the Sacrament; but forbidden by the nature of the Ordinance, and his apparant unworthineſſe together, (beſide the places forementioned, 1 Cor. 5. 2 Theſ. 3.) Secondly a Miniſter is not to give holy things to dogs, &c. This is generall, and not confined to the Word only. Your ſelfe only ſay, It is principally meant of the Word; and ſure it hath a Truth even relating to the Sacraments; for they alſo are holy things, and pearles, and ſo are not to be caſt to ſuch as will trample and deſpiſe them. And though it is true, that ſometimes there may be ſuch a Deſperate oppoſition againſt Preaching, as that this ſentence will forbid a man to preach any longer to ſuch: As your Texts, Mat. 10.24. Acts 13.46, 51. doe indeed prove. (But Mark. 16.15, 16. hath nothing at all to that purpoſe but only ſpeaks of the damnation of obſtinate unbeleevers,) yet this is rare. And in this caſe I will grant, ſuch are not to be preaent to, but kept away what one can; but no others are ſo in regard of the word. But a man that is infallibly and groſly ignorant of the principles of Religion; or notoriouſly ſcandalous and impenitent in it, is to this Ordinance of the Sacrament, a dog or a ſwine, as certainly diſhonouring Chriſt and miſchieving his own ſoul, if he communicate; as a Pagan (who hath nothing to do with Chriſt;) and therefore ſuch a holy thing ſuch a pearl is not to be given or caſt to ſuch. 3 Though the word profit not where faith is wanting, Heb. 4.2 yet this is not meant where faith is not already; for then it ſhould profit none ordinarily, all being without faith till by preaching, the Spirit of God work it in them; and therfore it is to be preacht to men that want faith, that they may want it no longer: but ignorant perſons have certainly no faith, and impenitents have either none or uſe none while impenitents, and ſo cannot profit by the Sacrament, becauſe they cannot ſeed upon Chriſt, and therefore may not be admitted to the Sacramentall eating of the Bread and Wine to the provoking of Chriſt, and further undoing their own ſoules. 4 Finally, though the word unprofitably heard, (that is, finally, to the end of a mans life) encreaſes and aggravates his ſinnes and becomes the ſavour of death to death, to ſuch unworthy receivers of it; yet becauſe, as the Apoſtle told us, there is ſtill a peradventure that God may give even to thoſe that oppoſe themſelves now, repentance hereafter, and accordingly he therefore charges ſtill to inſtruct in meekneſſe even ſuch; till they come to be open and obſtinate blaſphemers, they muſt be preacht to: But no ſuch hopes being given nor charge towards unworthy receivers of the Sacrament: Miniſters and Elders muſt refuſe them till they appear to be of a better minde. And this leads to your fourth Queſtion.

Which is (ſummarily) Whether ſuch may bee denied the Sacrament, who profeſſe ſincere repentance, and promiſe newneſſe of life? (here again you interpoſe not being excommanicated, and if he deſire to receive, and the Miniſters private opinion; to all which it is needleſſe to ſpeak again, having done it ſufficiently already:) To which you premiſe fundry Arguments to prove the negative; and ſome follow to refell the affirmative. I will firſt anſwer your Queſtion, then conſider your Arguments on both hands. To your Queſtion then I ſay 1. if he profeſſe his ſincere repentance, &c. in ſuch a manner as according to the Rules of Chriſt the Miniſter and Elders, and thoſe that know the ſcandall are bound to beleeve that he doth ſincerely repent; none ought to keep him back, and if he were excommunicated, he ought to be abſolv'd, and received again into the Church without delay, as ſoon as ſuch repentance appeares. 2 But if you mean his bare ſaying ſo much without further ſign of Repentance, or only ſuch ſign as according to the nature of the crime; no rationall man can ſay it is a ſufficient proof of repentance; the caſe is otherwiſe foradultery, or inceſt, or blaſphemy, there muſt ſurely be ſuch a ſenſe of the ſinne manifeſted, ſuch a taking heed of the occaſions, and the like, as may make it probable that he intends to keep his promiſe of a new life: or elſe it will be a meer mockery for any one to be called before the Elderſhip for any ſcandall; for a word ſhall excuſe and acquit them, although perhaps before they came thither, they told their companions, that they meant not to keep any ſuch promiſe; and if this be told to the Elderſhip, yet they muſt take his ſingle and bare word that he is ſorry for thoſe ſpeeches as well as for his other fault; and ſo it muſt be twenty times one after another: Which, I ſay, were to turn all Church Diſcipline into a Ridiculous Folly, and a hardning of ſinners rather then doing any good upon them.

Yet for this you ſeem to argue with many reaſons. 1 God alone knowes the heart, and who are his.] Anſ. They are the Scriptures words, but miſapplyed in this caſe. 1 Chron 6.30. ſpeaks of a mans ſecret prayers to God, not of proving or approving Repentance towards men. 2 Tim. 4.19. ſpeaks of Gods knowing his elect, and not at all that men are not to judge of mens repentance; rather the next words plead for this [let every one that names the name of Chriſt, depart from iniquity] implying that he who doth not ſo in his behaviour, cannot be owned among men, among Chriſtians, as belonging to Chriſt, whatever he may be in Gods ſecret Decree. This then confirmes the Elderſhips power of judgeing by his departing or not departing from iniquity, and not by bare and ſleight words only. Would you in the forementioned caſe of the wicked woman, have taken a few words as a ſufficient proof of repentance, without great proof of ſorrow, and deteſtation of her ſelfe for ſo horrid a wickedneſſe? 2 You ſay, Miniſters know not the heart, nor who are Gods, but may oft deem thoſe worthy communicants who are not, (as cloſe hypocrites, &c.) and thoſe unworthy which are not, 1 Sam. 16.5. to 14. Anſ. You ſeem not to be afraid of judgeing thoſe worthy that are not; when ſo ſleight a matter as a profeſſion of repentance, without mention of any fignes, muſt ſuffice to count them worthy, becauſe God knowes the heart, not Miniſters. But Miniſters and Elders are to judge as the Apoſtle directs Timothy, 1 Tim. 5. Somemens ſinnes are manifeſt before-hand, and go before to judgement (and ſo their good) and ſome follow after that is, according to apparant proofe offering it ſelfe, or diſcovered by time, or enquiry, ſo the judgement ought to be. Samuels judgeing was not by any words or ſhewes of good but by a bodily comelineſſe, and it was a peculiar Office; that hinders not but Miniſters and Elders may judge by mens lives, whether they be worthy of the ordinary priviledges of Chriſtians. They are blameleſſe if they admit only cloſe hypocrites, becauſe God only can judge of them. But men may judge competently of mens be haviours, elſe why ſayth the Apoſtle, Do not ye judge them that are within? 1 Cor. 5.12. and that known Text. By their fruiis you ſhall know them; and if they judge by proof and tokens, and fruits of repentance, according to the word, they will hardly judge any unworthy who are not, though this be the great Fear alledged againſt them.

3. You ſay, God can fuddenly change the heart in a moment, before a Miniſter can take notice of it, Act. 9.3. to 28.] A. God can, but what is this to your purpoſe? By this Argument, there needs not Judges, with the Elders, of thoſe that are within, then ſurely they muſt goe according to ſufficient outward expreſſions, and not imagine that God hath turned any ones heart, before others can take notice of it. And your Inſtance of Sauls (Pauls) converſion clears it. Indeed there were no Miniſters by, when he was ſtruck down; But when Chriſt ſent Ananias to him after a ſecond charge to goe, he was faine to avouch him a choſen Veſſell; and after that the Church at Jeruſalem durſt not own him, till Barnabas brought him to the Apoſtles, and bare witneſſe that he had preacht Chriſt at Damaſcus. And when ſinners expreſſe any ſigne of Repentance like this (though they were converted before any took notice of it) blame them that refuſe them. But in the meane time, I pray. give leave to Miniſters, the Stewards of Chriſts Myſteries (of whom it is required that they be found faithfull) that they be ſo jealous over Chriſtians with a godly jealouſie, and ſo zealous for Chriſts honour (the honour of his Death ſhewed forth in the Sacrament) as not to beleeve or judge them worthy, who have ſhewed themſelves unworthy, upon a poſſibility that God can turn their hearts in an inſtant; which is ſo farre from a Godly jealouſie or zeale, that there cannot lightly be a greater Careleſneſſe or Lukewarmneſſe imaginable.

4. You ſay, [We muſt not cenſoriouſly judge one another, becauſe we ſtand or fall to our own Maſter, Mat. 7.1. Luk. 6.37. Rom. 14.4. to 15.] It is true, but very impertinently alledged: Your Texts Mat. 7 and Luk 6. forbid only private judging, without or beyond juſt cauſe, as to judge a man ill who ſeems good; or judge ill, when it is as poſſible he meant well as ill; or to judge a man a wicked unregenerate for a particular failing, or a man to be a Reprobate becauſe he yet ſhewes no repentance, and the like; it is ſuch judging as this that is forbidden, not all judging, unleſſe you will make void (as I am ſure you will not) all Civill Iudicature, as well as all Eccleſiaſticall. And Rom. 14. ſpeaks only of judging men as unconſcionable, or not ſound Chriſtians, for forbearing or uſing Chriſtian Liberty about dayes and meats and ſuch like; not at all of judging men in an Eccleſiaſticall Iudicatory (no more then Civill) for open ſcandals and impenitency: which alſo appeares by the words next after thoſe you name, yea he ſhall be holden up, which you will not, I think, affirme offcandalous ſinners. God hath not promiſed to uphold or recover ſuch, as he hath to uphold weak ſcrupulous Conſciences, that do (or do not) things to him, and not to themſelves: Therefore all the ſtrength of this Argument lies in the word Cenſorious, which I deny can be truly urged againſt the Elderſhips cenſuring ſcandals upon proofe, and not receiving without ſufficient proofe of Repentance.

5. You goe on (and ſo doe I) [None muſt quench the ſmoaking flax, or break the bruiſed Reed; nor diſcourage weak Chriſtians by overmuch rigor or indiſcretion, Mat. 12.20. Rom. 14.] Anſw. Very good But will you ſay, that every one that barely ſaith, he doth ſincerely repent, and promiſes to lead a new life, is a bruiſed Reed, or ſmoaking flax? or that to require a rationall proofe of Repentance for an undeniable ſcandall (perhaps very groſſe) is to diſcourage weak Chriſtians by overmuch rigour and indiſcretion? You will remember (I am ſure Miniſters and Elders muſt) that of Prov. 17.15. He that juſtifiet the wicked, and he that condemnes the juſt, even they both are an abomination to the Lord; the one as well as the other.

6. But you adde [Every Communicant is bound to examine himſelfe, which he beſt knowes (not others peremptorily to examine him) 1 Cor. 11. 2 Cor. 13.5. Gal. 6.4, 5.] I anſwer. Firſt, a mans being bound to examine himſelfe is no Excluſive in ſuch matters as fall within the cogniſance of other men; But it is a precept to every man for his Conſcience within, after all the examination and approbation of others. Secondly, withall it is not univerſally true, That a man is beſt known to himſelfe. For the Apoſtle ſaith of ſome, that they meaſuring themſelves by themſelves, and comparing themſelves among themſelves, are not wiſe, 2 Cor. 10.12. And Solomon ſpeaks to the ſame purpoſe more then once; The rich man is wiſe in his owne conceit, but his neighbour comes and ſearches him, Prov. 28.11. There is a generation that are pure in their owne eyes, and yet are not clenſed from their filthineſſe, Prov. 30.12. And there is nothing more certaine among men, then that many wicked perſons, think they have ſufficiently repented, and have faith in Chriſt and love to God, when the contrary to all this is more then apparant. Thirdly, are there not Duties, which even private Chriſtians, much more Miniſters (and Elderſhips) ſtand obliged unto towards wicked men, and impenitent ſinners? And if ſo, then certainly they may peremptorily (that is confidently and undoubtedly) judge ſuch, and accordingly examine them in ſuch caſes as they may meddle in; and your other cited Texts ſay not a ſyllable to the contrary: For, as for 2 Cor. 13.5. S. Panl expreſly in that chapter, and the ſoregoing threatens to cenſure (even ſharply) many among the Corinthians; which queſtionleſſe he never meant without ſtrict (and if you liſt to call it ſo, poremptory) examination And ſaith he, not clearly, 2 Cor. 13.1 In the mouth of two or three witneſſes every wordſhall be eſtabliſhed? Even while he is ſpeaking of his not ſparing them when he came again? As for Gat. 6. the very firſt verſe confutes your excluſive glo ••• upon v. 4. and For how can I (or any) reſtore with the spirit of meekneſſe one that is fallen through infirmity if I may not peremptorily examine his fact and offence? If I meddle at all with him being fallen, I may call that an Infirmity, which is an Enormity, if I examine him not, and others too perhaps about him: I may ſpeak peace, when God ſpeaks none. And I pray, if I give the Sacrament to one whom by all Rules of the Word I cannot but judge impenitent, doe not I really preach Pcace, when God ſaith there is no peace to him? And offer him that as an actuall ſeal that he is forgiven, when God declares to me in his Word, that ſuch a man is not forgiven, while he ſo goes on in his ſinne, as in not forgiving another, or the like?

7. What you adde, [That every One is to beare his own ſinne, not anothers, in which he is no partaker, Gal. 6.4, 5. Exek. 33.1, to 20. Ezek 18.4. to 21.] advances your Cauſe nothing. For how can a Miniſter avoide being partaker of anothers ſinne, which is notoriouſly ſcandalous, if hee (with the Elderſhip) uſe not the Power which God hath given them, (to edification and not to deſtruction) to cenſure thoſe that refuſe to repent, as unworthy to partake of the Seale of forgiveneſſe, and thoſe that ſo abuſe the grace of Chriſt as viſibly to continue in ſinne, as unworthy to partake of the viſible Pledges of that Grace of his? To Gal. 6. I have anſwered already; and your ſelfe anſwers the Texts in Ezekiel, by putting in [in which he is no partaker.]

8. But you have one thing more, [Every Christian when he is invited to the Sacrament, is bound under paine of ſinne and contempt, to receive it, 1 Cor. 11. Heb. 10.29.] I anſwer: If you mean, That though he be, and reſolve to be impenitent, he is bound to receive; how ſaid you above. That a Miniſters duty is ſeriouſly to dehort ſuch as he deemes unworthy, not to receive till they become more fit to participate, under paine of eating and drinking their own damnation and other judgements that will follow thereon? Is it a Miniſters duty to dehort a man from his Duty, and to threaten with damnation, other and judgements to forbeare, when he is bound under paine of ſin and contempt to receive? If you ſay, No, he is not bound to receive being impenitent, but rather bound not to receive till he becomes more fit: But that he is bound to repent (to examine himſelf, that he may repent) and then to come under paines, &c. I ſay ſo too. And from thence inferre, That the Miniſters and Elders, who are by Chriſt made Governours in his Church to judge thoſe that are within, are to keepe him that is apparantly unworthy and manifeſts not repentance, from eating and drinking his own damnation, when they ſee he offers to doe it: And when they ſee him penitent, they are to urge him to come to receive the Seale of his Pardon, under paine of ſinne and contempt, if they ſee him backward to it, or doubtfull about it. As for your Texts, that in 1 Cor. 11. hath often been ſpoken to; and Heb. 10.29. is very ſtrangely cited to your ſcope; for I beſeech you, is the not receiving the Sacrament, (even when a man voluntarily neglects it, through ſome ſinfull diſtemper) a treading under foot the Sonne of God? or counting the blood of the Covenant wherewith he was ſanctified, an unholy thing? or a doing despite unto the Spirit of Grace? (which are the Apoſtles phraſes there:) Or rather is not unworthy receiving, which is expreſſely ſaid to be a being guilty of Chriſts body and blood, nearer to that horrid wickedneſſe he ſpeaks of? Though I am farre from ſaying, that every unworthy Communicant is guilty of ſuch prodigious impiety. But I ask againe, which of the two in the Scripture language and account comes the nearer to it? If the place had any relation in ſpeciall to the Sacrament, I ſhould not doubt to ſay, but the ſcandalous Communicant were much ſooner meant, then even the prophane forbearer. And thus I have anſwered your Arguments which lead in your Queſtion, and whereby you would prove the Negative: and withall part of your refutation of the Affirmative. The reſt I ſhall diſpatch briefly.

9. You ſay, [He eats and drinks damnation to himſelfe, not to the Minister or the other Communicants;] Anſ. Not to the Miniſter or other Communicants: Firſt, If his ſinne be unknown: Secondly, If his ſinne be unproved: Thirdly, If hee make ſuch ſhew of repentance (though God knowes it to be counterfeit) that by the rules of the Word, he is to be judged penitent: Fourthly, If the other Communicants have done their duties to bring him to repentance, or have him kept back: Fiſthly, If the Miniſter doe what lies in him to keep him back, by judging him for his part according to juſt prooſe. But to the Miniſter alſo (and the Communicants in their degree) if he willingly conſent to his comming, by reſuſing or forbearing to uſe his part of power Chriſt hath entruſted him with, to keep unworthy ones back; and if the Communicants help not the Miniſter in a fitting manner to debarre them.

10. This is not diſproved by your ſaying, [he ſhall only beare his own burthen, and give an account of himſelfe to God, Gal. 6.4, 5. Rom. 14.12.] For the Word [only] is your addition to the Text of Gal. 6. And no other Text in Scripture, I ſpeak it peremptorily, hath any ſuch excluſive as to diſcharge other men from doing their duties to reclaime impenitents, by ſhaming them, and hindring them from that which would harden them in their ſinnes. Neither is the Word, only, in the Text, or ſence of Rom. 14.12. relating to undeniable ſinnes, or open proofe of repentance or impenitence but only to his inward conſcienciouſneſſe in uſing or forbearing Chriſtian Liberty about meats and dayes (as was toucht before) of that a man only ſhall give account for himſelfe to God and not for another: But in open matters, I am ſure there were that had the rule over Chriſtians, ſome that Watch for their ſouls as thoſe that muſt give an account, Heb. 13.17. And thoſe, I ſuppoſe, were the Miniſters and Elders: And the Word hath not taken that office from them ſince.

11. And whereas you ſay. [The Adminiſtration is only the Miniſters Act, which is a holy and Divine Inſtitution, the unworthy participation the Parties own iniquity,] I anſwer, firſt, that there is no ſuch Inſtitution that a Miniſter muſt adminiſter it to all baptized perſons that offer to come, and promiſe to leade a new life. Shew me ſuch an Inſtitution, and I yeeld you the whole cauſe: But this I am certaine you can never doe (to returne you your own words above) neither expreſſely nor by any Scripture-conſequence. For if ſo, then no man may be at all Excommunicated, or kept from the Sacrament, by any power left to any on earth; Which yet you have not offered to aſſert, what ever your Arguments have ſeemed to inſinuate. As for the Parallel of unworthy communicating with unworthy hearing, I have already ſpoken I ſuppoſe, enough to it: and ſo ſhall not multiply more words about it at this time.

I have done with your Queſtions. But have ſomething to ſay to your Concluſion, wherein your confidence and language riſes high, and you lay load enough upon that ſort of men, Who have not yet put off their propheſying in Sack-cloth, What ever others have done. In your Title and Preface, the Aſſembly is ſtiled by you, Reverend and Venerable: But now (as St. Paul ſpeaks of himſelfe, that hee was as unknown and yet well known) they are to you, only, ſome men that pretend to ſuch a large unlimited Eccleſiasticall power, as you cannot diſcern any ſhaddow of reaſon, why any godly Miniſter ſhould ever earneſtly contend for it; much leſſe, that any of them ſhould reſolve to give over their Miniſter, to which Chriſt hath called them unleſſe they can obtain ſuch a power from the Parliament as neither Chriſt nor his Apostles, nor the Primitive Chriſtians in the pureſt times did ever exerciſe. For are you, or can you be Ignorant that in all this you ſtrike at the Aſſembly, the whole body? who as an Aſſembly have preſented their humble Advices and deſires to the Honourable Houſes; and no other perſons (that I know of) have formally appeared about the largeneſſe and unlimitedneſſe of the power to keep perſons ſcandalous, or ignorant, from the Sacrament, but the Aſſembly only And they only, (of which I ſhall now give the World ſome account, ſince you have made ſo publike a complaint of it,) tendring their humble deſires in a late petition, were the men that expreſſed their ſad ſtraight (in caſe &c.) and humble reſolution accordingly. Vnhappy men, (ſure) that contend ſo long, ſo over earneſtly, with ſuch an unfitting reſolution for that which you cannot ſee any ſhaddow of reaſon for, and which Christ nor his Apoſtles, nor the Primitive Church in the pureſt times, did ever exerciſe? But I ſuppoſe that all men are not of your mind, and that ſome of our Readers, that were ſo partly heretofore, have by this time ſeene ſomewhat more then a ſhadow of reaſon for what the Aſſembly hath deſired, and I have now pleaded. And that though Chriſt did not in perſon exerciſe any power of Suſpenſion or Excommunication at all, nor the Apoſtles frequently that we read of: Yet both Chriſt and his Apoſtles have given ſo faire grounds and directions for as much as is deſired in either kinde of cenſure and that the records of the Primitive Church in the pureſt times ſpeak ſo probably for the exerciſe of it in thoſe dayes, as that they will rather wonder at your confident oppoſition, ſpecially in ſuch a ſeaſon as this, then at their deſires or reſolution. Which latter, was not by them rudely taken up or affectedly expreſt; but upon the nature of the buſineſſe in hand, and the preſſure upon their conſciences to diſcharge their duties in ſpeaking out the full truth before it were too late. They had before their eyes how extreamly Chriſt is diſhonoured, by thoſe that pretend to honour him; how deſperately ſuch wound and deſtroy their ſoules, with that which they pretend and expect to receive for their eterhall good: That this being generall throughout the Nation, and no ſufficient proviſion againſt it, muſt needs be a Nationall ſinne, bringing and continuing Nationall judgements: That God hath brought the Nation, (that part among whom we are) into a ſolemn and ſacred Covenant of Reformation according to the Word of God and the example of the beſt Reformed Churches, and to endeavour by all weanes the reoting out of prophanneſſe and whatſoever is contrary to the power of godlineſſe. To effect this, they ſaw no way appointed by God nor poſſible in reaſon, if the Eccleſiaſticall Power of thoſe whom Chriſt hath fet in his Church to govern it, be limitted ſo, as that ſeandalous perſons of all ſorts cannot be kept away. From all which they concluded, that to ſit down under a partiall Reformation, as contented with it (now ſpecially when Gods Iudgements ſtill ſhew he is in no wife contented with what wee have yet done,) would be to betray the Cauſe of God, & the hopes of all the People of God, that have groaned and wept ſo long for a through Reformation, and ſpecially in this particular: and withall to expoſe many thouſands of ſoules to the danger of being drawn away to ſchiſme and hereſie (alſo Covenanted againſt:) The Fautors & Agents of which have never had any ſuch ſucceſſefull engine to draw many well affected fouls to them, as the pleading our want of the exerciſe of this power in our Congregations. therefore after their ſundry humble Petitions and Solicitations for the ſetling of this due Power by the Authority of Parliament; They ſaw no other way left them to beare ſufficient and full witneſſe to the truth, then by keeping themſelves from acting in ſuch a Government as would be ſo unſutable to Chriſts will, to the end of Government, and the expectation of the World after ſo many profeſſions, and ſuch a Covenant of Reformation. And being neceſſicated to reſolve thus (in caſe &c.) they could doe no leſſe then acquaint the Honourable Houſes therewith, that ſo none might ſay hereafter, that had they declared ſo much in time they might have obtained their defires. And herein, ſo many as wholly condemn not their deſires, I ſuppoſe, will not think them ſo farre miſtaken in their reſolution or the expreſſion of it, as you ſee me to doe.

Two words more with you, and I have done. You ſay, Modarata durent. What is the Engliſh of this? I meane, how agrees this Item with your arguing upon your Quaere's? For if you have ſaid right, (ſpecially on your ſecond, third, and fourth Quare's) there ought to be no Moderation, but a rotall Abolition of all Eccleſiaſticall Bower both of ſuſpenſion from the Sacrament, and of Excommunication too: If I underſtand you, your arguments confute all, or none. For, I beſeech you, which of all your ceaſons or proofes admit of Excommunication, and not of Suſpenſion? Or which admits of excluding for any one ſcandall, how great ſoever, which doth not for all ſ • andals proved and perſiſted in? Or how will you anſwer any one of your owne arguments a generall unlimited power, if it be urged againſt you, even for the ſeven ſcandals already voted against? (Inceſt, for inſtance, or Murder, or Blaſphemy?) And what roome then for adviſe of moderation among ſuch arguments? But ſhall I tell you my heart concerning that motion you make in thoſe words, and the argument couched in them? And it is among the deepeſt thoughts I have, concerning this Matter and this Age. Mr. Brightman (whoſe Interpretations of Revel. 3. concerning Sardis and Laodicea, have been to Admiration, and neare to Propheticall) makes England, as you know, the Anti-type of the latter: Surely whoever thinks he is at all in the right therein, and withall have ſeene that lukewarme Angell ſo ſtrangely ſpewed out, almoſt to the deſtruction of the whole State, (through the difficultie of it joyned to the neceſſitie,) ought to take ſpeciall heed, that they themſelves degenerate not into like luke-warmneſſe; which if you can ſhew mee how it can be avoyded under ſuch a limited Presbyterie, as ſhall have no power to cenſure all ſcandals, Eris mihi magnus Apollo, you ſhall be next an Oracle to me. Mean time I only add, that, though I will yeeld to no man (no not to your ſelfe) in my Reverentiall regard to the Honourable Houſes of Parliament; yet, I ſay, that it can be neither the Authoritie of Man, nor the Reputation or Eſteem of their Wiſdom or Pietie, that can ſatisie Conſciences in any other Boundarie than the Word of God ſets, to prevent Scandall and Prophaneneſſe in People (and Miniſters too) and Tyranny and Oppreſſion of mens Conſciences in the Preſbytetie. And, if I had leaſure to look over ſome books, that you have been acquainted with in the Prelaticall times, I am confident I could ſhew you like Aſſertions to this in other caſes.

My Hopes and Prayers are with God, That hee will make the Parliament Honourable and Happie (above all other things) in this great work for his Glorie, his Sons Kingdome, and his Peoples Soules and Comforts. And my ſpeciall conſolation is in that Propheticall Sentence, Iſai. 33. The LORD is our Iudge, the LORD is our Law-give, the LORD it our King, Hee will ſave us. Amen, Amen.