respecting it, in some particular points. Again, on the. 27th, the Assembly gave to the House their advice concerning not admitting scandalous and ignorant persons to the sacraments. Thus urged to what they had no mind to grant, the Parliament, on the 1st of April, emitted an order, "That the Assembly set down in particular what measure of understanding persons ought to have of the Trinity, and other points debated, before they be admitted to the sacrament."* The object of this order was evidently to engage the Assembly in a discussion which might occupy their attention for a considerable time, and perhaps involve so much confusion and disagreement of opinion as should render a definite answer impracticable. But the desire of the Assembly was not to be so evaded; and they experienced less difficulty in answering the question of the Parliament than the Erastian lawyers had expected. Some additional votes respecting Church government were about the same time passed by the Parliament, the purport of which is thus stated by Baillie:-"They have passed a vote in the House of Commons, for appeals from Sessions to Presbyteries, from these to Synods, from these to national Assemblies, and from these to the Parliament. We mind to be silent for some time on this, lest we mar the erection of the ecclesiastical courts; but when we find it seasonable, we mind to make much ado before it go so. We are hopeful to make them declare that they mean no other thing, by their appeals from the national Assembly to a Parliament, than a complaint of an injurious proceeding; which we did never deny." †

Repeated debates took place in Parliament respecting the demands of the Assembly, during the months of May, June, and July, though without arriving at any conclusion. On the 30th of July Coleman preached a sermon before the House of Commons, of the most perfect Erastian character, to which we shall have occasion hereafter more particularly to refer. On the second day after, viz., on the 1st of August, the Assembly sent a deputation to the House, desiring that a speedy course might be taken about those who should be thought not fit to be admitted to the sacrament, namely, the ignorant, scandalous, and profane: it being a thing that, if effected exactly to the * Whitelocke, p. 134. † Baillie, vol. ii. p. 267.

conveniency as could be."* Not dismayed by th answer, the Assembly, on the 8th, presented a pet which they "declared plainly their claim, jure di power to suspend from the sacrament all such should judge to be scandalous or ignorant ;" an 11th a petition of a similar nature was presente House of Lords. Parliament was thus constrained the subject into full consideration, for the purpose ing a clear and decided deliverance concerning it elaborate discussion took place on the 3d of Sep in which the Erastians declared their opinions full

The house fell into debate," says Whitelocke, great business of the Church, the points of exco cation and suspension from the sacraments. (Se clared his opinion, That for four thousand years th no sign of any law to suspend persons from religio cises. That under the Law every sinner was, eo to come to offer, as he was a sinner; and no p other authority had to do with him, unless it n made appear to them, whether another did repent which was hard to be done. Strangers were ke from the passover, but these were Pagans, and such not of the Jewish religion. The question is not keeping away Pagans in times of Christianity, but tants from Protestant worship. No divine can sh there is any such command as this to suspend f sacrament. If, after Christ suffered, the Jews had Christians, the same ground upon which they we their sacrifices, would have been as to the sacrame certainly no way nor command to keep any one fr taking of it. No man is kept from the sacramen mine, because he is guilty of any sin, by the con of the Reformed Churches, or because he hath n satisfaction. Every man is a sinner, the difference the one is in private, and the other a sinner in publ one is as much against God as the other. Dic

11

of law, which then sat in Jerusalem. No man can show any excommunication till the Popes, Victor and Zephorinus, two hundred years after Christ, first began to use it upon private quarrels; thereby (it appears) excommunication is but human invention; it was taken from the heathens.'

Such was the argument of "the learned Selden ;" and very probably the members of the House thought it very learned, and fraught with sound theology. If it had been delivered in the Assembly it would have been estimated by a different standard, and subjected to a more searching scrutiny, as had been the case with arguments and assertions of a similar character in an instance already related. The substance of Mr. Whitelocke's speech was as follows:

"The Assembly of Divines have petitioned and advised the House of Commons, that in every Presbytery, or Presbyterian congregation, the pastors and ruling elders may have the power of excommunication, and the power of suspending such as they shall judge ignorant or scandalous persons from the sacrament. By pastors I suppose they mean themselves, and others who are, or may be preachers in the several congregations, and would be ERIOкGTO, bishops, or overseers of these congregations. By ruling elders, I take their meaning to be, a select number of such as in every one of these congregations shall be chosen for the execution of the church government and discipline in them respectively. They may properly enough be called pastors, from our Saviour's charge to his disciples,Feed my sheep;' so that a pastor is to feed those committed to his charge with spiritual food, as the shepherd feeds his flock with temporal. If so, how improper, then, will it be for those who are to feed the flock, to desire the power to excommunicate any,-to keep them from food, to suspend any from the sacrament,-to drive them from feeding on the bread of life,-to forbid any to eat of that whereof Christ, the great Shepherd of our souls, hath said, Take, eat,'-to forbid those to drink whom they shall judge unworthy, when our Saviour himself said, 'Drink ye all of this.' In the Old Testament, Ho! every one that thirsteth,' &c., said the prophet; yet now his successors would be authorized to say to some persons, 'You do not thirst,' though they them selves say they do, and to deny them milk and water, bread and wine, when they desire it. Surely it is not proper for pastors, for feeders of flocks, to deny food to any of their flock who shall desire it. But some have said, that it is the part of a good shepherd, if he see one of his sheep going astray into a ground where the grass will bring the rot, to chase him out of that pasture. And they apply it to spiritual pastors, suspending those from the sacrament whom they feared, by the unworthy receiving of it, may eat and drink their own damnation. This may be a charitable simile, but will hardly be found a full answer; for • Whitelocke, p. 163; Rushworth, vol. vi. p. 203.

6

it is not the receiving of the sacrament, but the unworthiness of the receiver that brings destruction. And whether he be unworthy or not, it is not in the judgment of pastor, or of any other, but of the party only who is the sinner; for none can know his heart but himself, and a commission will scarce be produced for any other to be judge thereof. The person refused may say to the pastor in this case, Who made thee judge?' Besides, the authority desired is not only of suspension, but of excommunication, which is a total driving or thundering away of the party from all spiritual food whatsoever. And if a shepherd shall chase away his sheep from all pastures, that indeed will bring the hunger-rot upon them. The more sinful persons are, the more they have need of instruction; and where can they have it better than from the lips of the learned and pious pastors, who ought to preserve knowledge.

"But it hath been said that the ruling elders are to join with them; let us inquire who they are. In some congregations in country villages, perhaps they may not be very learned themselves; yet the authority to be given them is sufficiently great. The word Elders, among the Hebrews, signified the men of greatest power and dignity; the members of their great sanhedrim were styled Elders, so were the princes of their tribes." [Then, as if in rivalry of Selden, he enlarged upon the use of a similar title among the Grecians, the Phoenicians, the Tyrians, the Romans, the Spaniards, the Italians, the Saxons,-giving the etymology of Earl, Alderman, and Sir.] "And so they may allow the title of Elders to the chief and select men of every Presbytery. Yet if this power (excommunication and suspension) be allowed them, they may well challenge the title of Elders in the highest signification. The power of the keys is a great power; the Romish Church will acknowledge it, and the foundation of their supremacy to be built upon

it.

Whatsoever they bind or loose upon earth to be bound or loosed in heaven, is a power which may claim the highest title imaginable. Although I can never presume that the reverend and pious learned gentlemen who aim at this power, can have the least supposition of any such effect by it, yet if any petitioners should sue you to be made judges or justices, I believe you would judge their petition the less modest, and them the less fit for such offices; but to this I make no application, and I hope none shall make any use of it. Power is thought fit to be given to suspend from the sacrament two sorts of persons, the ignorant and the scandalous. I am sure that I am a véry ignorant person; we are all more ignorant than we ought to be of the truth of Christ; even amongst the pastors and elders in some places, the most learned may in other places be adjudged ignorant. The more ignorant people are, the more some will blame their pastors, who ought to instruct them, and, by private conference, inform them, and rectify their understandings; and that is a good part of spiritual food. And to keep an ignorant person from the ordinances is no way to improve his knowledge. Scandalous persons are likewise to be suspended; and that is to be referred to the judgment of the pastor and ruling elders; where a commission for them to execute this judicature is extant, will be hard to show. Both pastors, and elders, and people are scandalous, in the general sense. all of us gross sinners, and our best performances are but scandalous, as to the true and.sincere profession of the Gospel of Christ. Those who are scandalous sinners ought to be admonished to forsake their evil ways,

We are

1

P༥་བ སསཔས་

བཔས སྡམས ཅསཔPཔ་བབ〉

may be a good physician, though he never cut off a member from his patients; a body may be very sound, though no member of i ver cut off; and surely a church may be a good church, though no er of it hath ever been cut off. I have heard here many com s of the jurisdiction formerly exercised by the prelates, who were few; there will be, by the passing of this now desired, a great mul tion of spiritual men in government. Where the temporal sword magistracy) is sufficient for punishment of offences, there will be need for this new discipline; nor will it be so easily granted."r a long debate," adds Whitelocke, in the narrative part of his "the House referred this matter to a further consideration by the Committee, to whom it was formerly referred." om the circumstance of the preceding speech being at full length by both Whitelocke and Rushworth, it dent that it must have been regarded by the Erastians e Parliament as exhibiting the ablest statement and cacy of their opinions. One thing, indeed, it proves clearly, namely, that when civilians attempt to reason theological questions, they are in great peril of forg their reputation either for candor and intelligence, or clearness of thought and power of reasoning. It De observed that Whitelocke deals much in vague ralities about the character and duties of pastors and s, and the effect of suspending from the sacrament excommunicating; and that he insinuates the danger lowing such powers to be exercised by the Church s, but carefully avoids making any specific applica. This method of stating his opinions left him at full ty to use all the artifices of sophistry which he could nand; and, accordingly, his whole speech is a tissue ophistical plausibilities. As, for example, "The duty pastor is to feed his flock; therefore he can have no to refuse food to any." But he should have proved the only duty of a pastor is to feed; otherwise his ment cannot prove that it may not be also a duty to se for proper reasons. Again, "The unworthiness of Whitelocke, pp. 163, 164; Rushworth, vol. vi. pp. 203-205.

V

very