dissent, and returning written answers to these reasons. During that period the debates of the Assembly were of little importance, and the Erastian_ controversy also remained in comparative abeyance. Indeed the debates of the Assembly may be said to have almost terminated with the close of 1644; for their public deliberations after that time were chiefly occupied with the framing of the Catechisms and the Confession of Faith ; and although the very solemn and important nature of these subjects required mature study and great precision of language, which formed necessarily a work of considerable time, yet there existed so much harmony of doctrinal principles among them, that their discussions very seldom assumed the distinctive character of debate. The chief cause, probably, why the Erastian controversy was allowed to slumber during that period, was that the parliamentary politicians were engaged in the treaty of Uxbridge with the king, and were exceedingly anxious to conclude a peace with his majesty, if possible, being apprehensive that the self-denying ordinance would be carried by the intrigues of Cromwell, and the sword be thereby wrested from their grasp. That ordinance, after a struggle of nearly three months, was at last ratified by both Houses, on the 3d of April, 1645, and from that time the army was virtually independent of the Parliament, and ere long became its master, or rather the tyrant of both Parliament and kingdom.

Mention has been already made of the disinclination of the Parliament to agree to the Assembly's proposition respecting the power of ministers to keep back from the Lord's table persons not yet cut off from the Church. This power the Erastians were reluctant to sanction; and the Assembly was equally urgent that it should be fully sanctioned, both because they believed it to be necessary, to prevent that sacred ordinance from being profaned, and because one point strongly urged by the Independents, in defence of their separation, was the want of sufficient reformation in congregations. The subject was laid before the Parliament on the 6th of March, 1645, by the Assembly, and on the 10th of the same month by the city ministers.* On the 21st the Parliament took the subject into consideration, and on the 25th some votes were passed • Whitelocke, pp. 130, 131.

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.

rule, would much tend to the glory of God and the good of this whole kingdom." The Speaker answered, “That the House was in debate of the same business long before their coming, and that they would expedite it with as much conveniency as could be."* Not dismayed by this short answer, the Assembly, on the 8th, presented a petition, in which they "declared plainly their claim, jure divino, of power to suspend from the sacrament all such as they should judge to be scandalous or ignorant ;" and on the 11th a petition of a similar nature was presented to the House of Lords. Parliament was thus constrained to take the subject into full consideration, for the purpose of giving a clear and decided deliverance concerning it; and an elaborate discussion took place on the 3d of September, in which the Erastians declared their opinions fully.

"The house fell into debate," says Whitelocke, "of the great business of the Church,-the points of excommunication and suspension from the sacraments. Selden declared his opinion, 'That for four thousand years there was no sign of any law to suspend persons from religious exercises. That under the Law every sinner was, eo nomine, to come to offer, as he was a sinner; and no priest, or other authority had to do with him, unless it might be made appear to them, whether another did repent or not,― which was hard to be done. Strangers were kept away from the passover, but these were Pagans, and such as were not of the Jewish religion. The question is not now for keeping away Pagans in times of Christianity, but Protestants from Protestant worship. No divine can show that there is any such command as this to suspend from the sacrament. If, after Christ suffered, the Jews had become Christians, the same ground upon which they went as to their sacrifices, would have been as to the sacrament; and certainly no way nor command to keep any one from partaking of it. No man is kept from the sacrament, eo nomine, because he is guilty of any sin, by the constitution of the Reformed Churches, or because he hath not made satisfaction. Every man is a sinner, the difference is only, the one is in private, and the other a sinner in public. The one is as much against God as the other. Dic Ecclesiæ (Tell it to the Church'), in St. Matthew, was, to the courts • Whitelocke, p. 158. † Whitelocke, p. 160.

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 TGKOTO, 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.

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 very 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. We are 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,