A Brotherly and Friendly CENSURE OF THE error Of a dear Friend and Brother in Christian affection, IN An ANSWER to his four Questions lately sent abroad in print to the view of the world.  PROV. 27. 5, 6. Open rebuke is better than secret love. Faithful are the wounds of a friend; but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful. 
Published according to Order.  
LONDON, Printed for Nathanael Webb, 1645.   

To the Reader.  
CHristian reader, I will take it as a great favour from thee, if in reading this my Answer thou wilt judge me to be, as indeed, and in truth I am, an adversary of the cause, and not of the person. He who is commonly reported to be the Author of the four questions in hand, is one whose person I have, from my first knowledge of him, dearly loved, honoured, and admired, for his excellent parts, profitable pains for the public good, and his unwearied labours, and patient sufferings in the cause of Christ. If he hath but once in all his life stumbled upon a bad cause, and pleaded for it, (which is a common, and in some sort a necessary evil, hardly to be avoided by men of his vocation:) let not this blemish his great learning, nor his judgement, sound in all other points, and least of all his approved piety and zeal for true religion. His name, which was happily concealed, and not annexed to these four questions, shall ever be precious with me, and I hope with all God's people also, who truly fear the Lord, long for the peace of Zion, and unfeignedly seek the reformation of Christ's Church, in all these three kingdoms. It is no small grief to me, that I am compelled to move my pen in writing against any paper, published by an hand so dear to me: But in the cause of Christ, and in a point so prejudicial to the peace and pure reformation of the Church, Who can be silent? The nearest relations of love which one Christian can have to another in this world, must not hinder us, nor stay our hands, tongues or pens from performance of any duty, in which we all stand obliged to the Lord Christ our Redeemer, and to his Church our dear mother. And wherein can we be more necessitated to show our duty to both, then in resisting with all our power whatsoever tends to the common and continual profanation of the holy Sacrament of Christ's body and blood? which cannot possibly be avoided, if the power of the keys, which Christ hath given to his Apostles and their successors, with a promise to be with them to the end of the world, be taken, under any pretence, out of the hands of the Pastors and Presbyters of the Church, and no power left unto them to put by any sinners, openly scandalous and impenitent, from the holy Communion nor to exclude such spiritual lepers, most loathsome and infections, from the sacred meeting at the Lord's holy Table. Who doth not see that the main cause of the schisms and separations of divers godly and zealous Christians from our Communion, is the mixture of the profane among the pious and godly, and the admission of persons openly scandalous to the holy Sacrament? This is that which hath moved many out of their blind zeal to proclaim our Church, a whore a strumpet, a Synagogue of Antichrist; and our faithful Ministers, Baal's Priests, and limbs of the beast. All true Christians, and most of all the Ministers of the Word, are bound to put to their hands and shoulders for the removing of this stumbling-block and rock of offence out of the way: And I especially more than others, by reason of that singular love I bear to this dear brother erring in this point, and lest I should offend against that commandment, Lev. 19 17. Thou shalt not have thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him, or bear sin for him. His paper is gone forth in public, private rebuke will not hinder the hurt which it may do: It hath given such public wounds, as cannot be cured but by a public remedy. The Lord, the great healer of souls, give a speedy cure to the maladies of his Church, and all our soule-sicknesses: to him be praise for ever and ever.   

A brotherly and friendly Censure of the error of a dear friend and brother in Christian affection, In an Answer to his four Questions lately sent abroad in print, to the view of the world.  

The Inscription.  
Four serious Questions of grand Importance, concerning Excommunication and Suspension from the Sacrament; propounded to the Reverend Assembly and all Moderate Christians, to prevent schisms, and settle unity among us, in these divided times; by a lover both of Peace and Truth.   

The Answer to the Inscription.  
WHen I did first meet with this paper of four serious questions, fleeing abroad in print into every booksellers shop in London, and ready upon the wing to take flight into all parts of the land; That flying toll, which appeared to the Prophet Zecharie (presently upon my viewing of the matter and scope thereof) came to my mind, which is said to be a curse going forth over the face of the whole land, Zech. 5. 3. For as that was a curse to punish, cut off and consume even to the timber and stones of the houses, into which it entered: So I feared this would be a corrupting curse in the heart, house and family of every one that entertained it with approbation, and did welcome it with applause, seeing it proclaims liberty for all sinners, though openly scandalous and impenitent, to come boldly to the Lord's supper, and to eat and drink their own damnation, without control of the Pastors and Presbyters of the Church, whom Christ hath ordained to have the rule over them, and to watch for their souls, Heb. 13. 17.  
And whereas the questions are by the Author professed to be serious, and of grand importance, propounded to the Reverend Assembly, for the settling of unity among us, in these divided times: First, I must profess that I am much grieved, that any learned Christian brother should seriously urge such arguments▪ so weak, so fallacious, and of so little strength, to maintain so bad a cause as this, even the opening of a wide gap to libertinism, and profanation of the holy Sacrament of Christ's body and blood, and giving this liberty to carnal and profane men, of dissolute and scandalous life, that they without repulse may intrude themselves among godly Communicants, to the just offence and scandal of the whole Congregation: which they may have opportunity to do at several times, before the sentence of Excommunication, can in a way of orderly proceeding (especially when there are appeals made to higher Consistories one after another, by obstinate and contentious offenders) come forth against them, and be put in execution.  
Secondly, I hope it will be made to appear by this, and other Answers of more able brethren, that here is no matter of grand importance in these questions, except encouragement of men to live in scandalous sins, without fear of suspension from the Lord's table, and to intrude boldly thereunto, which is a power of grand tyranny, and oppression of the Consciences of Ministers, may in any but an evil sense, be called a matter of grand importance.  
Thirdly, I wish with all my heart, though now too late, that these questions, as in the title is pretended, had first been propounded to the venerable Assembly. For I doubt not but they than should have received such a solid and satisfactory Answer, as would have stayed the publishing of them in print, and prevented the infection of the minds of the vulgar people of weak judgement, and saved us the labour of composing Antidotes against them.  
Fourthly, I pity the Author, in that he hath so erred from his intended scope of these questions: for his handling and carriage of them, is so far from preventing schisms, and settling unity among us in those divided times: that on the contrary we find by experience to our grief, that they work strongly in corrupt and perverse minds, to the breeding, and increasing of schisms, to the disturbance of the desired reformation, in a point of greatest concernment, and to the raising up of divisions and dissensions, not only among others, but also between the Parliament and Assembly, which is a strange practice, in a lover of peace and truth.   

The Preface.  
The business of Excommunication and Sequestration from the Sacrament, &c.  
The Answer to the Preface before the questions.  
1. The business appears plainly to be of no difficulty, unless men will be difficult, and through their own averseness▪ hardly persuaded to grant and establish that which God's Word expressly holdeth forth and commendeth, and which we hope, and humbly pray, that the Honourable Houses of Parliament will be willing to do without difficulty. You yourself do quote divers texts of Scripture which establish Excommunication, and you presuppose it, in this your paper several times, where you say none is to be suspended from the Sacrament but such as are excommunicated, and in your Excommunication (for which you cite Tertullian, schoolmen, and Canonists,) you are more rigorous than any Presbyterians, whom you closely intimate to be indiscreet, passionate, oversevere and revengeful: which is a point of unchristian jealousy, and uncharitable surmise. For they dare not by excommunication exclude obstinate offenders from all ordinances, but suffer them to hear the Word, though not in communion as members of the Church, but as infidels may do; or else what hope can we have of an illiterate person excommunicated, that he will ever repent and be restored? As for suspension from the Sacrament, it is a thing more easy, in itself, and may be done orderly with less labour than excommunication, and with great ease and facility, and more frequently, and with good success is practised in all the best reformed Churches, which also our late abolished liturgy did allow largely to all Pastors and churchwardens: and it had been more easy to them that were godly, and also more usual in our Congregations, if the proud Prelates, fathers of profaneness, had not taken that power wholly to themselves: Which intolerable usurpation of theirs, we hope is with themselves quite taken away: but not the power from the Church, nor the lawful exercise of it according to the rules of Christ.  
Secondly, Whereas you make no medium between profanation and scandal on the one side, and Arbitrary, tyrannical, papal domineering over the Consciences and spiritual privileges of Christians on the other, herein passion and partiality seem to blind you: For there is a plain open way between the two extremes, that is, the lawful power which Christ hath given to ecclesiastical rulers, Pastors and Elders in his Church, which all godly Ministers, and all orthodox members of the Assembly stand, plead, and petition for, that it may be backed and confirmed to them by civil sanction, even power to prove and try who are fit, and who are unworthy to come to the Lord's Table, and by admitting the one, and putting back the other, after strict trial, and due proof and examination, profanation and scandal may easily be prevented, and Arbitrary, tyrannical, papal domineering over the consciences of Pastors, and godly Christian people shall have no place in God's Church; Scandalous proud impenitent sinners shall not come desperately to outface Christ and his Ministers at his own table, nor have an action against Ministers, who out of tender conscience, and fear of God, refuse to reach to them judgement and damnation, and so to partake with them in the guilt of Christ's body and blood; The Congregation of the godly shall not be scandalised, nor tyrannically forced either to countenance and harden the impenitent in their open wickedness▪ by communicating with them, or to separate from our Congregations, and abhor the ordinance of the Lord, as men did in old Eli's days, when his wicked sons made them to abhor the offering of the Lord, 1 Sam. 2. 17. But on the contrary, let scandalous, obstinate sinners have liberty to intrude and come boldly to the Lord's table, and the Pastors and Elders have no power to keep back from them the holy signs and scals, which belong not to them, this is more than arbitrary, tyrannical, papal domineering over the consciences of Pastors, Elders, and godly people.  
3. But here methinks you speak very untowardly, to the great offence of all godly people, against all Christ's Ministers and ecclesiastical rulers; for in these words (If it fall into indiscreet, over-severe, ambitious, passionate, or revengeful hands) you either suppose that generally the hands of Ministers and Elders of Christ's Church are such, and therefore they ought not to be trusted with power of Suspension and Excommunication; which if you do, your heart is not f●ee from malignity against their holy calling, and the Lord Christ, who hath trusted them, will find you out. Or else your meaning is, that, as in the days of the Papacy and Prelacy, so now it may again under presbyterial Church-government happen, that some of the rulers ecclesiastical may act with such hands. What then? Do you infer thence that all of that high calling are to be abridged of that power? A desperate inference, striking at the prerogative and power of Parliaments, and all civil Judges, and Courts of Justice. For upon the same grounds, viz. because under the Papacy, Parliaments made Laws for suppressing true religion, and establishing Idolatry and superstition, you may go about to abridge them. And under the late domineering Prelacy and tyranny, Judges wrested laws to take away the Subjects birthright and liberty, and to maintain oppression, and they made (you know whose) will and lust, law. And Lawyers soothed them, and you know when, not one (in all the bunch) could be found, nor hired to plead in the just cause of an innocent. And even then many Presbyters and ecclesiastical persons stood out courageously, and feared no persecutions, bonds or losses, in the cause both of religion and justice. Why then will you not take away all power also of judging from Judges, and of pleading and expounding the Law from Lawyers, and leave all civil government in the hands of the common people? Take heed, Sir, you be not partial and unequal to one side more than another. Aretius hath given you a very good caveat, not to strive so earnestly against this point of Christian discipline, in those words of his by you cited (impossibile praesentibus moribus colla submittere ejusmodi disciplinae) which words tell us, That the corrupt manners and profane lives of men desperately bent, in these evil times, to continue in their lewd and scandalous courses, make it impossible to bring them to submit their stiff necks to this discipline of Excommunication, and Suspension from the holy Communion, which is Christ's light yoke to tractable Christians. If you proceed to take part with such refractory opposers (which, I hope, your religious heart will not permit you to do) and spend your strength in so unworthy a cause, in hope by justifying these Questions, to prevail against the votes of your best friends, and most faithful lover which you have in this world, who truly honour you, and wish all good to you: I trust in God, you shall fail of your hopes, as Aretius did in his judgement, where speaking of this discipline set up by some in the Churches of Germany, he seems to deride it in those words by you rehearsed, Cecidit in spongiam ridiculus mus; For now this despised mouse is become an high mountain in all the best reformed Churches of Germany.  
4. As for your address to the Assembly, whom you charge unjustly with falling into extremes, and indeed calumniate them, as if they seemed to affect a great lording power over the consciences and privileges of their Christian brethren, which of right belongs not unto them, usurping that to themselves, which they vehemently declaimed against, and caused to be taken quite away from the Pope and Prelates.  
To this I answer, that you utterly mistake the matter. For they abhor all affectation and usurpation of lording power over the consciences of any Christians, but have condemned it in the Pope and Prelates; and their humble Petition to the Houses of Parliament is; That none may usurp lordly power, as the proud Prelates did, over them, and the people of their flock, compelling them either against their consciences, and with great offence and scandal to the godly, to admit scandalous sinners to the Lord's table, and to profane the Sacrament of Christ's body and blood, by giving the seals thereof to them, or else to decline the administration of that holy ordinance, and their ministry, choosing affliction rather than iniquity. In plain truth, this is the lordly tyrannical power over their consciences, and the iron yoke which you in your Question seek to lay on them.   

After the Preface answered, I proceed to your Questions; The first of which is,  
Quest. 1. Whether those places of Scripture, Matth. 18. 16, 17. & 1 Cor. 5. 5. 11. & 1 Tim. 1. 20. Joh. 9 22. 32. & 12. 42. & 16. 2. & ●Thess. 3. 14. & 2 Joh. 10. 11. & Joh. 3. 10. & Numb. 12. 14. & Deut. 23. 1. be properly meant of Excommunication, which you take upon you to prove from Fathers, schoolmen and others, to be an exclusion from all ordinances, or of Suspension from the Lord's Supper only. The first you hold, and we will grant it to you. The latter you deny, and I affirm, that it is here also meant inclusively, but not only. The first place you seem to weaken and enervate, by intimating that our Saviour speaks of private personal trespass between man and man, and not of public scandalous sins against the Congregation, and that the censure is private not public, because it is said, Let him be (not to the whole Church and all others, but) to Thee, as an Heathen man and a Publican; and you quote, Luk. 17. 3, 4. to prove that such private trespasses must be forgiven, if seventy times seven: which no man will deny, if the trespasser repent, as often as he offends. But now suppose be stand out and persist in his sin, and scorn private admonition; yea, when he is convented before the Church, he will not hear nor obey public admonition, do you not think that this is public scandal against the Cong●egation, and deserves Excommunication? Surely, if it were not so, our Saviour would not have passed against it that dreadful censure of Excommunication, saying, Let him be to Thee as an Heathen man and a Publican. And if to the private person for his private wrong, much more to all others in the Congregation, for public contumacy and scandalous obstinacy in his sin against the Church. It is a dangerous doctrine to teach any private person to censure and judge a brother to be in the state of an ethnic, and as a Publican, for a private trespass; if for his contumacy against the whole Church, and obstinacy in that sin, the sentence of Excommunication be not by the Church publicly given against him. Whereas you make it a branch of your Question. What warrant there is in Scripture for Ministers to suspend men from the Lord's Supper only, and not from the Congregation, and all other public ordinances with it. I answer this very easily: That because Suspension from the Sacrament is a step, yea the next degree to Excommunication (as reason, and the practice of all the best Churches of Christ do teach us) the Scriptures which warrant Excommunication, do also warrant it as a profitable and necessary means, either to prevent that dreadful sentence by bringing the sinner to repent and be ashamed, or to make his impenitency more evident and notorious, and to justify the more the Excommunication of him. But I marvel, that you should think it so strange and unwarrantable a thing to suspend a man from a Sacrament, who hath communion in all other ordinances of the Church, seeing it was the practice of all the ancient Churches to exclude the Catechumeni from baptism, till by catechising and hearing the Word publicly preached they were better instructed. And how dare you dispute against that which is resolved in this present Parliament? To wit, That ignorant, and some scandalous persons shall not be admitted to the Lord's table.  
Q●. Your second Question is the same which you propounded last before as a branch of the first: belike you are well pleased and affected with it, and have some thing more to say in urging it. I omit what I have answered before; and here I do first add, That Christian compassion, and moderation in dealing with perverse men is commended and commanded in the Scripture, 2 Tim. 2. 24▪ 25, 26. & Jude 22, 23. And this is a main point of compassion and moderation in ecclesiastical rulers, to try all inferior means; whereof suspension from the Lord's Table is one; before they proceed to the last and greatest censure of excommunication. Though the Popes and prelates excommunications, which belike do still run in your mind, were brutish thunderbolts thrown out upon every small occasion presently, and like the fool's dagger which is out to stab, at every cross word, and makes but a word and a blow: yet God's Word teacheth godly wise Pastors and Presbyters more meekness and gravity, in proceeding to the utmost censure, that is, first to reprove, admonish and rebuke, and if those more gentle means do not prevail, then to suspend from the Sacrament; which by experience is often found to humble stubborn offenders, and bring them to repentance, and so prevent cutting off from the Congregation; And all godly Christians do here see a double warrant of divine Authority. First, from God's Word: secondly, from his blessing of this proceeding with good success. This is my first answer. Secondly, to your bold assertion, That in the Old Testament we read of no circumcised person ever debarred from the Passover by the Priests, that was desirous to eat it. I Answer, that it is as void of truth, as full of boldness: For Levit. 22. 3. & Numb 9 5. and divers other places. Every circumcised person who was legally unclean, is forbidden to eat of the Passover, or any holy thing, under pain of being cut off, and might not eat of it till he was cleansed and rightly prepared as appears, 2 Chron. 30. 3 the very chapter by you quoted, according to the express words of the law, Numb. 9 11. And therefore much more ought baptised persons, now under the gospel, who are manifestly unclean with the spiritual defilement of scandalous sin, be suspended from the more holy Sacrament of Christ's body and blood, until he be cleansed by repentance. Thirdly, to the instance of Judas whom our Saviour knew to be a devil and a traitor. I Answer first, that Judas was not admitted to the Sacrament, for Judas went out before the Supper was ended, immediately upon his receiving of the sop, Joh 13. 30. But our Saviour did not ordain this Sacrament till after Supper, Luk. 22. 20 When he had supped, 1. Cor. 11. 25. Secondly, if Judas had been admitted, it makes nothing to the matter, for Judas professed faith in Christ, and in his outward conversation appeared so unblameable, that when our Saviour told them, that one of them twelve should betray him, they did not suspect Judas more than themselves, but every one asked, saying, Master, is it I? And indeed let a man be an hypocrite, traitor or devil inwardly, the Minister is not to judge of such secret things which belong to God, but to look to the outward profession, life and conversation, and accordingly deal with them. Fourthly, S. Paul's admonishing of the Corinthians of the great danger of unworthy receiving, namely, that it was eating damnation to themselves, and making them guilty of Christ's body and blood; and thereupon enjoining a strict examination of every one before he eat of that bread, and drink of that cup, doth sufficiently instruct the elders, to put back all such as did outwardly appear to be scandalous impenitent sinners, and so most unworthy to receive the holy signs and seals of the Lord's body and blood. Fifthly, To that question of yours, Whether a Minister hath not discharged his full duty and conscience, if he doth admonish his flock of the danger of unworthy receiving, and seriously dehort such as he deems unworthy, from receiving the Sacrament, till they become more fit to participate, under pain of eating and drinking their own damnation and other judgements? I answer, that this is no full discharge, neither do those Scriptures which you quote, Ezek, 33. 1, 2, &c. Act. 20. 16. or ours and French Liturgies prove any such thing in this case. For they who suspend scandalous persons, do also admonish all others to examine themselves, and mention the danger of unworthy receiving, that none unprepared may presume. It is a discharge of a Ministers duty, when he admonisheth only of the danger of a sin, in which when it is committed, the party admonished hath only an hand: But here the Minister is partaker of the sin, and as much guilty by giving, as the other by receiving. I pray you tell me, 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 desires it? and do you think it enough to admonish him that it is deadly poison? and first dehort him from drinking of it, and then immediately reach it to him, with intent, that he shall drink of it? I persuade myself, that as he shall perish, so his blood shall be required at your hands, and that you shall as guilty hold up your hand at the bar for it.  
Quest. 3. The third Question intimates that you conceive unworthy hearing of the Word to be as great, as dangerous, as damning a sin, as unworthy receiving of the Sacrament: That Ministers are no more partakers of other men's sins, not more guilty of their sins, and of giving holy things to dogs, and casting pearls before swine, by giving the Sacrament of Christ's body and blood to unworthy receivers who are openly scandalous, then by preaching the Word to unprofitable hearers, to whom he is the favour of death unto death. And hereupon you would infer, that Ministers may as well refuse to preach the Word unto their people, lest it should not profit them, as they may refuse to give the Sacrament to scandalous persons, who eat their own damnation.  
To this I answer▪ that there is vast difference between these two, preaching the Word to unprofitable hearers, and giving the Sacrament to persons openly scandalous, impenitent and profane receivers. First a Minister preacheth the Word to many that are unprofitable hearers, not knowing them to be such, and in hope to convert and profit them, if there be any such in the auditory, and so also he gives the Sacrament to some unworthy receivers, unwillingly, not knowing them to be such: and in such cases he is blameless: but if he gives the holy seals of Christ's body and blood to scandalous impenitent persons, he knows that he gives them damnation to eat and drink, and he is half sharer with them in the sinful act. And therefore though the sin of unworthy hear●●● of the Word is as dangerous and damning, as unworthy receiving of the Sacrament, to the hearen and receivers: yet to the Minister in the one, to weet, preaching without knowledge of the hurt which some receive by it, there is no fault; but in giving to the scandalous receiver he wittingly acts and partakes of the profanation of the holy ordinance.  
Secondly, The Lord's holy Table in the holy communion, is for the time a place of God's more special presence than the common Auditory, and there we come nearer to God, and receive with the word and promises particularly applied to us, the seals of our communion with Christ, and of our right and interest in him and all his benefits. But preaching to a common Auditory, is only a general propounding of the word and promises to all, not a particular applying of it to any, especially that hear unprofitably: for that were giving holy things to dogs: therefore there is more danger and greater sin in admitting unworthy receivers to the Lord's Table. A small error in such an holy ordinance doth provoke the Lord to wrath, who will be sanctified in them that come near to him, as appears in Aaron's two sons, Levit. 10. ●, 2, 3. & Vzza●, 2 Sam. 6. 7.  
Thirdly, Preaching the Word to such as are openly known to be scorners of the gospel, and persecutors of the Preachers, and do more rage and are hardened thereby, is a profanation of an holy thing, and a casting of pearls before swine, which our Saviour expressly forbids, Matth. 7. 6. & Matth. 10. 14. Bids his Apostles turn from such, and shake off the dust from their feet, as a testimony against them; and so Paul and Barnabas did, Act. 13. 51.  
Fourthly, In preaching the Word, the Minister of Christ propounds the truth to many wicked men generally, but doth not particularly apply any word of comfort, or promise of blessing to any but profitable hearers, and upon condition of repentance: But in giving the Sacrament to known impenitent persons, he preacheth most palpable lies against his own conscience, when he saith. The body of Christ was broken for you, and his blood washed for you: And therefore the points urged in this Question are very dangerous, and divers Scriptures herein quoted, are wrested and grossly perverted.  
Quest. 4. The fourth Question (upon that received truth, That God only knows the secrets of men's hearts, which Ministers do not, but mistake hypocrites for worthy receivers, and more honest simple weak men, for unfit Communicants) would infer, That Ministers ought not to have power to judge or censure. I● which reasoning; First, I find gross absurdity: for what can be more ridiculous then to argue, that because Ministers know not secret things which belong to God, therefore they know not revealed and manifest things, as open scandalous sins, and impenitency professed in the face of the Church, and by consequent may not judge and censure them by the Word of God, which doth plainly reveal their wickedness to them and the whole Consistory.  
Secondly, Observe how the Scriptures, which forbid rash judgement concerning men's estate before God, which is secret, or concerning men's last end, and the like, as Matth. 7. 1. Luk 6. 37. Rom. 14. 4. are wrested to overthrow all judging and censuring in general, both civil and ecclesiastical.  
Thirdly, How vainly the power of God is abused, to prove that he will in the midst of a profane wicked act change notorious sinners hearts in a moment, which if he should do, how shall these sinners manifest their repentance in a moment to the Church, which they have offended, that they may he admitted orderly, and not rashly without just ground or satisfaction?  
Fourthly, The breaking of a bruised reed, and quenching of smoking flax, is most miserably applied to the suspending of proud, refractory, impenitent sinners from the holy Sacrament; between which two sorts of persons and actions there is as vast a difference as between heaven and hell, light and darkness. For the bruised reed signifies men of broken heart and contrite spirit, groaning under the burden of their sins, and fleeing to Christ for ease: And smoking flax signifies such as have a weak but true faith, which like a spark in flax showeth by smoking that there is fire, striving to break forth, and to show light of holy life. Now how contrary these are to proud, scandalous impenitent sinners, let reasonable men judge; the first are such as the Publicans and sinners, who came to Christ repenting and confessing their sins, and by him were received, cherished and comforted; the latter are like those trees which brought forth no good, but bad fruit, unto the root of which the axe was laid, to hew them down, and cast them into the fire. The not breaking nor quenching the first is a point of mercy, and a work of Christ; the tolerating of the other and cherishing and encouraging them in their scandalous sins, by admitting them to the holy Communion of Christ's body and blood, is a point of great impiety, and a diabolical act of profanation. Here therefore the Scriptures are dangerously abused and wrested, where scandalous, impenitent and refractory persons are confounded with humble penitent sinners, breathing after comfort and communion with Christ.  
Fifthly, Here is a strange supposition, that all, bearing the name of Christians, even scandalous, impenitent sinners, are invited to the Sacrament, and are bound to come and receive it under pain of sin and contempt. I am sure the French and our Liturgies before cited do admonish all impenitent persons to abstain, lest they eat and drink their own damnation. And the Scriptures here quoted, 1 Cor. 11. & Heb. 10. 29. do show that unworthy wicked sinners do by unworthy receiving count the blood of the Covenant an unholy thing. Therefore to infer that no Minister in point of conscience can refuse to give the Sacrament to such, is to conclude, quidlibet ex quolibet. But whereas it is added, that Ministers may not refuse any Christian, not actually excommunicated, the Sacrament, if he desires to receive it, in case he profess sincere repentance for sins past, and promise newness of life for the time to come: this we embrace with all our hearts, and if he obtrude on us no other but only such, we will not be so uncharitable as to judge them unworthy, neither need we fear to partake of their sin, or suspect their unworthy receiving. For our rule is to proceed with men according to that which manifestly appears, whether it be in truth or in hypocrise; if any so professing doth eat unworthily, he eats damnation to himself, not to the Ministers, who therein do nothing against their consciences, but proceed according to the judgement of charity, and he shall bear his own burden. The Ministers act of administration to them who profess sincere repentance, is an holy and divine institution; but to open scandalous impenitent persons, it is a manifest profanation, and they are partakers in the guilt and punishment.  
The Conclusion being the result of the former arguments, which are plainly showed to be weak and of no strength, doth of itself fall to the ground and vanish. For I have showed, that unworthy hearing and unworthy receiving are equally sins in the hearers and receivers; but in the Preachers of the Word and the givers of the Sacraments it is far otherwise: the Preacher doth only propound the Word generally, and not falsely apply the promises of blessing and life to any particular scandalous persons, but upon condition of their believing repentance and obedience. If he knows any in the auditory, who are scorners of the Word, and haters and persecutors of him and his doctrine, he denounceth a curse from God against them, and desires them to keep away, and holds himself guilty of sin, if he should cast the pearl of the Gospel before such swine, when they are alone and separated from other hearers: he will not wittingly be to any the savour of death unto death. But the Minister who gives the Sacrament to open scandalous sinners in their impenitency, doth wittingly profane God's holy ordinance, and lieth against his conscience in saying that Christ's body was broken, and his blood shed for them, and makes himself guilty of their blood, while he gives them wittingly to eat and drink their own damnation, as is before showed. Whatsoever power takes from Christ's Ministers the lawful and necessary liberty to exclude from the Lord's table scandalous sinners openly impenitent, that is such a transcendent arbitrary, unlimited power, as lordly Prelates sometimes exercised, and no less than tyranny and oppression of the consciences both of Ministers and their godly people. And therefore here the Divines of the Assembly are charged most unjustly and calumniously, who have humbly desired, by way of Petition to both the honourable Houses of Parliament, that their consciences may not have this yoke of oppression laid on them, which will force them either to profane the Sacrament of Christ's body and blood, by giving it to unworthy persons, or to decline their ministry and administration of that holy ordinance, choosing affliction rather than iniquity.  
FINIS.