A VINDICATION of four Serious questions Of Grand Importance, Concerning Excommunication, and suspension From the SACRAMENT of the LORDS SUPPER, from some Misprisions and unjust Exceptions lately taken against them; both in the Pulpit, by a Reverend Brother of Scotland, in a Sermon at Margaret's Church in Westminster, before the Honourable House of Commons, at a public Fast there held for Scotland, on the 5th of September last: and in the press, by three New-printed Pamphlets, by way of Answer to, and Censure of Them. Wherein some Scripture Texts, (commonly produced for Excommunication, and bare suspension from the Lord's Supper only,) are cleared from false Glosses, Inferences, Conclusions wrested from them; The grounds of sole suspension from the Sacrament, of unmixed Communions, Independency, separation from our Churches, Sacraments, examined, refuted, subverted; Judas his reception of the Lord's Supper, cleared; It manifested, to be a converting, as well as a confirming Ordinance; a means to beget, as well as increase Grace: With other particulars tending to the Advancement of Verity, unity, and the better, speedier Settlement of a Church-Discipline, according to God's Word, so much desired. By WILLIAM PRYNNE of Lincoln's inn, Esquire.  1 Thess. 5. 21, 22. Prove all things: hold fast that which is good: abstain from all appearance of evil. Augustin. Epist. Concilii ad Donatistas: & Gratian Caus. 1. Qu. 1. Communio malorum non maculat quemquam participatione Sacramentorum, sed consentione factorum. 
LONDON, Printed by John Macock, for Michael Spark senior. 1645.   

TO The truly Honourable and Victorious Sir THOMAS FA●RFAX Knight, general of all the Forces raised, by the PARLIAMENT, against the Popish and Malignant Party.  
Most meritoriously Honourable,  
THE many late Glorious Trophies and vnparaleled Successes, wherewith the Lord of Hosts hath been graciously pleased to crown Your cordial Military undertakings, to the Admiration of all Your Friends, the Astonishment, Confusion of all the public Malignant Enemies of Our Churches, kingdom's tranquillity; as they have engaged the Parliament, (with all parts of the realm under their Command) to return public Solemn praises unto God, for sundry Successive Victories, over puissant Armies in the Field, and Conquests of divers Strong-holds, atcheived by Your indefatigable Industry, Incomparable valour, through God's blessing on them: so it hath specially obliged Me, as to render particular thanksgiving unto God, so to tender some small apparent Monument of my Obligations and Gratitude to yourself, whom God hath highly honoured to all posterity, in making You an happy Instrument of redeeming my Native Country (Sommersetshire) with the adjacent Counties, out of the devouring jaws of the oppressing Enemy, and of reviving, recovering our lost dying kingdom even at its lowest ebb, in a time of greatest need, with so great Celerity, so little effusion of English Blood on either side; Which I knew not, for the present, how more visibly to express, then by presenting Your Honour with this brief P●lemicall Vindication, in defect of a Richer Present.  
It was my great undemerited happiness, and your Generous Humility (at Your first arrival in London from the North, to undertake the chief Command of the Parliaments Forces) to stoop so far below yourself, as to honour Me with Your voluntary sweet Acquaintance and Discourse; which emboldens me to crave this further Favour, to dignify this rude Vindication, with your Noble Acceptation, of so Small unpolished a Piece; whose Subject matter (Church Discipline) is of so Great concernment, that the Settlement thereof according to God's Word, and the Purest times▪ is one principle end of Your and Our taking up Defensive arms.  
I shall not be so injurious to the State or You, to interrupt Your weighty Military affairs, or retard Your Admirable Expeditions with my unseasonable Lines. I shall rather become a daily Orator to the Lord of Hosts, so far to multiply the weekly Catalogues of Your sucessefull Conquests, that You may ere long return to the Great counsel and Metropolis of our realm in a Triumphant Chariot, with this Honourable victorious Motto, engraven in golden Characters on Your Helmet; This is the general whom the Lord hath honoured to be, next under him, The speedy Finisher of our long protracted Civil Wars; And happy Restorer of our Long-desired Peace: Which is and shall be the Prayer of  
Your honour's most Devoted Friend and Servant WILLIAM PRYNNE.   

To the unprejudiced Reader.  
Christian Reader:  
HAving privately communicated four short Questions concerning Excommunication and Suspension from the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, to some of my Parliament friends, out of a mere cordial desire to expedite the settling of an ecclesiastical discipline in our Church, according to God's word; so much desired, and now in agitation in the Commons house: I have for this good service (these Questions since growing public) been openly censured, traduced both in press and Pulpit, and these my Queries have been seemingly refuted, by some well▪ meaning persons, whose Affections are stronger than their Arg●me●ts, and misguided zeal more predominant than their Knowledge, in the points debated by them, wherein they betray their own Ignorance and Error, whiles they would censure mine.  
The first Answer to these Questions, entitled, An Antidote against four dangerous Queries; is such a combination of Ignorance, errors, Misprisions, and impertinent Invectives, as merits rather derision than refutation, and hath been already sufficiently triumphed over in the Antidote animadverted; so as it needs another Antidote to preserve it from sudden expiration. The second Answer to them, styled A Brotherly and friendly Censure; as it Courts my person in the Title and Epistle with friendly compliments, so it wounds and traduces my honest intentions, but in no sort answers my Questions; the Censure itself, being the same in substance with the Antidote, and as full of gross errors, Mistakes, and injudicious weak replies, as it. The third Answer, as it is more large, so more judicious than the other two, and thwarts them both in some particulars, as in that of Judas his receiving the Lord's supper; and, that Ministers, as such, have no authority to keep back any from the Sacrament, but have discharged their duties by their premonitions of the danger of unworthy receiving.  
I have not here answered each of them distinctly▪ but only taken the quintessence and substance of them all into examination, debating only the most material differences between us, and bringing their false metals to the test of Scripture and sound Reason; omitting all their impertinencies, and things of lesser moment, as not deserving any reply. My subitane Lucubrations in Vindication of these Questions from all their misprisions and erroneous censures, I here humbly submit to the Parliaments public, and thy private impartial scr●tinie; in perusing whereof, I shall only request thee to pursue the Apostles Canon, 
a 1 Thes. 5. 21.  To examine all things by the Word, and to hold fast that which is good and true.  
For my part 
b 2 Cor. 13. 8.  I can do nothing against, but for the Truth: and though some report 
c Gal. 4. 16.  I am their enemy (yea an enemy to public Reformation) because I tell them the truth, in these controversal points of Church-discipline, in which they have little insight; yet neither their calumnies on the one hand, nor flatteries on the other, shall ever sway me one hairs-breadth from the Truth, either to the right hand, or the left. And although I certainly know, the speaking out of the whole truth in this present controversy will render me odious and distasteful to many of my dear Christian friends and Brethren in the Lord, and draw sharp censures on me: yet because 
d John 1●. 37  I was for this cause born & brought into the world, that I might bear witness to the truth; I neither weigh their favours, nor regard their frowns, being resolved whiles I breath on earth, neither for fear, favour, partiality, nor any private interest or relation whatsoever, to do any thing against the Truth, but only for it, whatsoever the issue or event thereof shall prove; be it, Veritas odium parit; or uncharitable constructions, or wresting of my Writings point-blank to their sincere intentions, whereof I have had experience in this controversy, especially in two particulars, which I cannot pretermit in silence without some reply thereto.  
First my Antagonists publicly charge me, That I speak untowardly, to the great offence of godly people, against all Christ's Ministers and Ecclesiastical Rulers, in this conditional clause, [If it fall into indiscreet, over-severe, ambitious, passionate, or revengeful hands] In which I suppose, that ordinarily the hands of Ministers & Elders of Christ's Church are such, and therefore they ought not to be trusted with such power of Suspension and Excommunication; or else that I suppose, some of them may act with such hands, and therefore that all of that calling are to be abridged of that power.  
To which I answer, that no such uncharitable incoherent inference can any way follow from this Clause; the whole scope of my Questions diametrally contradicting it, which tend only to an orderly regular settlement of presbyterial power in the original institution of our new Presbyteries, not to take from them all ecclesiastical Jurisdiction due by divine right to them, but to confine it within certain definite limits, to prevent all exorbitant abuses of it, into whose hands soever it should sall. There is no man so unskilful in politics, but will acknowledge, it is the duty and aught to be the special care of Lawgivers, in the creation of new jurisdictions, and promulgation of new laws, to look, not only to present, but future Inconveniences which may possibly spring up in after-ages; and to consider, not what some, or most men are which shall execute such laws or jurisdictions at present, but what any of them may possibly prove to be in aftertimes, and thereupon to prescribe set bounds to all alike, and leave nothing merely arbitrary to any, how good or just soever, to prevent all possible, all probable abuses by any entrusted with such laws and jurisdictions. And there are none so ignorant of the present condition of our English Church & ministry, but must acknowledge, 1. That many of our godly Ministers and persons are very passionate, indiscreet, and overrigorous; having more zeal, than knowledge, or discretion how to manage such a power. 2. That the best and justest men we can select to constitute Presbyteries of, if left at large, to an arbitrary kind of proceeding, and not bounded by strict or punctual laws and Penalties, will be very apt now and then (through natural infirmities, and the remainder of corruptions in them) to abuse or exceed their power, and run into extravagancies to the oppression of the people, of which we have divers experiments in many Counties, if the complaints against their Committees may be credited, as many of them are too true. 3. That though there be sufficient choice of prudent, discreet, learned, conscientious, upright Ministers and Christians in and about London, fit to be united into Presbyteries, Classes, and trusted with ecclesiastical censures; yet in most places else throughout our three kingdoms (except here and there a City or country Town) there are very few, if any such Ministers or Lay-Elders to be found for the present, and none can certainly determine when or where to provide or cull out such for the future. 4. That, let the Parliament make the best present choice they can of Ministers and Lay-Elders to execute ecclesiastical discipline, yet there may and will be a Judas among the twelve Apostles, at least one or more indiscreet, passionate, ambitious, or spleenatick persons, who upon occasion offered will be apt to abuse or exceed their power, to the prejudice of others. 5. That into whose hands soever this power shall 
Eccles. 2. 18, 19 c. 6. 12. c. 10. 14.  be put for the present, yet there is not only a mere possibility, but probability too, (especially if the episcopal or Malignant party should at any time prevail) that it may hereafter fall into unjust, tyrannical, oppressing hands, out of which it will hardly be wrested again. 6. That since we intend to settle the selfsame ecclesiastical Government and Discipline in all three kingdoms, at leastwise throughout our English territories; there ought to be the selfsame rules, bounds, and limits prescribed unto all Presbyteries and Classes, to regulate their proceedings by, and prevent exorbitances in every of them; and none of them left more arbitrary than others, lest their proceedings should vary from others. These undeniable principles were the grounds of my Supposition so much excepted against, If it fall into indiscreet, over-severe, passionate, or revengeful hands: Yea, the true reason why the Parliament takes so much deliberation and advice in settling of the intended presbyterial Church-Government and Discipline, in which more difficulties arise then ordinary capacities are able to apprehend. Wherefore for any to infer from thence, as my Antagonists do, That the hands of all the Elders and Ministers of Christ's Church, are such, and therefore ought not to be trusted with the power of Church-censures; or that all of them are to be abridged of this power, because some of them are such; is such a malicious and uncharitable perverting both of my words and meaning, as nought but prejudice or malice itself could invent.  
The second Charge is of the same strain; That th●se Queries charg● the Reverend Assembly very unjustly, with falling into extremes; with affecting a greater Lording power over the consciences and privileges of their Christian brethren, then of right belongs unto them. That they, and our new Presbyters will proceed as in the Papacy and Prelacy; with indiscreet, over-severe, passionate, revengeful hands, &c. Whereas they desire nothing but a strict discipline according to the rules of Christ, &c. And that they cast many such unjust aspersions upon the Assembly.  
Certainly there is not one syllable in these 4 Questions from whence any such malignant accusation can be strained: and my former Writings to vindicate the Reverend Assembly (whom I love and honour with my soul) from the libellous, venomous, intolerable aspersions cast upon them, in many late seditious schismatical printed Libels, (published by Anabaptists and other Sectaries, to defame them, and vilify all their proceedings;) with the grounds in the preceding Answer (which occasioned all the Passages unjustly wrested by these uncharitable Answerers, to warrant this false charge) will (I hope) sufficiently purge me from these scandalous accusations, and all misinterpretations of my Queries, or this Vindication of them; the scope of both being only this, to reduce the Power of Ministers and Presbyteries, in the original erection of their ecclesiastical jurisdiction, (now in agitation in the Parliament,) to as great a conformity to the Word of God, and as punctual certainty in all particulars as possible may be; and to settle it with such necessary Cautions & Limitations as may prevent all abuses of it, into whose hands soever it shall be committed either for the present, or in future ages: since a small error, or admission of a mere arbitrary power in some things in the beginning of this New Government, may soon degenerate into a grand inconvenience and grievance in conclusion, which is easier prevented then redressed.  
Thus having fully cleared the sincerity of my own intentions, against these scandalous inferences, I have only this to add in the Parliaments behalf; That the settlement of Church-discipline being a matter of great difficulty and concernment, wherein many new doubts and scruples daily arise, requiring much debate, they cannot be justly blamed (in the midst of their other pressing public occasions to preserve our kingdoms, themselves and us from eminent ruin) for proceeding deliberately in this weighty work, which hath taken upthe Assembly themselves so many month's debate, and wherein there are such differences of Opinions. Many there are, who deny any Excommunication at all to be of divine institution, producing sundry strong arguments to justify their opinions, and answering all objections to the contrary: In maintenance of which opinion, Tho. Erastus (a learned physician) long since wrote a large Volume in Latin, entitled, Explicatio gravissimae quaestionis de Excommunicatione printed An. 1589. who is seconded by many learned men. Others, who admit Excommunication to be introduced, and exercised in the Apostles times, and somewhat after; yet hold it to be but a temporary Ordinance, taken up by Christians out of mere necessity, for want of Christian Magistrates to restrain and punish scandalous sinners; and altogether useless, or seldom or never to be put in execution in such places, Churches, where Christian Magistrates are settled, whose office and duty it is, to punish all obstinate, impenitent, scandalous sinners, with the temporal sword of justice, and to cut off all evil doers from the City of God, Psal. 101. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. Rom. 13. 3, 4, 5. without whose assistance Church censures will become altogether useless, invalid, & contemptible: whence the Church hath always been enforced to pray in aid from the Secular arm, and Civil Magistrate, by Writs De Excommunicato capiendo, and the like, to force obedience and submission to her censures, which else would prove mere Bruta fulmina. Others, who admit of Excommunication, deny suspension from the Sacrament of the Lord's supper, as no divine step or degree to it, nor to be inflicted upon any but persons actually excommunicated from all other Ordinances. Others who plead most for Excommunication and suspension from the Lord's Supper, are yet divided into these circumstances which concern them. 1. Who shall inflict those censures? Whether the Ministers only? Or the Presbytery and Classis only? Or the whole Congregation? 2. For what sins and Offences? which is now the grand doubt and debate: Whether for Incest, and heresy only, for which they pretend examples of Excommunication in Scripture; or for any other sins, for which we find no pattern of any Excommunication or Suspension in the Word? 3. In what manner, and by what steps and degrees the Presbytery or Classis ought to proceed in inflicting these censures? What remedy shall be given by way of Appeal, to the parties grieved? And, to whom they shall appeal? 4. How, and by whom such who contemn those censures shall be proceeded against? How long those censures shall continue, and how and when reversed? 5. Whether excommunicated persons ought to be admitted to hear the Word, or to any other Ordinance? and in what sort; with what public badges of infamy and distinction, the more to shame themselves, and deter others? All these, with sundry other difficult controversies arising in the settlement of Church-discipline (in which the very Assembly-men are divided in opinion, as well as the Members of Parliament) it must needs require much debate and deliberation to settle Church-discipline in a due and solid manner.  
It is a received maxim, approved by prudent men, and God himself; Diu deliberandum quod semel statuendum; We must deliberate long of that which is to be settled but once. We know that the material Temple of Solomon was near 
* 1 Kings 9 10. 2 Chron. 8. 1. 1 Chron. 29. 2 Chron. 2. & 3.  twenty years in building▪ though David, Solomon, with all the Princes and people most cheerfully contributed their best assistance toward it; and yet it was after 
* As appears by Ezra 4. 24.  far●onger in re-edifying: And can we then imagine the Spiritual Temple and church-government should be completely finished and built up by the Parliament in a month or two? How many years, I pray you, have our Independent Brethren been in hammering and completing their New Church-Model, long since promised, and yet are not agreed on it, or else afraid, to publish it, lest all should discern its manifold flaws? Ignorant men, altogether unacquainted with the numerous difficultes, intricate disputes which accompany this Subject, may deem it an easy business, soon dispatched: but persons of better judgements, acquainted with the several controversies in point of Divinity and civil policy, which arise about Church-Discipline, will find it an Herculean labour, and a work of time to establish it so, as to answer expectation, satisfy all objections, and stop the mouths of all opposers, which must first be done, or else it will not be embraced with such alacrity as is fit. Wherefore be persuaded to wait a while longer on the Parliament for the accomplishment of our longing desires in the settling of Church Discipline, and pray earnestly to God to steer their hearts and judgements aright in this work of highest concernment to us; for fear they should now settle any thing in haste, which they and we may hereafter repent of by leisure. With which friendly advice I shall dismiss thee to the perusal of this Vindication, which I humbly tender to thy Christian acceptation.  
Farewell.   

A short Vindication of four serious Questions of grand importance concerning EXCOMMUNICATION and Suspension from the Sacrament, from some Misprisions and Exceptions taken against them, both in the press and Pulpit.  
THERE is nothing so sincerely intended, so well performed, but is liable to some misinterpretations or exceptions in this critical age, by men of contrary opinions. This hath been the hard fate of these four Questions.  
First, the Author of them hath been publicly taxed in print, as an enemy to Reformation, and oft styled 
a 
In An Antidote against four dangerous Questions.  
A brotherly, friendly Censure, &c.   THE ADVERSARY (of it,) when as God who 
b Acts 1. 24.  knows his heart, and those men who are acquainted with his person and intentions, will acquit him from this calumny, and know him to be as great, as cordial an Advancer of Reformation, as any of his Accusers.  
Secondly, these four Questions have been conceived and reported to be, a grand obstruction to the work of Reformation and settlement of Church-Discipline, yea purposely published to obstruct it: When as intentionally and really they do (by moderating irreconcilable extremes) tend only to facilitate and expedite this much desired work; which he cordially desired might be speedily accomplished, to prevent the dangerous increase of errors and schisms, which multiply daily in our Church.  
Thirdly, they are apprehended to strike at the very root of Excommunication, and absolutely to deny it, in case of gross and scandalous sins; when as it only tends to remove those sandy foundations whereon some would build it, to prevent and regulate all probable abuses of it in its original establishment, and confine it to its due bounds, to prevent, as far as possible might be, all just scandal and profanation of holy things in the people, and Arbitrary Government, Tyranny, Oppression, and Lording it over God's Ordinances, Heritage and men's consciences, in the Ministers and presbytery, as the express words thereof demonstrate.  
Fourthly, it is conceived, that their principal end was, to deprive Presbyteri●s of their due jurisdiction, conferred on them by divine right, when as there is not one syllable in them to that purpose, but only to regulate their power by God's Word, & to control the Arbitrary, tyrannical usurpations of some Ind●pendent Ministers, who take upon them an exorbitant jurisdiction, not only to exclude whom themselves please from the Sacrament, without any legal admonition or conviction of ignorance or scandal, but likewise refuse publicly to administer the Lord's Supper to their Congregations or parishioners for sundry months, nay years together, (yea, to those, against whom they have no just exceptions, and who tender themselves to their Examination, desiring to be excluded, if found ignorant or unworthy) for fear of delivering it to some, whom they (before conviction) deem scandalous or unworthy, as they pretend; or rather, in good truth, only because they will not join with them in their new Independent ways and Covenants.  
Fifthly, it hath been suggested, that it lays a tax ●pon our Ministers and intended Presbyteries, as if they desired▪ papal & tyrannical authoriy over men's consciences; when as it tends only to prevent such papal, episcopal abuses of Excommunications and Su●pensions, which may possibly creep into them by degrees, if not carefully provided against in the original settlement of their authority, by strict and punctual laws; there being no authority so good, so necessary in Church or State, but by reason of their corruptions 
● See the Histories of the Anabaptists Lucas Osiander. Bnchirid. Cont. cum. Anabaptist is de Ecclesia, cap. 6. The profane schism of the Brownists, discovered by Christopher lawn and others. printed 1612.  who manage it, may be abused to tyranny and oppression: (especially, if not bounded) And we find by Histo●y and experience, that these Church censures have been as grossly abused, as tyrannically managed by rigid Anabaptists and separatists, as Popes & prelates, & po●sibly may be so by Presbyteries.  
These prejudices and misapprehensions being removed, I shall next proceed to the exceptions against the substance or subject matter of them, wherein to avoid mistakes, be pleased to observe:  
First, that it is confessed, yea agreed by the Opposites, that Excommunication or suspension from the Sacrament, is a matter of grand concernment, fit now to be established with as much deliberarion, caution, circumspection and care as possible may be, to prevent profanation, scandal on the one hand, and Arbitrary, papal, tyrannical domineering over men's consciences, christian liberties, & all abuses of this power, on the other hand; and that it is a matter of very great difficulty thus to settle it; & it is as readily yielded on the other side, that gross notorious, scandalous, obstinate sinners, who presumptuously persevere in their iniquities after private and public admonitions, without remorse of conscience or amendment, may be justly excommunicated from the Church, the society of the faithful, and all public Ordinances, after due proof, and legal conviction of their scandalous lives; and that 1 Cor. 5. 13. warrants thus much, notwithstanding the various readings and interpretations of that Text: So that thus far there is no dissent on either part.  
Secondly, it is accorded on both sides, (in words at least, though not in practice) that no Minister may 〈◊〉 can in point of power or conscience, refuse to admini●●er the Sacrament to any member of his Church, not actually excommunicated after sundry admonitions and public reprehensions for some gross scandalous crime, who earnestly desires to receive it, in case he publicly professeth his sincere repentance for his sins past, and promise amendment of life for time to come, though the ●inister or Presbytery in their own private opinions, may have a hard prejudicate opinion of his unfitness, or unworthiness to receive it.  
These Agreements on both sides premised, which will in a manner determine the greatest controversy, and rectify the mistakes between us; I proceed to the matters in difference; which are these:  
First, whether there he any precept or precedent in Scripture, for the suspending of any Member of a particular Church or Congregation, from the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper only, who is not at the same time excommunicated and utterly sequestered from the Church, the society of the faithful, and all other public Ordinances there used, as Prayer, Preaching, Fasting, catechising, singing of psalms, and the like? And whether the 
d Num. 21. 14 15. Deut. 23. 1 2, 3. 1 Cor. 5. 7 to 13. Joh. 9 22 32, 3. 3. ch: 12. 42. c. 16. 2. 2 Thes. 3. 14. 2 John 10. 11. 3 John 10. Rom. 16. 17. Tit. 3. ●0, 11: 2 Tim. 3 5.  Texts of the old or new Testament, quoted in the first Question, and in the Margin here, warrant any such partial excommunication or suspension from the Lord's Table, but not from preaching the Word, and other public Ordinances? This I positively deny, from the pregnancy and words of these Texts of Scripture, backed by the judgement and practice of Antiquity in the purest times, as I shall prove at large anon: Neither hath the Author of the Antidote against four dangerous Questions▪ nor the Reverend Preacher in his Sermon at St. Margaret's before the Commons House (who undertook to refute them) produced one dram of Scripture or solid reason to refute it, the latter not so much as taking notice of this Question (the only thing there controverted) but utterly mistaking it, whiles he charged the Questionist with mistakes.  
Secondly, whether Matth. 18. 16, 17. If thy brother trespass against thee, &c. tell it to the Church, &c. be properly meant of excommunication of suspension from the Sacrament? The Opposites affirm; I deny it.  
The only reason they have rendered in press or Pulpit, why this text should and must be intended of a sentence of excommunication given by the Church, is, because the text saith, let him be to thee as an heathen man and a publican▪ that is, as one quite cast out of the Church, which must be only by excommunication, whereby men are cast out of it; no private christian (as they affirm) having any authority to esteem his brother, as a heathen and publican, if the Church hath not first cast him out; for than he may esteem one man of the Congregation thus, and after that another, and so all the Membets of it, and at last, the whole Church by degrees, by his own authority; which to do, say they, is a great absurdity, sin and inconvenience: But this reason (under correction) is very infirm, inconcludent, if not false and absurd: For first, Heathens were no excommunicate persons, being never Members of the Jewish or Christian Church, and therefore uncapable of any excommunication out of it: excommunication being peculiar only to Church-members, as St. Paul expressly determines, 1 Cor. 5▪ 10, 11, 12. and Aretius in his definition of excommunication, cited in the first Question: And as for Publicans, if they were not heathens but Jews (as 
e 〈◊〉 Ep●st at 〈◊〉 Godw●ns fewish Antiquities l. 1. c. 3.  some of them were) we never find them excommunicated from any of God's Ordinan●es, as they were Publicans, but partakers of them; To make then an excommunicate person, and an Heathen, a Publican, Synonimaes, is at best an incongruity, if not a contradiction. Secondly, the genuine sense of this expression (not elsewhere used in Scripture, and 
f See Go●w●ns ●ewish Antiquities▪ ●▪ ●. ●. ●.  no form at all of any excomuni●ation practised by the Jews) Let him be to thee a Heathen and a Publican, in the judgement of the best Interpreters, is no more but this; keep not any familiar company, or have no civil fellowship with him, but avoid his company and fellowship, as Paul expressly interprets it elsewhere, 1 Cor. 5. 10, 11, 12. 2 Thes. 3. 14. Eph. 5. 11. Rom. 16. 17. or receive him not into thy house, neither bid him God speed, as St. John renders it, 2 John 10. Which phrase was derived from the practice of the Jews and Pharises in that age, who shunned the very company of heathens and publicans; not in public Ordinances or Sacraments (in which heathens certainly had no communion or society with them, being no Members of their Church) but only in civil conversation; whereupon they taxed Christ, for keeping compavy with publicans and sinners, Mat. 9 10, 11. ch. 11. 19 ch. 21. 31. 32. Mark 2. 15, 16. Luke 18. 11, 12, 13. ch. 15. 1, 2. though some of them beleevee on, and received him, when the Scribes and Pharises (who disdained their company) did reject him, Luke 7. 29. ch. 15. 2, 2, 3. ch. 19 2. to 12. Mat. 21. 31, 32. And as the Jews then avoided all civil familiar society with Publicans 
g Godwins Jew●sh Antiquities, l. 1. c. 2  whom they generally hated for their covetousness and extortion) so also with Heathens, with whom they might not inter marry nor familiarly converse, Deut. 7. 2, 4. Josh. 24. 12, 13, Neh. 13. 27. to 31. Ezr. ch. 9 & 10. Ps. 116. 34, 35. Act. 21. 28, 29. Whence we read, The Jews had no dealing or conversation with the Samaritans, John 4▪ 9 nor they with the Jews, Luke 9 52, 53. If then, let him be to thee as a heathen and a publican, be no more then, keep not civil company, fellowship, or familiar conversation with him, who obstinately trespasseth against thee, after private admonition and public complaint; or avoid intimate familiarity with him; then every christian hath free power by God's word to do this, without any danger of sin or scandal, before any private or public censure of excommuncation passed against him by the Church, as is clear by 1 Cor. 5. 9 11. 2 Thes. 3. 14. Rom. 16. 17. Pro. 22. 24, 25. Ps. 101. 4, 5, 7. 2 Tim. 3. 2, 3, 4, 5. 2 John 10. 11. Therefore by the selfsame reason may he avoid the company of any other brother, or the Members of an whole particular Congregation severally, without sin or guilt, if he or they continue impenitent, in the case of private injuries or trespasses against him after admonition; Wherefore this Answer of theirs is both erroneous and impertinent.  
Now that this Text of Matthew (so much insisted on) is not meant of excommunication or Church-censures; and that the 
h 
{non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} Signifies any civil Assembly, council or Court of Justice, as well as on ecclesiastical Presbytery, see Scapulae Lexicon, page 730.  
h Scapula ibidem, Godwin's Jewish Antiquities, l. 5. c. 4 Joseph. Antiq. Jud●eo●um, l. 14, c▪ 17.   Church in this text was not any ecclesiastical Consistory, but only the 
i P. Galatinus, l. 4 c. 5. Doctor potter's want of Charity justly charged, London, 1634. p. 26. It may be underst●● of any Assemb●y, AS WELL civil as Eccelsiastical, so it was in the first Edition, but it is expunged in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the Arch bishops special direction.  Sa●hedrim, or Court of civil justice among the Jews (commonly called the council in other Texts) is apparent to me for these ensuing reasons, never yet answered by the Opposites. First, because it speaks not at all of any public scandalous sin against the Church or Congregation, the proper Object of Church-censurs, but only of pr●vate civil trespasses between man and man, as is evident by the words, If thy brother trespass against THEE, go and tell him his fault between him and thee, &c. which Saint Luke relating without any Die Ecclesi●, Luke 17. 3, 4. puts out of question, if compared with Gen. 52. 31. 1 Sam. 25. 28. Now the puni●hment of such trespasses belonged properly to their temporal Magistrates, not to their ecclesiastical Consistory, as the 1 Sam. 2. 29. Deut. 10. 16, 18, 19, 20. ch. 25. 1, 2. 2 Chron. 19 9 6. Exod. 21. 6. 22. chap. 22. 8, 9 prove: Secondly, because the following words, ver. 16. If he refuse to hear thee, take with the● one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established; relate only to the manner of trying civil capital crimes, (as murders and the like) before the civil Magistrates of the Jews, which was by two or three witnesses, Num. 25. 30. Deut. 17. 6, 7. chap. 19 5, 6. not to any proceedings in Ecclesiastical causes, in their Ecclesiastical consistories, of which we find no precedent. Thirdly, because tell it to the Church, the Assembly, or Congregation, in the 17. verse, is not meant of any Presbyteritall or ecclesiastical Classis, which had Cognizance of private trespasses, there being no such among the Jews, but only of the 
* See Pecrus Cunaeus de Repub. Judeorum l. 1. c. 12. Juni. Brutus Vindiciae contr. Tyoannos, Q. 3. p 94. to 97.  civil Court of Justice, which the Scripture commonly calls the council, which had power (which no mere ecclesiastical Consistory can do) to scourge, imprison▪ torture and outlaw offenders, if not to condemn●, put to death, but not properly to excommunicate them, Matth. 5. 22. chap. 10. 17. c. 5. 26, 27, 59 60. chap. 27. 1, 2. Mark 13. 9 Acts 4. 3. to 22. chap. 5. 17. to 40. chap. 6. 12, 13, 14, 15. chap. 25. 15. to 29. chap. 24. 20. Fourthly, because he adds, If he will not hear the Church, What then? not, let the Church excommunicate or suspend him from the Sacrament, or put him out of the synagogue, or cast him out from them, or deliver him to Satan, or denounce an Anathema Maranatha against him, or cut him off from his people (the only phrases in other Texts alleged for proof of Excommunication) but, let him be as an Heathen man and a P●blican (a phrase never used elsewhere in Scripture;) which cannot properly signify excommunication, because Heathen men being never Members of the Church, could never be excommunicated or cast out of it, being un- capable of such a censure: As for Publicans those of them who were members of the Jews Church, though they were execrable to the Jews, by reason of the●r Tax-gathering and Oppressions, yet we never read in Scripture that they w●re excommunicated or cast out of their synagogues, but contrarily, that they went up into the Temple to pray as well as the Pharises, and were more acceptable to Christ himself (who never excommunicated, but received and conversed with them) than the proud Pharises were, Luke 18. 11. to 15. ch. 3. 12. chap. 7. 29. chap. 5. 27. 28, 29. chap. 15. 1, 2. chap. 19 2, &c. Mark 9 11, 12. Matth. 10. 3. Mark 2. 15, 16. Therefore these expressions can no ways warrant or imply any excommnnication or suspension from the Sacrament. Fifthly, the words run only, let him be TO THEE as a heathe● man and a Publican (not to the whole Church, and all others professing Religion, which might have intimated something in behalf of the Opposites;) and therefore ●o ground excommunication from the Church, or suspension from the Sacrament on this Text (which the Papists and others have very much abused) is to extract water out of a flint, and palpably to wrest the Scripture from its genuine sense.  
Object. And whereas some object, that the n●xt ensuing words, verse 18. (Verily I say unto you, what soever ye shall bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven, &c.) do necessarily infer the preceding words to relate to ecclesiastical censures, and the power of the keys (as they phrase it.)  
Answ. I answer, first, that these words have no coherence with, or dependence on the former, but are a distinct sentence of themselves, because spoken only to, and of Christ's Disciples, as is evident by the Parall●l Text of John 20. 23. not of the Jewish Church, much less of their council or Sanhedrim, meant only by the Church in the former verse, as is already cleared. Secondly, the this binding and losing is not meant of excommunication or suspension from the Sacrament (as some would fancy it) but only of binding and losing men's fins, by preaching the gospel, and denouncing pardon or remission of sins and salvation to penitent and believing sinners; but judgement and damnation to obstinate, impenitent sinners, as is evident by comparing it with Matth. 16. 19 Mark 16. 16. John 3. 16, 17, 18, 36. chap. 12. 48. Luke 13. 3. 5. Rom. 2. 16. Acts 2. 38. chap. 3. 19 Therefore some clearer Text than this must be produced, to found excommunication or suspension from the Sacrament, and ecclesiastical Discipline upon, by those who contend for it Jure divin●.  
Thirdly, whether 1 Cor. 5. 5. To deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus▪ and 1 Tim. 1. 20. whom I have delivered unto Satan▪ that they may learn not to blaspheme, be properly meant of excommunication or suspension from the Sacrament?  
Some of our Opposites peremptorily affirm it, but produce no shadow of proof for it; others speak dubiously of these Texts, as needing a large debate, and therefore prudently wave them with a rhetorical preterition, as the late Reverend Preacher did: I for my part humbly conceive, that to deliver to Satan, is a thing somewhat different from excommunication and suspension from the Lord's Table: My reasons are these:  
First, if to deliver a man to Satan, be the selfsame thing with excommunication, or suspension from the Sacrament, as some affirm, than every excommunicated or suspended person, should▪ during his excommunication or suspension, either in a literal, or spiritual sense at least, be in their judgement, in the actual power of Satan, though a true child of God, whom 
e Acts 26. 18 Eph. 2. 1. to 6. 1 John 3. 8. 2 Tim. 2. 26.  Christ himself hath rescued out of the jaws and paws of Satan; since such a one may be actually excommunicated, suspended from the Lord's Table for a season, not only injuriously, but upon just grounds, and yet not inthe devil's actual power or possession, but in Christ's, John 10. 28, 29.  
Secondly, if to deliver unto satan, were the same with excommunication, than it would have some proportion and coincidency with other Scripture phrases produced for proof of excommunication▪ (as put away from among you that wicked person, and the like forecited) with which it hath no 〈◊〉.  
Thirdly, our Opposites generally grant 
f See Cartwright's Notes on the Rhem. Testam. on 1 Cor. 5.  that Excommunication belongs only to the Presbytery or whole Congregation, not to any one particular person, be he Bishop, Minister, or other; whereas Paul himself deliv●●ed Hymeneus and Phyletus unto Satan, as the words (whom I have delivered, &c.) import, without the concurrence of any other.  
Fourthly, many members of the visible Church are spiritually under the 
g John 8. 44: 1 Johu 3. 8. 2 Tim. 2. 26. Acts 5. 3. John 13. 2. 27:  ●ower of satan, and taken captives of him at his will, though still within the Church, and not actually excommunicated; therefore to deliver men over thus to satan, and no more, cannot be properly termed excommunication.  
Fifthly, nor can it be meant merely of suspending people from the Sacrament; for then children and others debarred from the Sacrament, by reason of their nonage, or any other natural disabilities, should be as much delivered over to Satan as any scandalous persons.  
What this delivering of men over to satan is, hath been much controverted among Divines: Many who take it to be meant of excommunication, and an act of discipline established then in the Church for all future ages, interpret it to be, not only a casting of a man out of the Church 
h See Cartwright's Answ. to the Rhem: Testam. on 1 Cor. 5.  wherein Christ reigns, into the world of ungodly men, among whom satan rules; but likewise to give a man over to be guided in his spirit by the word & spirit of satan, as the Church and those within it are led, guided by the word and spirit of God▪ explaining it by Ephes. 2. 2, 3. 2 Tim. 2. 26. John 14. 30. John. 8. 44▪ 1 John 3. 8. But this exposition seems to me both false and improper: First, because these scandalous sinners, even whiles they were in the Church, were 
i A●ts 5. 3. Joh 8. 44. 1 John 3 ●. Eph. 2. 2, 3, 4. 2 Tim. 2, 26.  led and acted by the spiret of satan, in committing those scandalous sins, for which they were excommunicated; and therefore their excommunication cannot thus deliver them over unto satan, who took them captive at his will, but leaves them in his hands in the same condition as before. Secondly, such a delivery unto satan, as this, to be guided, acted in their spirits by him and no more, tends nothing at all to the destruction of the flesh, but rather to the pampering of it, much less to the reforming of the life, or the saving of the spirit in the day of the Lord Jesus, but rather to aggravate and increase men's sins. Thirdly, it's confessed, that a godly man may for some notorious sins or scandals, be actually excommunicated, as well as other wicked persons; now such a one God never 
k Rom ●. 4, 〈◊〉 11. 13. 14. Gall 5. 18. 25.  gives over to be led and ruled by the unclean spirit of satan, but he always leads them by his own holy spirit, which ever dwells and rules within their souls, and is never dispossessed by the devil. Fourthly, all accord, that the end and use of excommunication, is only to reform or amend men's lives, and turn them from the power of satan unto God: And is not this diametrally contrary to that end, to deliver them over to the very conduct and guidance of satan, who 
l Eph. 2. 2, 3, 4. 1 John 3. 8. 2 Tim. 2. 26.  rules only in the children of disobedience, precipitates them into all sinful courses with a full c●●●re, and is so far from learning men not to blaspheme, that he fills their hearts and mouths with nought but lies and blasphemies? This interpretation therefore I cannot approve; Neither do I read or believe that any Presbytery or Church hath or doth claim any authority in these days to deliver any man to Satan; Wherefore, to deliver a man unto satan, I rather conceive to be meant in two other senses more agreeable both to the letter and scope of these Texts, and the interpretation of the Fathers on them.  
The first is, either to deliver up a man corporally, by way of punishment, into the actual possession of the devil, only in respect of his body, not soul, so as the devil thereby might actually possess, macerate, torment and afflict his flesh (as he 
m Mat. 15 22. Luk. 6. ●8. Mar 9 17. to 30. c. 5. 2. to 10.  used to vex those whom he did corporally possess, which the Scripture plentifully manifests) till he were sufficiently punished, and then be dispossessed of the devil again by those who delivered him into his power, and restored to the bosom of the Church; the Apostles and others 
n Mat. 16. 1●▪ Acts 16. 16, 17 18 Mat. 10. 8.  in their age, having a power, not only to cast out and dispossess men of Devils, but likewise to deliver men up by way of punishment to 
o 
See Mark 5. 9 to 15. John 13. 27. Eph. 2. 2, 3. 2 Tim. 2. 26.  
See Beda in 1 Tim. 1.   be corporally possessed by the devil: which (as I conceive) was the ground of that common imprecation, (too frequent in lewd men's mouths, when they are injured or provoked by any man;) the devil take you, or, Tradatur Satan●.  
This kind of delivering men over to satan was peculiar only to the Apostles, and some others in that age, but ceased since, and so cannot be drawn into practice among us; A godly Christian by way of punishment may be for a season thus delivered unto satan, for the mortifying or destruction of his flesh and carnal corruptions, and yet still continue a true child of God in respect of his soul and spirit, 
p John 14. 16. 1 Cor. 6. 19 Se Aecumenius Chrysost. Primasius, Haymo, Beda, Theodor. Theophilact. in ● Cor. 5. Mat. 4. 1. to 12.  which the holy Ghost doth always possess, though the devil possess his body (as he had possession of Christ's body, though not of his soul and spirit, when* he led him into the wilderness to be tempted, and carried him from place to place.) And this I take to be one genuine sense and scope of these two Texts.  
Secondly, there is another sort of delivering men up to satan, somewhat different from the former, which suits very well with the words and sense of these Scriptures; and that is, when a man by God's immediate permission is delivered unto satan to be tortured, afflicted and vexed by him; either in his body, by sicknesses, botches, diseases; or in his mind, by cares, fears, perplexities and discontents; or in his estate and family, by losses and crosses of all sorts, as 
q Job c. & 2. See Aecumenii Enar. on 1 Cor 5. Primas. Theophilact. Chrysostom. Hierom in locum.  Job was, of purpose to mortify his flesh and carnal members, to humble his soul and body before God, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord, his sinful life reformed, and he hereby lessoned, no more to blaspheme or dishonour God: In this sense God many times delivers over his children (as he did Job) into their Adversary, satans hands, to scour away all their dross, and crucify their old man, the flesh, with the affections and lusts thereof, without giving their hearts and spirits into his power, which he still reserves entirely to himself, as he did Job's; and theirs whom the devil cast into prison, and into tribulation for ten days, that they might be purifid, and have their robes of corruption washed quite away, and made white in the blood of the Lamb, Revel. 2. 10. chap. 7. 14. And in this sense (no doubt) the Apostles by God's permission, had power to deliver men over to satan, (one of whose 
r 2 Cor. 12. 7  Messengers Paul had sent to buffet and humble him, lest he should be exalted above his due measure▪) for the destruction of the flesh. But how far the Church or Ministers of God have any authority at this day actually to deliver any scandalous persons thus to satan (Unless it be by way of prayer or option) I submit to others, who now claim this power, to determine: However, in these two last senses (which I conceive most genuine) these Texts are no solid proofs at all, either of excommunication from the Church, or suspension from the Sacrament; since a Christian may be delivered over to satan in both these senses, and yet not actually excommnicated or suspended from the Sacrament.  
The fourth difference is this, Whether 1 Cor. 5. 11. If any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or cov●tous, or an Idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner, with such a one no not to eat; be properly meant of excommunication or suspension from the Sacrament, or not to eat with such at the Lord's Table upon any terms? Some Opposites confidently aver; others, with myself deny it; and that upon these grounds:  
First, because there is not one syllable of receiving the Lord's Supper, or eating at the Lord's Table spoken of in this chapter; and in the 10. and 11. chapters, where the Apostle professedly treats of the Lord's Supper, and receiving that Sacrament, he speaks not one word of secluding any members of the Church, or Christians from it, but only exhorts men carefully to examine themselves before they come to receive it, lest they eat and drink their own damnation, become guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, and draw down sicknesses and diseases upon themselves; affirming expressly, ch. 10. ver. 16, 17. The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? for we being many, are one bread and one body; for▪ WE ARE ALL PARTAKERS OF THAT ONE BREAD: If ALL▪ were then partakers of this bread, certainly none were excluded from it in the Church of Corinth; but as the Israelites under the Law, did ALL eat the same spiritual meat, and ALL drink the same spirti●all drink, though▪ God were displeased with many of them, who were idolaters, tempters of God, fornicators, murmurers, and were destroyed in the wilderness, 1 Cor. 10. 1. to 12. so all under the gospel who were visible Members of the Church of Corinth, did eat and drink the Lord's Supper, to which some drunkards whiles drunken did then resort, as is clear by the 1 Cor. 11. 20, 21. which Paul indeed reprehends, verse 22. Therefore this, with such a one no not to eat, cannot be meant of excommunication or suspension from the Sacrameut.  
Secondly, if we look upon the catalogue of those with whom the Corinthians were forbidden so much as to eat, we shall find railers, covetous persons, and extortioners therein mentioned, as well as idolaters, fornicators, drunkards; and if all such must be excommunicated or suspended the Sacrament, what will become of most of our anabaptistical and Independent Congregations, who are generally known to abound more with covetous persons, extortioners, railers, than our parochial or presbyterial Congregations do with idolaters, fornicators, drunkards? I▪ fear their Independent Conventicles and chamber Congregations will be dissolved for want of members, of Ministers, and their Lords▪ Tables be left empty without Guests, if all railers, covetous persons and extortioners were excommunicated out of them, and this their pretended discipline put into exact execution; yea, I fear, too many Presbyterian Ministers, Elders, who would be very active in excommunicating, suspending others from the Sacrament for fornication, idolatry, drunkenness, must themselves be first excommunicated from the Lord's Table for their own covetousness; Wherefore 
s Mat. 7. 3, 4, 5  let such pull that beam out of their own eye, before they pass the sentence of excommunication and suspension for the m●tes they spy in their brother's eye; and this would much moderate their severity towards others, if not make them disclaim this Text to be meant of those ecclesiastical censures, which would light first and heaviest on themselves.  
Thirdly, it is as clear as the noonday sun, that, no not▪ to eat, in this Text, is no more, than not to keep company, or hold civil familiarity with such: First, by verse 10, 11. I wrote to you in an Epistle, NOT TO keep COMPANY with fornicators, &c. yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, &c. for than ye must go out of the world; (as those must do who would have unmixed churches and communions without any putrid members:) But now have I written unto you, NOT TO KEEP COMPANY: If any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, &c. with such a one NO NOT TO EAT: By which it is most clear, that, no not to eat with such, is nothing else, but 
* See Primasi●s, Theodoret, Theophylact, Chrysostom, Haynor. O Ecumen●u▪ Ans●lm and M●sculus in locum.  not to keep company, or converse familiarly with them, it being here twice together thus interpreted in the preceding words: And that it cannot be meant of eating with them at the Lord's Table, is most clear; because this inhibition extends itself, (though not in the same strictness,) to fornicators, idolaters, covetous persons, &c. that are Infidels and without the Church, as well as to him that is called a brother, and within the Church, as is evident by verse 10, 11, 12, 13▪ compared together: Therefore it must of necessity be meant of civil conversation with them, of which eating together with others, and sitting with them at our, or their Tables, is one principal branch▪ being one of the highest expressions of outward friendship and familiarity, as is evident by Gen. 43. 16, 17. 32, 33, 34. 2 Sam. 12. 28. 33. 2 King's 2. 7. Psal. 41. 9 John 13. 18. and disdaining to eat with one, the greatest token of estrangedness, or want of familiarity one with another, Gen. 43. 32. compared with John 4. 7, 8, 9 Secondly, this is further confirmed by these parallel Texts of Rom. 16. 17. Eph. 5. 7. 12. 2▪ Thes. 3. 14. Tit. 3. 10. 2 John 10. 2 Tim. 3. 10. which interpret, no not to eat here, by these phrases, of avoiding them, turning away from and rejecting them, not to keep company or have fellowship with them, nor to welcome the● into our houses; neither of which amounts to an excommunication or suspension, which are judicial acts of the whole Church or Presbytery, after legal proof and conviction: whereas these acts of not eating, avoiding, or not keeping company, &c. are all only moral or prudential acts of particular Christians, or Voluntary negative actions, not positive, judicial, public Church censures.  
Object. But our Opposites object, that though this Text be not directly meant of excommunication or suspension from the Sacrament, yet it warrants such men's suspension from that Lord's Supper by necessary consequence: For if we may not so much as eat and drink with railers, drunkards, covetous persons, &c. at our own, their, or other men's Tables, much less may we do it at the Lord's Table.  
Answ. I answer, that the Argument is merely sophistical, fallacious, and not properly any formal Argument from the less to the greater, because itvaries in the kind of eating; the one being civil, the other spiritual; the one private in one's own house, or another's, where he hath absolute freedom or liberty to eat, or not to eat with another; the other pulik in the Church, where he hath a divine command, necessitating him to communicate with others of that Congregation, in the Sacrament, as well as in other Ordinances. Every Argument from the less to the greater that is conclusive, must have sundry qualifications to make it solid: I will instance but in three. First, it must be in the same kind of action; Secondly, it must fall under the same precept; Thirdly, it must be within the compass of the same power: If either of these fail, the Argument is a mere Inconsequent. For instance, This is a solid Argument; Men ought to abstain from the smallest sins; Ergo, much more from the greatest sins; because this holds still to the same kind [sin] and abstaining from the greatest sins, falls under the same precept which forbids the least; So this is a firm Argument; He that can make a little Watch or ball can likewise make one somewhat greater, because it in the same kind of manufacture, and both of them within the virge of the Artificers skill: But on the contrary, these 
Ro. 12. 18, 19  inferences are unsound and inconcludent: A man must not keep company with an angry man, Prov. 22. 24. Ergo, he must not join with him in any public Ordinances or acts of God's worship; or, A man must not swear vainly by the 
Mat. 5. 34.  Name of God, which is the less; Ergo, he must not swear solemnly before a Magistrate, which is the the greater; because there is in these, a variation in the kind, occasion and manner of swearing; So, it is unlawful for any Christian to recompense evil for evil in the least kind, nor to avenge himself for the least wrong, Rom. 12. 17. 19 Therefore it is unlawful for any Christian Magistrate to recompense evil for evil, or inflict the highest degree of Vengeance on Malefactors, even death and capital punishments; is a meet non-sequitur; because this public revenge by way of justice, falls not under the same precept with private revenge: So, such a workman is able to make a boat or ditch, which is the less; ergo, he is able to build a Ship or Fort, which is the greater, is an Inconsequent, because they fall not under the selfsame degree of art & ability: To apply this to the objected text; Not eating with scandalous persons at meals in private, differs in manner, kind from eating with them at the Lord's Table in public; they fall not both under the selfsame precept; and we have free power not to eat bread with those at our own Tables, with whom we have no power or liberty left us by Christ, to refuse to eat with them at the Lord's Table: Therefore this Argument, in point of logic and Divinity, is as infirm and absurd, as any of the former: Yet how many thousands, as well scholars as Ignorants, have been overreached with it, so far as to make them separate, not only from our Sacraments but Congregations too?  
Now because thi● gross, fallacious Inconsequence in my apprehension, is one principle cause and prop of Independency, yea of Separation from our Churches, Sacraments, and hath misled so many, especially of later years, I shall a little further examine it, with relation to the Text on which it is grounded, and further lay open both the falseness and absurdity thereof, to all men's judgments and consciences.  
First, it is clear, that this Text is meant only of civil conversation, eating and drinking, not of spiritual, as I have already proved: I would then demand these two Questions of the Objectors: First, whether this Text prohibits all kind of civil communion, and eating at Table with any Christians who are railers, fornicators, idolaters, covetous persons, extortioners or drunkards, under pain of mortal sin? If yea; than it is a damnable sin in the Objectors to eat, drink, or converse in any kind with any such as these, which they daily do without any scruple, and cannot avoid; yea, than it would be a sin against this Text, for a wife, child, kinsman, Master, Magistrate, Prince, constantly to converse or eat with such a scandalous husband, parent, kinsman, servant, neighbour, Pastor, fellowservant, Subject, or they reciprocally with them, if scandalous; then if any Member of the Parliament, or of any Corporation, college, inns of Court, or the like, should but eat together at meals with his fellow-members who are thus scandalous, in any Common-Hall, or at any Ordinary or Corporation-feast, they should sin against this Text, which I never yet heard any Anabaptist, Separatist, Independent, Presbyter, or Divine affirm; neither of which make any conscience of not repairing to the Lord Majors, or any other public City-feast, where they are sure of good fare, because they were certain there to meet and eat with some covetous, or other scandalous persons; with whom Saint Paul prohibits them, no not to eat: Which precept Christ himself and his Apostles should have transgressed, in 
Mat▪ 9 10, 11. c: 11. 19▪ Mar. 2. 15, 16.  eating and drinking with Publicans and sinners, for which they were [s] taxed by the over-precise Pharises. If then this Text extends not to oureating at meals with such scandalous christians in cases of necessity & expediency, where either our natural, civil relations, or common civility engage us to it, so as we delight not intheir company, or do it notvoluntarily out of free choice, when we may avoid it without offence, as the very Objectors, I suppose, will grant, and S. Paul resolves, ver. 11. then by the selfsame reason, it can be no offence at all against this Scripture, to eat or drink with such at the Lord's Table, at this his public Feast and great Supper, to which all Christians are inuted (if we believe Christ's own Parable, Mat. 22. 1. to 15. & Isa. 55. 1. Rev. 22. 17.) in such cases wherein we may lawfully eat & drink with them at our own, theirs, or other men's Tables. Secondly, our Objectors themselves affirm, that it is lawful to hear, pray, read the Scriptures, ●ing psalms, repeat Sermons, fast and perform all other christian duties in the company of such scandalous Christians as are here particularise, without any violation of this Text: If then we may keep company or hold communion with them, and they with us in all other Ordinances, till they be actually and judicially excommunicated from the Church and them; then why not likewise in the Lord's Supper too? since this Text and all others cited for proof of excommunication or suspension by our Opposites, prohibit communion in them all alike, or else in none. Thirdly, admit Ministers themselves be polluted with any of those Vices, suppose with covetousness, (as too many are,) yet none of the Objectors dare aver, that it is a sin against this precept, for any of their Congregations to receive the Sacrament from, or eat the Lord's Supper with them, no more then to join with them in prayer, fasting, or to hear them read, preach, catechise, expound, or sing psalms together with them; since the goodness or viciousness of the Minister (as 
t See Gratian▪ Caus. 1. Quest, 1. Ivo Decret. seci●da pars.  all accord) doth neither add aught to, nor detract any thing from the efficacy of the Sacraments, or any public Ordinances, which proceeds from God alone: If then we may receive the Sacrament from, and eat it with a covetous Minister without any sin or contradiction to this Text, then why not likewise with a covetous Neighbour or fellow-parishioner? Fourthly, the Objectors grant, that a Christian may lawfully receive the Sacrament with persons secretly guilty of these and other gross sins, with close hypocrites, who guild over their vices; and unregenerate Christians not really sanctified, who are neither ignorant nor notoriously scandalous in their lives, without scruple or offence against this Text. Therefore they may lawfully do it in point of conscience with such who are notoriously scandalous, before their actual conviction & excommunication, especially if they profess sincere repentance for their sins past, and reformation of their lives for time to come; as all do, at least in their general confessions before the Sacrament, if not in their own private meditations, prayers & preparatory devotions twixt God and their own souls. Fifthly, it is not the mere guilt, but only the scandal, ill example, and contagion of notorious sins that subjects' men to the censure of excommunication, in regard of others, lest they should infect and draw them on to imitation of them, as Paul resolves, 1 Cor. 5. 6. else those very sins which are not notorious, and those infirmities, of which the best Saints themselves are frequently guilty, should subject them unto excommunication, or suspend them from the Sacrament; and then what mortal man almost should be admitted to it? It is not then such sinners bare receiving with us, or ours with them, that can any way hurt, much less deter or keep us from the Sacram●nt, 
1 Cor. 11● 29.  (for they eat and drink damnation only to themselves, not others) in case we imitate them not in their sins, or receive no contagion from their company. Sixtly, the Objectors will grant, that there is a necessity lies upon Ministers to administer, and on people to receive the Sacrament at all convenient seasons: That God only infallibly knows the hearts and real preparations of all Communicants, in the very best of whom there are many failing and corruptions, which make them in themselves unworthy to communicate: That all who come to receive, do always make a general and joint confession of their sins before God and the Congregation, acknowledging and bewailing their manifold sins and iniquities, which they from time to time have committed in thought, word and deed, against the Divine Majesty; professing, that they do earnestly repent, and are heartily sorry for all their misdoings, that the remembrance of them is grievous unto them, the burden of them intolerable; desiring God to have mercy upon them for his son Christ Jesus sake, and to for●er all that is past, and grant, that they may ever after serve and please him in newness of life: offering up themselves, souls and bodies to be a holy and li●ing Sacrifice acceptable unto God through Jesus Christ: Yea, I dare presume, there is no Receiver so desperate, that dares profess when he comes to receive, he is not heartily sorrow for his sins past, but resolves to persevere impenitently in them for the future, though afterward he relapse into them (as the be● Saints do to their old infirmities) because his heart nature are not truly regenerated by God's Spirit: All this being granted, no Minister ought to refuse the Sacrament to such an external penitent sinner (the sincerity of whose heart and repentance, God only knows) nor may or aught any Christian to abstain from communicating with him at it, in case he be not actually excommunicated, or not readmitted to the Church for his profane, scandalous life, since they have no warrant from this or any other Scripture else to do it. All which, if seriously pondered, by Separatists and Independents, misled by the objected inference, would speedily reduce them to the bosom of our Church, and quite allay the heat of the present controversies about suspension from the Sacrament, in which many now place The very kingdom of Christ, who never claimed nor exercised such a sovereignty as they, under his name and title, would usurp unto themselves.  
The fifth thing in difference is, Whether the Priests under the Law had divine authority to keep back any circumcised person from the Passeover, who desired to eat it, for any real or pretended ignorance, heresy, or scandalous sin? My opposites affirm they had; for proof whereof they produce Num. 9 1. to 12. Where the Israelites being commanded to eat the passover on the fourteenth day of the first month at evening, there were certain men defiled by the dead body of man, that they could not keep the Passeover on that day; and they came before Moses and Aaron on that day, and said unto Moses, we are de●iled by the dead body of man; wherefore are we kept back, that we may not offer an Offering to the Lord in his appointed season among the children of Israel? And Moses said unto them, stand still, and I will hear what the Lord will command concerning you: And the Lord spoke unto Moses saying, speak unto the children of Israel, saying; If any man of you or your posterity shall be unclean by reason of a dead body, or in a journey a far off, he shall keep the Passeover unto the Lord, the fourteeenth day of the second month they shall keep it, and eat it. By which it is clear, that legal uncleanness did disable them to eat the Passover at the appointed time; therefore much more scandalous sins and spiritual uncleanness did disable and keep them from it, and by consequence they do likewise debar men from the Lord's Supper now, of which the Passeover was a type; yea, our reverend Scottish brother in his controversial Fast-Sermon, added, that no man might bring a trespass offering to the Lord, to expiate any particular sin he was guilty of, unless he did first confess he had sinned in that thing, Levit. 5. 5, 6. Therefore said he, a fortiori, he could not be admitted unto the passover (nor any now unto the Lord's Table) unless he first particularly and publicly confessed the sins he stood guilty of.  
To this I answer, first, that all circumcised persons whatsoever, had a right to eat the Passeover, and participate of all the Ordinances under the law, from which the Priests had no power to exclude them for ignorance, or any scandalous offence, for aught appears by any Scripture-precept or precedent: ALL of them under pain of being cut off from their people, being bound to eat the Passeover in its season, except in cases of necessity, disability, by reason of a journey, or of legal uncleanness only, (not spiritual) as is clear by Exod. 12. 3. 43. to 50. Num. 9 1. to 15. Deut. 16. 16, 17. Ezra 6. 19, 20, 21. 2 King's 23. 21, 22. 2 Chron. 35. 6, 7, 13, 17, 18. where we read, that ALL THE PEOPLE and ALL the Males THAT WERE PRESENT received the passover, not one of them being excluded from eating it. This is most evident by that noted place of 2 Chro. 30. 3. to 21. where King Hezekiah proclaiming a solemn● Pasover, summoned ALL Israel, and ALL THE PEOPLE, from Dan to Beersheba, to repair to it; whereupon there assembled MUCH PEOPLE to Jerusalem to keep it: Now there were many in the Congregation that were not clean nor sanctified▪ for a multitude of the people had not cleansed themselves (from their legal pollutions) YET DID THEY EAT THE PASSOVER, (neither Hezekiah nor the Priests prohibiting them to eat it) otherwise than it was written; But Hezekiah prayed for them saying, The good God pardon every one that prepareth his heart to seek God, the Lord God of his Fathers, though he be not cleansed according to the purification of the Sanctuary: And the Lord harkened t● Hezekiah and healed the people. Here legal uncleanness did not actually suspend them from the Passover, when their hearts were upright, and they desirous to eat it, the Lord at Hezekiah's prayer passing by their unpreparations and accepting their devotions in this act; Nor yet did spiritual pollution, by reason of gross and scandalous sins, debar them that were circumcised, from the Passeover, as Paul expressly determines, 1 Cor. 10. 1. to 10. (an unanswerable Text to this purpose) Moreover brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, that ALL our Fathers were under the cloud, and ALL passed through the sea, and were ALL baptiz●d unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; and DID ALL EAT THE SAME spiritual MEAT (to wit, the Passeover and Manna) and did ALL DRINK OF THE SAME spiritual DRINK for they drank of the Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ: But perchance ALL these Communicants were visible Saints, free from any legal pollution, at least not tainted with any scandalous sin: The Apostle to take off this evasion, subjoins in the very next words, But with MANY OF THEM God was not well pleased, for they were overthrown in the wilderness: No● these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, 〈◊〉 they also lusted; neither be ye Idolaters as were some of them, &c. neither let us commit fornication as some of them committed, &c. neither let us tempt Christ 〈◊〉 some of them also tempted, neither murmur ye as also some of them murmured, and were destroyed of the destroyer: So that the Israelites being once circumcised, were all admitted to eat the Passeover, though some of them were Idolaters; others, lustres after evil things; others Fornicators, others tempters of Christ, others murmurers against God and Moses; therefore there was no suspension of any circumcised Israelite from the Passover, for spiritual uncleanness, and scandalous sins, but only for legal uncleannesses. Secondly, it is clear by the objected Text, that those who were legally unclean at the day appointed for the Passover, so as they could not then receive it, were yet peremptorily enjoined to eat it the 14. day of the second Month; and not suspended, till they made public confession of their sins, reformed the evil of their doings, and gave public satisfaction to the Congregation, or Priests, as God himself resolves in terminis, Num. 9 11, 12. If any man of you, or of your posterity shall be unclean by reason of a dead body, YET HE SHALL EAT THE PASSOVER the fourteenth day of the second month at even, he must not be suspended from it above one month: By what Law then, do many Ministers now presume, to suspend▪ their whole Congregations, not only above whole months but years from the Lord's Table (contrary to this text) whereof the Pasoever was a Type? let them amend this practice, or renounce this Scripture, and their unwarrantable inferences from it. Thirdly, he that was legally unclean, was kept back from the Passeover for the present, not by the Priest, or ecclesiastical Classis, or temporal Magistrate, but by those of the same 
u Exod. 12. 3. 〈◊〉 7, 47. ● Chron. 30. ●● to 2●.  Family wherein he was to eat the Passover, as ver. 6, 7. imports. And the true reason in this Text, why his uncleanness did seclude him from eating the Passover, was, because it quite excluded him out of the Camp for a time, (not Tabernacle or Temple) and so by necessary consequence, from the House wherein he was to eat the Passeover, as is evident by Levit. 14. 3. 8. chap. 16. 26, 27, 28. Num. 5. 2▪ 3, 4. chap. 12. 14, 15. chap. 19 7. 11. chap. 31. 19 20. 24. Deut. 23. 10, 11. And by like reason it debarred him from all other Ordinances, as well as it; So that all you can probably infer from this Text, is but this, which none will contradict: that profane, scandalous persons justly excommunicated, and shut out of the Church, ought not to receive the Sacrament, nor participate in any other Ordinance, during their excommunication, till their readmittance into the Church; as the unclean Israelite could not eat the Passover, nor be present at any other public Ordinance or sacrifice, till his readmittance into the Camp. Fourthly, here is a direct resolution of God himself in positive terms, prescribing a suspension from the Passover in case of present legal pollution only, not spiritual; yet expressly enjoining the selfsame person under the severest penalty, to eat it the very next month after; but there is no such punctual resolution in the old or new Testament, to warrant a like suspension of any from the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, in case of scandal or spiritual uncleanness, unless he be first legally excommunicated, nor can any Minister or Classis debar him justly from it by any colour or inference from this text, if he be desirous to receive it; any longer than for one month. Fifthly, this argument for suspending men from the Lord's Table for spiritual uncleanness, because some were suspended from the passover for legal▪ uncleanness, but not for spiritual, is no way conclusive; First, because the Passeover and Lords Supper, ceremonial and spiritual pollution differ in kind: Secondly, because suspension from the Sacrament for spiritual uncleanness, falls not at all under this temporary precept, of suspension from the Passeover, only for legal uncleanness; the rather, because no man was kept from the Passeover by colour thereof, for any spiritual pollution, but only for ceremonial uncleanness; therefore much less can any be suspended by colour of it from the Sacrament, to which it hath no relation; Thirdly, there is a direct divine warrant for the one, but not for the other; wherefore we may justly reject the objected argument as erroneous and fallacious.  
Secondly, to the latter part of the Objection; that none might offer so much a● a trespass-offering for sin, without a particular private confession of hi● sin (to God, not to the Priest;) Ergo, he might not eat the Passover (nor any now the Sacrament) if he were a scandalous sinner, without a particular public confession and repentance of his scandalous sins.  
I answer, that it is a mere Non-sequitur, because, First, directly contradicted by 1 Cor. 10. 1. to 12. as the premises manifest: Secondly, because a particular examination of the conscience and repentance for sin, is nowhere required in scripture of such who did eat the passover, though all circumstances & necessaries for the worthy eating of it be most punctually enumerated, Exod. 12. Num. 9 Deut. 16. Neither was there any such reason why God should require such a confession of sin in those who were to eat the Passeover, as he expressly exacts from those who came to offer a Sin-offering to him, only of set purpose to pr●cure an atonement for those very particular sins which they did then confess, at which oblation it was both necessary and requisite they should particularly confess those very sins (yet not to the Priest, Classis or Congregation, 
Prov. 28. 13. 1 John 1. 9▪ Psal. 32. 5.  but to God alone) since the Scripture is positive, that without confession of sin, there is no remission of it; and therefore when they came purposely to sue for pardon, and make atonement for any particular sins, it was absolutely needful and expedient they should then confess them: But in the Passeover there was no atttonement nor confession made to God for any particular 
Exod. 12. 22. to 28.  sin, but only a commemoration of his infinite mercy in passing over the Israelites first borne, when he slew the Egyptians: Therefore the paralleling of these two together, and the inference from the one, applied to the other, is very incoherent: Finally, I answer; that every particular Communicant befoce he comes to receive the Sacrament, makes a public confession of his sins to God with the rest of the Congregation, and in words at least, voweth newness of life for the future; there being no Communicant that ever I heard of so desparately wicked and atheistical, as not to profess hearty sorrow for all his forepast sins, or to avow impenitent continuance in them when he came to the Lord's Table; therefore he cannot be justly debarred from the Sacrament by virtue of this Text, after such a confession, since none were kept off from making their atonement by a trespass offering if they did first confess their sins to God, though perchance his confession was not cordial, or such as the Priests approved, but external, only in show.  
The sixth thing in controversy between us, is, Whether Judas received the Sacra●ent of the Lord's Supper, as well as the other Apostles? Our Antagonists most confidently deny he received it, against direct Scripture, and all antiquity, the currant confessions, resolutions of most Churches, and their eminentest Writers of all sorts: I shall prove the affirmative that he did receive it, by Scripture, antiquity, Fathers, modern Authors of all sorts, and then answer all pretences to the contrary, with all possible brevity.  

Mat. 26. 17. to ●1. 47. Mark 14. 15. to 27. Luke 22. 24.  First, the three Evangelists Matthew, Mark and Luke, who only relate the institution of this Sacrament, are all express in terminis, That Christ sat● down to eat the Passeover, and the TWELVE APOSTLES with him▪ that Jud●s was one of these twelve, and present at the Table; that as they sat at meat together, Jesus took bread and broke it, and gave it to them, (the TWELVE) saying, Take, eat, this is my body: That he likewise took the cup, & gave thanks, and gave it TO THEM, saying, drink YE ALL of it, &c. And Mark expressly records, he gave it to them, and THEY ALL drank of it. If all twelve then sat down with Christ, and Christ gave the bread and cup to them, and bade them ALL eat and drink thereof, and they ALL did eat and drink thereof accordingly: With what shadow of truth dare any confidently aver, that Judas did not receive this Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, and that he was not present at its institution?  
add to this, that Matthew and Mark record, that immediately before the institution of this Sacrament, as they sat at meat, Jesus said u●to the TWELVE, Verily one of you shall betray me; whereupon they began to be sorrowful, and to say unto him, EVERY ONE of them ONE BY ONE, Lord is it I? and he answered and said unto them, it is ONE OF THE TWELVE that dippeth with me in the dish: Then JUDAS who betrayed him, said, Master is it I? and he said unto him, thou hast said it: which was no sooner uttered, but Jesus took bread and blessed it, &c. and both instituted and distributed the Sacrament to them ALL, as yo● heard before; Therefore certainly to Judas, the l●st man that said, Is it I? immediately before the institution, as Saint Matthew records; And to manifest yet further, that Judas was present at the Sacrament, Saint Luke placeth these words of Christ concerning Judas his betraying him▪ after the institution and distribution of the Sacrament, not before it, which he thus expresseth; But behold the hand of him that betrayeth me IS WITH ME AT THE TABLE, etc, and they began to inquire among themselves which OF THEM should betray him. Saint John writes thus; And SUPPER BEING ENDED, the Devil having NOW put it into the heart of Judas Iscariot to betray him; Christ riseth from supper, and laid aside his Garment, and took a towel and began to wash his Disciples feet; and it seems he washed Judas his feet, who was then present, as these words import, John 13. 10, 11. And ye are clean, but not all; for he knew who should betray him: Therefore he said, Ye are clean, but not all: After which he sat down again▪ and among sundry other discourses with his Disciples, he said; Verily I say unto you, that ONE OF YOU shall betray me; then the Disciples looked one upon another, doubting of who● he spoke: Now there was leaning on Jesus bosom, one of the Disciples whom Jesus loved; Simon Peter therefore beckoned to him, that he should ask who it should be of whom he spoke: he then leaning on Jesus breast, saith unto him, Lord who is it? Jesus answered him it is to whom I shall give a sop when I have dipped it: And when he had dipped the sop, he gave it to Judas Iscariot; and after the sop, satan entered into him: Then said Jesus unto him, that thou dost, do quickly; he then having received the sop, went immediately out, and it was night.  
Now Saint John expressly averring, verse 2. That all this discourse, and the giving of the sop to Judas, was AFTER SUPPER ENDED: And the other three Evangelists unanimously according, that Christ instituted and distributed the Sacrament (at least the bread) as he sat at Meat, as they were eating, before Supper quite ended (whence it was styled the Lord's Supper;) it must of necessity follow from all the Evangelists several relations, joined together, and especially from Saint John's (who was present at the institution) from whence our Antagonists would infer the contrary, that Judas did receive the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, together with the other Disciples▪ and they may as probably question, whether Peter or John did receive it, as Judas, there being not one syllable in any of the Evangelists, intimating he did not receive it with the rest, which doubtless they would have particularly and positively recorded, had he not been present at it, being a thing of so great moment.  
This truth is so transparent, that all Ages have positively averred, received it as an indubitable verity; for which I could produce whole Centuries of Writers: but for brevity, I shall recite the testimonies only of some few of principal Note.  
Origen Tract. 35. in Matth. Si autem potes spiritualem mensam & cibum spiritualem & dominicam intelligere Caenam, quibus omnibus dignificatus fuerat (Judas) a Christo abundantius videbis multitudinem maliciarum ejus, quibus magistrum, cum cibo divinae mensae & calicis, & hoc in die Paschae tradidit.  
Saint Cyprian in his Sermon de Ablutione Pedum writes thus, Ad Mensae tuae participationem, Judas proditor est admissus: And de Caena Domini, he thus seconds it: Quamdiu, cibi illi, qui ad diem festum erant parati convescentibus Apostolis sumebantur, veteris paschae agebatur memoria nec dum Iudas ad veterem vitam pertinens, diabolo invadente & occupante anim●m ejus egredi cogebatur; sed ubi sac●um cibum mens perfida tetigit, & sceleratum os panis sanctificatus intravit, paricidialis animus vim tant● sacramenti non sustinens, quasi palea de area exsufflatus est, & praeceps cucurrit ad desperatio●em et laqu●um.  
Saint Ambrose Enar. de Tobia. lib. c. 14. resolves thus: Judas ibi miser periit in illo convivio quo alij saluantur: Idem Apologi a Davidis posterior, cap. 11. Judas panem accepit a Christo, & tunc magis est repletus Diabolo, quia non accepit ex fide, qui tam hospitali Domino pro litionem parabat And Com. lib. 12. in Luc. 13. Judas proditionem sanguinis Dominici inter sacrificia positus cogitabat.  
Saint Chrysostom Serm. 1. de Mysteriis Caenae Dominicae. Qui sacratae huius Caenae indigne participatur accubitu, non cum Petro perveniat ad s●l●tis Portium, sed sustinebit cum Iuda sine reparatione naufragium. Judas non syncerus sed simulator accubuit, et post bu●●●llam Christi, in eum Diabolus introivit. And de Resurrectione. Homil. 3. Quid Caenam illam liberalem commemorem, ubi tingebat Discipulus mendax digitum? Edebat cum pane Caed●m▪ ●t sorbebat cum sanguine potionem. O crudele Proditoris convivium! rogo, quibus oculis ●spectebat, quem sub dente premeb●●?  
To pass by Nazianzen, who in his Christus Patiens, agrees, that Judas did receive the Lord's Supper▪ together with the other Apostles.  
Cyrill. Bishop of Jerusalem asserts the same, Catechesis 13. Prodiderat Judas improbus Patrem-familias', nuperque exiens a mensa, & poculum benedictionis bibens, & pro potu salutari sanguinem Justi effudere volens.  
Saint Augustine thus seconds him, in Psal. 3. Enar. Cum Traditor Domini Judas fuerit, ipsa Domini nostri, tanta et tam miranda patientia, quod cum tamdiu pertulit tanquam bonum, cum ejus cogitationes non ignoraret, cum adhibuit ad convivium in qu● corporis et sanguinis sui figuram discipulis commendavit et tradidit. In his 162. Epist. Judas accepit pretium nostrum: And Tract. 6. 26. & 62. in Joan. he oft reiterates it: Non mala erat buccella quae ●radita est judae à Domino. Absit, Medicus non d●ret venenum; salutem medicus dedit, sed ind●gnè accipiendo ad perniciem accepit, qui non paratus accepit: Talis erat Judas, ●et tamen cum sanctis Discipulis undecim intrabat et exibat. Ad ipsam C●nam Domini●am pariter accessit; conversari cum iis potuit, ●os inquinare non potuit: De uno pane et Petrus accipit et Judas; et tamen quae pars fideli et infidel●? Petrus enim accepit ad vitam, manducat Judas ad mortem: Qui enim comederunt indignè judicium sibi manducat et bibit SIBI, NON TIBI: S● judicium Sibi non Tibi, toleramalum bonus, ut venias ad praemia bonorum, ne mitteris in poenam malorum: which our Venerable Beda, in his commentary on 1 Cor. 11. both recites and approves. Sundry more passages to this purpose are there in this Father, which I pretermit for brevity.  
Victor Antiochenus in chap. 14. Evang. Marci. comments thus: Dominus autem licet omnium consiliorum Judae gnarus esset, attamen a Sacramenti sui accessu illum non prohibuit: Cur ita? nempe ut hin● discas, nihil corum praeterijsse, quae eum ad sanam mentem reducere quoquo modo poterant: sunt tamen qui Judam ante porrectum Eucharistiae Sacramentum exivisse existiment, &c. The first mention I find of any opinion to the contrary.  
Theodoret in his Interpretation on the 1 Epistle to the Corinthians, cap. 14. writes thus of Christ, Salutaris Sacramenti portas aperuit, et non solum undecim Apostolis, sed etiam Judae pr●ditori pretiosum corpus et sanguinem impertit.  
Remigius Bishop of Rheims, in his Explanation on the 1 Cor. 11. asserts it in these terms. Probet se, &c. utrum▪ dignus sit neque; Nè fort● unde alij sumunt r●medium, accipiet ille damnationem et judicium, indigne-illud percipiens, sicut Iud●● proditor: nam cum alij Apostoli sumpsissent illud terribile Sacramentum ad remedium et ad salutem suam ille qui non dignus erat tanto mysterio, accepit illud ad dam●ationem suam; quia quem Diabolus antea tenebat per suggestion●m et tentationem, postea ad damnationem, tenuit plenius, ut nihil aliud posset cogitare aut facere nisi quod voluntas ejus erat: with whom Haym●Bishop of Halberstat, concurres in the selfsame terms, in his Interpretation on the 1 Cor. 11.  
Pascatius Ratbertus, de Corpore & sanguine Domini, cap. 28. hath this memorable passage to this purpose: Aliud verò Christus noverat, quod et boni dignè, et mali indignè, hoc mysterium, licet praesumptione accepturi essent, voluit formam dare cunctis Communicantibus, quid boni, quid●è mal● percipiant: et ideo Judas in figura omnium malorum ad percipiendum admittitur.  
Aecumenius Enar. in 1 Cor. 11. hath this speech, Dominus ●oster communi mensa non sanctos modo discipulo●, sed et ipsum Proditorem ea dignatus est, inimicum s●eleratissimum: et vos dedignamini vna cum pauperibus caenare.  
Algerus de Sacramentis, lib. 1. cap. 21. resolves thus. Cum ergo malos corpus Christi verè sumere, ipsumque judam a summ● sacerdote Christ●, cum caeteris Apostolis acc●pisse sancti testentur, astructum etiam videtur, non esse nobis noxium, si à nobis, vel nobiscum mali malè suma●● Sacramenta, cum Iudas ab ipso Christo cum caeteris Apostolis acceperit, nec etiam a pravis minus verè confici ipsa Sacram●nta, cum ipse Proditor tan●● offici● Ministerium à summo Pontifice accipiens, cum caeteris, hoc faci●e in meam comm●morationem, a●dierit: si enim sicut e● à Domino injunctum fuerat, corpus Domin● confecisset, numquid vera minus ab ipso pravo, quam à qu●vis bo●o factum fuisset? Q●ia enim Judas accus●tus et damnatus non fuerat, ideo Christus conscientiam ejus perversam quan●vis sibi notam dam●ar● noluit, ut nos instru●ret, quod aliquorum pravitas nec conversation●, nec Sacramentorum consecratione vel comparticipatione bonis aliquatenus nocere possit. Augustinus contra Donatistas: Communio malorum non maculat aliquem participatione Sacramentorum, sed consensione factorum. Item, ●dem in Homilijs suis▪ Ut sufferas etiam cum quem nosti malum, attend Apostolum dicentem, unusquisque onus suum portabit. Non enim cum illo communicas avaritiam, sed Christi mensam: Et quid obest si Communices cum illo mensam Christi? qui manducat & bibit indignè, judicium sibi manducat & bibit. SIBI inquit, non TIBI. Quia igitur, ut a●t Leo, Judae Dominus nec negavit Apostolic● ordims honorem, in conficiendis Sacramentis, nec Communionem in ipsis percipiendis, multum providit Ecclesiae suae, ostendens per hunc solum innoxiam e● fore malorum praelationem vel conversationem, in quo nisi esset praescisa tanti causa scismatis, multi magis superbè quam Religiose calcibus etiam à se repellerent eos qui apud se minoris esse viderentur aestimationis: Unde Aug. in Serm. 49. super Joannem: Quid voluit Dominus admonere Ecclesiam suam quando unum perditum inter duodecim habere voluit, nisi ut malos toleremus, ne corpus Christi dividamus; Ecce inter sanctos est Judas, ecce fur est & sacrilegus; talis cum Discipulis ad Coenam Dominicam accessit; conversari cum eis petuit, inquinare eos non potuit.  
Theophilact who flourished about 1070. veers after Christ, in his Enar. in Marcum. cap. 14. page 109. writes thus; Quidam dicunt (but who they were, appears not in any extant works of theirs) judam non fuisse participem Sacramentorum sed egressum esse pri●squam dominus Sacramenta traderet: Alij autem dicunt▪ quod etiam ingrato illi sacro-sancta dederit: But himself subscribes to the latter opinion without scruple, not only in his Enar. in Joan cap. 13. where he affirms it over and over several times; but also in his Enar. in Matth. 26. page 67. Apposuit autem vescentibus ut ostenderet crudelitatem Judae, quia in mensa & Communione ciborum illius, quando si & fera fuisset, mansuetiorem se exhibuisset; tunc neque cum argueretur intellexit, sed et corpus illius gustans non poe●●tuit: Quidam autem dicunt; quod egresso Juda tradidit Sacramentum aliis discipulis proi●de et nos sic f●cere debemus, et malos a Sacramentis abarcere, &c. Bibite ex ●o omnes; Sunt qui dicunt propter Judam hoc dictum: Judas enim panem accepit, et non comedi●, sed oc▪ ul●avit, ut monstraret Judaeis, quod panem corpus suù● voc●rit Jesus; pocul●m autem invitus bibit, cum non posset occultare, propterea ho● loco dic●b●t, bi●ite omnes.  
Saint B●rnard suffragates to all the former, that Judas did receive the Sacrament as well as the other Apostles.  
I shall trouble you with no more Ancients, since they all unanimously acco●d herein without one dissenting voice, excepti●g Hilary, in Matth. Can●n. ●0.  
The old and modern Canonists of all sorts, with one consent suffragate to this verity; I shall instance but in two, to wit, Gratian. Caus. 1. Quest. 1. & Ivo C●●not ensis▪ D●cretalium▪ secunda pars: in both which we have many senten●●s of Fathers collected to this purpose, and among others, this of Augustine, in Exposi●. Psalmi. 10▪ Christus quid fecit vobis qui Traditorem suum tant a pati●●ti● pertulit, ut ei primum Eucharistiam confectam manibus, et ore suo commend●t●m, sicut caeteris Apostolis traderet? Quid vobis fecit Christus, qui eundem Traditorem suum que● diabolum nominavit, qui ante traditionem Domini nec lo●●lis d●minicis ●idem potuit exhibere, cum caeteris discipulis ad praedicandum Regnum Caelorum misit, nisi ut monstraret, dona dei perve●ire ad eos, qui cum fide accipi●nt, etiamsi talis sit per quem accipiunt qualis Judas fuit: See Gratian to the same effect, Caus. 7. Que. 1. & de Conserat. dist. 1. & 2. All succeeding Canonists and Glossers upon Grat●●n concur with these two ancients without dissent, and so do the Casuists too; I spare their names for brevity sake.  
The Schoolmen generally s●bscribe to this conclusion; I shall mention only three or four of them. The first is, Alexander Alensis, our own countryman, styled the irrefragable Doctor, in whose Summa Theol●giae, pars 4. Quest. 11. Art. 1. Sect. 3. I first of all meet with this Question propounded and disc●ssed: An Christus etiam judae corpus suum in coena dedor●t? This Doctor holds affirmatively that he did, which he proves by Ma●th. 26. 24. &c. John 13. Dionysius Areopagita, Chrysostom, Hom. 81. super Matth. the Ordinary gloss on Mat. 18. John 13. & 1 Cor. 11. and other Texts: Adding that if Christ had actually excluded Judas▪ from this Sacrament, certainly s●●● of the Evangelists or others would have expressly noted such a memorabls and notable all, which not one of them hath done: And he resolves thus, Tha● Christ in this Supper gave his body to Judas, and that for divers reas●ns: The first t●ken from God's wisdom, and that for a twofold reason; First, to teac● us to love our e●emies, since Christ fed this Traitor with his own flesh; Secondly, to instruct the Ministers of this Sacrament▪ for in that he denied ●ot his body to Judas▪ who was entangled in a grievous ●inne, he hath taught the dispensers of this Sacrament, that they ought to give it to sinners in the like case, when they shall desire it. Secondly, in regard of God's mercy, and that in two respects; F●rst, revocati●n from evil; secondly, promotion in good: For ●his well aught, out of the consideration of God's mercy (which most appears in this that he delivered his body to him) to recla●me him from his evil p●rpose, and conse●uently to meliorate him by the virtue of so great a Sacrament; but he increased in his sin, from whence he ought to have augmented his Merit. Thirdly, in resp●ct of divine justice, and that in two respects: the augmentation of his fault, the retribution or damnation of his punishment; for since he would not cease from his conceived malice by so great a benefit, by the just judgement of God, he is punished by a fall into a more grievous crime, to wit, desperation. Fifthly, in respect of divine conversation, the Lord for this cause giving him his body with others, that he might show him, that he ought to be of like good conversation with others. Sixtly, for his perfect reformation as much as might be, on the Lord's part, since he left no means unattempted to reclaim him. This and much more Alensis, who is seconded by Thomas Aquinas, 3. Qu. 81. 1. 0. l. 4. Dist. ii. Qu. 3. ar. 2. Qu. 1. 2. 0. By John Gerson Serm. in Coena Dom. ad Eccle. Ca●telam; Hugo de Sacram. l. 2. c. 8. and by our Countrymen▪ Rich. de Media Villa, l. 4. dist. 11. ar. 4. qu. 2. 3. Tho▪ Waldensis, Oper. tom. 3. c. 43. sect. 6. and all the Popish Schoolmen; many of them holding 
t See Willet's Synopsis Pap●smi, p. 650.  that Judas did receive the very body of Christ himself, as well as the Sacrament of his body: This doctrine of Judas his eating the Sacrament with Christ at his last Supper, is so currant in the Church of Rome, that they have inserted it into most of their Lady's Psalters, hours, Missals, and expressed it in this rhyme.  
Rex sedet in Coena, Turba Cinctus DUODENA,  
Se tenet in manibus, &c.  
For Protestant Writers, the most and best of them in foreign parts agree 
u See Lucas O sia●d. Encha rid. contr. cum Anabaptist. de Eccl●sia, cap. 6. Qu. 3.  that Judas did receive the Sacrament, or outward elements of Christ's body and blood; but not the body and blood of Christ himself; Panem Domini, non panem Dominum, Sacramentum corporis & sanguinis Christi, non rem Sacramenti: The outward signs, not the inward & spiritual grace, for which read Caluini Instit. l. 4. ●. 17. sect. 34. Aretii Problemata, Locus 77. De usu Sacramentorum, instead of hundreds of others; And as the prime Writers, so the public Confessions of the Reformed Churches resolve, That Judas did receive the Sacrament as well as the other Apostles: witness the 
x The harmony of Confessions printed at London, 1643. p. 280. 321.  Confession of Bohemia. In the holy Scripture manifest examples of this nature are found in many places; especially in Judas, who received the sacrament of the Lord Christ himself: And the confession of Belgia, An evil man verily receiveth the Sacrament unto his own condemnation, but the thing or truth of the Sacrament he receiveth not: as for example; Judas and Simon Magus▪ both of them did receive the sacramental signs, but as for Christ signified thereby, they received him not.  
For our own Protestant Writers, I shall nominate but two of note, our English Apostle John Wickliff, as Thomas Waldensis records his opinion, Operum Tom. 3. c 43. sect. 6. and our incomparable Bishop Jewel, in his Defence of the Apology of the Church of England (Publicly reserved in all our Churches) part 5. sect. 16. Divis. 1. pag. 635. who determine, that Judas received the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, though not Christ himself; and the whole Church of England in the Exhortation before the sacrament, in the antiquated commonprayer book, hath resolved, that Judas did receive the sacrament, as this clause manifests; Therefore if any of you be a blasphemer of God, &c. bewail your sins, and come not to this holy Table, lest after the taking of that holy sacrament, the devil enter into you, as he entered into Judas, &c. And the 29. Article of the church of England, with the 96. Article of the church of Ireland▪ resolve as much, in citing, approving S●int Austin's words as orthodox doctrine, which he spoke directly of Judas his receiving the Sacrament, and external elements of Christ's body and blood; for which you may consult with Ma●ter Rogers his exposition on this Article.  
The verity of Judas his receiving the Sacrament being thus abundantly ratified by direct Scriptures, and so many concurr●nt authorities of all sorts in all ages, (to which hundreds of like testimonies might be added.) I shall only add● this further consideration to the premises, that all our Antagoni●●s & the Evangelists clearly agree, that Judas did eat the Pass●over with Christ himself, as well as the other Apostles: (now the Passeover was a type of the Lord's Supper (which su●ceeded in its place, and a Sacrament under the Law) the same in substance with the E●charist under the gospel; wherein Christ was spiritually represented and received, as well as in the Lord's Supper, 1 Cor. 10. 3, 4. ch. 5. 7. Therefore since Christ admitted him to the one, I cannot believe he quite excluded him from the other▪ which the last answer to the four Quaeres doth ingenio●●ly acknowledge.  
And here I cannot but wonder to see, with what groundle●●e confidence many godly learned Divines now aver the contrary both in press and Pulpit, of purpose to introduce a suspension of pretended ●nworthy persons from the Sacrament, before any actual excommunication from the Church, or other Ordinances deno●●ced against them: Certainly, their gross mistake against Scripture, and the resolution of all ages▪ Churches, in this particular, will make wise conscientious men in all parts of this particular controversy (wherein prejudice and self ends, I fear, have much over▪ blinded their judgements) distrust and examine all other their Paradoxes▪ Inferences, and misinterpretations of Scripture, which will prove but darkness in the conclusion, though cried up and embraced by many, under the specious seducing notion of NEW-LIGHT.  
Having thus made good▪ the affirmative, I shall answer the reasons produced by the opposites, to prove, that I●das received not the sacrament; which in truth are mere mistakes: First, they say, that Judas went out before supper ended, immediately after he received the sop, John 13. 30. but our Saviour did not ordain this sacrament till after supper, Luke 22. ●0. when he had supped, 1 Cor. 11. 25. therefore Judas certainly received not the Sacrament.  
I answer, first, That Judas went not out till after Supper, as Saint John expre●●y resolve●, Jo●● 13. 2. And SUPPER BEING ENDED, the devil having n●w put it into the heart of Judas &c. After which, he adds▪ that Christ rose from the Table and washed his Disciples feet, and Judas feet among the rest, if not first of all (a●Theophilact with others hold;) After this, Judas continued there with Christ for some space, as the series of the chapter from the 20, to the 30 verse attests. Seco●dly, all the three other Evangelists prove directly, that Judas was present at the sacrament, as I have formerly evidenced; therefore to infer the contrary fr●● John 13. 30. is to make John contradict all the other Evangelists, and himself 100, v. 2 &c. Therefore it must needs be a cursed interpretation which corrupts the Text, and se●s the Evangelists together by the ears. Thirdly, This Sacrament was 
1 Cor▪ 〈◊〉 2●,  not i●sti●●ted after Supper, but as th●y sat● at supper, whence i● was called the Lord's supper; Matthewes and Paul's expression is, As they were eating, Jesus took bread, &c. Marks, As they sat and did eat, and Luke's words taken altogether, imply as much: Therefore he instituted the Sacrament, not after supper, but at and during supper, whiles they sat and did eat at table: True it is. Luke writes, not of the bread, but cup only (to which Paul's objected words likewise relate) he took the cup after supper, Luke 22. 20. yet it appears he took it likewise during supper, verse 17. yea, some learned me● are o● opinion▪ that Christ had two suppers that night: First, his Pas●ha● sup●er, at the clo●e whereof he instituted the Sacrament of his own supper: Secondly, an ordinary supper, which succeeded the insti●●tion of his own, in imitation whereof▪ the 
u 1 ●or. 11. 21▪ 22.  ●or●●h●ans and 
x S●e T●rtul. Ap●l.  Primitive Christians had their Agape or Love▪ feasts, which they did eat immediately after the Lord▪ supper: and this is more than intimated by Saint John, ●hap, 13. ver. 2. 4▪ 12. to ●1. where we read, that af●●r supper, Jesus did rise from supper, and washed his Disciple▪ feet; which done, after some discourse he sat down again with them and then dipped a sop, (which could not well be at the Paschall Supper▪ where we read of no so●s, nor aught to dip them in) and gave it to Judas▪ &c. who having received the sop went immediately out: therefore Luke's, after supper he took the cup must be meant only after the Paschall supper, not the other common supper: for if Judas went out before the Paschal supper q●ite ●nded, then you mu●t grant that he did not drink of the cup contrary to Christ's expr●●●e precept, Drink ye ALL of this; and Saint Mark's relation, that they did ALL drink thereof; to wit, all the twelve Disciples. Fourthly, the word immediately doth not always imply, a thing done at the selfsame instant, without the lest intervenient stay or delay; but many times (as all know) in our common speech▪ it signifies, soon after, or not long after; as we usually say, we will do this or that immediately, instantly, presently, when as we mean only ●peedily, within a short time, not at that instant or very time we speak it; So that admit the mo●● that can be, this word will not necessarily in●erre, that Jud●s went out so immediately after the sop received, that he did not stay to receive the Lord's supper ere he went out, which all the other Evangelists words deny, who would certainly have expressed it in direct terms▪ had there been any such thing.  
Their second reaso●, that Judas received not the Sacrament, because Christ could not say unto him particularly, Take, eat, this is my body which is given for thee; this is my blood which is shed for thee; is very absurd.  
First, because it appears not, that Christ did deliver the Bread and Wine severally, one after another to every of his Disciples▪ as our Ministers ●se now to do; but o●ely▪ gave it promis●●o●sly to them all at once; who took and divided it severally ●mong themselves, and handed it one to another, as Luke 22. 17. & Mat. 26. 27. Divide it among yourselves▪ He took the cup and gave it TO THEM (Jointly, not to each of them by himself) saying, drink ye ALL (not tho●Peter or John) of this, do more than imply.  
Secondly, because admit Christ used those words particularly to Judas, a● Ministers now do to each particular Communicant, yet he meant them only co●●i ●onally, that his body was broken, and his blood shed for him, if he would really receive the● by faith, otherwise not! Christ being made ours only by faith.  
Thirdly, Matthew and Mark relate Christ's words of instit●tion to be without any such particular application, as w● subjoin▪ viz. Take eat▪ this is my body: drink y● all of this, for this is my blood of the new Testament which is shed FOR MANY: not for thee Judas; which he might very well use to Judas, as conjoined with the other Apostles.  
But these Antagonists have a second shift; when they cannot deny that Judas received the Sacrament, they answer, he was a close Hypocrite, guilty of no scandalous crime, so that the other Apostles were more ready to suspect themselves then Judas, when Christ told them, that one of them should betray him▪ Therefore this is no precedent or warrant for Ministers, to admit open scandalous sinners (though not actually excommunicated) to the Lord's Table.  

●●●n ●● 17 c. ●. ●9 2●.  I answer, first, that Christ himself (the 
b Act. 1. 24. 〈◊〉 2. ●●  searcher and knower of all men's hearts) did some one or two years' space before this, infallibly know, and tell his Disciples, that one of them, to wit, Judas Iscariot, was a devil, for he it was should betray him, being one of the twelve, John 6. 70, 71. Secondly, at the time when he instituted the Sacrament, he infallibly knew and foretold the Disciples, yea Judas himself, that Judas should betray him, and that it was fore-prophesied he should do so, John 13. 18. to 28. Matth. 26. 20. to 26. Mark 14. 18. to 22. Luke 22. 21, 22, 23. Acts 1. 17. 18. Thirdly, that when Christ washed his Disciples feet (and Judases among others) after supper, he told them, that they were clean, but not all; meaning it of Judas▪ John 13. 10, 11. Fourthly, he infallibly knew him to be lost, and thereupon called him, the son of perdition, that the Scripture might be fulfilled, John 17. 12. and knew that the devil after the sop given, would enter into, and take actual possession of him, John 13. 27. compared with ch. 6. 70, 71. & that he should be certainly damned & fall from his Apostleship, for his transgression, that he might go to his own place (that is, to hell) Acts 1. 25. and that therefore in eating the Sacrament, he would certainly but eat and drink judgement to himself, and be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, 1 Cor. 11. 27, 29.  
If then Christ himself did infallibly know all this of Judas, though perchance his other Disciples did not (as likewise his thievish, covetous, as well as traitorous disposition, John 12. 6. both which did make him scandalous, and an unworthy ●eceiver) and yet for all this, in the very original institution of the Sacrament, because Judas was still one of the twelve, nor actually convicted of, nor excom●●nicated for these crimes, and voluntarily desiring to receive the Sacrament as well as others▪ and because Christ himself would leave him unexcusable in leaving no external means unattempted to reclaim him from his desperate intentio●●, by what divine authority, rule of conscience, or Christian prudence, can any Minister of Christ (who is not, at lest ought not to deem himself, either greater▪ wiser, holier, preciser or more conscientious than Christ his Master) keep any unexco●●●nicated christian from the Sacrament, though covetous, scandalous, & outwardly fl●gitious for the present, in case he be desirous to receive it, and will not be kept from it by any serious dehortations or admonitions of the danger of unworthy receiving, if he in his own conscience judge himself worthy, profess his hearty sorrow for his sins past, and reformation of them for the future (especially since no Minister 
c 2 Chr 6. ●● Jer. 17. 4, 5.  can so certainly know the secret disposition of such a man's heart for the present, nor what 
d 2 Tim▪ 2. 25 26  he may from thenceforth prove for the future▪ or whether he be not ●● 
e Rom 8. 29 30 1 Cor. 6. 10, 11. Tit. 3. 2 to 8.  elect child of God, and so certain to be effectually called, converted, peradventure at that instant time, in or by this very Ordinance of the sacrament;) as Christ himself did know the heart, state, and final impenitence of this traitor Judas, whom notwithstanding he admitted to his Table: I shall therefore beseech all our Ministers and Opposites, to lay this seriously to heart; and if they will needs make, or pretend conscience in any thing, let it be in this, not to make themselves wiser, holier, rigidder, or more conscientious in this point than Christ himself 
f Joh. ●5. 20. c 13. 16. Mat. 10. 24, 25  Remember the words that Christ said to his Disciples, & in them to all Minister●, The servant is not greater than his Lord, nor he that is se●t▪ greater than he that sent him: it is enough for the Disciple that he be as his Mast●r, and the servant a● his Lord. Remember what St. John determines, 1 John 2. 6. H● that, saith he, abideth in Christ, ought himself to walk eve● as he walked; who, as in his suffering, so in the Administration of this Sacrament, hath left Us an example, that We should follow his steps, 1 Pet. 2. 21. Eph. 5, 1, 2. compared with th● 1 Cor. 11. 23▪ &c. We all grant, it is Christ's prerogative only to institute Sacraments, and is it ●ot his prerogative likewise to prescribe how and to whom they shall be administered? and hath he not done this by hi● own example? take heed therefore of making conscience of excluding such unexcommunicated person● from Christ● Table now he is in heaven▪ as himself without scruple admitted to it whiles he was on earth; If any unexcommunicated Judases will wilfully come to this sacred feast without a Wedding-garment, or with a traitorous and impenitent heart, contrary to their external profession of repentance, ●fter your serious dehortation to them, and advisements to abstain, the danger, guilt and sin is only their own▪ not yours (as I shall prove more fully a●on) else Christ himself should have been guilty (by your kind of reasoning) of Judas his sin and ●nworthy receiving, which you dare not affi●me.  
Secondly, if Christ himself knowing Judas to be such a desper●te wick●d wretch, traitor, reprobate, did yet admit him to eat the Passeover and Sacrament with his other Disciples, and they made not any scruple of conscience ●o communicate with him in both, no not after Christ had particularly informed them▪ and Judas himself, that he should betray him, Matth. 26. 21. to ●6. then certainly there can be no colour for ●ny Christian, in point of con●cience▪ to withdraw himself from the Lord's Table, or sever from our Churches because of mixed Comm●nions (as some now phrase them) or because some op●● s●a●dalous unexcommunicate persons, are admitted to communicate with them: This i●●he use and inference which most of the ancients▪ made of Judas his ●ating the Lord's Supper and Passeover with his fellow-Disciples and they with him, against the schismatical Donatists (now revived in our Ind●penden●s A●●baptists, Separatists) whose resolution● in this case they may do well to read at large in Gratian, Caus. 1. Quest. 1. and in Ivo Carnot●nsis, Decre●●lium▪ ●ec●nda par●, to whom I shall refer them: Certainly they may with as much conscience and reason refuse to join with such in hearing, reading▪ fasting▪ singing, prayer, or any other Ordinances as in this, ●pon the self▪ same grou●d● t●ey 〈◊〉 to communicate with the● at the Lord's Table: Therefore let not such ground▪ less whimsie●, and false principles, upon which they have hitherto soun●●d their practice of separation in this kind delude them any longer; they being ●s much partakers of other men's sin●, in participating▪ joining or being present with them in any other Ordin●nce, as in this; since if they de●est their sinful courses, they are no more guilty of them by rec●iving the S●crament with the●▪ then Christ or his Apo●●le● w●re of Iud●s his ●●ea●on or unworthy receiving, by communicating with him; the ●ather, b●cause the Scripture resolves expressly (and all commentators new and old upon the Text sub●cribe to it) that every unworthy Communicant eats and dr●●●es judgement only TO himself, 1 Cor. 11. 27. 29.) not to the Ministe● or any other, with whom he shall Communicate in this Ordinance.  
Let those therefore who out of spiritu●ll pride and self▪ opinion of their own transc●●dent holiness above others, disd●ine to communicate with those whom ●hey deem more sin●●l, l●sse p●nitent than themselves, beware lest this groundless Phari●●ical ride of theirs make them not more scandalous & unfit to receive thi● Sacrament (●t which they should especially manifest their humilty, charity, love, ●ompassion and 〈◊〉 towards their br●thren) than those scandalous persons they refuse to communicate with, as the Pharis●s pride in prayer, made him less justifi●● and un●●ceptable to God then the Publican, Luke 18. 9 to 15. a place well worthy their saddest consideration.  
And thu● much for I●das his receiving the Sacr●ment, which go●● very far in deciding our present controversies.  
The seventh difference is▪ Whether the Minister hath not fully discharged his duty and conscience if he give warning to unworthy Communicants of the danger they incur by their unworthy approaches to the Lord's Table, ●nd seriously deh●rt them from coming to it, ●●lesse they repent, reform, and come prepared? And ●hether the 1 Cor. 11. Ezek. 33. 1. to 10. Acts. 20. 26. 27. ●ith the Li●urgies of our own and the French Churches do not intimate a●d prove a● much? I affirm, my 
f A Bro●●●●ly and friendly censure▪ p ● 7. ● A● A●●i●ote against 〈◊〉 da●ger●us queries, p 6. An Answer, etc  Antagonists deny it in their three printed Pamphlets; affirming, that it is not enough for Ministers to warn them of the sin and danger of unworthy receiving▪ unless they l●kewise keep them back from the Sacrament: The reason they render is, because, ●f the Minister gives the Sacrament to such, he is a partaker of their sin and as much guilty by the giving, as the other by his unwor●hy receiving▪ and shall partake with him both in the guilt and punishment: To exemplify which they use this simi●itude: Sir, if you have a cup in your hand which will poison and kill a sick distempered man, if he drink of it, will you give it unto him if he desire it? and do● you think it enough to admonish him that it is deadly poison, and first deh●rt him from drinking of it▪ and then immediately reach it to him, with intent tha he shall drink of it? I persuade myself, that as he shall perish, so hi● blood shall be required at your ha●ds and that you shall as guilty hold up your hand at the bar for it. Yea, they av●rre, that this is more than arbitrary, tyrannical▪ papal domineering over the consciences of Pastors, Elders and godly people, to ●● s●andalous sinners intrude and come boldly to the Lord's table▪ and the Pastors and Elders have no power to keep them back.  
To which I answer▪ I very much wonder at this strange divinity, never heard of in the world till of late, and that first among the Anabaptiss, from whence it was derived into o●● English soil: But for a direct reply, I readily acknowledge that all desperate, sc●nd●lous, wicked▪ obstin●te sinners, may be justly excommunicated from the Church ●nd S●craments▪ after sever●ll previous admonitions for their sinful courses, & th●t being th●s excommunic●ted▪ they ought ●ot to be admitted to the s●cr●ment nor any other public Ordin●nce till their open profession of sin●ere repentance ●●d readmission to the Church: But if ●ny such not thus proceeded ●gainst ●or excommunic●ted after due ●dmonitions, proffer themselves ●t the Lord's Table together with others, professing unf●ined rep●ntance for their sinne● past, and reformation of their lives for time to come (a● every person vol●ntarily doth who resorts to the Lord's table) in such a case the Minister when he hath s●rio●sly ●dmonished them of the d●nger of unworthy r●ceiving, and dehorted them to come to the Sacrament, unless they find th●mselves sufficiently prepared in their own consciences, hath fully discharged his duty, and cannot repel them from this heavenly banquet▪ And if i● this case they receive unworthily, he is no way guilty of their ●inne in the least degree, since he consented ●ot to it and did for●w●rne the● of it: To make this apparent to every man's capacity, I shall lay down these six conclusions which I desire all Christians, especially Separatists and I●dependents, seriously to ponder.  
First, that eve●y visible Member of ● visible Church or Congregation, not actu●lly secl●ded from it by excomm●nication for some notorious sca●dall, hath a true interest in, ●nd right unto every Ordin●nce of Christ ●d●inistred in that Church, of which he is not made unc●p●ble by any natural disability, as children, fools, and distracted men are of receiving the Lord's Supper, bec●use unable to ex●mine themselves; to which notwithstanding they have been admitted in some Ch●rche●. For pro●fe of this conclusion, I must lay down another, which ●tterly s●bverts the very fo●nd●tion of Separation●nd Independency; That the Sacr●ments both of baptism and the Lords s●ppe● were beq●eathed by Christ himself (as all his other Ordinance●) ●ot only to his elect and regenerated children▪ but to his visible Ch●r●h on e●rth, and ●ll visible member● of it; in which there always hath bee●▪ ●o● is, and ever will be▪ a ●ixture both of good and bad, ch●●fe and Wheat, exter●all and re●ll professors, Hypocrites and sincere believers. Hence it is all our Opposite● unanimously grant▪ that they ca●●ot refuse the Sacrament to H●pocrites, or c●rnall moral Christians, of civil ●nblam●ble life ●nd conversatio●, though there be no power of godliness in them, if they be not grossly ignor●●t, nor yet deny the Sacrament of baptism to their 
1 Cor. 7. ●4.  childre● (which the Apo●tle cal●Saints or H●ly) bec●●se they are members of the visible Church▪ to whom the Sacaments of right belong, as such; else they ●ight s●spend all s●ch from the Lord's S●pper upon this very ground▪ that they are hypocrites, unregenerated▪ unsanctified persons▪ who have no right unto the Sacraments as well as scandalous impenitent sinners; From whence I argue thus,  

Those who have a true right to the Sacrament, as visible members of the visible Church, ought not in justice or conscience to be deprived of it, in case they demand it, by any Minister or Presbytetery, Mat. 24. 45, 46▪ &c. Luke 12. 42, &c. compared with Mat. 22▪ ●, to 15. 1 Cor. 10▪ 1. to 7. 17. ● Tim. 2. 24. 25▪ 26.  
But all unexcommnnicated Christians▪ who are able to examine themselves, as visible Members of the visible Church, have a trus right to the sacrament, in case they do demand it, when publicly administered.  
Ergo, they ought not in justice or conscience to be deprived of it by any Minister or Presbytery, when publicly administered, if they shall require it.   
The rather, because nothing but an actual excommunication can suspend them from this their right, as an actual o●tlary suspends men from the benefit of the Law.  
Secondly▪ that every visible Christian not actually excommunicated, who hath a right to the Sacrament of Baptism & hath been admitted thereunto (which answers circumcision this Seal of the covenant) such only excepted, who by reason of infancy or other infirmitie● of nature, are unable to examine themselves, hath likewise as good a right to, and interest in the Lord's supper, the other seal of the Covenant (as some phrase it without a text) which answers to the Passeover; even as every circumcised person under the Law had a right to eat of the Passover, and might not be debarred from it, as is formerly proved; since no rational Christian is able to give a satisfactory re●son, why such should enjoy the benefit of one Sacrament and yet not be admitted to the other, seeing that which entitles them to the one entitles them to the other, and that which debars them from the one secludes them from the other: We read in the very Apostles times, that a mere external slight confession of sin and profession of the Christian faith, was sufficient to enable sinners to be baptised; hence Simon Magus, a mere dissembler, and simoniacal unregenerate wretch, was b●ptized by Philip as well as others who really repented and believed in Christ, though he were in the gall of bitterness and bond of iniquity, Acts 8. 12. to 25. yea, many others who turned Wolves, Apostates, heretics were baptised by the very Apostles, only upon their external profession of Christ, without any inward truth of grace, Acts 20. 29. 30. 2 Tim. 3. 1. to 6. Rom. 16 17 18. 2 Pet. 2. throughout Jude 8. to 20. 1 Ioh. 2. 18 19 And u●on a very sudden, seeming remorse for sin and Confession of Christ at the very first Sermon without any delay or long examination of the sincerity or truth of their faith or conversation, thousands with their whole households were baptised and admitted into the Church by the Apostles, Act. 2 37 38. 4●. c. 8. 12. 13. ●. 10. 34. to the end ch. 16. 33. Yea▪ among the very Anabaptists themselves both beyond the seas & at home, there are far more hypocrites and carnal persons of ripe years rebap●i●ed▪ than real Saints▪ only upon a bare external profession of faith and repentance▪ and so generally i● all other Churches in the world, from Christ's time till this present: I● then the Sacrament of baptism hath in all ages, Churches since its inst●●●tion▪ and b● the very Apostles themselves without any danger of si● or s●ruple of conscience been administered to all external professors of Christ and never denied to any suc●, (or to their children, but by Anabaptists;) then by the self▪ same rea●on the ●a●●ament of the Lord's Supper may and must be adminis●red to th●●, w●●n t●ey ●●nder themselves among others to receive it, and can neither in point of conscience or Christianity be justly with▪ held from them by any ministry or Presbytery whatsoever, if not actually excommunicated for some ●otorious s●●ndall, the one being as much a tr●● Sacrament as the other, if not of more absol●●e necessity than the other: Upon which ground, I shall challe●ge all my Opposites▪ to show me any divine charter or precedent in Scriptu●e authorising them to suspend any unexcomm●●icated Christians, able to exmine themselves, and willing to comm●nica●e, from receiving the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, whom they ●ave formerly deemed fit to receive and could not deny him the Sacrament of baptism: Till this be done, they must pardo● me for not subscribing to any such pretended authority by divine right.  
Thirdly, that it is the Ministers bounden duty to administer the Sacraments to their people, as well as to preach and pray, Mark 16. 15, 16. Matth. 28. 19, 20. Acts 2. 41, 42. chap. 8. 12, 13. chap. 10. 47, 48. 1 Cor. 10. 16. chap. 11. 23. to 28. Therefore they can no more deny to administer this Sacrament to those of their Congregation who are not excommunicated, than ref●se to preach the gospel to them, or pray with them: What Paul writes of preaching the gospel, Necessity i● laid upon me, andw●● is me if I preach not the gospel▪ 1 Cor. 9 16, the same may Ministers apply to their administrng the Sacrament, woe to us if we administer it not when de●ired; the r●ther because it is now a received principle among Presbyterians, and professedly agreed by our reverend Brother of Scotland i● his Fast Sermon; that no private Minister hath any jurisdiction in himself to keep back● any from the sacrament, but only the whole Classis or Presbytery.  
Fourthly, that though God hath originally in his primary intention ordained his gospel and Sacraments (which are rich mercies in themselves,) only for the comfort and salvation of those who worthily receive them; yet he hath secondarily instituted them to be the savour of death unto death, and a means of aggravating the sins and condemnation of such who shall wilfully conte●ne, abuse, or unworthily receive them, 1 Cor. 11. 25. to 30. 2 Cor. 2▪ 15, 16. Matth. 10. 14, 15. Mark 16. 15, 16. L●ke 8. 18. Heb. 6. 6, 7▪ 8. John 15. 22. 2 Pet. 2. 21. Ezek. 2. 3. to 9 Yea▪ Christ himself, tho●gh he be a most sweet Saviour in his own ●at●re and God's pri●itive intentio●, yet accidentally he is set for the fall, as well as for the rising of many in Israel, Luke 2. 34. ●ay, for a stone of st●●bling and rock of off●nce, for a gin, and for a snare; at ●●d against which ●any shall stumble and fall, ●nd be broken, and s●ared, and taken, Isa. 8. 14, 15, chap. 2●. 16. Rom. 9 33. 1 Pe●. 28. Matth. 21. 44. Luke 20. 18. So ●re his Word ●●d Sacraments too, accidentally set (by reason of me●● corruptions and ●●worthy, ●●profitable particip●tio● of them;) for the fall and ruin, as well as the salvation of 〈◊〉.  
Fiftly, that God only i●fallibly knows the he●●ts and present state of all men, not any Minister or Presbytery, 2 Chron. 6. 30. Acts 1. 24. 2 Tim. 2. 19 1 Sam. 16. 5. to 14. Matth. 26. 21▪ 22. John. 2, 24▪ 25. That he can convert and change ●●●s hearts and lives in a m●ment▪ and make them meet Co●●nicants though●● cannot discern them to be such▪ Acts 3. 9 to 28. chap. 2. 37▪ 38. &c. Rom. 11. 3▪ 4▪ 5▪ He can suddenly give th●m a white ston●, with a new name written in it, which NO MAN KNOWETH SAVING HE THAT RECEIVETH IT, Revel● 2. 17. And therefore if we see any desirous to receive the Sacrament, to be penitent in outward show and profession, we ought in the judgement of ch●●ity to esteem them such, since we cannot infallibly discern● and search their hearts▪ 1 ●or. 13. 5. 7. Phil. 2. 3. Heb▪ 6. 9 Mat. 7. 1. Rom. 14▪ 4. to 15.  
Sixthly, that no Ministers private judgement, or conscience ought to be the rule of his admitting any to▪ or suspending them from the Sacrament: For first, there is no Text nor cla●se of S●ri●tu●e that makes his private judgement or conscience such a rule: Secondly, if a Minister should have power to deny the sacrament (under pain of sin▪ ye● punishmentt, as some men ●each) ●o every Communicant he deems unmeet or unworthy, before actual convictio● of his unworthiness in the Presbytery, than it would rest in the power of every particular Minister, how justly or unjustly soever, to admit or se●l●de from the sacrament whom ever his conscience or judgement should think fit; which would introduce the most exorbitant arbitrary papal jurisdiction, usurpation over the consciences▪ privileges of christians & Ordinances of Christ, that was ever yet heard of or exer●ised in the christian world; make every Minister more then a Pope every member of a congregation worse than a slave, and give greater authority to every ordinary Pastor, than ever Christ or ●is Apostles exercised, or the Pope or prelates hitherto claimed. Thirdly, than it would inevitably follow, that in case the whole Presbytery, Classis or Synod should deem a man, upon any appe●l unto them against his Ministers unjust suspension, worthy and fit to receive the sacrament; yet if his Ministers judgement and conscience be not satisfied▪ but he deems him still ●nworthy, he may, will and must still refuse to administer the Sacrament to him, notwithstanding their resolution, else he should offend against his own judgement and conscience. So on the other side, if the Presbytery, Classis▪ Synod, should vote any man unworthy and unfit to communicate▪ yet if the Minister think him fit he may, will and must admit him to the sacrament if he r●quire it lest he should sin against his conscience; And then to what end serve Presbyteries Classes, Synods, or appeals unto them in such ●ases; since upon my Opposites objected▪ princi●les (if they will adhere unto them) not their resolutions▪ but every particular Ministers private j●dgment, conscience, is and aught to be the sole canon and Directory which he will, must and aught to follow, And then to what a miserable slavery shall we be re●●●ed, if every Minister may have snch authority to Lord it over the Lord's 
● P●● 5. 3.  inheritances and Ordinances too, let all prudent men determine.  
These six conclusions premised, which have utterly overt●rned the very foundations o● this strange Objection, and laid the Opposites on their backs; I answer directly, That a Minister in delivering the sacrament to a scandalous, unexcomm●nicated person, who ●fter admonition of the danger, doth earnestly desire to receive it, as conceiving himself in his own heart and conscience meet to participate of it, becomes no way guilty of his si●ne or punishment, in case he eat and drink judgement by his ●nworthy receiving of it: My reasons are th●se; First, because this receiver being not excommunicated, hath a true ●ight to this sacrament, as a vi●●ble member of the visible Church, as well as to baptism and other Ordinan●●s; therefore the Ministers cannot in point of conscience debarr● hi● fro● it. Secondly, be●●use he hath no commission from Christ to keep bac●▪ such a person, nor yet any such power from the Church or state. Thirdly, because every Communicant is to examine himself and his own conscience between God & him, whether he be fit to receive the sacrament or not, and to be the judge of his own heart, which no other can so truly discern as himself, 1 Cor. 11. 28. 31. 2 Cor. 13. 6. Gal. 6. 4. 5. Jer. 17. 9 1 Cor. 2. 11. And if he judge himself fitly prepared, joins with others in the public confession of his sins, and promiseth newness of life, the Minister ought in point of charity to deem him so, and hath no commission from Christ to exclude him; When Christ himself instituted and administered this sacrament, we read not of any examination made by him of his Disciples fitness or preparedness to receive it; nor yet of Paul or any other Apostle or Minister in the new Testament, that made any such particular scrutiny into other communicant's consciences to try their fitness or unfitness, as some now magisterially take upon them to make by way of jurisdiction▪ not advice, derived originally from Popish tyranny, and their exploded practice of Auricular confession to a Priest, before the receiving of the sacrament▪: All the power they claimed or exercised in this kind▪ was only by way of council; Let a man therefore examine himself, not others, or others him (say all old and new Expositors on the Text) And if they may not examine, then much less judge or seclude him as unworthy▪ without examination or knowledge of his heart, which God only knows and searcheth, and himself. Fourthly, because he administers the sacrament to him as to a person outwardly fitted and prepared, the inward preparation of whose heart, for aught he knows may be sincere towards God, & really changed from what it was before. Fifthly, because the administration of the sacrament is an holy lawful action, and God's Ordinan●ce in the Minister, who delivers it only as God's Ordinance, in obedi●nce to his command, with a good intention to benefit all, and hurt none by it. Sixthly, because such a persons unworthy receiving is only contingent and casual; 
Prov. 16. 1▪ 1 Co● 7. 16. 1 Tim. 2. 25, 26. Rom 9 15, 16 18.  no Minister, or creature being able infallibly to judge, whether God at this instant▪ out of his abundant mercy, may not by the omnipotent working of his spirit, in the preparatory examinations, prayers, exhortations before the act of receiving, & in the very receiving itself (the sacrament being as well a means to beget as confirm grace) change both his heart and life, and make him eat and drink salvation, instead of damnation to himself. Seventhly, because all our Opposites accord, that Ministers may and aught to admister the sacrament to masked Hypocrites, and unregenerate civil moral Christians, who live not in open scandalous sinners, though these for want of faith and sincere repentance do all eat and drink judgement to themselves as well as scandalous open sinners: Yea, most of them acknowledge, that if the Classis or Pre●bytery, shall judge any man whom the Minister deems ignorant, scandalous and unworthy to communicate; to be a meet Communicant, contrary to the Ministers judgement and conscience, yet he may nay must admit and administer the sacrament to him. I would then demand of my Antagonists, whether in this case the Minister be guilty of these receivers sins and unworthy receiving? or whether their similitude of a Cup of poison holds in such a case? If yea then why will they thus enforce them to commit a sin against their conscience●▪ and to par●ake of other men's sins in these cases by administering the sacrament to them? If not, than they yield their objection false, in the case of scandalous persons too, there being the same ●●worthy p●rticipation in both. Seventhly, because the Minist●r only gives the sacrament, and the unworthy rec●iving, is the receivers own personal act and sin alone, not the ministers, as is his unworthy hearing, praying, asting. Eighthly, because else Christ, who was guilty of no sin, sho●ld have been partaker of I●das his sin and u●worthy receiving, in administering the sacrament to him, knowing him infallibly to be a traitor, thief, devil, and son of perdition, which were blasphemy to affirm: And if it were no sin in Christ, than not in others, to give the Sacrament to known unworthy receivers, since they do but follow his example. Ninthly, because the Minister in administering the Sacrament, is a sweet savour of Christ, as well in those that perish by it, as in those that are saved and benefitted by it, as he is in preaching the gospel; God having appointed it secondarily and contingently (as well as his Word) to be a means of aggravating men's sins and condemnation, to magnify his justice, as well as an instrument of grace and salvation to magnify his mercy, 1 Cor. 11. 25. to 30. Finally, the holy Ghost himself expressly resolves in positive terms, that he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth & drinketh damnation or judgement TO himself (not to the Minister or other Communicants,) and draws guilt, judgements only upon himself, verse 27, 30, 31. Thus all the ancient and modern Comentators on this Text, together with Gratian, Causa 1. Quest. 1. Iv● Carnot●nsis Decretal. secunda pars, resolve unanimously against the Donatists; and this the objectors own practice heretofore, in delivering the sacrament to such, without thinking themselves guilty of their sin, having exhorted, admonished them of the danger, and so done what in them lay to keep them off, refutes. This new Doctrine therefore of theirs, is point-blank against the Scripture, Saint Paul's express resolution, the practice and judgement of all antiquity, their own opinions, practice heretofore, and others now; whether of these are to be credited herein, let themselves determine.  
Finally, the word {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, in this text, which you render damnation, signifies nought else but judgement, as the margin of our Bibles render it; that is, some temporal judgement, as sickness, weakness, death, and such like punishments, as v. 30, 31, 32. directly expounds it, and most Expositors on this text resolve; not eternal condemnation, as you misinterpret it, as Mat. 5. 21▪ 22. c. 7. 1, 2. 1 Pet. 4. 7. will fully clear. Therefore the very founda●ion of this objection, is a mere mistake.  
As for the much pressed similitude of a cup of poison, which hath deluded many, it is but a mere fallacy, and differs in many particulars from the Cup in the Lord's Supper: For first, the Cup in the Lord's Supper is no poison in itself, neither can any Minister certainly determine, that it will prove poison to the soul of any one par●icular Communicant, no more than the Word or other Ordinances; for it may for aught he knows, prove a sovereign medicine to those very persons through God's blessing, to whom he though 〈◊〉 it might prove poison; And therefore if a Physician give a whole some potion to one, to whom it may in probability prove a medicine, not a poison; and it proves poison to him only by accident, through his distemper who receives it (as many physical potions do) this certainly is neither manslaughter nor murder in the Physician, as the Objectors ignorantly mistake, (for then I doubt all the Physicians obout London would soon take a ●urne at Tibur●●.) Set then the similitude right, as it stands parallel with the Sacrament in this respect, and it vanisheth into nothing, or else turns against you: Secondly, it is a mere arbitrary, voluntary act in men to give a poisonous potion to him that shall demand it, & they have free power to keep it from him if they please: But on the contrary, the Minister hath no power to deny the sacramental Cup and Bread to any seeming penitents that desire it, and doth but his duty in administering it, as I have manifested; therefore it can be no crime in him: Thirdly, you may make the same argument against the Ministers preaching the gospel to obstinate scandalous sinners, since his very preaching doth increase their sins and damnation, as well as his administering the Sacraments to them, Mat. 10. 14, 15. Heb. 6. 6, 7, 8.  
Now whereas they object, that the admission of unexcommunicated wicked scandalous persons to the Sacrament, is more than an arbitrary, tyrannical, papal domineering over the consciences of Ministers, Elders, and godly people: it's a mere untruth and scandalous assertion, as all the premises demonstrate; never affirmed by any Classicke Author till this age; and though a real error in many conscientious persons who believe it as a truth, yet I fear & partly know, that many who now object & urge it, do not cordially believe it as a truth, but rather make use of it as a received error the more easily to usurp unto themselves a mere arbitrary, if not tyrannical authority over their Congregations consciences, and God's Ordinances, in admitting to, excluding from them whom they please: the very extremity of that arbitrary, episcopal, papal power, which we solemnly vow against in our national Covenant, and have taken up arms against in the field: And so much concerning this grand difference, the importance whereof hath made me more prolix and copious.  
The eighth thing in controversy is, Whether Ministers may not as well refuse to preach the Word to such unexcommunicated gross impenitent, scandalous Christians, whom they would suspend from the Sacrament, for fear of partaking with them in, and being guilty of their sins, as to administer the Sacrament to them? since their unprofitable hearing of the Word, is every ways as dangerous, as damning a sin to their souls, as their ●nworthy receiving the Sacrament, and those who eat and drink damnation to themselves, in the one, do but hear and multiply damnation to themselves in the other? 2 Cor. 2. 14, 15, 16. Mat. 10. 14, 15. Mark 16. 15, 16. Luke 8. 18. Heb. 2. 1, 2. chap. 2. 7, 8. chap. 6. 6, 7, 8. The rather, because that oft alleged Text of Matth. 7. 6. Give not that which is holy unto dogs, neither cast you your pearls before swine, lest they trample the● under their feet, and turn again and tear you: is properly meant of preaching the Word, t●o administing the Sacrament unto such; as is evident by Mat. 10. 14. Mark 16. 15, 16. Acts 13. 46. 51. And whether any reason can be given by our Opposites, why such as these should be admitted by themselves, to hear the Word, without any scruple, guilt, or participation of their sins, and yet be totally secluded from this Sacrament, under pain of being guilty of their unworthy receiving?  
To this pressing demand, our Antagonists answer v●riously, putting sundry groundless differences, between the preaching of the Word, and administration of the Sacraments, which I shall severally examine.  

A brotherly and ●●eindly Censure, 〈◊〉 ●, 8.  First, they say, that a Minister preacheth the Word to many unprofitable hearers, not knowing them to he such, in hope to convert and profit them, if there be any such in the Auditory: so also he gives the sacraments to some unworthy receivers, not knowing them to be such, with an intention to do them good: and in such cases he is blameless: (Thus far then there is no such difference, as is surmised.) But ●f he give the holy seals of Christ's body and blood to scandalous and impenitent persons, he knows he gives them damnation to eat and drink; and is half sharer with them in the sinful act; so that though unworthy hearing and receiving be equally damnable, to the hearers and receivers, yet not equally dangerous to the Ministers.  
I answer to this latter clause, wherein the difference is pretended: First, that the Minister doth as certainly know, that if he preach the Word to obstinate, scandalous, impenitent sinners, he doth but preach damnation to them in his Sermons, as that he doth give damnation to them in the Sacrament Mark▪ 16. 16. Heb. 6. 6, 7, 8. Matth. 10. 14. 15. and those whom he certainly knows to be such scandalous and impenitent receivers, he cannot but know ●o be first impenitent, scandalous hearers, since the Sermon precedes the Sacrament: Therefore if he be guilty of their sin or damnation, in giving the Sacrament to them, he must be likewise in preaching to them. Secondly, this evasion is built upon two false principles: First, that a Minister may and doth ●ertainly know, that if he give the Sacrament to one who hath been formerly an impenitent scandalous sinner, but now comes openly and confesseth his sins, promiseth reformation for time to come, and is desirous to receive the sacramental signs of the pardon of his sins, with the rest of the Congregation, with express promise and desire to become a new man (as all receivers ever externally do) that he gives him damnation to eat and drink: This I am certain no Minister can infallibly know or affirm, because he knows not the present change or inclination of his heart, or whether God by ●his very duty may not really convert him: Secondly, that the Minister who sorewarnes men of the danger of unworthy receiving, and admonisheth the Communicants seriously to examine themselves, and come prepared to the Sacrament, or else to forbear, is guilty of the unworthy rec●ivers sins; which I have already disproved. Therefore this diversity vanisheth into smoke.  

A brotherly and friendly Censure▪ ●. ●.  Secondly, they allege; That the Lord's holy table in the holy Communi●n, 〈◊〉 a place of God's more holy presence than the common Auditory, where we come nearer unto God▪ and receive with the Word and Promis●s particularly appli●d to 〈◊〉 the seals of o●r co●●union with Christ, and of our right and int●res● in him, and all his benefits: But preaching to a co●●on Auditory, is a general pr●pounding of the Word and Promises to all, not a particular application of it to any: therefore there it ●ore danger and greater sin in admitting ●●worthy receivers to the Lord's table, then in preaching to them; at app●ares in Aaron's two sons, Levit. 19 1, 2, 3. and Uzzah, 2 Sam. 6. 7.  
To which I answer; first, that the beginning of this distinction, is just the late Archbishop of Canterbury's Doctrine, in his Speech in star-chamber (so much distasted in former times) who produceth this for a reason, why we should bow to the Table and Altar, not to the Pulpit, pag. 47. We must bow towards the Altar as THE GREATEST place of God's presence on earth; I say THE GREATEST, yea GREATER than THE PULPIT; for there it is, Hoc est corpus meum, this is my body; but in the Pulpit,▪ 'tis at ●ost but▪ Hoc est Verbum meum, this is my Word; and A GREATER REVERENCE NO DOUBT is du● to the body, then to the Word of the Lord; and so in relation answerably to the Thr●n● where hii body is usually present, then to the Seat whence his word useth to be proclai●ed; which I have elsewhere at large refuted, proving 
In my pleasant Purge for a Roman Catholic, and Quench-Cole.  God's presence and Spirit, to be as much, a● really present in other Ordinances as in this, from Matth. 28. 20. and other Texts. Secondly, this passage proves this Sacrament to be as converting, yea, a more converting Ordinance, then preaching of the Word, which my Antagonists positively deny. Thirdly, in the preaching of the Word, there is or aught to be a particular Application of it to all the Auditors several consciences, sins, conditions, as well as in the Administration of the Sacraments: witness experience, and Acts 2. 23. 37. 38, 39, 40, 41. chap. 3. 14, 15, 17, 19 Matth: 24. 45, 46. Luke 12. 42. therefore this is a difference without a diversity. Fourthly, the examples of Aaron's sons, and Uzzah, are impertinently alleged, since they relate not to the Sacrament, and rather respect unworthy Ministers, then Communicanst.  
Thirdly, they Object, that the Minister in giving the Sacrament to known impenitent sinners, pr●acheth ●ost palpable lies against his own conscience, when he 
A brotherly and friendly Censure. p. ●.  s●●h, The body of Christ was broken for you, and his blood shed for you; when as in preaching the Word, the Ministers of Christ propound the truth to wicked men generally, but not partic●larly apply any word of co●fort, or pro●ise of blessing to any ●●profitable hearers, b●t ●pon condition of repentance.  
To this I answer; first, that the Minister doth not administer the Sacrament to any known impenitent sinners under that notion, but only as penitent sinners, truly repenting of their sins past, and promising, purposing to lead a new life for the future, as the exhortations before the Sacrament and their public confessions before the whole Congregation manifest. Secondly, he useth these words, The body of Christ which was broken, and the blood of Christ shed for yo● &c. not absolutely, but conditionally only▪ in case they receive the Sacrament worthily, and become penitent and believing receivers, as they all proneness themselves to be, just so as they preach repentance and remi●sion to their Auditors; Therefore the case is just the same in both without any difference. Thirdly, the particular delivery and recital of the words by the Minister to every Communicant, is not simply necessary, nor of divine, but human institution only, though usually and warrantably practised amongst us. Therefore this new distinction is of no moment.  
Fourthly, they surmise, that they have an express command to preach the 
The last Answer to the four Qu●stions▪  gospel to every creature without exception, to Pagans as well as Christians, Matth. 28. 19, 20. Mark 16. 15. Rom. 10. 18. But they have no such command to administer the Sacrament to all, but only to worthy receivers.  
I answer; first, that this precept principally respects none but the Apostles, who were sent to preach the gospel to all Nations and creatures, and endued with the gif● of tongues to that purpose; not ordinary Preachers, who confine themselves usually to particular Congregations, Countries, and have no extraordinary gift of tongues enabling them to preach to all Naions in their own language, as the Apostles had, Acts 2. Secondly, though the Sacrament must not be administered to Heathens, to whom the gospel may and must be preached, before they believe and profess Christ; yet it must be administered to them as well as baptism, after their belief and profession of Christ; since it appears by the very objected Texts, that as they were to preach the gospel to all Nations, creatures, and sorts of men, so they were to baptize them likewise, and by consequence to administer the other Sacrament of the Lord's Supper to them, as well as baptism: as the 1 Cor. 10. 1. to 6. 16, 17. 21. chap. 11. 20. to 34. compared with Matth. 26. 20. 27, 28. Mark 14. 18, &c. Luke 22. 14, &c. manifest. Thirdly, the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper belongs of right to all visible knowing Members of the visible 
Harmovy of concessions. p. 287.  Church, as well as the Sacrament of baptism, as I have formerly evidenced; and as the Confession of Saxony resolves in these terms; The Sacraments of baptism and the Lord's Supper are so instituted, that every man may use them, because they be pledges and testimonies, which declare, that the benefits promised in the gospel do ap●rtaine to every one; for the voice of the gospel is general, &c. This distinction therefore is invalid.  
Fifthly, they consent, that they ought not to preach the Word, to scandalous impenitent sinners, who turn Apostates, wilful scorners and persecutors of the gospel, who do but the more rage and are ●ardned thereby; it being a profanation of holy things, a giving of holy things to dogs, and a casting of Pearls before swine, Mat. 7. 6. chap. 10. 14. Acts 14. 51. Ergo, they must not give this sacrament to such.  
I answer, that by this they fully grant what I contend for, to wit, that such dogs and swine who ought to be suspended from the Sacraments, ought likewise to be suspended from hearing the Word; so that they do herein justify and subscribe to my opinion instead of refutingit. For my part, I never contested▪ that such dogs and swine as these, aught to be admitted to the Sacrament, but they ought to be totally excommunicated, as well from the Word, and all other Ordinances, as from the Lord's Supper; not secluded from it alone, and admitted to all the rest: Only here the Question between us will be, who are those dogs and swine that our Saviour intends, Matth. 7. 6? Certainly not every Christian that relapseth again and again into several scandalous 
See Richard Capel his Nature of temptation, &c. para 1. pag. 214, 215, &c. Lucas Osiander ●nshirid. cont. cum Anabapt▪ c. 6. Qu. ●.  sins, against his pomises, vows, Covenants, as the best men many times may do, by reason of the strength of their sins and corruptions, before they can totally subdue them Pro. 24, 16. Psal. 34. 19 Psal. 38. 3, 4. Psal. 40. 12. James 3. 2. Matth. 18. 22 Gal. 6. 1. Nor yet every scandalous sinner, who repairs to the Word and Sacraments, with a desire to hear and receive the same, and joins with the Congregation in the external confession and bewailing his of sins, promising, vowing repentance and a new life; surely such a● these are no dogs nor swine within our saviour's precept, as you surmise; for then by your own confessions, you ought not to preach unto them, but seclude them from the Word, (of which this Text is principally intended,) as well as Sacraments; but only such Infidels and Heathens who refused to embrace and believe the gospel, andharbour or entertain the Preachers of it (which many scandalous sinners are very willing to do) Or such open contemners, persecutors of the Gospel and Ministers of it, who run upon and tear the Preachers thereof, trampling the Pearls of the gospel, and the tenderers of them under their feet, as the Text resolves in terminis, Matth. 7. 6. chap. 10. 14, 15. Luke 9 5. Acts 13. 46, &c. Or, open Apostates from the Christian faith, which they once embraced, but after, return with the dogg● to his vomit, and the sow that is washed, to her wallowing in the mire, trampling under feet the son of God, and counting the blood of the Covenant wherewith they were sanctified, an unholy thing, offering despite to the spirit of grace, denying the very Lord that bought them, and contemning Christ himself (as Julian the Apostate, with others did) a● Saint Peter and Paul expressly determine, 2 Pet. 2. 1, 2. 21. 22. Heb. 10. 28, 29. chap. 6. 4. to 9 To apply this Text then to such scandalous sinners, who duly repair to the public Ordinances, desire to participate in them, and externally profess reformation and repentance (of which the controversy only is) is a mere perverting of this Text, and an application of it unto such, whom Christ did never intend thereby, as these parallel Texts demonstrate: However, certain I am, this Text extends not to any pious, penitent, believing Christians, truly fearing God, who out of judgement, conscience, dare not join with Sectaries in their new Independent ways of separation, to whom our Independent Ministers, Anabaptists, & other Separatists, are so uncharitable, unchristian, that they will not admit them nor their children to the Sacraments, in their separate Congregations, nor communicate with them upon any terms, for fear of giving that which is holy to dogs, and casting pearls before swine; such, and no better are the holiest, best of our Presbyterian Ministers, and Churchmembers estimated in their uncharitable pharisaical, unbrotherly opinions. God grant unto them more charity, and lessespirituall pride, which of all sins ●he, d●serves most to be excommunicated out of all Christian hearts and Congregations.  
But their sixth and last difference, wherein they all accord, yea place their strength, (being indeed the very foundation of their mistake,) this great controversy of suspension from the Sacrament, & so requiring a fuller answer, is that which ou● Reverend Brother of Scotland insisted on i● his controversial Fas● Sermon, That the preaching of the Word is a converting Ordinance, and therefore ought to be preached to scandalous sinners, to convert them from their sins; but the sacrament of the Lord's supper is no converting, but only a sealing and confirming Ordinance, instituted, not to beget, but ●ncrease faith and rep●●tance where they are formerly b●gun; and therefore not to be administered to such, to whom they can seal no pardon of sin, nor covenant of grace. The same distinction hath likewise been used in a Sermon at Wool-chu●ch, and is subscribed to by all the three printed Answers to my four Queries.  
To which I answer; first, that the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper is a converting as well as a sealing Ordinance. For the better clearing whereof, we must distinguish of two sorts of conversion and sealing, which our Antagonists, to delude the vulgar, have ignorantly, wilfully or injudiciously confounded: First, there is an external conversion of men from Pag●●is●e or gentilism, to the external profession of the P●ith of Christ; which is ordinarily wrought by the preaching of the Word; or extraordinarily, by miracles without the Word preached, in reference to those without the Church; but ordinarily effected by the Sacrament of baptism, in reference to infants of Christian Parents borne within the Church, which Sacrament both admits and makes them members of the visible Church (without the preaching of the Word of which infants are not capable,) Acts 2. 37. to 43. 1 Pet. 3. 20 21. Joh. 3. 5. 1 Cor. 7. 14. Secondly, there is a conversion from a mere external formal profession of the Doctrine and faith of Christ, to an inward spiritual embracing and application of Christ, with his merits and promises to our souls, by the saving grace of faith, and to an holy Christian real change of heart and life: In this last conversion, the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper is not only a sealing or confirming, but likewise a regenerating and converting Ordinance, as well as the Word.  
There is likewise a double sealing (if we admit this Sacrament or baptism 
● No nor Sacraments; which I only mention, because they are s● much cried up above the word, and made more holy than it, only because they are term●d Sacraments, and Seal●s of the Covenan● without any ●ext to warrant it.  to be seals, though never once* styled Seals in any Scripture text:) 1. A visible external sealing of the pardon of sin, & God's promises in the blood of Christ to our outward senses. 2. An internal invisible sealing of them by the Spirit, working in, by the Word and Sacraments, to our souls: In the first sense, this Sacrament is a seal to all receivers, even to those who are scandalous and unworthy, who receive only the outward elements; In the second sense, only to worthy, penitent, believing receivers, who receivethe inward invisible grace as well as the outward signs: The first, seals all God's promises and a free pardon of all our sins only conditionally, if we truly repent, lay hold on Christ's passion, merits, promises, and apply them to our souls by a lively saving faith, and sincere repentance; the second seals them to us absolutely, because we have thus embraced and applied them.  
These distinctions premised, we may easily discover the falsity of the Antagonists surmise, That this sacrament is no converting, but only a sealing Ordinance; and that only to true believers, and worthy receivers, to whom alone it seals the pardon of sin, and promises of the gospel; for proof whereof, they produce neither reason nor Scripture, but their own bare confident groundless assertions, which I shall thus refute because it is a very common dangerous error.  
First, our Antagonists unanimously grant, that the Sacrament belongs to all unscandalous members of the visible Church, capable of self-examination, 
Lucas Osiander Enchirid. Contr. cum Anabapt. cap. 6. Q●. 3. p. 126, 127.  and not actually excommunicated, to close Hypocrites, & moral carnal Christians, not really regenerated, converted, yea to scandalous persons unconvicted, whom they profess no Minister hath any power to suspend from the Sacrament, upon his own particular private knowledge of their guilt. If then the Sacrament be only a sealing or confirming ordinance of true grace, when and where it is already begun, than it were altogether impertinent and ineffectual unto civil carnal Christians; Therefore do ubtlesse it is and was intended by Christ for a conv●rting Ordinance to all such as these, to turn them from their evil ways, and work saving grace within their hearts, since it can have no other proper primary effect in such: Certainly God and Christ bestow no Ordinances upon men in vain; therefore their intentions in instituting this Supper even for such visible moral unregenerate Christians, as well as real Saints, must necessarily be for their conversion, not their confirmation and sealingonely, in that sense as they interpret it.  
Secondly, all Ordinances of Christ that tend to edification, confirmation, or increase of grace, are more or less conducent to begin or beget grace, converting, as well as strengthening Ordinances; the preaching, reading, hearing of the Word, which comfort, strengthen and build up men in grace, do likewise (by our Antagonists free confessions) convert and beget grace; why then should not the Sacrament do the like? ●ince God's spirit equally breathes and works in all his Ordinances, and may and doth regenerate and beget grace in men's souls, by what Ordinance he thinks best, working in and by every Ordinance, as well as by any: The rather, because Christ instituted this Sacrament to be frequently received, when a● baptism only is but once administered, for this very end, that those who often fall into sin through infirmity, may likewise by this supper often rise again, be refreshed, comforted, and get strength against their sins and corruptious: And is it not then a converting as well as a co●firming Ordinance, fit for sinners to resort to? The Sacraments are by all Divines whatsoever, and the very Directory, page 52. ever enumerated among the MEANS OF GRACE and SALVATION; why then should they not be means of converting and begetting grace, as well as strengthening and confirming it? as yourselves affirm. 
See the Pract●ce of P●ety, p. 400. ●o 480. and all others concerning the Sacrament and ●ur pret●tio●s to receive it.   
Thirdly, the very receiving of the Sacrament, even in unregenerate persons, is for the most part accompanied with such particulars, as are most effectual to convert & beget grace in men's hearts: As first, with a previous external▪ serious examination of their own hearts and estates, between God & their own consciences, for which there are divers pious rules and directions published in printed books of devotion, which most Communicants ordinarily read and make use of before their resort to the Lord's Table. Secondly, a solemn searching out of all their open or secret sins and corruptions, past or present, accompanied with a serious, particular, private confession of them, a hearty contrition and humiliation for them, private prayers to God for pardon of, yea power and strength against them; secret purposes, vows and resolutions for ever to relinquish, war, strive, fight against them, and avoid all occasions which may ensnare them in them. Thirdly, sundry pious, soul-ravishing meditations, both in regard of their sins, God's mercy and justice, Christ's merits, death, passion, the end and use of the Sacraments, &c. which make deep temporary impressions on their hearts, spirits, and work an extraordinary change both in their resolutions, minds, spirits, conversations for the present, and many times for the future. Fourthly, flexanimous exhortations; admonitions, comminations, directions, prayers by the Ministers in the Congregation, before, in, & after this duty, which operate, penetrate more upon Sacrament-dayes, upon Communicants of all sorts (as experience manifests) then at other seasons. Now whether the receiving of this Sacrament, usually accompanied, and set on upon men's spirits, with such most effectual powerful, likely means of conversion, be not a most apt and proper Ordinance to regenerate, reclaim, convert ungodly, scandalous sinners, and more likely to regenerate and change their hearts, lives, than the bare Word preached, or any other Ordinance, at least wise more effectual to convert and amend them, than any rigorous suspensions of them from the Sacrament, let every man's conscience and experience judge.  
Fourthly, all our Antagonists accord, that we have a more immediate intercourse and communion with God and Christ in this Sacrament, then in any other Ordinance whatsoever, where in the outward elements we behold Christ's death and passion visibly represented to our eyes, and by them unto our hearts, and more lively, more particularly applied, and the remission of our sins more sensibly sealed to us then in any other Ordinance; from whence I thus infallibly conclude against these Opposites:  
That Ordinance wherein we most immediately converse with God and Christ, and have more intimate visible, sensible communion with them then in any other, is certainly the most powerful and effectual Ordinance of all othecs, to humble, regenerate, conve t, and beget true grace within us, and most probable converting Ordinance of all others; because the manifestation, revelation and proximity of God and Christ to the soul, is that which doth most of all humble and convert it, as is evident by Job, chap. 38. to 41. compared with chap. 42. 1. to 7. Isa. 6. 1. to 9 Luke 5. 7, 8, 9 Psal. 148. 14. Isa. 55. 6. Zeph. 3. 2. Hab. 10. 21. Eph. 2. 13. 17. James 4. 8.  
But the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper by our Antagonists own confession is such: Ergo, it is a converting, as well as a confirming Ordinance.  
Fifthly, what is it that makes the Word itself a converting Ordinance? ●s it not the particular revelation and application of the promises of the gospel, of Christ's merits, death and passion to the soul, by God's holy Spirit, not the mere outward voice or sound? 1 Cor. 1. 23, 24. chap. 2. 2. to 6. If so, as all must grant, then certainly this Sacrament, which by our Antagonists confession, doh most particularly, fully, lively, effectually, and sensibly apply the promises, yea, the death, passion and merits of Christ unto every communicant's eyes, ears, heart and soul, far livelier than the Word preached doth, 1 Cor. 11. 14. to 30. Gal. 3. 2. must be a converting Ordinance, and not a mere confirming ordinance, as they pretend.  
Sixthly, all grant, that God doth as effectually teach, convert & work grace by the eye, as ear; For first, the very book of nature and contemplation of the creatures instruct us, that there is an invisible God, & is enough to leave men without excuse, and through God's blessing sufficient to raise up excellent meditations tending both to sanctification and conversion, Psal. 8. 3. to 9 Psal. 19 1, 2, 3. Ps. 100 & 104. throughout, Job 31. to 42. Rom. 1. 28. to 25. Acts 17. 23. to 30. c. 14. 17. Secondly, all the external Sacrifices of the old Law, together with the Sacraments of Circumcision and the Passeover, did instruct and teach God's people who participated of them, or were present at them, by the eye, and were both edifying and converting Ordinances, as well as confirming, as all do and must acknowledge. Thirdly, the several Miracles of the Prophets under the Law, of Christ and his Apostles under the gospel (which converted thousands without preaching) did convert and regenerate men by the eye without the ear; the very sight of the Miracles being the ground and cause of their conversion and believing, John 2. 11. 23. chap. 3. 2. chap. 4. 52, 53, 54. chap. 6. 2. 26. ch. 7. 31. chap. 16. 41. 4. chap. 12. 18. 19 chap. 11. 45, 47, 48. Acts 1. 12. to 17. chap. 6. 7, 8. chap. 8. 6. 13. chap. 15. 12. Acts 19 11, 12. Matth. 15. 30, 31. Luke 5. 25, 26. 1 King's 18. 38, 39 Exod. 18. 31. Fourthly, experience 
See Gen 9 16. Job 42. 5, 6 Isa. 6. 5. 1 John 1. 1, 3.  and Scripture inform us, that the things we see with our eyes, do more affect and beget deeper impressions in our hearts, than the things we hear, Lam. 3. 51. Hence is that speech of our Saviour himself, to those who had the happiness to see his person; Blessed are your eyes, for they see, &c. Matth. 6. 16. Luk. 10. 23. Hence old Simeon, when he beheld our Saviour, was so ravished at the sight, that he broke out into these pathetical expressions; Lord now lettest th●n thy servant depart in peace, according to thy Word, for MINE EYES HAVE SEEN THY SALVATION, &c. Luke 2. 29, 30. Yea, Luke expressly records, chap. 23. v. 46, 47, 48. that when the Centurian saw our Saviour on his cross, giving up the Ghost, he glorified God saying, certainly this man was a righte●us man: And ALL THE PEOPLE that can together TO THAT SIGHT, BEHOLDING THE THINGS that were done, s●ote their breasts and returned. If then all these visible objects, Sacraments, Sacrifices, Types, Miracles, and the very beholding of Christ's person, passion, without the Word, were the most effectual means of working contrition, conversion, belief and faith in Christ in the spectators, by the eye; why should not the visible expressions of Christ's crucified body, bloodshed, passion on the cross, most lively presented to our eyes and senses in this Sacrament, even as if Christ himself were again actually crucified before our eyes, Gal. 3. 1. 1 Cor. 11. 25, 26. have the like effectual converting, regenerating operation on our hearts and spirits, as well as these other visible objects?  

See Act. 2. 23. 37, 38. ch. 3. 13, 14, 19 Rev▪ 1. 5 ●. Isa. 5●.  Seventhly, all Divines accord, that the most humbling, melting, sin-purging, mollifying, soul-changing meditation of all others that men can fix on, is the serious contemplation of Christ's bitter death and passion on the cross; that our particular sins did wound, pierce, not only his hands, feet, side, but his very soul; that he was bruised for our iniquities, &c. And yet that such is his superlative goodness, mercy, pity, that forgetting all these indignities▪ provocations, he heals us by those his very wounds which we have made, and washeth away our sins in that very blood of his, which we have shed. No meditation comparable to this, to reclaim ah obstinate sinner, mollify an adamantine heart, humble a proud spirit, reform a sinful life, regenerate and convert a carnal heart. And is not this most passionately, lively, really and effectually represented to our eyes, hearts, in this very Sacrament, in a more powerful prevailing manner then in the Word alone? And can any than deny it, to be as converting, yea a more humbling, regenerating, converting Ordinance than the Word, which is likewise commonly joined with it? Doubtless if this Sacrament be not a converting Ordinance in this regard, I know not any which can be so reputed.  

Psal. 1. 19 67. 71. 2 Chron. 33. 11, 12, 13. Isa. 48 10. Hos. 5. 15.  Eighthly, all accord, that our own corporal external (a) afflictions are many times without the Word, the means of our repentance and conversion unto God: and the Scripture is express they are so. If then our own afflictions are, or may be a converting ordinance, then much more the Sacrament, wherein the afflictions of Christ himself are so visibly set forth before our eyes.  
Ninthly, that Ordinance whose unworthy participation is a means of our spiritual obduration, must, by the rule of contraries, when worthily received, be the instrument of our mortification, conversion, salvation; But the unworthy receiving the Sacrament, is a means of our spiritual obduration and damnation, 1 Cor. 11. 27, 29. Therefore its worthy receiving must needs be an instrument of our humiliation, mollification, conversion and salvation.  
Tenthly, the several ends and purposes for which this Sacrament was ordained, and of which it minds men when ever they receive it, prove it to be a 
See the Practice of Piety, p ●15 to 435.  sweet regenerating and converting, as well as a confirming Ordinance. As first, the keeping of Christians in perpetual memory of Christ's death and propitiatory sacrifice on the cross, of purpose to convert and reconcile them unto God, 1 Cor. 11. 26, 27. Gal. 3. 1, Mat. 26. 28. Secondly, the ratification and sealing of all the Promises & Covenants of Grace unto the receivers souls, 2 Cor. 1. 20. Thirdly, to be a pledge and symbol of that most near and effectual communion which Christians have with Christ, and that spiritual union which they enjoy with him, 1 Cor. 10. 16. Ephes. 5. 25. to 35. Fourthly, to feed the communicant's souls in assured hope of eternal life. Fifthly, to be an assured pledge unto them of their spiritual and corporal resurrection. Sixthly, to seal unto them the assurance of everlasting life upon their sincere repentance, and embracing of Jesus Christ for their only saviour. Seventhly, to bind all christians, as it were by an oath of fidelity, and oblige them forever to the service of Christ, who died for us to this very end, that whether we live we should live unto the Lord, or whether we die we should die unto the Lord; & that living and dying w● should be ever his, Rom. 14. 7, 8, 9 2 Cor. 5. 14. to 19 from whence it is called A Sacrament, or Oath by Divines. Now I beseech my Antagonists to inform me, how it is possible that a Sacrament ordained for such and so many spiritual ends, (every one of which is most powerful to operate upon the flintiest heart and obduratest spirit) should not in all these regards, both in God's intention and Christ's ordination, be a converting, as well as a sealing ordinance; since that which doth seal all these particulars to men's souls, and represent them to their saddest thoughts, must needs more powerfully persuade, pierce, melt, relent, convert an obdurate heart and unregenerate sinner, than the Word itself, when but nakedly Preached, which comes not with such advantages upon impenitent hearts, as this Sacrament doth in all these respects.  
Eleventhly, I would but demand of the opposites, what true conversion is? Is it not a sincere universal turning of the whole frame of a Christians inward and outward man, from the love and service of the world, flesh, devil, sin, unto the cordial love, service, obedience of God in Christ? And is there any Ordinance, engine, instrument, so probable, so prevalent to effect it as this Sacrament, in all the forecited respects? certainly none at all.  
Twelfthly, (to spend no more arguments in so clear a case) I appeal to every Christians conscience; whether their own experience will not ascertain them, that the Sacrament is a converting ordinance, turning their hearts from the power and love of sin, to the service, love of God and Christ; and strengthening them against their corruptions; temptations, as well, as much as the Word, if not far more. And cannot many thousands of converted Christians experimentally affirm, that their preparations and approaches to this holy Sacrament, were the first effectual means of their conversion, yea that they had not been converted, had they been debarred from it for their former scandalous lives? For shame therefore disclaim this absurd irreligious paradox, for which there is not the least shadow of Scripture, or solid reason.  
If then the Sacrament be a converting as well as a sealing ordinance; then questionless no unexcommunicated scandalous person, who is fit to hear the Word, and join in any other converting ordinances, as Fasting, Prayer, &c. ought to be debarred from this, it being one of the most effectual principal means which Christ himself 
b Mat. 11. 28 Isa. 55. 1, 2. John 7. 37. Mat. 22. 2, to 11.  who invites all heavy-laden sinners to come unto him) hath instituted for their real conversion. Is it not (I pray you) a Soul-murthering tyranny for any Ministers or Officers of Christ without an express divine Commission from him, to keep back any who externally profess his name, and are not utterly cut off from the society of the faithful and all other ordinances, from this most effectual lively means of their conversion, comfort or salvation? to hinder them from taking spiritual physic, because they are spiritually sick of sin? May not the Sacrament 
Mat. 9 6.  (Think you) convert them as speedily, as probably as the bare Word? If men be corporally sick, we will use all means, and debar them from no one cordial or receipt that may probably restore them to health; and shall we not do the like with sinsicke souls? If you say the Sacrament may prove poison to them: therefore we dare not give it them. May not, nay will no● the Word & other Ordinances prove poison to them likewise as probably as i●, and yet you admit them without any scruple or dispute to them? Nay, let me a little retort the objection; Is not this Sacrament of Christ's own institution, the wholsomest medicine, the comfortablest cordial to, & purposely ordained by him ●●r sin-sick-dying souls? And is any potion more likely to recover, revive & strengthen them then this? Will you then adventure to detain it, nay plead you must of necessity, under pain of mortal sin and damnation to yourselves, deny it unto those who need it most and earnestly cry out for it, because it may possibly, through their present indisposition of spirit (which is only infallibly known to God, not you) prove dangerous or mortal totheir souls, when you deny it not to other civil carnal Christians, to whom it is as deadly, as poisonous every whit? Is any Parent or Master so unnatural or sottish, to deny his children, servant wholesome meat, drink, to feed their bodies, because perhaps they may turn to crudities, diseases (as they do in many;) or because they may possibly abuse them to excess and riot, and so quite starve them for want of nourishment? And shall any Ministers be so irrational or inconsiderate, as to deny the sacramental food and nourishment of men's souls unto them, only because possibly or probably they may receive them unworthily (as the best too often do) to the aggravation of their sin or present condemnation, and so starve their souls? Is any Physician so absurd, as to deny his Patient the most prevailing Potion to recover him, because peradvetture it may prove dangerous, as all other physic may and will do, if the very best prove deadly? Suppose any souls you thus keep back, without good warrant from Christ himself, should despair, die, perish for want of this spiritual physic, cordial, wilfully detained by you from them when desired, would not their blood be required at your hands? It was an old general error among many in point of physic, which murdered thousands, to deny drink to those who were inflamed with burning-feavers, and earnestly cried out for it to quench their thirst, for fear of increasing their fevers violence, which in truth it would have allayed, extinguished, if taken; and therefore Physicians of late have corrected this deadly mistake, by suffering such to drink freely when they please, to extinguish the unnatural heat, that else would kill them, which hath saved many such sick persons lives: I beseech you suffer not this old error in physic and Physicians to creep in among Divinity and Divines, in permitting them to deny the Lord's Cup to such feverish Christians, burning in the flames of sins and lusts, who need it most to quench their flames, and cry unto you for it; out of a fond conceit that it will prove poison to them; whereas you cannot deny but that it will probably, and for ought you certainly know, may through God's blessing, eventually prove the most effectual means for their health and recovery, and not of their destruction. We all justly condemn the Papists, for withholding the sacramental Cup from the Laity, to which they have a divine right, as well as the Priests, upon pretended inconveniences; and shall any then usurp a popish ●ower, not only to deny the Lord's cup, but Body too, to any who desire them, and have a right, an interest in them, as visible members of the visible Church? We sharply censure all such Ministers, who [a] deny or defer the Sacrament of 
Constitutions and Canons ecclesiastical Anno. 604. Can. 68, 69.  baptism to Infants, especially in cases of sickness or danger; and are not th●se as blameworthy, who deny or delay to give the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper to such of riper years, who are ready and desirous to receive it; when their souls for aught they know, may be as much endangered for want of it, as others are through want of preaching and other Ordinances? Certainly if there be any danger in the unworthy receiving the Sacrament, it is only to those who desire it, not to those who administer it to them at their desire, with the forementioned cautions; But if any hurt, despair, danger happen by their not receiving it, when desired (as for aught any Minister certainly knows there may be) the sin and danger is certainly theirs who refused to give it when requested, Since therefore, a peradventure we may receive or do good 
Zeph. ●. 3▪ Amos 5. 15. Ionas 3. 9 c. Gen. 31. 31. 32. 30▪ Numb. 22 6, 11. Josh. 2. 24. Judg 6, 5. 2 Tim. 2. 25. Jer. 36▪ 3, 6, 7, 8, 21. Est. 4. 14, 16. 1 Sam. 4. 6. ch. 14. 6. 1 King's 28. 5, 6. 2 Sam 12. 21, 22. 2 King 7. 3, 4, 5, 6.  by such a particular Ordinance or action, is a sufficient encouragement for us to adventure on it in other cases, let it be also a warrantable ground and encouragement for Ministers to administer the Sacrament in such cases, where they have at least a probabilty, a possibility, a peradventure, it maybe, and an who knoweth but it may co●vert and do th●m good, as well as a peradventure it may prove dangerous to their souls: Remember, you are only the Ministers not Lords of Christ's Sacraments, Ordinances, Flock; their Stewards to give them the food of their souls in due season, not to withhold it from them: And for a conclusion, think of these determinations of Lucas Osiander, against the Anabaptiss, De Ecclesia, c. 6. Qu. 3.  
Etsi tenemur errantes & peccatores admomere, & si sieri pessit, in viam reducere, tamen nostrum non est in acceptione Dominica Caenae, ILLORUM, SED NOSTRA probare corda, sic dicente Paulo, probet SEIPSUM (non ALTERUM) h●mo, & sic de pane illo edat, 1 Cor. 11. Justus SUA side vivet, non aliena, Abac. 2. ideoque, sive alias ●idem suam contammet, sive prorsus amittat, non tamen tu illius vel diffidentia ant infidelitate, vives vel morieris. Et alibi dicit Paulus; Unusquisque nostrum PROSE (non pro alio) rationem r●ddet Dec: Non ergo amplius invicem judicem●●, Rom. 14. Cum Christus institueri●, Caenam suan sacram, aderat inter A●stol●s & Jud●●, Tradit●r Christ, illius tamen indign●tas nihil detraxit reliquis Apost●tis, neque jussi● illos Christus, ●ropter Jude praesentiam (quem tamen Christus jam proditor●● suum esse sciebat) de mensa surgere, & excluso ill● (n● contaminarentur forte & ipsi) deni●● celebra●e Coenam Domini. Ita etiam Paulus de indignis scribit, quod ILLI (non vero caeteri digne communicantes.) SIBI, non aliis recte accedentibus, manducent judicium. Neque caeteros probatos abstinere jubet a sacrae Coen● sumptio●●, sed indign●s, ad indigne se pr●parandum, coh●rtatur: Dogma hoc Anabaptisticum pr● se fert Pharis●ic●m S●perbiam qua hujus●●d▪ ho●ines se aliis ●eli●res esse putant▪ & occup●ti circa alie●●s conscientias proprias suas neglig●nt▪ fals●●mirum persuasi, sib▪ diligentiore & can●a probatione ●pus non esse: Deo a●tem hac Pharisatca {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, vehementer exosa est: Tantum igitur ocij est hisc● hominibus ● propria imbecilliate ut aliena potius, quam sua scrutentur. Fieri praterea potest, ut de quo Anabaptistie●●i Pharisai pessi●● judicant, is, propter panitentiam cordis, qua nobis occulta esse potest, Deo sit longe acceptior, quam superciliosus hom●, qui ●●ndem j●dic●, ●icuti Publicanum (quem tamen Pharisaeus despiciebat, meli●rque ipso videbatur) justificatum in domum suam descendisse, prae Pharisaeo legimus, Luke 18. Ad ho● illud Christi spectat, Ejice prius hypocrita trabem ex oculo tuo, quam ex fratris oculo sestucam eximas, Matth. 7.  
And thus much for their several evasions of my third Quere, in which I have been more prolix, because it is the very foundation of all our Antagonists mistakes and errors in this controversy.  
Only this I shall add for a conclusion; That if all excommunicated persons aught by the law of God to be admitted to the preaching of the Word, but not to Christ's Supper; as the Antagonists determive: Then by their own confessions and practice it will inevitably follow, there is no absolute excommunication at all by any divine institution left by Christ unto his Church; since persons admitted freely to communicate every day with the Saints and faithful in the ordinary hearing of the Word and prayer, are really unexcommunicated; it being a flat contradiction, to say they are excommunicated, when thus admitted to hear the Word, and to all other ordinances, but this Sacrament only. And thus by this very evasion they yield up their cause so much contended for at this present.  
The ninth thing in debate is, Whether John 9 21. 34, 35. The Jews had agreed already, that if any man did confess that he was Christ, he should be cast out of the Synagogue: and they cast him out (or excommunicated him, saith the Margin:) And c. 12. 42. Nevethelesse, a 'mong the chief Piests also many believed on him; but because of the Pharises, they did not confess him, lest they should be put out of the Synagogue: And c. 16. 2. They shall put you out of their Synagogues, &c. be any good proof at all, that excommunication or suspension from the Sacrament are of divine institution; or an ordinance of Christ which he hath left and perpetuated in his church?  
The doting Antidote-man affirms it, page 1. And in the days of our Saviour (writes he) excommunication out of the synagogue continued among the Jews, and our Saviour did not abrogate it, for the abuse of it by the Priests, Scribes and Pharises; but his Apostles under the gospel did exercise it against Simon Magus, when by professed sacrilege he declared himself in the gall of bitterness, and bond of iniquity (which I take to be no excommunication nor suspension.)  
To this I answer: first, That this putting men out of the Synagogue practised by the Jews, was no divine institution prescribed or warranted by God's Word; but only a human invention or punishment, introduced by the Jews, or Jewish Sanhedrim, as the texts themselves demonstrate; and so no precedent to bind us Christians. Secondly, this practice used by the Jews in the objected tex●s, was so far from being an ordinance of Christ, or approved by him, that it is a me●e diabolical institution against Christ, and all who should profess him, who we adjudged by the Jews to be put out of the synagogue for this very cause (and no other that we read of) that they professed Jesus to be the Christ: And is this a fitting pattern of divine institution for Christians to imitate, or a sufficient warrant to suspend men from the Sacrament? Certainly if it be so, it is but in this respect; that as the Jews would cast men out of the synagogue, only for professing Jesus to be the Christ; so you, in imitation of them, would keep off unexcommunicated scandalous Christians from the Lord's Table, that they might not there receive Christ tendered to them in this Sacrament, if they do but desire it. Thitdly, if we believe the Jewish rabbis, Godwin's Jewish Antiquities, l. 5. c. 2. 
a De Excommun cati●ue.  Erastus, 
b De Jure naturae & Grat. lib. 4. cap. 8. De anno Civiil &c. Praefatio, p. 6, 7. & cap. 18. p. 83, 84.  Master Seldon, and 
c Buxto●f. ●pi. Hebraei. p. 55.  other learned men; this casting out of the synagogue, was no proper ecclesiastical, but only a civil censure, whereby the party cast out, was separated from all company or society with any man, or woman for the distance of four cubits only at the pleasure of the Judge, (therefore it was certainly arbitrary, not divine) also from eating or drinking with any, from the use of the Marriage-bed, shaving, washing, and the like, according to the quality of the offence: It was of force forty days yet so, as that it might be shortened upon repentance; he that was thus excommunicated, had power to be present at divine service, to teach others, and learn of others; he hired servants, and was hired himself, but always on condition of keeping off four cubits' distance from them. Therefore doubtless it was merely a civil excommunication like to an oxtlary, not Ecclesiastical or Divine; since it suspended none from any divine Ordinance, but civil conversation only. Fourthly, It was prescribed, inflicted, not by the Priests or Ecclesiastical Classis, but by the temporal Magistrate, Ruler of the synagogue, Sanhedrim, or people, as the Texts demonstrate, the Jews, (not Priests) were 

d Num. 9, 1. to 16. Deut. 16. 1 2 King. 23. 22 23. 2 Chron. 30. 18. 35. throughout.  
Ezra. 6. 19 Mat. 26. 17. 18 Godwin's Jewish Antiquities li 8. 2. cap. 1. & l b. 3 cap. 4.   the actors in it. Fifthly, In the Jewish synagogues, there was neither Passeover nor Sacrament, nor sacrifice celebrated▪ for all sacrifices, passovers, festivals were celebrated in the Temple at Jerusalem, in the place which God did choose, not in their synagogues where they had only reading, expounding, preaching, disputing, prayer, but no sacrifice, or sacrament, as you may read in Godwin's Jewish Antiquities, l. 2. c. 1, 2. & l. 3. c. 4. Therefore from this practice you can no ways prove any suspension from the Sacrament, because no Sacrament nor Sacrifice was then administered or offered in them by the Jews: and if it prove aught for the use or divinity of excommunication, it is only thus much, that excommunicated persons cast out of the Church must be suspended from preaching, reading, prayer, and such Ordinances then used in the Jewish synagogues, not from any Sacrifice or Sacrament which were appropriated to the Temple, to which those who were cast out of the synagogue might resort: In brief, you may as well justify excommunication from Deotrophe as from hence. 
3 John 9, 10, 11.   
The tenth difference is, concerning the Scriptures quoted in the fourth Question; whether I have rightly applied them? My Opposites say no, upon four mistakes of theirs. First, that they can infallibly know the hearts and present conditions of Communicants who have formerly lived scandalously and impenitently in their sinful courses, to be impenitent, obstinate and wicked even at that very instant when they come to receive, though they publicly profess their unfeigned sorrow and repentance for all their sins past, and solemnly promise, yea, vow amendment and newness of life for ever after: which I affirm to be mere arogancy, and a usurpation of God's own tribunal, for any Minister or Classis peremptorily to determine, since God only knows men's hearts, and can change them in a moment. Se●●ndly, that the Sacrament is no converting Ordinance, but mere poison to all that have been scandalous persons resorting to it, though with profession of repentance and reformati●n. Thirdly, that none but persons truly regenerated an● sancti●ied have a right to the Sacrament, and that Ministers and Presbyters have di●in● a●●hority to keep back such scandalous persons from the Lord's Supper, whom they have no lawful authority to suspend from other 
C●l 6. 1, 2. 1 Tim. 5. 1. 20 Ti●. 3. 11.  O●●inances. Fourthly, that suspension from the Sacrament is, by divine institution, a necessa●y preparatory step and degree to excommunica●ion, as well 〈◊〉 admonition, exhortation, reprehension, and public rebuke; which is a mere groundle●se fancy, warranted b● no Texts nor precedent of Sc●ipt●re, as the premises d●mon●trate: And therefore the answers t● them b●ing grounded on these erroneous positions and mistakes, they yet remain● in their full vigour.  
Finally, to close up all other differences in few words, take notice, that my Antagonists contend for that which I grant them with advantage, and yet quarrel with me as denying it: for first, I freely grant them in my Questions, that all scandalous, obstinate, peremptory, incorrigible, notorious sinners, who desperately and professedly persevere in their gross scandalous sins, to the dishonour of Christian Religion the scandal of the Congregation, the ill ezample and infection of others▪ after several sole●n● previous public admonitions, reprehensions, rebukes, contemned or neglected, and full conviction of their scandal and impenitency, may and aught to be excommunicated, suspended, not only from the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper▪ but from all other public divine Ordinances whatsoever▪ and the society of the faithful, till public satisfaction given for the scandal, and open profession of amendment of life, accompanied with external symptoms of repentance: And they contest with me for a suspension of such sc●ndalous persons only from the Lord's Supper, without any total excommunication from the Church, and all other public Ordinances, for which I must profess● I can see no ground at all in Scripture▪ or reason; but Scripture and rational grounds enough against it; and quite subverts excommunication.  
Secondly, I affi●m that no visible member of a visible Church, professing sorrow for his sins, able to examine himself and desirous to receive the Sacrament, may or aught of right to be suspended from it, but such only who are actually excommunicated from all other Ordinances, or at least notoriously guilty and convicted of some public horrid crime, of which all the Congregation or Presbytery have legally taken notice, and are ripe for a sentence of excommunication then ready to be pronounced against them, so far as to suspend them from all public Ordinances: In such a case as this, where the fact is notorious, the proofs pregnant, the sentence of excommunication ready to be pronounced against them as persons impenitently scandalous and incorrigible, perchance the Presbytery or Classis may order a suspension from the Sacrament or any other Ordinances, before the sentence of excommunication solemnly denounced, if they see just cause; but not where there is a bare accusa●ion without any notoriousnness of the fact, or witnesses examined to prove the scandal; for thus to suspend a man upon a mere accusation, or surmise, before witnesses produced, were to pre-judge him as guilty, before hearing of his cause, or probat of the offence or accusation, which may be false a● well as true, for aught appears to the Presbytery: This was all I meant by this new addition to the second Impression of the four quere (or judicially accused, pendente lite) wherein the third Answerer to these Quaeres so much triumphs, as if he had wo●ne the field by this short addition, saying, that our Ministers and the Assembly desire no more power than this; which I shall readily grant them, with the precedent limitations, which will take off all his flourishes on it; and so we are both accorded▪ provided, that this power be claimed by no divine Right, but only by Parliamentary authority and human institution.  
To close up this discourse, I shall only propound these four New quere to all my Antagonists, and leave the further consideration of them to the saddest debates both of the honourable Houses of Parliament and Veverable Assembly; who perchance may seriously advise upon them  
First, Whether a bare excommunication or suspension from the Sacrament or other Ordinances, if not backed with the authority of the civil Magistrate, when these censures are slighted, or contemned, be not likely to prove an impotent invalid, ineffectual means to reclaim impenitent obstinate sinners, especially if they once grow common, trivial, and inflicted upon many together, which made it so contemptible under the Pope and Prelates? Whether it be not far better, safer profi●abler for Christians in point of conscience and Christian prudence, to admit such scandalous persons to the Sacrament, not actually excommunicated▪ who earnestly desire to receive it, and externally profesle repentance and amendment of their lives, though they thereby eat and drink judgement to themselves, and become guilty of Christ's body and blood; then under colour of keeping back such, to deprive them, or any sincere true hearted Christians of the benefit and comfort of it, to whom really it belongs, t● the very breaking of their hearts and wounding of their spirits? which hath been the ca●e of some and may be of more, if Christian moderation, compassion▪ charity, prudence be not most predominant in every Presbytery; doubtless better it were a thousand reprobates and obdurate sinners who will not be restrained by threats and admonitions, should eat unworthily, to the damnation of their souls, then one worthy Communicant, or sincere hearted Christian be deprived of that right and comfort of the Sacrament, which belongs unto him.  
Secondly, whether the suspending of such persons from the Sacrament (being no Ordinance of Christ for aught appears to me, nor expressly warranted by any Scripture, president, or precept) without a total suspension of them from all christian society & other Ordinances, will not be ● means to harden profane obdurate, scandalous sinners, if it be once made ordinary and general rather than to reform, convert, amend them? And whether their admission to the sacrament accompanied with serious previous ad●onitions▪ exhortations to them against unworthy receiving▪ and persevering in their impenitent courses after the Sacrament received, and public serious reprehensions for their former evil courses, b● not a far more probable way and means of reclaiming▪ converting them from their evil ways, than any bare suspension from the Sacrament, without any concurrent suspension from all other Ordinances and Christian communion can be? My reasons for propounding this Question are very considerable: First, be●ause such obstinate scandalous sinners, as experience teach●s, make no great conscience at all of receiving the Sacrament (from which for the most part they voluntarily suspend themselves for sundry months, nay years together out of mere profaneness) in case they may be freely admitted to other public Ordinances: It being only the total exclusion from the Church and all Christian society (not any bare su●pension from the Sacrament) which works both shame and remorse in excomunicate persons, as Paul resolves, 1 Thes. 3. 14. 1 Cor 5. 13. compared with the 1 Cor. 5. 1. to 11. Secondly, because we find this an experimental verity, that the most profane and scandalous sinners that are, when they intend to receive the Sacrament, will many of them (like loose 
c S●●Ed●. Sa●●● R●lat●●●.  Italians in the Lent▪ season) for a day or two before, at leastwise on the very day they receive it, and some days after▪ demean themselves very penitently and devoutly in o●tward appear●nce, yea openly and privately promise and vow to become new creatures, to give over all their sinful courses, and never to return to them again, and for the ●eason seem to be real converts; yea no doubt many d●boist perons have been really reclaimed converted▪ even by their access and admission to the Sacrament; who if actually suspended from & not admitted to it, would have grown more obstinately impenitent & dissolute in their lives▪ and never have entered into any serious examination of their evil ways, courses▪ nor promised such newness of life, as they do at time● of receiving, by their admission to the Sacrament. Thirdly, all our Antagonists grant, that the Sacrament is a solemn Vow or Covenant, which obligeth all receivers, esp●cially the most scandalous and sinful, generally to re●orm all their evil ways, and carry themselves more obediently, zealously towards God and Christ, then ever they did before: And we experimentally find that many sc●ndalous sinners, even out of a mere natural or hypocritical conscience, when they resort to the Lord's Ta●le, do oft enter into solemn secret vows and Covenants between God and their ownesoules, to amend their former evil ways peruse and read some good pious books of devotion, meditation, and listen very diligently to the Word when preached, which they will no whit regard, look on▪ ot harken to at other seasons, yea, become good, real, at leastwise formal converts. Fourthly, every Ordinance of Chtist, and the Sacrament▪ especially above others, is a special means not only of confirming, but begetting and increasing grace, as I have proved; and I make no doubt, but many scandalous, obstinate sinners, have been, and may be still reclaimed by their own ptivate conscionable preparations, examinations, meditations, prayers, vows, and pious resolutions, taken to themselves▪ and by the public confessions, exhortations, admonitions, prayers, i●structions▪ used in the Congr●gation both before, at, and immediately after their approaches to the Lord● Table: yea I 
Mat. ●. 11. ●3. c●ap. 13. 28, 24. L●k● 7. 34 ch▪ 1●. ●, 2. 1 Tim. 1. 15.  dare say ten to one, would be reclaimed, converted, by such admission, then will be converted or amended by their bare suspension from it: Hence it was, that Christ, who came into the world to save sinners, when he would reclaim and bring home sinners conversed familiarly with, & permitted them ever to come to him and hi● Ordi●ances, not debarred them from them: And the forecited Fathers allege this for one reason why Christ admitted the very traitor Judas to the sacrament, though he knew him to be a devil and castaway, because he would ●vercome him by this great mercy, goodness, lenity, and leave no means of his conversion unattempted: If therefore scandalous sinners seriously desire to receive the Sacrament, as a principal means to subdue their iniquities, reform their lives, and tie them faster unto God for the future, making public profession of the reality of their intentions in this kind (as they all do, at lest in words and outward show) why such should be debarred fro● the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, fince really admitted to the Sacrament of baptism, and all other Ordinances; I cannot yet discern any proof or reason.  
Thirdly, whether Christ did ever intend, that none but true real believers and penitents should receive his supper? Or, whether he did not infallibly both know and really intend, that many unregenerate, impenitent persons, would and ●hould receive it, some of them to their conversion, who belong to him, others of them to their h●rt & condemnation, as well as true penitents for their comfort and salvation? Our Antagonists do, and m●st of necessity grant▪ that close hypocrites, persons, who are not scandalous, b●t blameless in their outward conversations & endued withcompetent knowledge, have an external right to the Lord's supper, though not truly regenerate and endued with saving faith; and that no Mini●ler, Presbytery or Classis can or aught of right to suspend such from the Sacrament; for if real Saints should only approa●h the Lord's Table, how few would the number of Communicants be in all Congregations? or what Minister, Church, or Classis might or could take such a jurisdiction upon them▪ as certainly to define who are real Saints, and who not; since the Lord only knows infallibly who are his? They do and must likewise yield▪ that such persons as these having no justifying faith nor sincere repentance in them▪ when they do receive this Sacrament, do eat and drink their own damnation, as well as the profanest obstinatest sinners. If then these may be admitted to the Sacrament, though they thus eat and drink damnation to themselves, not discerning the Lord's body, then why not others? and if Christ hath ordiained the Sacrament of his Supper (as well as the preaching of the Word and gospel) to be a savour of death to such unworthy, as well as a savour of life unto life to worthy receivers; then what reason▪ in point of conscience, can any Minister allege, why he should not administer the Sacrament to all who desire to receive it, as well as preach the gospel to those who desire to hear it, since God hath his end in both? the glory of his justice in the one, as well as of his grace and mercy in the other.  
Fourthly, Whether all obstinate, scandalous, impenitent sinners, before they come to participate at the Lords Tahle, b● not in a present state of damnation? and whether they do not aggravate and e●crease their damnation by resorting to Sermons, hearing▪ reading, praying, fasting, and every other public duty they perform to God, as well as eat and augment it by resorting ●o the Sacrament? If yea, which cannot be gain▪ said, and is yielded by all; then what matter of conscience or solid reason can be rendered by any rational Christian, why such perso●s should not at well be admitted to the Sacrament, as to any other Ordinance; or not suspended equally from all Ordi●ances as well as from it; since all by accident, ●hrough men's abuse and unprofitableness, prove means of aggravating their sins and condemnation? Either therefore our Opposites must suspend such person● from all Ordinances alike, till they be reclaimed (which themselves perchance will deem a preposterous course) or else admit them to the Sacrament as well as to other Ordinances, since all prove alike good or bad, saving or damning to them.  
Object. If they allege (as some of them do) that suspension from the Sacrament, though not from othe● Ordinances, is but a step to excommunication, and therefore warranted by those Texts and reasons, which make for a total excommunication from the Church and o●her Ordinances.  
Answ. I demand, first, whether Christ himself (whose kingdom and Discipline you pretend excommunication to be, and him to be the only lawgiver of his Church) hath made suspension only from the Sacrament, but not from other Ordinances, a step to total excommunication, or a necessary or expedient forerunner 
● Tim. 5. 1 20 ●●t▪ 〈…〉 c. 2▪ 1●▪ 2 Thes. 3. 14, 14● gall 6. ●● 2▪  of it, as you grant he hath made public admonitions, exhortations, reproofs, and the like? If yea, then show me where, when, or how by Scripture, which I am certain you cannot do; If not, than this suspension from the Sacrament alone (which is now contested for with so much eagerness as if Christ's kingdom and Church-discipline did wholly consist therein) is but a mere human invention and so no Ordinance of Christ, nor any part of his Kingly government. Secondly, I shall demand, whether those Texts which prescribe a total exclusion from the Church, Ordinances, can be any way satisfied, obeyed, by a partial execution 
● Sam 15▪  of them? Wh●n God commands any thing to be fully executed, a half or partial performance only is no better in his esteem, then plain disobedience or rebellion; as appears in the case of (a) Saul's incomplete fulfilling●f God's commission against the A●al●kites, in sparing Agag and the best spoils; and destroying only the vulgar Amalekites, with the worst of the cattle and spoil. yourselves do daily inculcate upon the Parliament, and your Auditors, a through and complete Reformation in Church and State; informing them, that less will not be accepted of God or good men; and will you content God will a half excommunication of scandalous, notorious sinners, by suspending them only from the Sacrament, when he requires a complete sequestration and casting out of such, from all public Ordinances and Christian communion? Answer me but this, and you will soon satisfy your objection. Thirdly, what are the principal ends for which excommunication was instituted in the Church? are they not; First, the punishment of the impenitent delinquent for his crimes? whence it is styled by you & others, a censure, yea the terriblest censure and punishment of all. 
Levit 13. Num. ●. 〈…〉  Secondly, the preserving of others from infection▪ pollution, by their▪ ill example and conversation, as Leapers in the levitical law, and plague sick persons and Leapers by our laws now, a●e to be shut up & sequestered from the company of others during their contagions? If so (as you must needs acknowledge from this 1 Cor. 5. 6, 7, 8. Gall 5. 9 2 Tim. 2. 17, 18.) then if this censure be of God's institution not man's▪ how can you prove Chancellors to m●tigate or half it at your pleasures without God's warrant? how can you inflict it but in part▪ when and where he requires the whole? Are you f●ithfull or impartial judges herein? I presume you dare not say so; Either therefore execute this censure throug●ly and impartially, as God (you say) prescribes it, or not at all▪ lest you 〈…〉 selves wiser or mercifullier than God himself. Again, how can you 〈◊〉 others from infection by their society and examples▪ if you do not totally seclude them▪ for the time you suspend them, till they reform themselves, from all Christian society and public ordinances as well as from the Lord's Table only? Shall such converse and communicate daily with you in public prayers, Sermons▪ Fasts, reading the Scripture, singing psalms, &c. and yet not so much as once communicate with you monthly quarterly or yearly, for fear of contagion or pollution by their ill example and society in that duty only, in which (for the most part) they are ever most seemingly penitent, holy and devout? Was ever any man so absurd or se●slesse as to avoid the company of a leper, or plague-sick person once a month or quarter, at his Table only, for fear of infection, and yet meet with him daily or weekly in the selfsame house and room upon other civil occasions of business or discourse? And can any Christians than be so irration●ll, as to conceive, that their daily or weekly communion with such scandalous impeni●ent sinners in all other public ordinances, will not endanger or pollute them, nor make them▪ guilty of their sins by participation, communion or approbation; and yet think their monthly, quarterly, or yearly meeting and communicating with them at the Lord's Table only, will so poison▪ so infect them with their sins and guilt, that they neither can nor dare with safe conscience, admit them to, or join with them in this ordinance only, though they ordinarily join with them without scruple in all others? I beseech you dear Christian Brethren, consider seriously of all these particulars, apply them home to to your own conscien●es, weigh them by the sacred balance of God's holy Word, the rules of right reason, piety, prudence, and then I doubt not by God's blessing, if you be not obstinately wedded to your own opinions more than to the truth▪ you will speedily disclaim and confess the weakness, falseness, deceitfulness of those ●rro●ious grounds & whimsies whereon you have hitherto over▪ rashly (without any serious deliberation or discussion) built this your partial suspension from the Sacrament alone, without exclusion from other ordinances, which hath neither colour of Scripture, nor solid reason to support it, but both express against it.  
Remember, I beseech you, that the 
a Psal. 31. 15▪  times of men's conversion and reformation are in God's hands alone▪ not theirs or yours; that 
b Eph. 2. 1, 2. 2 Tim. 2. 25, ● 26. Rom. 9 16 Phil. 2. 13. Mark 10. 23.  the change of the heart and life is not him of that willeth, nor in him that runneth, but in God that showeth mercy▪ and worketh this blessed alteration▪ both at what time, and by what means he pleaseth: he can make the Word and Sacrament effectual to some scandalous sinners, it may be 
c Mat. 20. 1. to ●.  at the third, perchance at the sixth, possibly not till the eleventh or last hour of the day: shall you therefore debar them from them in the interim? Consider how many of yourselves (perchance) have lived impenitently, unprofitably under the ordinances▪ Sacraments, for sundry years together, and how long God did 
d ●er. 30. 18.  wait to show mercy upon▪ you, er● you did repent and amend; and will you▪ not exercise the 
e See Mat. 18▪ 27. to 33.  self same patience and indulgence towards others, as God and others did towards you, during your own scandalous and impenitent lives? Doth God 
f Mat. 13. 28, 29, 20. Heb. 6. 7, 8.  suff●r the tares to grow together in his Church with the wheat, and to enjoy the rain and dew of his Ordinances till the very harvest, without separation, because possibly some who are for the present tares, may afterward prove wheat: & will you extirpate or deprive them from the Sacrament before God's time without separation, not following that golden rule the Apostle prescribes to every Minister who is the Lord's servant, 
g 2 Tim 2. 25 26, 27.  to be gentle towards all men, patient; in meekness instructing those that oppose themselves, if God peradventure will give them repentance, to the acknowledg●ng of the truth, and that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive of him at his will: Let us no● be more impatient and harsher towards any than God himself and Christ are, and 
h Gal. 6. 1, 2. Luke 6. 36. Col. 3. 12, 13.  would have us to be; but let us 
i R 〈◊〉 9 22.  put on bowels of tender mercies towards them, with long-suffering, as they do; God himself endures with much long-suffering (in his Church) the very vessels of wrath fitted for destruction, endeavouring to overcome or leave them unexcusable by his Ordinances & long-suffering: And shall not we endure them or others, though scandalous for the present, who by these ordinances may become vessels of mercy, as well as we? Consider the 
k Ma●. 23▪ 1. to 11.  Parable of the marriage of the King's son, where the King sent forth his servants to invite guests to the Wedding▪ supper, who gathered together ALL they found, both BAD and good, that the Wedding might be furnished with Guests; and beware that ye fall not in point of the Sacrament, into the very error we condemn in Papists, in regard of the Word, who take away and deny the use of the Scriptures from the common people in the vulgar Tongue 
l 〈◊〉 Pet. 3. 16.  because the unstable and unlearned wrest them (as they did in Peter's time, & never more than now) to their own destruction? upon which very ground you take away the Sacrament from scandalous sinners, because you pretend they eat & drink it to their own damnation; and so lapse into the selfsame error in one kind as the Papists do in another, upon one & the same pretence. I plead not this as a mere Lawyer, for any private ends or l●cre (as some scandalously report) since I value not my calling (to which true Church-discipline will be no prejudice) nor any thing in the world in comparison of God's glory and the truth; Nor yet as an Advocate for licentio●●, scandalous sinners, to extenuate their offences, punishment, or any way to encourage them in their impentiency & profanations; nor out of any disaffection to the Presbyterian Government, for which I have earnestly pleaded, and suffered much reproach from Sectari●s and Independents, and in which I may expect as great a share of presbyterial power and honour as any other; but merely out of consci●nce, of love unto the truth, and tender compassions to▪ the souls of other●, from whom without any punctual Scripture warrant, I would have no means of grace, or ordinances of Christ withheld, wherein they have ● right, a property, 
〈◊〉 1 Cor. 11. 27.  which may conduce to their reformation or conversion. And I doubt not but many thousands now contrary minded, when they have perused my grounds and reasons, will readily sub●cribe to my opinion as the truth of Christ most agreeable to his practice, w●rd, mind▪ from which mee● crotchets and new whimsies of conceited brains▪ ought never to seduce us, Let us 
n Gal. 5. 1.  stand fast therefore in the liberty wherew●th Christ hath made us free, and be no more entangled with any yoke of bondage▪ but what himself hath put upon us, or authorized others to impose on 〈◊〉 by his word, especially in Christ's Ordinances, which concern our souls, from which no creatures have power justly to seclude us, but in such cases where he gives them express commission, and in such sort as he prescribes. And let me suggest but one thing more unto your saddest thoughts, That in the Churches of the Anabaptiss and Brownists, both abroad and at home, where excommunication 
See the Histories of the Anabaptiss, & Books against the Brownist●▪  and suspension from the Sacrament are most rigidly and severely exercised, pressed; the sins and execrable scandalous crimes of heresy, false doctrine, spiritual pride, sedition, schism, disobedience to Magistrates, and the higher powers, envy, hatred, malice, covetousness, oppression, extortion, hypocrisy, yea, lying, railing▪ uncharitableness, slandering, unnaturalness, sometimes of sor●ication, adultery, fleshliness, do far more abound then in many of our English Congreg●●ions, where these censures are very rarely exercised, or put in ●e; and that the practical power of godliness is generally more evidently visible, and the lives of the generality of the people more strict, pious, less scandalous and licentious in our English Congregations where there hath been powerful preaching, without the practice of excom●●ication or suspension from the Sacrament, then in the reformed Churches of France, Germany, Denmark or Scotland, for which I appeal to all travelers, and our Independent Ministers who have lived i● the Netherlands, who will & must acknowledge▪ that in the sanctification of the Lord's ●●y, strictness of life, and exemplariness of conversation, our English Ministers and Protestants generally excel all others, notwithstanding their strict discipline, which really reforms very few or none, and works no such miracles of reformation, holiness, preciseness in men's lives or hearts, as is pr●●●nded: And in popish Churches, where excom●●ications, suspensions, Interdictions, Church-censures▪ most abound of any▪ and are most frequently and formidably fulminated bypopish prelates and their officers; how many exorbitances and grievances they introduce, how little reformation they work in men's hearts or lives, is so well known to all men, and to our Opposites in opinion, that we can have little hope● they will produce much real sp●●dy reform●●ion in our Churches, since they have hitherto wrought so little in all these, especially if ●hey once grow common, general, and so contemp●ible. Certainly the speediest, best and only way to suppress all kind of sins, scisme●, to reform and purge our Churches from all scandalo●s offences, will be, for Ministers no● to draw out the sword of excommunication and suspension against them, which will do little good; but the sword of the Spirit, the powerful preaching of God's Word, and the sword of the civil Magistrate, which are only able to effect this work, And if our Assembly and Ministers will but diligently preach against that c●talogue of scandalous sinne● and sinners they have prese●●ed to the Parliament, and the Parliament prescribe severe ●emporall laws and p●nishments against them, and appoint good civil Magistrates to see them duly executed▪ inflicted, I am confident, that this would work a greater reformation in our Chu●ch and State in one half year, than all the Church▪ discipline and censures now so eagerly contested for, will do in an Age▪ and will be the only true way and speediest course to reform both Church and St●●e at once, which I hope the Parliament will consider of, and take care, that our Ministers (like the Bishops formerly) may not now be taken up with ruling and governing▪ but preaching and instructing, which is work enough, wholly to engross their ●ime and thoughts.  
And whereas many godly, true-hearted, zealous Christians are now persuaded, that the Parliaments deliberate (for I cannot say slow proceedings) in settling Church discipline and cen●ures, is the main cause of the increase of so many heresies, schisms and sects among us, and that the speedy settling of that model of 
P●t on and fomented by our Ministers underhand.  Church Discipline the Assembly hath presented to the Houses, will both prevent and redress this deplorable mischief, as is insinuated in a late printed Petition; I must needs inform these well-affected pious men (whom I truly love and honour) that they are much mistaken both in the cause and c●re of this malady, and spreading dangerous Gangreen.  
For first, the Parliaments deliberation in debating and settling Church-discipline is no true cause of this epidemical disease▪ which springs originally from other roots, of which I shall inform them.  
First, from our own Ministers late daily sowing, spreading of erroneous, dangerous seeds of separation in their Sermons, Discourses, Books, and maintaining ●ome anabaptistical and brownistical positions, specially concerning the Sacrament of the Lord's supper, and suspending scandalous persons from it (which I have here already recited, refuted;) even whiles they think and believe they write and preach against schism, separation, Anabaptism and errors tending t●●hem: This I am confident, is one main cause, if not the chiefest of this spreading grievance, which some of those who most complain against it, do out of this their ignorance and unadvisedness, most foment.  
Secondly, our Magistrates, Ministers and people's free permission of divers Ministers, heretics, schismatics, to vent their schismatical erroneous fancies, tenants, freely in our Churches, Pulpits, Presses▪ under pretence of advancing the Parliaments service, and being firm unto their cause; some of them, like so many wandering stars, running up and down from County to County, City to City, Pulpit to Pulpit, where they freely and boldly vent their errors, schisms, to seduce poor ignoran● people, and preach against our Church-worship, Doctrine, Ministers calling, the Parliaments, Synods authority in settling Church government &c. declaiming outright against our Church, Ministers as Antichristian▪ and the like; without apprehension, censure or control: driving on their own s●ism●ticall designs, under pretext of doing God and the Parliament service.  
Thirdly, the permission of Ministers and Sectaries of all sorts, contrary to the laws of God and the realm, openly to gather and set up private Independent Churches and Conventicles of their own, separate from the public: and to meet freely, boldly at them without the least interruption: With the toleration of such to hold constant private meetings and consultations together, every day, week, or month at least, how to advance and strengthen their party in all places, and get the greatest power and places of trust into their hands.  
Now will excommuncation or suspension from the Sacrament, or the settling of Church discipline prevent or redress all these true causes of our schisms? Certainly no: Not the first, nor last of them, and the second but in part: For those who thus voluntarily separate themselves from our Churches▪ Ministers, and will not join in any Church communion with us, will not care a straw, but deride and je●re u; to our faces, if we should excommunicate them from our S●c●aments, Churches, Assemblies, of which they profess themselves no Members, and from which they have already excommunicated▪ suspended themselves, but only when they creep up into our Pulpits, of purpose to preach against ●s▪ and seduce the people to sever from us, and separate to them, whenas they will not permit any orthodox Ministers of ours to preach, much less to preach against their ways, errors, in their separate Congregations.  
The only ways therefore to remedy this dangerous mischief for the present, and prevent it for the future, are these e●suing, which answer to these causes of them.  
First for our own Ministers to labour to discern and then publicly to retract and unteach the people by word and writing, their erroneous, grounds, schismatical doctrines touching the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, unmixed communions and suspension from the Sacrament: and then none will separate when they are better taught, and the false grounds of separation and scism (formerly pressed on them through ignorance, or in●ogitancy) be as constantly preached and written against, as they have been formerly asserted in the Pulpit and press.  
Secondly, for our Magistrates conscionably to convent question▪ and people to inform against all Ministers or others, who run about, and vent schismatical, erroneous new Doctrines or whimsies in their own or others' Pulpits▪ & seriously to admonish, cheek them for what is past and enjoin them for time to come, to prea●h nothing but Christ crucified, o● doctrines of edification, and to avoid all ●nnecessa●y controversies concerning Church▪ government (in which some now place all Religion) snd all erroneous doctrines contrary to those established among us; and in case they shall afterwards offend in the like kind, to debar them from stepping up into other men's P●lpits, and suspend them from their own till they shall reform their erroes, scisms and promise never to offend in like kind again. And withal▪ carefully to suppress the printing and dispersing of all heretical erroneous or schismatical books, by inflicting severe punishments on the Authors, Printers, dispersers of them: for which the good laws and ordinanc●s already made and in full force, are sufficient, were they but duly executed.  
Thirdly, to prohibit, suppress▪ by strict public laws and ordinances, the gathering of any particular Churches or Congregations without public authority, together with all private conventicles, of Ana●aptisticall sectaries wholly separating from, and standing in direct opposition against our public Church-meetings; together with all their private cabinet-councels, consultations, to foment and augment their party: And in case they will not be reclaimed by lenity and friendly christian proceedings, but continue still obstinate and incorrigible, then to proceed severely against the ringleaders of separating sects▪ ●cismer, and to keep or remove them from all Offices or places of public trust in Church o● State, wherein their continuance may prove prejudicial to b●t● or either of them: And if all o●r Magistrates, Judges, and Justices in City and Country would but modestly execute the good statutes and ordinances already provided against those; I am certain these spreading errors sectaries, schisms would be soon suppressed, and we all united in one, now the great stumbling block, of Superstitious popish ceremoys, Altars, Images, with the Common prayer Book (the only eyesores heart-sores and grounds of separation, formerly complained of ● conscientious people) are totally removed by the Parliament, together 〈◊〉 scandalous and unpreaching Ministers and God's word more powerfully, more ●ncere●y preached, then in any Conventicles or segregated Congergations whatsoever, where illiterate mechanics (who may as well st●p into the King's Throne, a●d civil Magistrates tribunal, as into the Ministers Pulpit) or ignorant, ●●gif●ed Ministers, do usually exercise their leaden Talents, and vent their dros●e straw, stubble, instead of the pure gold and orient pearls of God's sacred oracles.  
As therefore you desire, tender the redress of this great grievanc●, the speedy settlement, peace, unity of our distracted Church and State, the long expected establishment of such an exact Church▪ discipline as is warranted by God's Word, not built on human fancies; the advancement of God's truth, honour; the avoiding of all groundless, unwarrantable occasions of schisms or separations, occasioned by some new erroneous paradoxes and false notions, touching this weighty subject of Excommunication and suspension from the Sacrament; I shall humbly beseech and seriously adjure you in the name of Jesus Christ, the 
o ●eb. 13. 21 d. 1. Pet. 4. 5  great shepherd of his sheep, and impartial Judge both of quick and dead, 〈◊〉 (p) you will answer the contrary before his dreadful Tribunal at the last day, & avoid his 
q 1. Cor. 16.  Anathema Maranatha, with all good men's censures here, to lay aside all self▪ ends, self interests, prejudices whatsoever in this weighty controversy, and with a single, upright heart, seriously to weigh the several particulars her● presented to your consideration; and where you find I have Scripture, truth, or right reason siding with me, there cordially to embrace it without more co●te●●●▪ where you shall discern I have been mistaken in any thing (as for aught I know I am in nothing) there in a brotherly manner to refute it; and the Lord give 〈◊〉 all sincere hearts to 
r 1. Thes. 5 21▪  Prove all things, and hold fast what is good, both in our judgements and practices; and to rest truly thankful for the great work of Reformation already made, not to murmur or repine against God and the Parliament, ●s if little o● nothing were already done, because that▪ Church-Discipline of excommunication and suspension from the Sacrament (which some pretend, but prove not to be Christ's Ordinance and Kingdom) is not fully established in sounlimited and dangerous an arbitrary way as they desire, and cannot have their wills or humours satisfied in every s●all punctilio.  2 Cor. 13. 7, 8. 
Now I pray God tha● ye do no evil▪ not that we should appear approved, but that ye should do that which is honest th●ugh we appear to be Reprobates: for wr can d●● nothing against the truth, but for the truth.   

Errata.  
Page 33. line 6. read s●nnes: ●. 35 l. 45 not: p. 39 l. 3 pr●m●ses l. 9 of his l. 44 in this p. 47 l. 32. Ap●st●lo●. p 48 ●. 23. Priests, l. 28 Church, l. 42 were.  
FINIS.