A FULL ANSWER TO A Printed Paper, ENTITLED, Four serious Questions concerning Excommunication, and Suspension from the Sacrament, etc.  
Wherein the several Arguments and Texts of Scripture produced, are particularly and distinctly discussed: And the Debarring of Ignorant and Scandalous persons from the Sacrament, vindicated.  Matth. 7.6. 
Give not that which is holy unto dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine.  1 Cor. 11.29. 
For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lords Body.  1 Cor. 5.13. 
Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.  
LONDON, Printed by Richard Bishop, 1645.   

A Full ANSWER To a printed Paper, entitled, Four serious Questions concerning Excommunication and Suspension from the Sacrament, etc.  
SIR,  
YOur Questions were, I suppose, sent abroad in expectation of an Answer. Until you receive a better from some other hand, you may please to make use of this. If it satisfy not, I neither challenge nor refuse a Reply. Our Readers, I hope, will be gainers, if impartial, whether you or I win or lose. Nor will I despair 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, yourself 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, unless ordered so to do by one or both Houses of Parliament; and therefore not till then in a capacity of returning Answers to such Quaeres? A friend to the Assembly should have thought of this before he had spread such a paper before all the world to their prejudice.  
Next, whether the Titles of the Reverend Assembly, and our Venerable Assembly (unless put upon them in scorn, as they have been by others) in a business 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 main 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 expressly contrary; they place it in the whole Eldership, nor may they do it but upon due proof. 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 sins 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 forbear.  
Fourthly, whereas you seem to load that advice of the Assembly with many reproachful Insinuations, of an Arbitrary, Unlimited, Tyrannical, Papal domineering over the Consciences and the spiritual privileges of Christians; I desire to know, First, whether much of this was not wont to be said of the conscientious and zealous preaching of Practical truths, and charging sin upon men and women, in Books, for things in which they had a mind to be free, as Stageplays, Lovelocks, drinking Healths, and such like? Secondly, why a general power of binding Consciences by Censures (purely Ecclesiastical, as Suspension questionless is) should be more reproached for Arbitrary, etc. then a general 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 repress Tyranny in this kind as well as in any other. Fourthly, as for Papal or Prelatical Domineering, and claiming such a Power as our very Lordly Prelates never durst to claim, 1. Why, I pray, do you borrow this courteous language from the Independents, with which they most familiarly grace the Presbyterial 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 main Foundation of the Reformation surely laid; which is not done till this be done which is desired. 2. Papal or Prelatical Domineering over Consciences, is power, ¹ engrossed into one hand, ² to command things, and ³ forbidden things without Christ's 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 bind the Consciences of sinners by Censures, who are first bound by the Word. This the Prelates did not care for further than to get money, or vex Consciences of men; which they had power enough for by one way or other, if not full out as much Power for all scandals. Fifthly, If all Christians may claim, as one of their spiritual privileges to come to the Sacrament till they are excommunicated, or to be on no pretence kept from it if they do 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 spiritual privileges? 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 sins 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 settled with caution and moderation, certainly as little as possible therein left to any man's 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. Withal 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 judge: which is in some Courts with less certainty, and less remedy also (of Appeal in case of wrong or Tyranny) then could be in Elderships, if the power desired were settled in them.  
Sixthly, you advise the Avoiding of Extremes, and the seeming Affectation of a greater Lording power over the Conrciences and Privileges of Christians and Brethren, then of right belongs to them. I answer, 1. Surely no Lording power at all over Consciences and Privileges of right belongs to any in the Church of Christ; But a Ministerial Power of judging and censuring scandalous sinners belongs to Church-Officers, according to the Word; as yourself 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 yourself know, even by experience, that no man can show zeal against scandalous sins but by some, and even too many, he will seem to run into Extremes, and to affect a Lording over men's Consciences?  
Finally, to end these preparatory Animadversions and Answers to your Title, Preface, and other circumstantial 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 Ecclesiastical Discipline, who all practice 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 than less: 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 avoiding Arbitrary, Tyrannical domineering over Consciences and Privileges. For if they prove Excommunication properly, which is a greater censure than Suspension; then either a greater power proved by the Word, must be reproached with Tyranny and Arbitrary unlimitedness etc. or else that load was unjustly cast upon a lesser Power (a power of a less censure;) for sure you will not say, that it is Tyranny and an Arbitrary unlimited Domineering, to deny a Childa meals meat when it would hurt him, and none to turn him quite out of doors, 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 business. And so I might dismiss it.  
But I shall answer distinctly to your Texts. First, Matth. 18. speaks properly (as I suppose) of Excommunication, as your Quaere intimates. Mean while your Gloss 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 scandalised. And from thence the Argument will be strong. 1. If to thee for resusing to hear the Church, then to all others who know that he hath refused to hear them; for that makes it as much a scandal 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 Church's 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 trespass 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 mayst complain for a private personal trespass, 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 public scandalous sins against the Congregation: or else the publicness and scandalousness of the sin, which are fearful Aggravations, shall obtain 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 trespass, not a public 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 mischiefs 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 sin.  
Thirdly, 1 Cor. 5.11. With such an one no not to eat, infers Suspension first, and after, Excommunication, upon the grounds now mentioned; and afterward to be enlarged and applied even to this Text, and proved by it.  
Under your former Question you have another, which hath also two branches (and so we have three Questions in stead of one in this one Section, and we shall see the like afterward) You ask What warrant here is in Scripture, for Ministers or others to suspend men from the Sacrament, and not from the Congregation, and all other Ordinances with it? A. Because Excommunication is the highest censure of the Church, to which men should not proceed till extreme necessity, from the Offenders obstinacy, compel. Mean time it may be evident, that if he should be admitted, he would dishonour Christ in stead of worshipping him, and mischiave his own soul, in stead of doing it good. And therefore may fitly in this Interim be suspended for the preventing thereof, till it do appear 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 therefore 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 withdraw 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 Privileges. 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 privilege of Christians. And as for Numb. 12. out of the Old Testament, which is an example of a Leper etc. this brings to mind a plain Type of Suspension; namely, the shutting up of a suspected Leper seven days, and again seven days sometimes, before he is a together to be shut out. What is this, but first a Trial (and prevention of infection) by Suspension, before actual and final casting out. And I wonder you who appear to be read in Antiquity, should affirm, that scandalous persons were ever excommunicated and wholly cast out of the Church, never barely sequestered from the Sacrament; whereas it is clear, that they had Abstension, & abstenti, both before Excommunication; witness 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 hear the Word among the faithful, and even to join 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.) Besides, that is not greatly material how they determine in matters of Conscience. As for Aretius, he apparently defines it wrong, making it an Exclusion from Communion in all both sacred and profane or worldly matters. Whenas it cannot be denied, nor is by any but Papists, but in manifold profane 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 follows. By what divine Authority can any keep back any Christian from the Sacrament, who earnestly desires to receive it? (This is all that is material 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 do will certainly be to the Dishonour of Christ (making that person guilty of his body and blood) and to the parties own mischief, by his eating and drinking judgement and damnation to himself. In Conscience, Sir, would you have a man in a frenzy 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 profaneness, took the Bread out of her mouth and carried it home in a clout, and only touched the Cup without drinking at all, and afterward boasted of it, and vowed the Sacrament should never come within her body, till she had satisfaction for the wrong done her; and yet afterward, without the least show of Reconciliation toward the party with whom she had a quarrel, 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, than you may answer your Question yourself by Matth. 7. Give not that which is holy to dogs, (for certainly she shown herself 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 satisfy my conscience: And yet I believe 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 debarred 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 Unclean from the Temple. And if you say, This was only for Legal not Moral uncleanness; I would for the present ask you, whether this were not written for our learning (and imitation) and what this Typical Law did signify, 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 express Law. And God shown some sign of displeasure, till upon Hezekiahs' prayer he healed them.  
Next you say, Christ himself admitted Judas to it, though he knew him to be a Devil and a Traitor. I grant it (and that Luk. 22. proves it, though many argue the contrary from the other Evangelists,) But Christ had not convicted judas to be such an one (nor yet named him to any, till by the Sop he insinuated him to john) which wholly altars the case: For the Assembly would not have any man kept away by the Minister upon his own private knowledge (though never so certain) but upon just proof and conviction before the Eldership.  
But you add, that Paul usurped no other authority to himself, nor gave authority to others to keep unworthy Receivers from the Sacrament, but only admonished them etc. 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 believe yourself can think, that a man while so in the Devil's 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 sin to sin, and mischief to mischief.  
Therefore your subordinare Question (Whether a Minister by admonition and dehortation hath not discharged his full duty and conscience) is soon answered. In a Doctrinal 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. unless he have, what in him lies, judged (according to prose) and censured a scandalous Offender, and so kept him from the Sacrament; which, I take it, S. Paul threatens to do to such Impenitents as he should find 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 soul when he hath given warning: But so fare as he hath a further power, he is not quit, if he use it not. Witness Elyrs sin and judgement, who yet gave his sons as grave and serious a warning as could be, 1 Sam. 2. but because being a Judge he restrained them not, by censures suitable 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 Liturgies of our own and the French Churches in their Exhortations before the Sacrament, both intimate and resolve what you affirm; that a Minister hath discharged his full duty and conscience by admonition and dehortation. When first, you know that in express words in the Rubric before the Sacrament in our late Book of Common prayer, the Curate (a single Minister) is expressly charged, not to admit an obstinate uncharitable person And secondly, all the world knows (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 do 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 warn those whose sins are secret and not proved, and not to stand for all Discipline toward those that are notoriously scandalous. I add, if it were meant to be the only bar 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 etc. bewail your sins, and come not to this holy Table etc. 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 careless of their Sacra, as to let those they counted profane, 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 sin, as the unworthy Receiving of the Sacrament? Whereunto you add divers 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 main Question I say, That every single Act of unprofitable and unworthy hearing of the Word, is not so great, so dangerous, so damning a sin, as unworthy Receiving the Sacrament. Because 1. those sins are greatest upon which the Spirit of God puts the greatest weight; But the Spirit of God puts no where such weight upon a single Act of unprofitable hearing. For all your Texts, every one of them, speak only of habitual and customary, and some of them only of final unprofitable hearing. But 1 Cor. 11, 27, 29. speaks of every single act of Receiving the Lords Supper unworthily. 2. Again, 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 sin 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 less 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 God's love, and Christ's Grace, a seal to the Word. Therefore to despise it, and receive it unworthily, is a further manifestation of obstinate impenitency unbelief, and slighting 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, than the hearer of the Word: he seals outwardly to God and Christ, as well as receives outward seals; which the Hearer doth not by the act of his hearing (for a Heathen may come in to hear, 1 Cor. 14.) Therefore he sins a greater, more dangerous, more damning sin, than 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 be not as great a sin, etc. 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 substantial 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 express charge to preach the Gospel to every creature, that is, even to Pagans and Infidels while remaining such: you will not say, there is the like for giving the Sacrament, while such. Secondly, there is a like Charge of instructing in meekness those that oppose themselves, which will hold, I believe, 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, etc. But there is no such charge to administer the Sacrament to opposers or impenitents. 3 That which gives a warrant not to baptise 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 bitterness and bond of iniquity; doubtless he would not have baptised him, though he should have offered himself. An ignorant man, or a profane man is to be preached to, but not to be baptised, till he have gotten knowledge and expressed repentance: Therefore by the same reason, one equally ignorant or profane (though baptised) 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 baptising of infants? That such baptising them makes parents and others careless of their education, and themselves of their behaviour when grown up? And I remember this was once urged to me. To which no rational answer that I know can be given, if upon this baptism they may challenge 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 Christ's honour and the good of souls, to abhor such baptism as hardening parents and children both in impiety and contempt of God? I pray consider it. 4 But I add, 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 Lord's Supper is a Seal for confirmation of those that are or seem to be believers and penitents. If therefore any relapse into sin and remain impenitent, the Word is the proper means still to be offered to him for his recovery, which must be spoken as to an impenitent: but the Sacrament is to be denied him (and that denial is also a concurrent means of this recovery, as proclaiming him to his conscience unworthy of it, and so to others, if the Suspension be published, as it must sometimes be published to all the Congregation, but not always,) and that because it cannot be given but as an actual Seal of God's forgiveness, 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 men's mouths or hands, or those whose mouths (that is, their hearts) appear to be shut against it: But the word preached hath raised dead souls, thousands, millions, (according to the prophecy 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 gins 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 proof that they know he will be guilty of Christ's body and blood, and will eat and drink damnation to himself; for they are not where commanded to admit such to the Sacrament; but forbidden by the nature of the Ordinance, and his apparent unworthiness together, (beside the places forementioned, 1 Cor. 5. 2 Thes. 3.) Secondly a Minister is not to give holy things to dogs, etc. This is general, and not confined to the Word only. Yourself 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 pearls, 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. do indeed prove. (But Mark. 16.15, 16. hath nothing at all to that purpose but only speaks of the damnation of obstinate unbelievers,) yet this is rare. And in this case I will grant, such are not to be preaent to, but kept away what one can; but no others are so in regard of the word. But a man that is infallibly and grossly 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 than it should profit none ordinarily, all being without faith till by preaching, the Spirit of God work it in them; and therefore it is to be preached 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 Sacramental eating of the Bread and Wine to the provoking of Christ, and further undoing their own souls. 4 Finally, though the word unprofitably heard, (that is, finally, to the end of a man's life) increases and aggravates his sins 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 meekness even such; till they come to be open and obstinate blasphemers, they must be preached 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 mind. And this leads to your fourth Question.  
Which is (summarily) Whether such may be denied the Sacrament, who profess sincere repentance, and promise newness 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 needless to speak again, having done it sufficiently already:) To which you premise fundry Arguments to prove the negative; and some follow to refel the affirmative. I will first answer your Question, then consider your Arguments on both hands. To your Question than I say 1. if he profess his sincere repentance, etc. in such a manner as according to the Rules of Christ the Minister and Elders, and those that know the scandal are bound to believe that he doth sincerely repent; none ought to keep him back, and if he were excommunicated, he ought to be absolved, and received again into the Church without delay, as soon as such repentance appears. 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 rational 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 sin 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 mere mockery for any one to be called before the Eldership for any scandal; 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 hardening of sinners rather than doing any good upon them.  
Yet for this you seem to argue with many reasons. 1 God alone knows the heart, and who are his.] Ans. They are the Scriptures words, but misapplyed in this case. 1 Chron 6.30. speaks of a man's 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 men's 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 God's secret Decree. This then confirms the Elderships' power of judging by his departing or not departing from iniquity, and not by bare and slight 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 herself for so horrid a wickedness? 2 You say, Ministers know not the heart, nor who are Gods, but may oft deem those worthy communicants who are not, (as close hypocrites, etc.) and those unworthy which are not, 1 Sam. 16.5. to 14. Ans. You seem not to be afraid of judging those worthy that are not; when so slight a matter as a profession of repentance, without mention of any fignes, must suffice to count them worthy, because God knows the heart, not Ministers. But Ministers and Elders are to judge as the Apostle directs Timothy, 1 Tim. 5. Somemens' sins are manifest beforehand, and go before to judgement (and so their good) and some follow after that is, according to apparent proof offering itself, or discovered by time, or enquiry, so the judgement ought to be. samuel's judging was not by any words or shows of good but by a bodily comeliness, and it was a peculiar Office; that hinders not but Ministers and Elders may judge by men's lives, whether they be worthy of the ordinary privileges of Christians. They are blameless if they admit only close hypocrites, because God only can judge of them. But men may judge competently of men's be haviours, else why saith 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 alleged 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 go according to sufficient outward expressions, and not imagine that God hath turned any one's heart, before others can take notice of it. And your Instance of saul's (Paul's) 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 go, he was feign to avouch him a chosen Vessel; and after that the Church at Jerusalem durst not own him, till Barnabas brought him to the Apostles, and bare witness that he had preached Christ at Damascus. And when sinners express any sign of Repentance like this (though they were converted before any took notice of it) blame them that refuse them. But in the mean time, I pray. give leave to Ministers, the Stewards of Christ's Mysteries (of whom it is required that they be found faithful) that they be so jealous over Christians with a godly jealousy, and so zealous for Christ's honour (the honour of his Death shown forth in the Sacrament) as not to believe or judge them worthy, who have showed themselves unworthy, upon a possibility that God can turn their hearts in an instant; which is so fare from a Godly jealousy or zeal, that there cannot lightly be a greater Carelessness or lukewarmness 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 alleged: Your Texts Mat. 7 and Luk 6. forbidden 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 shows no repentance, and the like; it is such judging as this that is forbidden, not all judging, unless you will make void (as I am sure you will not) all Civil judicature, as well as all Ecclesiastical. And Rom. 14. speaks only of judging men as unconscionable, or not sound Christians, for forbearing or using Christian Liberty about days and meats and such like; not at all of judging men in an Ecclesiastical judicatory (no more than Civil) for open scandals and impenitency: which also appears by the words next after those you name, yea he shall be holden up, which you will not, I think, affirm 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 proof, and not receiving without sufficient proof of Repentance.  
5. You go on (and so do I) [None must quench the smoking flax, or break the bruised Reed; nor discourage weak Christians by overmuch rigour 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 smoking flax? or that to require a rational proof of Repentance for an undeniable scandal (perhaps very gross) is to discourage weak Christians by overmuch rigour and indiscretion? You will remember (I am sure Ministers and Elders must) that of Prov. 17.15. He that justifiet the wicked, and he that condemns the just, even they both are an abomination to the Lord; the one as well as the other.  
6. But you add [Every Communicant is bound to examine himself, which he best knows (not others peremptorily to examine him) 1 Cor. 11. 2 Cor. 13.5. Gal. 6.4, 5.] I answer. First, a man's being bound to examine himself 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, withal it is not universally true, That a man is best known to himself. 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 than once; The rich man is wise in his own conceit, but his neighbour comes and searches him, Prov. 28.11. There is a generation that are pure in their own eyes, and yet are not cleansed from their filthiness, Prov. 30.12. And there is nothing more certain among men, then that many wicked persons, think they have sufficiently repent, and have faith in Christ and love to God, when the contrary to all this is more than apparent. 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 expressly in that chapter, and the soregoing threatens to censure (even sharply) many among the Corinthians; which questionless 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 meekness one that is fallen through infirmity if I may not peremptorily examine his fact and offence? If I meddle at all with him being fallen, I may call that an Infirmity, which is an Enormity, if I examine him not, and others too perhaps about him: I may speak peace, when God speaks none. And I pray, if I give the Sacrament to one whom by all Rules of the Word I cannot but judge impenitent, do not I really preach Pcace, when God saith there is no peace to him? And offer him that as an actual 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 sin, as in not forgiving another, or the like?  
7. What you add, [That every One is to bear his own sin, not another's, 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 avoid being partaker of another's sin, which is notoriously scandalous, if he (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 Seal of forgiveness, and those that so abuse the grace of Christ as visibly to continue in sin, as unworthy to partake of the visible Pledges of that Grace of his? To Gal. 6. I have answered already; and yourself 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 pain of sin 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 deems unworthy, not to receive till they become more fit to participate, under pain 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 forbear, when he is bound under pain of sin and contempt to receive? If you say, No, he is not bound to receive being impenitent, but rather bond 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 pains, etc. I say so too. And from thence infer, That the Ministers and Elders, who are by Christ made Governors in his Church to judge those that are within, are to keep him that is apparently unworthy and manifests not repentance, from eating and drinking his own damnation, when they see he offers to do it: And when they see him penitent, they are to urge him to come to receive the Seal of his Pardon, under pain of sin and contempt, if they see him backward to it, or doubtful 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 sinful distemper) a treading under foot the Son 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 expressly said to be a being guilty of Christ's body and blood, nearer to that horrid wickedness he speaks of? Though I am fare from saying, that every unworthy Communicant is guilty of such prodigious impiety. But I ask again, which of the two in the Scripture language and account comes the nearer to it? If the place had any relation in special to the Sacrament, I should not doubt to say, but the scandalous Communicant were much sooner meant, then even the profane forbearer. And thus I have answered your Arguments which lead in your Question, and whereby you would prove the Negative: and withal part of your refutation of the Affirmative. The rest I shall dispatch briefly.  
9 You say, [He eats and drinks damnation to himself, not to the Minister or the other Communicants;] Ans. Not to the Minister or other Communicants: First, If his sin be unknown: Secondly, If his sin be unproved: Thirdly, If he make such show of repentance (though God knows 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 do what lies in him to keep him back, by judging him for his part according to just prose. But to the Minister also (and the Communicants in their degree) if he willingly consent to his coming, 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 debar them.  
10. This is not disproved by your saying, [he shall only bear his own burden, and give an account of himself 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 reclaim impenitents, by shaming them, and hindering them from that which would harden them in their sins. Neither is the Word, only, in the Text, or sense of Rom. 14.12. relating to undeniable sins, or open proof of repentance or impenitence but only to his inward conscienciousness in using or forbearing Christian Liberty about meats and days (as was touched before) of that a man only shall give account for himself 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 Minister's 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 baptised persons that offer to come, and promise to lead a new life. Show me such an Institution, and I yield you the whole cause: But this I am certain you can never do (to return you your own words above) neither expressly nor by any Scripture-consequence. For if so, than 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 Sackcloth, What ever others have done. In your Title and Preface, the Assembly is styled by you, Reverend and Venerable: But now (as St. Paul speaks of himself, that he was as unknown and yet well known) they are to you, only, some men that pretend to such a large unlimited Ecclesiastical power, as you cannot discern any shadow of reason, why any godly Minister should ever earnestly contend for it; much less, that any of them should resolve to give over their Minister, to which Christ hath called them unless 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 largeness and unlimitedness 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 public a complaint of it,) tendering their humble desires in a late petition, were the men that expressed their sad strait (in case etc.) and humble resolution accordingly. Unhappy men, (sure) that contend so long, so over earnestly, with such an unfitting resolution for that which you cannot see any shadow 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 seen somewhat more than 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 fair grounds and directions for as much as is desired in either kind of censure and that the records of the Primitive Church in the purest times speak so probably for the exercise of it in those days, 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 expressed; but upon the nature of the business 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 extremely Christ is dishonoured, by those that pretend to honour him; how desperately such wound and destroy their souls, with that which they pretend and expect to receive for their eterhall good: That this being general throughout the Nation, and no sufficient provision against it, must needs be a Nationall sin, 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 profaneness and whatsoever is contrary to the power of godliness. To effect this, they saw no way appointed by God nor possible in reason, if the Ecclesiastical Power of those whom Christ hath fet in his Church to govern it, be limited so, as that seandalous persons of all sorts cannot be kept away. From all which they concluded, that to sit down under a partial Reformation, as contented with it (now specially when Gods judgements still show he is in no wife contented with what we 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 withal to expose many thousands of souls to the danger of being drawn away to schism and heresy (also Covenanted against:) The Fautors & Agents of which have never had any such successful 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 settling of this due Power by the Authority of Parliament; They saw no other way left them to bear sufficient and full witness to the truth, then by keeping themselves from acting in such a Government as would be so unsuitable to Christ's 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 etc.) they could do no less 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 desires. And herein, so many as wholly condemn not their desires, I suppose, will not think them so fare mistaken in their resolution or the expression of it, as you see me to do.  
Two words more with you, and I have done. You say, Modarata durent. What is the English of this? I mean, 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 Ecclesiastical 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 proofs admit of Excommunication, and not of Suspension? Or which admits of excluding for any one scandal, how great soever, which doth not for all scandals proved and persisted in? Or how will you answer any one of your own arguments a general 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 room 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 near to Prophetical) makes England, as you know, the Anti-type of the latter: Surely whoever thinks he is at all in the right therein, and withal have seen that lukewarm Angel so strangely spewed out, almost to the destruction of the whole State, (through the difficulty of it joined to the necessity,) ought to take special heed, that they themselves degenerate not into like lukewarmness; which if you can show me how it can be avoided under such a limited Presbytery, 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 yield to no man (no not to yourself) in my Reverential regard to the Honourable Houses of Parliament; yet, I say, that it can be neither the Authority of Man, nor the Reputation or Esteem of their Wisdom or Piety, that can satisie Consciences in any other boundary than the Word of God sets, to prevent Scandal and Profaneness in People (and Ministers too) and Tyranny and Oppression of men's Consciences in the Presbytetie. And, if I had leisure to look over some books, that you have been acquainted with in the Prelatical times, I am confident I could show you like Assertions to this in other cases.  
My Hopes and Prayers are with God, That he will make the Parliament Honourable and Happy (above all other things) in this great work for his Glory, his Son's Kingdom, and his People's Souls and Comforts. And my special consolation is in that Prophetical Sentence, Isai. 33. The LORD is our judge, the LORD is our Lawgive, the LORD it our King, He will save us. Amen, Amen.   

A Postscript concerning a second Edition of these four Questions.  
When I had well nigh finished this Answer to your four Questions, with the Preface and Conclusion, I was showed a second Edition, with some alterations. I wondered in many respects at the former, but in some, much more at this second: Of which I shall now give you a brief account, that neither you nor our Readers may complain of me, as careless or injurious.  
First, you have now Englished your Quotations of Aretius in your Preface, and first question, which while it stood in Latin, I overlookt in my Answer. But now I must needs take a little notice of it. As for his first sentence, may it not be true of all exercise, even of civil authority? Yet he should (justly) incur your blame, that would use such language to blast any lawful authority (and if this Ecclesiastical pleaded for be not lawful, no danger of a buse must limit it, but the intrinsecall evil of it, must reject it altogether,) 2. Next, your Author himself seems to wish it, while he would not have men despair of restoring it. If it be so dangerous or evil, as some would make it, it is the object of Fear and Hatred, not of Desire or Despair. 3. He lays the blame on men's manners, that will not submit to such a discipline. This commends the Discipline, though it blame the opposers of it. When David should have punished Joabs' murder of Abner, he saith the sons of Zerviah were too hard for him. This commends justice, though it could not then be executed. 4. As for his last clause, you were (it seems) willing to make your Readers merry in these sad times; and yet (I doubt) his double metaphor of Must and Spongia joined together, will mar the mirth of most that look on it, unless they be so wise as to laugh at they know not what. 5. But were Aretius never so fully yours in all the Questions (which he is not) though I despise him not, yet he cannot over-weigh, nor counterbalance Calvin, Beza, and others that have written clearly and strongly for us. muchless is he to be opposed to all the Reformed Churches, who are so abundantly known to have for many scores of years practised, what we are now labouring for.  
Secondly, next I find you have inserted some words in divers passages, which so far as I understand them, do exceedingly alter the sense, and the state of your Questions. As first in your second Question, after these words, Not actually excommunicated for some notorious scandal upon a legal conviction; you add, Or judicially accused, Pendente lite. Secondly, afterward Quest. 4. after the words, Not actually excommunicated, you add again, Or judicially accused of some gross scandal, Pendente lite. And thirdly in your conclusion, whereas before you said, Not actually excommunicated; now you say Not actually, or preparatorily, excommunicated. What do you, or can you mean by this, which destroys what the rest of your paper builds, or builds what that destroys. Do you not, to any Readers understanding, seem, not to argue against keeping such from the Sacrament, who are judicially accused, Pendente lite. And is not this to grant suspension from the Sacrament, before excommunication? Let but us obtain this power, with relation to all scandals, to keep away such as are judicially accused, Pendente lite, and we will promise you to ask no more. Have you not then with this dash of your pen yielded us our whole cause? and been a Spongia, to censure your paper, unâ litur●? Again, What is to be preparatorily excommunicated, but suspended? You pretend not to argue against that: We desired no more. Shall we be friends then? And will you be entertained of our Counsel, to plead our Cause, so far as these new inserted phrases will bear? If so, I shall love a second Edition, (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) the better as long as I live. Fourthly, you interpose these words near the end of pag. 3. [Every Christian hath a right to the Sacrament, 1 Cor. 10.4, 5, 16, 17, 18. Mat. 26.27.] I answer: An Original Right, no man denies; as every freeborn subject hath a right to go abroad to the market or elsewhere, without restraint; and sue for debts, and challenge the protection of the Laws: But you will not say, but he may forfeit this right for a time, he may deserve to be banished, outlawed, imprisoned; and imprisoned for some accusations, even upon suspicion. In like sort may a man forseit his right to the Sacrament for a time, so as to be banished (excommunicated) or restrained of this spiritual liberty, by suspension, which if in some cases it may not be, even for suspicion, yet at least upon unquestionable proofs of scandalous practices. Neither do the Text you cite gainsay this. For though all the Israelites, 1 Cor. 10. are said to eat of the same spiritual meat, and to drink of the same spiritual drink; yet this was not quâ spiritual meat or drink, not as Sacramental food; but a they had no other at all to eat or drink. The other verses speak only of the joint participation of Christians, which is not denied ordinatily. And Mat. 26.27. though it says, Drink ye all of this, yet it saith so to none, but those that were not convicted of any scandal, even judas was not proved (nor so much as openly named) Trayrour or Devil; but the Disciples at the Supper say, touching themselves, Lord, is it I? no man points at him, and saith, Lord, is it he? Therefore neither that speech Drink ye all of it, (not judas his admission, as was roucht before) declares all Christions to have such a right to the Sacrament, as that they cannot fall from it, no not for a time. But notwithstanding, they have often been admitted, they may appear so unworthy, by scandal and impenitence, as that they cannot for the present claim that right; and it is for his own good also, that he cannot claim it, as a man in a distraction, or violent seaver, cannot claim the use of those things that would undoubtedly do him mischief but may be kept from them, even from meat & drink, by those that are about him, specially by those that have any power over him. Finally, you have some marginals, the first is Q 1. p. 2. unto the words of 1 Cor. 5.11. With such an one no not to eat. Your Margin saith, not meant of eating the Sacrament, etc. I answer. Not properly those words at first, for the Apostle makes his sentence an argument à minori ad majus: you must put away wicked persons out of the Church, because with such you must not so much as eat, willingly, at an ordinary table, if you can avoid it. It is granted then that it is meant in familiar civil conversation (so that you might have spared all your consequent Texts, which yet would hardly prove interpretations of 1 Cor. 5. especially some of them, if it were needful to speak to them particularly.) But I pray, offer but to analize the Apostles Discourse there, and make him speak sense in bringing in these words, while he was urging them to put away the incestuous Corinthian (and so making a rule for other scandalous sinners.) To what purpose saith he, No, not to eat? but that more is meant; you must not so much as eat with him at home, therefore much less allow him to eat with you in the Congregation.  
Your second Note is to prove judas was at the Sacrament: I have granted it; and so am contented to say no more of it: except in thanks for your proofs, to requite you with the Answer of your Objection hence (and prevention of some other) a little more fully than before, in the words of the French Catechism, which follow.  

The 55. Sunday.  
Q. Aught the Pastors, to whom the Dispensation (of the Sacraments) is committed, to admit every one without any difference?  
A. As for Baptism, because now adays it is only administered to Infants, there is no room for any making a difference. But in the Lord's Supper the Minister ought to take heed that he give it to none who appears openly to be unworthy.  
Q. Why so?  
A. Because it cannot be done without reproaching and profaning the Sacrament.  
Q. But did not Christ vonchsafe to judas, though he was a wicked man, the participation of it?  
A. I acknowledge it, while as yet his impiety was concealed. For though it was not hidden from Christ, yet it had not broken out as yet into the light and knowledge of men.  
Q. What must be done then to Hypocrites?  
A. The Pastor cannot put them away as unworthy, but must let them alone, until such time as God reveal their wickedness, that it may be known to men.  
Q. What if the Minister himself know any man to be unworthy, or any hath admonished him of it?  
A. Even this will not suffice to put him from the Communion, unless hereunto be added a legal cognizance and judgement of the Church upon it.  
Q. It is requisite then to have a certain settled order of Government in the Church?  
A. It is so. For otherwise they are not well managed or rightly regulated. Therefore this is the order, that Elders be appointed, who are to censure men's manners, and watch over the scandals that may arise, and to debarrt such from the Sacrament as they know to be unworthy, and who cannot be admitted without dishonour to God, and scandal to the Faithful.   
Your third note is Q. 3. pag. 3. upon not partaking of other men's sins. You say, 1 Tim. 5.22. not meant of administving the Sacrament. I answer. No man says it is only meant of that; but you have not disproved this to be included, which we contend for; That to suffer scandalous persons by those that have authority to judge them (as you have not yet denied the Eldership to have) is to partake of their sins: And I think I have proved it.  
But your last Note, running along almost all your last page, is an admirable one, about the Ministers private opinion. There, if ever, you set up a man of straw and sight against him, or fight against your own shadow. For what Relator (or Delator) told you this was the Assemblies advice? Or what book of Discipline or particular Writer, plead, for such a Power in a fingle Minister, as you oppugn; Why then do you insinuate them guilty of going about to introduce the greatest spiritual Tyranny that ever was heard or practised in the Christian world, and to make every Minister an absolute Pope? I add, and 〈◊〉 than a Pope; for a Pope in Church censures hath usually I take 〈◊〉, his Cardinals with him. But, if we disclaim this, will you grant us the rest? Will you yield that the Eldership, upon just proof, may suspend for any scandal? If so, all is well: If not, why do you trouble yourself and them, & the world, and make men believe so vile and odious a slander of them (as thousands will believe it upon the sight of your Paper) as if they were as bad as the Pope, or worse, the greatest Tyrants in the world to Conscience.  
It was not an Enemy that reproached me, saith complaining David. I will ask no other Reparation then what your own Ingenuity will prompt you unto, when you see your Error.  
Your concluding Text for Moderation, I shall only turn into this Prayer; God give us all spirits of meekness, and lead us into all Truth by jesus Christ. Amen.   
FINIS.