I. WHether no scandalous Sin belong to Ecclesiasticall cogni­zance: If so, why then did the Apostle, and Church of Co­rinth presume to judge the incestuous Corinthian, 1 Cor. 5. & 1 Cor. 2. Or why hath God given his Ministers the greatest abilities to judge of all sins, if they must onely see with o­ther mens eyes, and judge nothing scandalous, but what the Magistrate judges so? If they may judge of any scandalous sin, why not of all? and that this is more then a judgement of dislike or reproof, see 1 Cor. 5.12, 13. for so I may judge him that is without, who yet falls not under the sentence of excommunication, nor is capable of it.

II. Whether they who were the fittest and ablest judges of cases dubious and too hard for inferiour Magistrates, Deut. 17.8, 9. (according to Mr. Pryns own grant) might not lawfully judge of ordinary cases also? Surely, Jethro Exod. 17.17, 18. did not think Moses sinned simply in judging lesser matters, but counsel'd him rather for his owne & the peoples ease to refer pety mat­ters to inferiour Judges. Further, if the High Priest might judge of civill matters, why not also, yea much more of spirituall, being more within his spheare as a spirituall person? Else the Magistrate, being a meer civill power might judge both of civil and spirituall cases; but the High Priest being a spi­rituall power, might judge onely of civill cases. We deny not the judging of scandalous sins to the Magistrate; and rest consident he wil never be so far ca­techised by Mr. Prynn, as to deny the judging of scandals to the Ministry, &c.

III. Whether the cases of Leprosie and Jealousie were the onely cases wherein the Priests were appointed to be as Judges in the Old Testament; see the contrary, Deut. 17.8, 9. which is also confest by Mr. Prynn himself in his second question immediately foregoing.

IV. Whether any deny the Parliament and their Lay-Commissioners power to enquire after, and punish scandalous sinners, (though I finde not where they have any power by the Ordinance to punish) and whether that may not go very well hand in hand with the censures of the Church, and their enquiry. But the great question is, whether Lay-Commissioners have power from the Word to suspend Church censures against scandalous per­sons. If so, let Mr. Prynn shew an expresse place of Scripture for such a su­spension, and we shal soon yeeld the cause. Otherwise he must pardon us if we receive not this his Catechise for an Oracle.

V. Whether any Minister claime power jure Divino to examine witnesses upon oath: And whether Mr. Prynn think the evidence against the incestuous [Page 4]Corinthian was made good upon oath. If the Parliament out of their care to prevent mis-information, require an Oath of the Witnesses, I hope that doth not scruple his conscience: and if any Minister scruple it, the ruling Elders have jus humanum, and so by consequence jus Divinum to examine upon oath.

VI. Further, whether the not mentioning, or not appointing of ecclesiastical Jurisdiction in the Old Testament (if granted) be proofe sufficient against the exercise of it in the New Testament: Yet if Mr. Prynn please to consult Ez [...]k. 23. v. 28, 29. & Ezek. 44.7, 9. I beleeve he will find that not onely ceremoni­all, but also morall pollutions defiled the house of God; and that therefore such were to be kept back.

VII. Whether Ministers under the Law had equal Jurisdiction with Mini­sters under the Gospel; and whether Magistrates either under the Law or Go­spel had properly any Ecclesiasticall power. If the former, then Priests might excommunicate under the Law for scandalous sins, which both may be done, and hath been done under the Gospel, 1 Cor. 5. & Tit. 3.10. If the latter, then let Mr. Prynn give us an expresse Scripture-evidence for the Magistrates pow­er to excommunicate: or that the Church might not excommunicate (when once it had Christian Magistrates) till it had order from them.

VIII. Whether there be any expresse text in all the New Testament, gi­ving Jurisdiction by Divine right to all Ministers, Presbyteries, &c. to su­spend or excommunicate all scandalous persons; yea, though they professe and protest they will never repent. If so, let Mr. Prynn produce those places, and we shall make them good also against those that being convinced of scandalous sins, do externally pretend and profess repentance in generall, but give not the Church offended particular satisfaction for a particular scan­dall. If he can produce no such positive text, then let him speak out, that a visible Devill, though he openly professe he will live and dye in his abomina­tions, yet ought not to be denyed the Sacrament, if hee desire to have it: or else let him give us leave to prove our assertions by good consequences, which himself must be forced to use, for proving farre greater matters than Ecclesi­asticall Jurisdiction.

IX. What rules or presidents there are in Scripture to determine matters controverted between particular Churches, or in a particular church; and if the Officers of severall Churches may meet for that end, Act. 15. Why not also for relieving of parties wronged by any particular Church in way of censure; & otherwise, what relief could the Primitive Churches have had for 300 years after Christ. Who denies the last appeal to the Magistrate in case the Church either cannot, or will not doe their duty; or having done their duty, yet cannot prevaile with obstinate Churches or persons to re­claime them?

X. Whether that power of censuring may justly be suspected, which of it self alone, is not fully able to redresse all abuses and corruptions: and since the Magistrate cannot fully reform all abuses, and the Church power may reforme all abuses, or cut off all unreformable persons from their com­munion, which is all God requires of his Church. In which case, if the party [Page 5]censured obtrude himself forcibly upon the Church and Ordinances, the C [...] cannot be counted either irreligious or uncivill to repell such force with force, and therein to crave the Magistrates assistance, which hee can­not in conscience or equity deny. The Officers of the High Priest knew this well enough, and therefore were affraid to apprehend the Apostles forcibly, Acts 5.26.

XI. Whether the Church, Mat. 18. v. 15, 17. being meant of Presbytery, (which Mr. Prynn seems to dislike) may not much more censure grosse sins committed against God, then lesser sins committed against my brother: and whether a truly pious soul be not more offended with grosse sins committed against God, than a particular wrong done unto himself. If it be meant of the Civill Magistrate, or Jewish Sanhedrin (as he pretends) there's no doubt but complaint might be made unto them of grosse sins as well as of personall wrongs. And although I cannot forgive the wrong done by a scandalous sinner to an whole society; yet if his repentance appear to me being a member of that society, I both may, and ought to forgive him for my owne particular: as when my brother wrongs me, I ought to forgive him the injury done my self, though I cannot forgive the wrong he doth God by the same offence.

XII. Whether they, who have right and power to determine contro­versies authoritatively, have not also right to censure and suppresse scandals: Otherwise those Seducers might stil have gone on to trouble the Church of Antioch, notwithstanding the decrees of the Synod, had there been no power in the Church to suppress them: And if the Church had power then to judge Heresies and scandalls, let Mr. Prynn shew where they lost that Charter; and where Christ said the Church should have that power no longer then till he sent them Christian Magistrates; or that civill censures give a supersedeas, to Ecclesiasticall censures.

XIII. Whether that precept of the Apostle, 1 Cor. 5. for casting out the incestuous Corinthian, be not a clear & constant president for the like censure to be past upon all scandalous sinners. Otherwise let Mr. Prynn give us a rea­son why one scandalous sin should be censured by the Church, rather then another. He that bid them purge out the old leaven, and not to eat with a scandalous brother, I think speaks plaine enough, that such a person ought to be cast out. Doth not the Scripture by instancing in one particular, in­clude all of the same kind; and must not every text be interpreted in the lar­gest sense, unlesse there be some just ground of limitation? I thought it had been a good rule both in Logick and Divinity, A quatenus ad omne valet conse­quentia. Otherwise if his blaming them for not casting out the incestuous Co­rinth [...]n be not a just item for the Church to cast out all scandalous persons then his blaming them for not mourning for that scandalous sin, is no war­ning for any Church to mourne for scandalous sins committed by any of their members, 1 Cor. 5.2. I cannot see why the censure of a Magistrate should hinder Church-censures, more than the reproof of a Magistrate should hin­der Church-reproof and admonition. The same offence committed both a­gainst Church and State, may justly be reproved & censured both by Church and State. As for Suspension, which he so much stickles against both in this [Page 6]and other places; let him shew me a reason why they who have power to do the greater, may not doe the lesser. He that hath power to hang; [...] also power to mulct or scourge; and why should not they have power to suspend from one Ordinance, that have power to cast out of the Church, and so to keep back from all Ordinances? (according to Mr. Prynn:) Though for my part I see not where he can cleare it by Scripture that an excommu­nicated person must be kept from all Ordinances. To instance particularly in hearing, where is it said an excommunicated person shal not have so much as the priviledge of one that is without, 1 Cor. 14.24, 25. Might an Infidell heare the Word for his conversion, and shall an excommunicated person be denyed the benefit of that Ordinance? I grant by excommunication he is as an heathen, but why he may not have the priviledge of one that is without, I desire Mr. Prynn to instruct me, and I shall thanke him for it. For my part, I beleeve this opinion of his is as true as that other formerly vented by him with so much confidence, namely, that the Lords Supper is a converting or­dinance. But I pray, where is there any cleare Scripture evidence, ei­ther by way of precept or example, that the Lords Supper was appointed to convert, or hath converted any. We deny not but the meditation of Christs death, the words of institution, and the Sacramentall elements and actions may doe much, and let Mr. Prynn shew mee in Scripture, why either an ex­communicated person, or an infidell may not be present at all these, yet nei­ther of them may be admitted to partake of the Ordinance, and who knows what a prevailing argument it may be for their conversion to see the chil­dren of God sitting at his Table, and themselves shut out as dogs, Luk. 13.28 That which shall worke confusion at the day of judgement may now worke conversion in the day of grace: yet I dare not say, every thing that may con­vert, is a converting ordinance; the works of God, an holy conversation, and the sufferings of the martyrs may possibly convert, and no doubt have con­verted many: yet whoever called them converting ordinances? They well may be occasions of converting, but it must be an expresse word of Institu­tion that makes a converting Ordinance; or at least to make a thing pro­perly a Divine Ordinance, there must bee a strong and cleare consequence from Scripture. And here by the way I humbly conceive that jus Divinum is of a larger extent, than either a Divine Ordinance, or a Divine institution: There is no lawfull or good action, but hath a jus Divinum to justifie it; and that either mandatorium, or permissivum, either in expresse termes, or by good (though not immediate) consequence; but this is not enough to make a Di­vine Ordinance. This I note the rather to take away that cavill against di­vers things in the Presbyterian government, as pleaded for jure Divino: the meaning is not, that every particular in that Government hath expresse words of Scripture immediately to make it good: nor can any Church go­vernment in the world, plead by such a Charter: but that what is held in it as of Divine right may be cleared by good consequence out of Scripture, and hath no just Scripture evidence against it. But I crave pardon for this long digression. Onely I desire the Reader to observe how importunate Mr. Prynn is for us to bring expresse proofs of Scripture for our tenets; and yet neither [Page 7]hath, nor can bring one expresse place to prove the Lords Supper a conver­ting ordinance; but is glad to fly to consequences, and those both weak and erronious.

XIV. Whether the Magistrate punishing of an obstinate offendor (at the motion of the Church, make him a meer servant or executioner to Pres­byteries, Congregations, or Church-officers. If one particular Minister may in the name of God, command a Magistrate to do his duty, whether it be in matters of Religion or Justice; I see not why a company of Ministers, &c. may not desire him to punish a malefactor, which he ought to doe, whether desired by them or no. It seems by Mr. Prynns inference the State of Scotland is a meer Servant and executioner to the Church; and the Presbyterian Go­vernment is like to prove as bad as that of the Pope & Prelates: such odious comparisons might with far more honor and conscience be buried in silence.

XV. Whether may I not desire Authority to settle that jure Divino, which indeed is so (although not so apprended by divers in Authority) and which both Parliament and people have covenanted the setling of, ac­cording to the word of God. And whether most of the Reformed Churches have not this (unlimited, arbitrary) power, as (he calls it) to censure all scan­dalous sinners, and that without any enumeration of particular sins, or ap­peal to Lay-commissioners: and so (according to M. Prynn) are in a worse case then if they were under the domineering of the Lordly Prelates.

XVI. Whether the former abuse of the Magistrates favour, with all the evil consequences thereof, be a safe ground to deny that just power where­withall God hath invested his Church, and of the exercise whereof wee have examples in the new Testament. And whether by the same argument Magi­stracy it selfe might not be cryed downe, since there is no form of Gover­ment, whether inferiour or superiour, but hath been too too much abused to tyranny, &c. Yet I wonder withal Mr. Prynn doth not bring one instance of tyranny under the Presbyterian Government in any of the Reformed Churches: who I hope do not deserve the name of Diotrephes, nor need to be catechised by Mr. Prynn.

To conclude therefore with him, I grant Christs yoak is easie, but not to a carnall heart. And I desire Mr. Prynn to give one instance in practice, where the Presbyterian Government, hath been an hard yoke, unlesse to such who stickle for a lawlesse liberty of doing and speaking what they please under the notion of a pretended liberty of conscience.

If I should make bold to adde one Question more to the sixteen; namely, whether by what Mr. Prynn hath written about this and other subjects; it doth not appeare that he is far better versed in Law than Gospel: it might happily bee offensive; and therefore I forbeare: onely I shall add this, that if the Gospel prevailed more, the Law would [...] in far lesse request: and wish heartily the fear of this did not make too [...]y stickle so much against the Presbyterian Government, which if once rightly setled, I dare venture to prophecy it would cut off many needlesse Law-suits, & prevent many a bitter potion. I honour both Law and Physick; yet wish with all my heart that every man were so conscientious and peaceable as there might be no need of [Page 2]Lawyers: and so temperate and healthfull, as there might bee no worke for Physitians. And he that at is of another mind, I shall bee bold to tell him he is in the number of those that eat up the sin of Gods people, and set their hearts upon their iniquity, Hos. 4.8. How ever, I cannot but wonder at Mr. Prynns o­verweening confidence both in this and other writings of his about church Government. He cannot but know that the Honourable Houses of Parlia­ment after consultation had with the Assembly of Divines, and a solemne Covenant entred into to reform the Government according to the Word, have past an Ordinance for suspension of scandalous persons from the Sacra­ment. And therefore it might well have become him not to write so magiste­rially, as if the spirit of God had left all them to come to him. Had any, be­ing not a profest Lawyer, past as confident a vote against any Law matter de­termined by an Assembly of the ablest Judges and Lawyers, I should not have blamed Mr. Prynn, if he had said, Ne sutor ultra crepidam. Let himselfe then judge whether it bee not a presumption for one that is not a Divine to vote so peremptorily against an Assembly of the most able and godly Divines in the Christian world. Hath Mr. Prynn been present at all the debates about this argument, and heard all that was argued for it in the Reverend Assem­bly? He might at least have suspended his Catechise, till he had seen what an­swer they could have given to the Quaeries of the Honourable House of Commons, but since he is so confident in particular against suspension: Let him answer me directly, whether none are to be suspended from the Sacra­ment of the Lords Supper. If he say some may be suspended, let him shew me an expresse place of Scripture to warrant it, and what persons may bee suspended, and in what cases. If he hold the universall negative, then it will necessarily follow that Infants, fools, mad-men, persons actually drunk, yea, very heathens and infidells ought to be admitted to the Lords Supper. If he say, all these are visibly uncapable of that Ordinance: I ask him why? for the Scripture sayes not in expresse termes, admit no infidell, mad-man, &c. The ground then of their non-admittance must be cleared by way of consequence, because such cannot receive worthily. It's apparent then, that visible un­worthines is a just ground of non-admission to the Lords Supper. As therfore reall unworthinesse should make the party forbear, so visible unworthinese is a just ground for the Church to suspend him: and that whether this un­worthiness be personall or preparatory, and this latter bee negative by na­turall incapacity, or privative by neglect, or positive by the guilt of some scandalous sin unrepented of; any of these, if known, make a person visibly unworthy. If then visible unworthinesse be the causa formalis, of non-admissi­on; then a quatenus adomne, &c. all that are visibly unworthy must be suspen­ded. Nor can Mr. Prynn prove it by Scripture or good Logick that a generall outward shew of repentance, can make him visibly worthy, who by a scan­dalous sin hath made himself visibly unworthy; nay, did he truly repent, un­less that repentance were visible, (as the scandall was) I should question his admission. He that is really worthy, may be visibly unworthy; as he that is really unworthy, may be visibly worthy.