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? [Page 2]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 [Page 3]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, [Page 4]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 [Page 5]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. [Page 6]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.

[Page 7]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 [Page 8] 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 [Page 9]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.

[Page 10]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 [Page 11]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. [Page 12]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 [Page 13]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 [Page 14]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 [Page 15]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 [Page 16]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 [Page 17]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 [Page 18]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 [Page 19]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 [Page 20]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 [Page 21]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.

[Page 22]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 [Page 23]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 [Page 24]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 [Page 25]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 [Page 26]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.