place the observation saith thus: 'To debar the wicked, &c.; to wit, by the judgment and verdict of the presbytery, lawfully gathered together,'" &c.

A Testimony out of the Ecclesiastical Discipline of the Reformed Churches in France, cap. 5, art. 9." The knowledge of scandals, and the censure or judgment thereof, belongeth to the company of pastors and elders." Art. 15:-" If it befalleth, that besides the admonitions usually made by the consistories to such as have done amiss, there be some other punishment or more rigorous censure to be used, it shall then be done either by suspension, or privation of the holy communion for a time, or by excommunication, or cutting off from the church. In which cases the consistories are to be advised to use all prudence, and to make distinction betwixt the one and the other; as likewise to ponder and carefully to examine the faults and scandals that are brought before them, with all their circumstances, to judge warily of the censure which may be required."

Harmonia Synodorum Belgicarum, cap. 14, art. 7 to 9.-" Peccata sua natura publica, aut per admonitionis private contemtum publicata, ex consistorii totius arbitrio, modo et forma ad ædificationem maxime accomodatis sunt corrigenda.

"Qui pertinaciter consistorii admonitiones rejecerit, a S. Conc communione suspendetur.

"Si suspensus post iter atas admonitiones nullum pœnitentiæ signum dederit, ad excommunicationem procedet ecclesia."

Melchior Adamus de vitis Germanorum Theologorum, p. 342.-" Cumque sub id tempus (anno 1545) Fredericus Elector Palatinus, qui Ludovico successerat, de ecclesiarum agitaret reformatione: composuit Melanchthon, cum evocato venire integrum non esset, scriptum de reformandis ecclesiis cujus synopsin aliquot regulis comprehendit: quas addimus."1

Vera et salutaris gubernatio ecclesiæ Christi præcipue in his Sex Membris consistit." Primum, In vera et pura doctrina, quam Deus ecclesiæ suæ patefecit, tradidit, et doceri mandavit.

1 Cons. Theol. p. 586.

2 Gubernatio Ecclesiæ in quibus consistat.

Sexto, Ad hæc opus est defensione corporali et facultatibus, ad personas, quæ sunt in officiis necessariis, alendas."

The Irish Articles of Religion, art. 58. "Neither do we give unto him (the supreme magistrate) hereby the administration of the word and sacraments, or the power of the keys." And art. 69.-" But particular and visible churches (consisting of those who make profession of the faith of Christ, and live under the outward means of salvation) be many in number, wherein the more or less sincerely, according to Christ's institution, the word of God is taught, the sacraments are administered, and the authority of the keys is used, the more or less pure are such churches to be accounted."

Laurentius Humfredus de Religionis conservatione et Reformatione vera. Ad Nobilitatem, Clerum, et Populum Anglicanum, p. 23, 25.-" Nec satis mirari possum nec satis dolere, cum intelligam in his locis repudiari disciplinam ecclesiasticam, et vel nullam esse vel nimis laxam, vel non satis vigilanter administratam, in quibus tamen alioqui religionis sincera effigies cernitur: quasi evangelium esse possit ubi non vivitur evangelice: aut quasi Christus loco, carnali, voluptuario delectetur evangelio, &c.1 At in ecclesia manere debet censura et jurisdictio, non minus quam gladius in repub." "Sit ergo hæc prima reformationis perfectæ ratio, nostri ac peccatorum recognitio et emendatio. Deinde severior adsit in ecclesia castigatio et animadversio: ut illa laxitas et remissio frænetur, quo minus et levius deinceps peccetur."

1 He wrote from Basil.

CHAPTER I.

AN OPENING OF THE TRUE STATE OF THE QUESTION, AND OF MR PRYNNE'S MANY MISTAKES AND MISREPRESENTATIONS of our PRINCIPLES.

Having now, by the light of Scripture and other helps, asserted a church government distinct from civil magistracy, both in the Old and New Testament, the last part of my present undertaking shall be to vindicate the particular ordinances of excommunication and suspension, called by the schoolmen excommunicatio major et minor, of which also I have before spoken divers things occasionally, for I have asserted an excommunication and suspension in the Jewish church, book i. cap. 4-12; the nature, grounds, reasons, uses, and ends whereof were not proper to the Old Testament, but such as concern the Christian church. I have also brought arguments, book ii. cap. 9, 10, which conclude not only church government, but excommunication. And so much of my work is done: nevertheless there is more to do. Mr Prynne, first in his Four Grand Queries, and thereafter in his Vindication of the same, hath argued much both against the suspension from the sacrament of a person not excommunicated and wholly cast out of the church, and against some of the most pregnant scriptural proofs for excommunication itself. In his Vindication he hath branched forth the controversy into ten points of difference. Two of these, viz., the fifth, concerning suspension from the sacrament of the passover, and the ninth, concerning casting out of the synagogue, I have

discussed before in the first book; where I have also examined other assertions of his concerning the Jewish sanhedrim, temple, confession of sin. The other points of difference not handled before, I am (as the Lord will help me) now to speak to.

The first point of difference is, Whether in those Four Queries of his he stated the controversy aright. He is offended that I (in a sermon of mine before the Honourable House of Commons) charged the questionist with mistakes, and that I did not take notice of the question concerning suspension from the sacrament, as he stated it, Vindic. p. 3. I had reason, because he had misstated it; and since it pleased him to interpose in a matter depending between the Honourable Houses of Parliament, and the reverend Assembly of Divines, and to publish a paper plainly reflecting upon a petition of the Assembly, I hope he cannot think either the Assembly, or me, tied to his stating of the question. If he will meddle with the business of the Assembly, he must speak to it as it is. And that it may now appear how just cause I had to charge his Queries with mistakes of the state of the question (which he still mistaketh), I shall endeavour a more particular and full discovery of these his mistakes. And first, that which was desired by the Assembly was, that such a rule may be established by authority of Parliament, as may keep off all scandalous and notorious sinners. The question was not what texts of Scripture do warrant this thing. It did not concern me to debate whether the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament, quoted by him, prove suspension from the Lord's table. The controversy was of the practical

conclusion, and of establishing such a rule as may keep off scandalous persons from the sacrament. If the thing be done, if the conclusion be consented to, there is the greater liberty for men to abound in their own sense concerning the mediums to prove it.

Secondly, And if he would needs debate what texts of Scripture do prove the thing, and what precept or precedent in Scripture doth warrant it, methinks he had done better to have informed himself on what scriptural proofs the reverend Assembly had granted the suspension of scandalous sinners from the sacrament, though not yet cast out of the church. The proofs from Scripture voted were these,—because the ordinance itself must not be profaned; and because we are charged to withdraw from those who walk disorderly; and because of the great sin and danger both to him that comes unworthily, and also to the whole church. The Scriptures from which the Assembly did prove all this, were Matt. vii. 6; 2 Thes. iii. 6, 14, 15; 1 Cor. xi. 27, to the end of the chapter, compared with Jude, ver. 23; 1 Tim. v. 22. Another proof added by the Assembly was this: There was power and authority under the Old Testament to keep unclean persons from holy things, Lev. xiii. 5; Num. ix. 7; 2 Chron. xxiii. 19; and the like power and authority by way of analogy continues under the New Testament, for the authoritative suspension from the Lord's table, of a person not yet cast out of the church. Now that which was the strength of the Assembly's proofs of the proposition, Mr Prynne hath almost never touched, but run out upon other particulars.

Thirdly, Observe that he disputes all along whether any minister can suspend one from the sacrament. But this nobody that I know asserts. The power is given not uni, but unitati, to the eldership, not to one, either minister or elder.

Fourthly, That which, in the preface of his Queries, he undertakes to prove, is, that excommunication and suspension from the sacrament, being a matter of great moment and much difficulty, is to be handled and established with great wisdom, caution, and moderation. And his result in the close is concerning a limited jurisdiction in presbyteries. As these things are not denied by any that I know, so himself manifestly acknowledgeth by these expressions, the thing itself for the substance (which yet the current of his debate runneth against), and only

questioneth concerning the bounds, cautions, and limitations. God forbid that church officers should ever claim an unlimited power: their power is given them to edification, and not to destruction; and we can do nothing against the truth, but for the truth, 2 Cor. xiii. 8, 10. The power of censures must not be in the power of any one man, nor in the power of any who are themselves scandalous and worthy of censure. There must be no sentence of excommunication or suspension upon reports, surmises, suspicions, but either upon the confession of the offence or proof thereof by two witnesses at least.1 Ñone must be excommunicated nor suspended for money matters, debts, and such like civil causes which are not of ecclesiastical cognisance, but are to be judged by the civil judge. It must not be for those peccata quotidiana incursionis, such sinful infirmities as all the godly in this life are guilty of; though, on the other side, the scandalous sinners meant of in this controversy, must not be restricted to such sins only as cannot stand with the state of grace. These, and such like limitations we do not only admit of, but desire to be put.

Fifthly, He goeth about to clear the state of the question out of Aretius, and citeth him for what himself now undertaketh to prove. Whereas Aretius holds excommunication to be an ordinance of God both in the Old and New Testament, and that it was wanting through the injury and corruption of the times, the abuse of it in Popery having made the thing itself hateful; and the most part, in those places where he lived, loving carnal liberty so well, and taking upon them the protection and defence of profane ones, and being so unwilling to be brought under the yoke of Christ. For these and the like reasons he thought it not expedient to have that discipline of excommunication erected, at that time, in those parts, as himself gives the reasons; and he professeth, withal, that he doth not despair of better times, when men shall be more willing to submit to that discipline. So that this is the question, if it shall be stated out of Are

1 Aug., tom. 10, hom. 50.-Nos vero a communione prohibere quenquam non possumus, quamvis hæc prohibitio nondum sit mortalis, sed medicinalis, nisi aut sponte confessum, aut in aliquo sive seculari sive ecclesiastico judicio nominatum atque convictum.

2 Theol. Probl., loc. 132.-Interea non desperandum esse libenter fateor, dabit posterior ætas tractabiliores forte animas, mitiora pectora, quam nostra habent sæcula.

tius, Whether excommunication, being an ordinance of God, ought to be settled where profaneness and licentiousness abounds, and where the better party is like to be oppressed by the greater party; or whether we should wait till God send better times for the settling of it.

Sixthly, The author of those questions maketh a parallel between that power of censures now desired to be settled in presbyteries, and the prelatical tyranny, as if this were the very power which heretofore was disclaimed against in, denied to, and quite taken away from, the prelates. Yea, in the close, he makes this power now desired to be settled in the presbyteries, to be such as our very lordly prelates never durst to claim, yet ecclesiae Anglicana politeia in tabulas digesta authore Richardo Cousin, tab. 5, tells me, that the episcopal jurisdiction did exercise itself in those censures which were common both to laymen and clergymen (as they were called). 1. Interdictio divinorum. 2. Monitio. 3. Suspensio vel ab ingresu ecclesiæ, vel a perceptione sacramentorum. 4. Excommunicatio. 5. Anathematismus, &c. Nevertheless there is a truth, too, in that which Mr Prynne saith: I confess the prelates never durst desire that which this learned and pious Assembly hath desired in this particular. He hath said it. The prelates never durst, indeed, take upon them to suspend all scandalous persons from the sacrament; for if they had, it had been said unto most of them," Physician, cure thyself," besides the losing of many of their party. And, moreover, the very lordly prelates never durst make themselves to be but members of presbyteries, nor to be subject to the admonitions and censures of their brethren, which every minister now must do. The lordly prelate did (contrary to the institution of Jesus Christ) make himself pastor of many congregations, even of his whole diocese, and did assume sole and whole power of government and church censures to himself, and his underling officers, which were to execute the same in his name. And, as the appropriating of jurisdiction to the lordly prelate, so the manner and kind of his government, and his proceedings in ecclesiastical censures, came neither from Christ, nor from the purest antiquity, but from the Pope's canon law. What then hath presbytery to do with prelacy? As much as light with darkness, or righte

ousness with unrighteousness. He that would see more of the differences between presbyterial and prelatical government, let him read a book printed in the prelates' times, entitled The Pastor and the Prelate; and The Clear Antithesis between Presbytery and Prelacy, printed at London, anno. 1644. See also what I have said before, book ii., chap. 3.

Seventhly, It is evident, by his fourth question, that he states the case as if ministers meant to know the secrets of all men's hearts, and to be so censorious and peremptory in their judging, as to quench the smoking flax, or to break the bruised reed. Thereupon he asks, Whether the sacraments may be denied to a man, if he desires to receive it, in case he profess his sincere repentance for his sins past, and promise newness of life for the time to come?" God forbid we be censorious, peremptory, and rigid in our judging of men's spiritual estate; where there is any thing of Christ, it is to be cherished, not quenched. But again, God forbid that we shut our eyes to call darkness light, or black white. In that very place where our Saviour condemneth uncharitable judgment, immediately he addeth, "Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye pearls before swine," Matt. vii. 6. Impenitency under a scandalous sin, is discernible either by not confessing it, or by not forsaking it. All our present controversy is concerning a visible church, visible saints, visible holiness, visible repentance, visible fitness or qualification for the sacrament; that is, of such external signs and evidences as the word of God holds out for judging of the spiritual estate of other men, not of such internal gracious marks whereby a man must judge of his own spiritual estate;1 and so he that professeth his sincere repentance for his sins past, and promiseth newness of life for the time to come, if there be nothing which (visibly and to the eye of man) giveth the lie to his profession and promise (for instance, if it can be proved that, im

1 Concil. Nicæn., can. 11.-Ab omnibus vero illud pænitentiæ attendatur. Quicunque enim cum omni præcipue observetur, ut animus eorum et fructus timore et lachrymis perseverantibus, et operibus bonis conversationem suam, non verbis solis, sed opere et veritat demonstrant, cum tempus statutum etiam ab his fuerit impletum, et orationibus jam cæperint communicare, licebit etiam episcopo humanius circa eos aliquid cogitare. Qui vero indifferenter habuerint lapsum, et sufficere sibi quod ecclesiam introierint, arbitrantur, ipsi omnimodo tem

pora statuta complebunt.

mediately before or immediately after, he hath professed or promised the contrary to his companions in his wickedness, or that he still continueth in the practice of that sin), is not to be excluded as an impenitent sinner from the sacrament.

Eighthly, The third query, as also the conclusion of all, runneth upon a great mistake, by reason of the confounding of things which are of a different nature. There is great weight laid upon this, that there is as much sin and danger to a man's soul in his unworthy and unprofitable hearing of the word, as in his unworthy receiving of the sacrament; and, therefore, ministers may as well refuse to preach unto people, whom they deem unprofitable hearers, as refuse to give them the sacrament, because they judge them unmeet to receive it. Whether the sin of unworthy hearing be as great as the sin of unworthy receiving the sacrament, I will not now debate. The Reply which was made to his Queries, by another, hath said enough to that point. But that which I intend in this place, is (for clearing a main principle which we go upon) to distinguish these two things. There are some ordinances appointed for the conversion of sinners; there are other ordinances appointed for the communion of saints. The preaching of the word, and the hearing thereof, though it hath no small influence into the communion of saints, yet it is also appointed for converting and bringing in sinners who have no part in the communion of saints. The sacrament was not appointed for the conversion of sinners, but as peculiar to the communion of saints. The apostles preached to the unbelieving Jews in the temple and synagogues, Acts ii. 46; iii. 11, 12; v. 12, 42; ix. 20, 22, 23. But it is only said of those that gladly received the word, "They continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread and in prayer," Acts ii. 42. The apostles preached also to many heathens and idolaters, but they admitted none to the sacraments till they saw such evidences as might persuade them, in the judgment of charity, that they were such as might be admitted. They that are suspended from the sacrament, yea, they that are excommunicated, are admitted to the hearing of the word for their conversion, as the unbelieving

1 A full Answer to a printed paper entitled "Four Serious Questions concerning Excommunication and Suspension," &c.

Can any allege

Jews and heathens were. the like reason for admitting them to the sacrament? Erastus himself observeth1 that the unclean, under the law, who might not eat of the passover, yet were not forbidden, but commanded, to observe the Sabbath and the feast of expiation. I mention it only as an argument ad hominem. If a sinner be known for an unprofitable hearer of the word, that cannot make it a sin to me to preach any more to him; but if he be known to be a dog or a swine in reference to the sacrament, that will make it a sin to me if I minister the sacrament to him. The reason is, because I am still bound to endeavour his conversion (not knowing that he hath blasphemed against the Holy Ghost), but I am not bound to give him the seal of remission of sins and salvation by Jesus Christ; yea, it were sin to give that seal to him who is visibly and apparently incapable of such sweet and comfortable application of Christ. I conclude, that the suspending of scandalous persons from the sacrament, is neither only nor principally grounded upon the sin and guilt of eating and drinking unworthily, which will cleave to the unworthy communicant, but rather (not excluding the other) upon the nature of the ordinance, which is such as cannot admit of the notoriously scandalous to receive, but that holy ordinance shall thereby be profaned and made common; for what can be more contrary to the nature of that ordinance, and to the institution of Jesus Christ, than to turn the communion of saints into the communion of scandalous sinners, and to make that which was instituted for the comfort of those that repent and believe, to be a comfort and seal of salvation to those who are known by their fruits to have neither repentance nor faith, and so to send them away with a good conceit of their spiritual estate, and thereby to strengthen their hearts and hands in wickedness?

Ninthly, The question is not whether all scandalous persons are to be excommunicated and wholly cast out off the church. The Assembly's petition was not concerning excommunicating, but concerning suspending, from the sacrament, all scandalous persons. Yet the current of Mr Prynne's argumen

1 Confirm. Thes., lib. 2, p. 134.-Non tamen pro non Judæo, vel non circumciso, aut pro improbo damnatu habebatur cogebatur nihil ominus secundum ritus patrios vivere, Sabbatum custo dire, aliaque talia facere. Quin etiam a sacramento expiationis generalis, quæ die 10, menisis Septembris per agebatur, Lev. xvii. 23, immundi nulli excludebantur.