and I hope they would not presently in the same moment that they debarred him from the Lords Supper excommunicate him There must be some time required to pray for him to rebuke convince and lay open his sinne before he be excommunicated which moved me to thinke that there was necessity of expresse Scripture to prove Excommunication but that abstention as Divines calleth it or suspension from the Lords Supper may well be sufficiently proved by Analogie by consequent and by the nature of the holy things of God and Pearles that are not to be given to the prophane 3. A visible scandall is a sufficient ground of the lesser excommunication or debarring from the Lords Supper and so we put a Testimony of one banished from the holy things of God on him who hath committed a scandalous offence which is a sufficient ground thereof though the offender be not formally excommunicated This Author saith without the consent of the Church no man though contumacious should be excommunicated What this is against us or for Erastus I see not we say the same He saith The Magistrate may chuse some of the congregation to Excommunicate which if he say I consent not to him and see no warrant for it in Scripture But I rather believe his sense to be That the godly Magistrate may command the Church to Excommunicate and punish them if they be negligent in this But hence it followeth not that the Magistrate may Excommunicate them as Erastus inferreth no more then of old it followeth King Vzziah might command the Priests to burn incense to the Lord and punish them if in this they should neglect their duty Ergo King Vzziah might lawfully in his own person burn incense to the Lord Erastus himself will deny this consequence Erastus saith It is evident this Author meaneth That God commanded not a Presbytery to be but that it is necessary for orders cause But I had rather that he had proved it from the Authors words And so I deny it while Erastus bring his own words to prove it I believe he fancies many things of this worthy Author as that he subjects not the Magistrate to the Presbytery And why Because he saith None ought to be Excommunicated without the consent of the Magistrate Truly it is a weak reason for if the Magistrate be a godly man and a Member of the Church it is necessary that his positive consent be had that he may in light and faith use the sword against him as against other evil doers But I give him no negative voyce nor any authoritative or Ecclesiastically judiciall voyce in Excommunication which can be due to him as a Magistrate So the Author doth not at all disagree from us Erastus is mistasten Erastus God hath Excommunicated Drunkards Hypocrites from the Sacraments except they repent But where hath God commanded such being Circumcised and Baptized to be excluded from the Sacraments especially if they professe that they repent of their former wayes for it is one thing to be excluded of God another thing to be cast out of the visible society of the godly Ans God hath Excommunicated Drunkards and Hypocrites who are not known openly to be such to the Church and therefore the Church cannot debar such from the Sacraments and so we grant all That it is one thing to be Excommunicated of the Church and another to be Excommunicated of God 2. He asketh where hath God commanded to debar such from the Sacraments being circumcised and baptized I Answer then If they be uncircumcised and unbaptised God will have the Church to debar them But let Erastus shew any Scripture for their exclusion but such as warranteth us to exclude the openly scandalous though circumcised and baptized 3. What warrant hath the Church or Magistrate if Erastus so will to debar all the uncircumcised and â—nbaptised from the Sacraments Job the Eunuch are not Excommunicated of God Ergo if the Lords non-Excommunication be our rule we cannot Excommunicate all the uncircumcised and baptized as such 4. Erastus addeth They cannot be excluded from the Sacraments Presertim sâ— pâ—nitentiam vitae anteactae prae se â—erant especially if they professe repentance But this presertim especially seemeth to infer though they professe no repentance but be dogs and swine they ought not to be debarred from the Seale Is this piety or rather prophanity But only he would say they are far lesse to be debarred if they professe repentance But we know to professe repentance in Erastus his way is to say by word of mouth they repent Now this saying so may consist with being openly dogs and swine Hence we see the contradicent of Erastus his saying to wit that the most openly scandalous are not to be excluded from the Sacraments especially if they say they repent that is especially if they lye and dissemble before the Sun yea though they mock God and repent noâ— I should think their saying they repent when their flagitious and impure conversation doth belye their profession maketh them so much rather worthy to be debarred being both dogs and Hypocrites So far I am from Erastus his presertim especially if they professe that they repent Erastus I grant it â—ighteth with Gods will that pardon should be denied to any by the Word and yet pardon sealed to those same men in the Sacrament But when the Word denyeth remission of sins absolutely to those the Sacraments are not due to them but the Word denieth not remission to them upon condition they repent and so neither should the Sacraments be denied to them Ans But the word denyeth absolutely remission of sins to dogs and swine so long as they repent not and that so much the more that they say they repent and their life belies their words and testifies to their face and before the Sun that they are plaâ—stered Hypocrites Ergo the Sacraments should be denyed to them Erastus But it followeth not that the Sacraments belongeth not to him who is not a member of the invisible Church so he be a member of the visible Church but as he partaketh only of the externall Communion so he receiveth but the externall elements from an externall Minister Ans But if he be visibly no Member of the invisible Church but in the eyes of the Church visibly a dog or a swine neither ought the externall symbols that are even externally the holy things of God to be given to him for otherwise this Argument shall conclude if one be baptised and a member of the Church though a dog yet the pearls of the Gospel are to be cast to such a dog which Erastus himself denieth And so this Argument hurteth Erastus as much as us That this Author saith God commanded those that transgressed his holy Law with an high hand and presumptuously to be killed lest they should live and prophane his holy things I defend not But sure Erastus erreth who will have all such to be killed by
saith he But the Magistrate himselfe is the apostate the heretick the idolater 2. He that may debarre from the seals may admit to the seals he that may do both Ex Officio is the formall dispenser of the seals by office that the Magistrate is not He that may put out or take in into the house by supream power is the Lord of the house He who by office may admit some to the Table and debarre other some is the Steward But the Magistrate is neither the lord of the Church nor the steward of the house by office We do not hold this consequence the Lord commanded ill doers to be killed Ergo He ordained in that same commandement that they be Excommunicated Nor do we say all those who were to be Excommunicated were to be killed as Erastus saith Nor that Excommunication in the New Testament succeedeth in place of killing in the Old Testament we see no light of Scripture going before us in these Erastus It is a wonder that you say that the godly Magistrate doth procure the externall Peace of the Common-wealth but not the salvation of the subjects that the Presbyters do only care for Ans The Sword is no intrinsecall mean of the saving of any mans soul It is true the godly Magistrate may procure a godly life but as a cause removens impedimentum removing idolatry heresie wolves and false teachers from the flock and commanding under the paine of the Sword that Pastors do their duty But Christ ascending on high gave Pastors and Teachers to gather a Church but not Magistrates armed with the Sword Erastus The Magistrates Sword is a most efficacious mean to bring men to the knowledge of God nothing more effectuall then affliction and the crosse when right teaching is joyned therewith examples teach us that in danger of death men have seriously turned to God who before could be moved by no exhortations But you say all die not in the Lord nor repent nor say I do they all die in the Lord who are taken away by diseases or are excommunicated yea Excommunication maketh many hypocrites Ans 1. Erastus here extolleth the Sword of the Magistrate as a more effectuall mean to salvation then exhortations or the Gospel But I read that Pastors are the Ministers by whom we beleeve and that they are workers with God and fellow-builders and Fathers to convert edifie to salvation and beget men over again to Christ 1 Cor. 3. 5 9. 1 Cor. 2. 4 15. Ambassadors of God 2 Cor. 5. 20. Friends of the Bridgroome 2 Cor. 11. 2. Ioh. 3. 29. Angels Rev. 2. 1. But I never read any such thing of the Magistrate and that the Gospel is the power of God to salvation Rom. 1. 16. The arme of the Lord Esay 53. 1. Sharper then a two edged sword lively and mighty in operation Heb. 4. 12. You never read any such thing of the Sword of the Magistrate the rest are before answered Erastus Some may be changed in a moment as the publican Luke 18. Zâ—cheus The repenting woman Luke 7. If therefore they professe repentance they are not to be debarred from the Lords supper Ans Put it in forme thus Those who may be changed and translated from darknesse to light in a moment and say that they repent are to be admitted to the Lords supper I assume But doggs and swine and doggish and furious persecutors who are to be debarred from the Sacraments As Erastus saith pag. 207. may be changed in a moment and say they repent Ergo those are to be admitted to the Sacraments who are not to be admitted to the Sacraments let Erastus prove the Major proposition 2. We finde no such sudden change in the Publican Zacheus or the repenting woman as Erastus seemeth to insinuate 3. Christ who knoweth the heart and can change men in a moment can at first welcome persons suddenly converted Ergo Must the stewards and dispensers of the mysteries upon a may be or a may not be reach the pearls of the Gospel to doggs and swine whom they see to be such It is a wide consequence He that bringeth his gift to the Alter may in a moment be changed Ergo He should not leave his gift at the Altar and go and first be reconciled to his brother He is presently without more adoe to offer his gift his heart is straighted in a moment if we beleeve Erastus But the rather of this that the man is in a moment changed He is to be debarred least his scandalous approaching to use the holy things of God make the work of conversion suspitious to others 4. This argument presupposeth that unvisible conversion giveth a man right in foro Ecclesiâ— in the Churches court to the seals of the Covenant and so there should be no need of externall profession at all which is absurd Erastus Shall not then idolaters and apostates be debarred as wâ— saith he deny an idolater and an apostate to be a Member of thâ— Church of Christ so we thinke the man that defendeth his wickednesse is not to be reckoned amongst the Members of the Church Anâ— as we think the former are to be banished out of the society of Christians so we think the latter are not to be suffered in that society Ans The Idolater that maketh defection and the apostate were once Members of the Church what hath made them now no Members Who should judge them and cast them out the Magistrate I answer there is no Christian Magistrate If the Church must do it here truly is all granted by Erastus that he hath disputed against in six books even this very Excommunication But if there be a Christian Magistrate what Scripture is there to warrant that he should cast out a Member out of Christs body Here is an Excommunication without precept promise or practise in the word we read that the Church of Corinth congregated together hath a command to judge and cast out a scandalous Member 1 Cor. 5. 4 5 11 12 13. out from amongst the midst of them Let Erastus say as much from the New Testament for his Magistraticall casting ouâ— 2. What reason is there by Erastus his way for casting out an idolater and a man that defendeth his owne wickednesse 1. May not God convert those suddenly as he did the thiefe on the crosse and Saul Ergo They should not be cast out 2. The Magistrate cannot more cut off those from being Members of Christs body then he can remove their faith and internall communion with Christ Now for this cause Erastus saith the Church cannot Excommunicate pag. 1. 2 Thess 3. and 4. 3. Christ and the Apostles did neither cast out Iudas nor Scribes Pharisees or Publicans out of the Church though they were worse then idolaters 4. No helps of salvation are to be denied even to idolaters and to men that defend their owne wickednesse but their remaining in the Church amongst the godly is a helpe of their salvation
members of the Church and that they are to be cast out of the Church as he doth also he must either grant that Christian Magistrates cannot turn Apostates and Idolaters which is against Scripture and experience or that if they turn Apostates and Idolaters they remain no longer members of the Church but are to be excommunicated or then Christ must have made some speciall exception that Kings though Idolaters and Apostates do yet remain members of the Church and are not to be cast out of the Church which beside that Erastus cannot shew is contradictory to his words Hence it is clear the Magistrate if he turn as Saul did a wicked man he is to be excommunicated But 1. By whom by the Church Erastus will deny he can be judged by the Church because he is above the Church by himselfe that is against reason By other Magistrates he is the only supream in that Church and by what reason he is above the Church he is above the other Magistrates and other Magistrates are guilty of the same fault Obj. 5. The supream and principall power called Architectonica of governing the Church in externals either agree to the Magistrate or to the Church not to the Magistrate as they say if to the Church Then 1. The universall care and inspection over the Church is taken from the Magistrate and given to the Church Ergo 2. Then the Christian Magistrate not indirectly only but directly must be obliged to follow the judgement of the Church in ordaining depriving punishing of Ministers or of any excommunicated 3. The subjects must be obliged not to obey yea to disobey the Magistrate if he decern any thing contrary to the Church and the Magistrate as a lictor and servant must execute all Ans 1. There is no reason to say that the supream and principall power by way of royall dominion as the argument supposeth in Church matters should agree to either Magistrate on earth or Church it is a Rose of the Crown of him who is the only King of Kings and Lord of Lords and so the Major is false Nor is that care and inspection which is due to the Magistrate taken from him when we ascribe to Christ what is his due 2. Neither doth it follow that the Magistrate is directly obliged to follow the judgement of the Church except we did make the judgement of the Church supream and absolute and armed with such a dominion as the adversaries give to the Magistrate in which case it followeth that the Church is directly and absolutely obliged to follow the judgement of the Magistrate according to the way of the adversaries and that if this argument be good they must ascribe blind obedience either to the Church or Magistrate not to the Magistrate they say Ergo to the Church Nor can they take it off by saying that the Magistrates dominon is limited by the Word of God for they know that we teach that all the constitutions and decrees of Synods made by the Church as the Church is limited by the Word of God yet they cease not to object to us that we make the Magistrate a servant and a lictor to the Church and obliged by his place to give blind obedience to the Church and therefore they are obliged to answer the argument and remove papal dominion from their way according to their owne argument if they will be willing to take in to themselves with the same measure that they give out to others But if they give a ministeriall power of judging to the Church the argument is easily answered which they cannot give to the Magistrate except they make his office to oblige the conscience and his commands as magistraticall to be given out under the pain of the second death Now his sword is too short to reach to this I hope except you make the vengence that he executeth on evil doers Rom. 13. to be eternall fire and his sword to be no materiall nor visible sword but such as commandeth Devils and Hell which is absurd for the Magistrates power of judging and commanding is commensurable to his power of rewarding and punishing that is both is temporary within time on the body of this world The Pastors have a power of commanding though only ministeriall but free of all domination or externall coaction which is spirituall and the punishment is accordingly spirituall a binding in earth and heaven I borrow only the word of punishment it being no such thing properly Obj. 6. If the end of the Church be a spirituall and of the Magistrate be a temporall good and if the Magistrate have no spirituall power to attain to his temporall end no more then the Church hath any temporall power to attain to her spirituall end is not this a contradiction that the Magistrate should determine what the true Church and Ordinances are and then set them up with the power of the sword for the Magistrates power to judge and punish in spirituall causes must be either spirituall or civill or then he hath none and so acts without commission Now for civill power the Magistrate hath it only over the bodies and goods of men and hath it not over the soul nor can he have it say â— in soul cases It is confessed that the Magistrate hath no spirituall power to attain a temporall end and therefore those who provoke the Magistrate without either civill or spirituall power to punish or prosecute in spirituall causes are to fear that they come too near to those frogs that proceed out of the mouth of the Dragon and Beast and false Prophet who with the same argument stirre up the Kings of the earth to make war against the Lambe and his followers Rev. 17. Bloody Tenent Answ 1. All this argument is builded on a great mistake and a conseqence never proved except by this one word of the Author Therefore say I and it is this The Magistrate hath no civill power over the soul therefore say I he hath no power in soul matters and cannot judge and punish in spirituall causes Sir this is a non sequitur The learned Divine Rivetus saith well The Magistrates power in spirituall things to judge and punish is formaliter and in it self and intrinsecally civill but objective in regard of the object and extrinsecally it is spirituall 1. I ask when the Author and his take a professor into church-Church-communion they judge whether he be just mercifull and peaceable when they excommunicate any member for murther for unjustice in taking away the goods of his brother whether the Church doth judge and punish in the causes of justice mercy and peace which properly belongeth to the civill Magistrate not to the Church properly but only ratione scandali as they are offensive in the Church of God I ask I say if the Churches power in judging and punishing be civill or spirituall not civill for this Author will say that the Church hath no power over the lives and goods
alterable and may put out Pastors and Teachers because God hath put out Apostles we have a new world of alterable Church-Policy 5. Reverent Beza referreth the Commandment to the Platforme of Discipline So Ambrose in Loc. and Chrysostome Homil. 18. so Diodat This Commandment which is ver 11 12. Or generally all other Commandments which are contained in this Epistle Popish Writers confesse the same though to the disadvantage of their Cause who maintain unwritten Church-Policy and Ceremonies So Lyra and Nicol. Gorran Mandatum quod Deus ego mandavimus the Commandment of the Lord and of me his Apostle Corneâ—a lapide Quicquid tibi O Episcope hac Epistolâ prescripsi demandavi hoc serva Salmeron alii per mandatum intelligunt Quecunque mandavi spectantia ad munus boni Episcopi SECT II. THE Adversaries amongst these things of Church-Policy do reckon such things as concerne the outward man and externals only and therefore Bilson Hooker and the rest as Cameron and others will have Christs kingdom altogether Spirituall Mysticall and invisible and Christ to them is not a King to binde the externall man nor doth he as King take care of the externall government of his own house that belongeth say they as other externall things to the Civill Magistrate who with advise and counsell of the Church Bishops and their unhallowed Members may make Lawes in all externals for the Government of the Church and all these externals though Positive are alterable yea and added to the word though not as additions corrupting but as perfecting and adorning the word of God and his worship In opposition to this our fourth Argument shall be he who is the only Head Lord and King of his Church must governe the politick externall body his Church perfectly by Laws of his own spirituall policy and that more perfectly then any earthly Monarch or State doth their subjects or any Commanders or any Lord or Master of Family doth their Army Souldiers and members of their Family But Christ is the head and only head of the Church for by what title Christ is before all things he in whom all things consist and is the beginning the first borne fram the dead and hath the preheminence in all things and he is onely soâ—ely and absolutely all these by the same title he is the Head and so the onely Head of the Body the Church Col. 1. 17 18. And he is the head of his Politick body and so a head in all externals as well as of mysticall and invâ—sible body for if his Church be an externall Politicall body and ruled by Organs Eyes Watchmen Rulers Feeders and such as externally guideth the flock as it is Eph. 4 11 12 13 14 15 16. 1 Cor. 12. 28. Matth. 16 17 18. A society to which Christ hath given the keys of his House and so externall power in a visible Politick Court on earth to binde and loose to take in and put out to open and shut the doors of his visible Politick house then this Politick body must have a head in externall policy and this head in externals must as a head governe by Laws all the members in their externall society for a body without a head is a monster and a Politick body without a head Politick and one that ruleth Politically is a Monster And Christ is the King yea the only King of his own Kingdom either as this Kingdom is mysticall and invisible or as it is Politick externall and visible on earth as these Scriptures proveth 1. Mat. 28. 18. Iesus â—aith unto me is all power given in Heaven and in earth I hope this power is only given to Christ not to Pope or earthly Prince It is the name above all names Phil. 2. 9. King of Kings Rev. 17. 14. And upon this Kingly power Christ doth an exâ—ernall Act of Royall power and giveth not only an inward but also a Politicall externall power to his disciples ver â—9 Go Teach and Baptize all Nations Is this only inward and heart-â—eaching and inward Baptizing by the spirit I think not God hath reserved that to himself only Isa 54. 13. Ioh. 6 44. 45. Joh. 1. 33. and Ioh. 20 21. 22. Upon this that the Father sent Christ and so set him his King upon his holy hill of Zion Psa 2. 6. Christ performeth an externall Politick mission and sendeth his disciples with power in a Politick externall way to remit and retain sins in an externall way for there is clearly two remittings and retainings of sins in the Text None can say of the Church it s my Church but he who is King of the Church and Christ saith Matth 16. 18. that it is his Church and upon this it is his Kingdom and the keyes are his keys and they are keys of a Kingdom visible and Politick on earth as is evident ver 19. I will give unto thee the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven and whatsoever thou shalt binde on earth in an externall Politicall court of Church Rulers as it is differenced from an internal and mysticall binding in Heaven shall be bound in Heaven c. For it is clear that there is an internall binding in Heaven and a Politicall and externall binding on earth and both are done by the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven But Christ can have or give no Politicall or exâ—ernall keys of an externall and Politicall King but as he is a King Yea and Excommunication doth not only binde the inward man in Heaven but also the externall man on earth excluding him from the Society of the Church as a Heathen and a Publican and purging him out from the externall communion of the Church as if he were now no brother Matth. 18. â—7 18. 1 Cor. 5. 7. 10 11 12. Now this externall separating and judging of an offender by the Church is done by the keys of the Kingdom Ergo by Christ as a King ruling the externall man Politically and so by the key of the house of David which is laid upon Christs shoulder Isa 22. 22. And by a Royall Act of him upon whose shoulder is the Government Is 9 6. Who sitteth upon the throne of David to order the kingdom to establish it with judgement justice For the Church doth bind and loose in the externall Court either by a Commission from him who as head of the Church and who as King gave to her the Keys of the Kingdom or by a generall Arbitrary power given to the Magistrate and Church to do in these things as they please so they do nothing contrary to the Word though not according to the Word as they are to do in Doctrinals if the former be said then must the externall Government be upon the shoulder of Christ as King which is that which we teach If the latter be said then might the Magistrate Church appoint such an Ordinance as excommunication and so they may by their Artitrary power make a Gospel Promise of
gather the Ordinances of God together distinctly and orderly to set them down according to their kindes for each Publique duty and Law But the Laws of Christ we rather finde mentioned by occasion in the writings of the Apostles then any solemn thing directly written to comprehend them in a Legall sort 1. The Law Moral and Ceremonial were not delivered one the same way the former was uttered by the Voice of God in the hearing of six hundred thousand 2. Written with Gods finger 3. Termedâ—a Covenant 4. Given to be kept without time how long or place where The latter not so and restricted to the Land of Jury Deut. 4. 5. 12. Deut. 5. 22. And if God had respect in Positive Laws to time and place and the Manners of that Nation seeing Nations are not all alike then the giving of one kinde of Positive Laws unto one only people without any Liberty to alter them is but a slender proof that therefore one kinde should be given to serve everlastingly for all Ans This Argument reduced to form shall want both matter and form and reason If the Laws of Moses be distinctly and orderly set down and gathered together according to their severall kindes for each Duty and the Laws of Christ be occasionally only written then Christ did not mean to set down particular Positive Laws for all things in such sort as Moses did But this difference is true Ergo c. Both the Major Proposition and the Assumption are false and neither of them can be proved For the occasionall writing of some Articles of Faith and of Dogmaticall points should then prove that Christ meant not to set down all Articles of Faith particularly for Christ Matth. 22. upon occasion of the Saduces tempting Paul upon occasion of some at Corinth who denied the Resurrection 1 Cor. 15. And of some that mourned for the dead 1 Thess 4. Set down and proved an Article of Faith to wit the Resurrection of the dead By this Argument the Scripture is not full and perfect in Fundamentals as Moses is in Ceremonials but hath left such and such Fundamentals to be altered added or omitted by the Church in that way that Surplice Crosse and Altars are alterable things Most of Dogmatick points concerning Christs sufferings are occasionall as his taking his betraying by Judas who knew the place he was in the valuing of him at Thirty pieces the giving him Gall and Vinegar a punishment not intended by the Iudge but occasionall in that Christ said he thirsted Yea the Crucifying of him rather then Barrabas upon occasion of the malice of the people when Pilate had scourged him upon a Policie to see if the people would demand he might be released the casting Lots for his garment the Crucifying of him between two Theeves the not breaking of his bones upon occasion he was dead the piercing of his side all which in regard of second causes were occasionall and so though Dogmaticall and Doctrinall these must be all such alterable and Ambulatory points of Doctrine as the Church and Prelats may change at their godly discretion and Christ meant not in these to set down particular Positive Laws in such sort as Moses did Yea the Evangel according to Luke is set forth occasionally because many have taken in hand to set forth in order a Declaration of these things which are most firmly believed therefore is seemed good to Luke also to write Luk. 1. 1 2 3 4. Upon occasion of Onesimus his fleeing from his master The Epistle to Philemon was written upon occasion of the unconstancy of the Galathians whose faith was perverted by false teachers that of Iustification by Faith without the works of the Law And the Epistle to the Galathians was written most if not all the Canonicâ— Epistles were written either upon occasion of false Teachers or for fear they should be scandalized at Pauls bonds By this vain Argument the most part of Canonick Scripture should be alterable imperfect not particular in most Doctrinals no lesse then in Ceremonials And so the Major Proposition is most false for its a vain thing to Collect Christs meaning to set down particulars of either Doctrine or Ceremonies from occasions of Providence for most of the Scripture is penned upon occasions from men and from second causes shall these things leave off to be of Divine Institution that hath their rise from occasions even sinfull occasions Yea the death of Christ is occasioned from mans fall in sin What then Is it an alterable Doctrine left to the determination of the Church that Christ died But this is no other then the shift of Papists for their unwritten Tradition Sanderus de Visib Monarch Lib. 1. c. 5. pag. 13. Si ergo per solas conscriptas leges dei civitas gubernaretur in valdè magnâ parte corum que passim contingunt quid faceret nesciret quia legem de his loquentâ—m non haberet Imo si tantum una Lex toti reipub necessaria esse posset eaque ipsa scriberetur a prudentissimis viris ac singulis annis ab orbe condito novae interpretationes eidem adderentur tamen nunquam eveniret ut ea lex tam plenè interpretata foret quin causae novae possent intervenire ob quas lex et legis interpretatio novam iterim postularet interpretationem adeo et foecunda est natura in suis eventis et Angustum ingenium humanum et varia surisperitorum sententia et verba tum pauca tum ambigua All cometh to this that this Papist saith That there cannot be one written unchangeable Law that is necessary for the whole Church for new events occasions and occurences of Providence should so change the case that there should be a necessity of a new interpretation and of a new Law 2. Nor can we say that Laws made upon occasion as that Law of transferring the inheritance to the Daughter made upon occasion of the Daughters of Zelophehad are in this sense occasionall that the Iews might at their pleasure alter or change a Law made by God and substitute one of their own in place thereof for then might the Iews change all the Ceremonies and Iudgements that God gave them for a time and occasionally Now then they might have abolished Circumcision the passeover and substitute other Sacraments in their place for these Sacraments were not given by Gods own voice 2. Nor written by Gods own finger Nor 3. Are they termed a Covenant in that sense that the Morall Law is termed a Covenant 4. Nor are they given without limitting of time and place expresly when and where Now if the Church of the Iews could change Sacraments at their pleasure because their Sacraments were no part of the Eternall Law Morall they might alter all Gods Law as the Church may alter Surplice Crossing and I see not but the Church of the New Testament upon the same ground may alter the Sacraments of the New Testament
same words in use amongst the Iews are used in the New Testament as 1 Cor. 16. 22. 1 Tim. 5. 19. Act. 15. 7 17. Revel 11. 2 8. 1 Pet. 4. 3. 2 Pet. 1 19. 20 21. Anathema Maeranatha Witnesses Gentiles sinners of the Gentiles imposition of hands c. Indeed in ordinary the Pastor under the New Testament is not called Priest nor high Priest nor the Communion Table an Altar But the words here used are obvious and very significant and the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Church is a most obvious word in both the Old and New Testament and doth signifie any Assembly Religious civill or prophane according as the nature person and use or end of the meeting or Assembly was Religious and Prophane as is evident by many places of the Old and New Testament where the seventy Interpreters use the word for a Church-Assembly for which see the due right of Presbyters page 349 350. and page 473 474. And since the word Church here is cleerely a company convened to gaine an offending brothers soule by rebukes and censures and which hath power to binde and loose on earth so as their fact is ratified in heaven it cannot be any other then a New Testament Church-meeting seeing we find the Church of Corinth commanded to conveene and exercise such a power 1 Cor. 5. 1 2 3 4. And therfore it cannot be expounded of the â—ivill judge not to adde that Erastus who objecteth this saith the Synâ—dre had both civill and spirituall or Ecclâ—siasticall power and therefore he hath no ground to expound the place of the Civill Magistrate 2. Because he was not yet ascended to heaven and had not sent downe the Holy Spirit it is no consequence to say he speaketh nothing of the Christian Church of the Nevv Testament for before his Ascension he appointed the Ministery the Sacraments the power of Censures and the keyes given to the Church of the New Testament Math. 28. 19 20. Joh. 20. v. 2â— 22. Math. 26. 20 21 22 23 c. Now it is as inconvenient that precepts such as Do this in remembrance of me take yee eate yee and he that heareth you heareth me should be given to the christian Church which yet had no being as for Christ to hold forth the power of jurisdiction of a Christian church destitute of all being Yea this recurreth upon Erastus who will have Christ here to hold forth the power of the Christian Magistrate as yet remoter from being all Magistrates being professed Enemies to Iesus Christ whereas there was at this time a seed a bottome of a christian visible Church There being eleven Apostles seventy Disciples and many others who professed faith in Christ already come Yea though there be no formed instituted visible Church of the New Testament yet it became our great Prophet who taught that Gospell yea all that he heard of the Father Ioh. 15. 15. to his Disciples which was to be a rule of the Faith of the Christian visible Church not yet instituted and who erected a Ministery to teach them before his ascension also to furnish that Ministery with the powerof the keyes censures as he expresly doth before his death Mat. 16. 17 18 19. Not to adde what Camero saith that he spake these words when he was now to offer himselfe on the Crosse and Math. 2. 16. He mentioneth the edifying of the Church of the New Testament and the Disciples aske vvho is to be greatest in the Kingdome of God ver 1. Object 7. Let him be unto thee as an Heathen and Publican can not meane as much as Let him bee excommunicated but onely let him plead vvith his obstinate brother vvho contemneth the Christian Magistrate before the heathen Magistrate and in preserving the offendor vvho is novv obstinate let him deale vvith him as with a Heathen and a Publican onely in this matter of pursuit but otherwise the Publican was not excommunicate 1. Because the Publicans place and office was good and lawfull and from God then to repute him as a Publican is not to repute him as a prophane man 2. When Iohn Baptist is demanded by the Publicans what they shall doe he doth not bid them lay downe the office of a Publican but onely not abuse it to rapine and extortion nor is Zacheus compelled by Christ to lay downe his office but onely to make restitution Answ 1. There is no necessity to condemne the office of the Publican or the birth and condition of the Heathen as unlawfull But a Publican went for a prophane man and for a man who is a stranger to the true church of God as Mat. 5. 46. If you love them that love you what reward have you Doe not even the Publicans the same Ergo It is Christs mind to exclude the Publicans from any spirituall or eternall reward promised to these within the visible Church and when Christ was slandered by the Jewes because he went in to be a Guest with a Publican Luke 19. 7. And because hee did eate vvith Publicans Mat. 9. 12 13. Christ taketh it as granted that Publicans were prophane men and sinners But he saith they were sicke sinners and lost that is such as were sensible of their by-past prophanity and desired the Physitian Christ to cure them and Gentiles or Heathen is taken for these who are without the Church and are void of Religion 1 Cor. 5. 1. Such fornication as is not so much as named amongst the Gentiles 1 Pet. 4. 3. Let it suffice you that ye have vvrought the vvill of the Gentiles Eph. 2. 11. Ye vvere in times past Gentiles what is that but Ver. 2. Ye vvalked according to the course of the World according to the Prince of the povver of the aire So a Samaritan is taken for one that hath a Devill yet to be a Samaritan by birth and nation is not unlawfull it is then a distinctive terme spoken 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be an Heathen or counted an Heathen and a Publican that is counted a prophane wicked person not a brother not a member of the church Theophylact expoundeth this with us If he heare not the Church let him be an out-cast least he rub any of his vvickednes upon others vvithin the Church And these words Let him be to thee is a word of command as Mat. 5. 37. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let your speech be yea yea Mat. 20. he that vvould be greatest let him be your servant and let him be to thee is not to exclude the Church but it is set downe in a Law-manner in the second person for farre more must the obstinate offender be as an Heathen and a Publican to the Church Ver. 18. Verily I say unto you What yee bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and what yee loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven These words contain a reason why he who contemneth the Church is to be holden as a Heathen and a Publican Why is it such
15. And to wait on them with all patience if God peradventure may give them repentance 7. The destruction of the flesh must be the destruction of the body But the bodies of the godly are saved no lesse then their spirits in the day of the Lord. 8. And for many of the former reasons by delivering to Satan cannot be meant a miraculous tormenting of the body by Sathan with the saving of the life Such as we read was the case of Iob for the delivering to Sathan is to cast out of the Church and declare such an offendor to be of the number of the wicked world of which Sathan is Prince Ioh. 12. 31. Ioh. 14. 30. and God 2 Cor. 4. 4. and that which we assert as the essentials of excommunication are 1. Here is a member of the Church one vvho is within 1 Cor. 5. 12. one who hath fallen in a foul scandall and had his fathers wife ver 1. who by the Church conveened in the name of our Lord Iesus with that spirit of the Apostle given to them by Christ v. 4. was delivered to Sathan that his soule may be saved for that is the genuine and intrinsecall end of Excommunication and to be purged out of the Church lest he should infect the Sheepe ver 7. and Christians were not to bear company with him nor to eate with him ver 9. 10 and he was judged to be cast out as a Heathen and Publican ver 12. 13. and that by a convened court having the name and authority of him who is King of the Church ver 4. and more wee doe not crave Obj. To deliver any to the power of Sathan is no mean of salvation Answ A morall delivering to the efficacy of error and a reprobate minde is not a mean of salvation nor is excommunication such a mean nor in the power of the Church but a medicinall depriving of an offender of the comfortable communion of the Saints and of the prayers of the Church and meanes of grace such is a means and mighty through God to humble CAP. V. Quest 1. Whether the word doth warrant discipline and censures even to the excluding of the scandalous from the Sacraments beside the Pastorall rebukes inflicted by one VVE are not to conceive that there was nothing Morall in the Lawes that God made to his people of Israel to debar the unclean from the society of Gods people and from communion with them in the holy things of God Numb 5. 1. And the Lord spake unto Moses saying 2. Command the children of Israel that they put out of the Campe every leaper and every one that hath an issue and whosoever is defiled by the dead Lev. 5. 2. If a soul touch any unclean thing whither it be a carcase of an unclean beast or the carcase of unclean cattell or the carcase of unclean creeping things and if it be hidden from him he also shall be unclean and guilty 6. And he shall bring his trespasse-offering unto the Lord for his sin which he hath sinned Lev. 7. 20. But the soul that eateth of the sacrifice of the peace offerings that pertaineth to the Lord having his uncleannesse upon him even that soul shall be cut off from the people 21. Moreover the soul that shall touch any unclean thing as the uncleannesse of man or any unclean beast or any abominable unclean thing and eat of the flesh of the sacrifice of peace-offerings which pertain unto the Lord even that soul shall be cut off from his people In the which observe that here the soul that shall touch any unclean thing is to be cut off but Num. 5. 2. He is only to be put out of the Campe now these were not killed that were put out of the Campe and therefore to be cut off from the people must be a morall cutting off by Excommunication not by death also the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth to make a Covenant to cut off either by death or any other way as by banishment by which a thing leaveth off to be in use though it be not destroyed as when a branch is cut off a tree 1 Sam. 31. 9. Yea we have Isa 50. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Where is that Bill of cutting off or divorce Now this was not a Bill of killing the wife that was divorced but putting her from her husband as our Saviour saith It is not Lawfull to marry her that is divorced Matth. 19. 9. A killed and dead woman is not capable of marriage yet the word is Deut. 24 1. Ier. 3. 8. from that same Theame 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Hebrews have another more ordinary word to signifie death as Exod. 31. 14. He that doth any work on the Sabbath in dying he shall die And it is expounded he shall be cut off from the midst of the people 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but Lev. 7. the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is four times used without any such expression ver 20 21 25 27. To which may be added that when zealous Hezechiah did finde that the people were not prepared According to the purification of the Sanctuary though they had celebrated the Passeover the King did not only not kil them but prayed God might be mercifull to them and the Lord killed them not saith the spirit of God but healed them Exod. 12. 15. He that eateth unleavened bread that soul shall be cut off from Israel but it is expounded ver 19. That soul shall be cut off 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from the Church of Israel Certainly he that is killed is cut off from both State and Church and from the company of all mortall men on earth Isa 38. 11. Then to be cut off from Israel is onely to be deprived of the comfortable society of the Church of Israel as the holy Ghost expoundeth it Also Lev. 4. If any commit any sin but of ignorance and so if he touch any unclean thing or eat unleavened bread forbidden of God he is excluded from the holy things of God while the Priest offer for him according to the Law Now if he was presently to be killed either by the Magistrate or in that act killed by Gods own immediate hand as Aarons sons were there was not a journey to be made to the place the Lord had chosen to sacrifice there which might have been three dayes journey from his house who was unclean yea when the man that gathered sticks was stoned and the false Prophet stoned Deut. 13. there was no sacrifices offered for any of them before they were killed and I hope there were no sacrifices in Moses his Law offered for the dead Hence learn we 1. That to cut off from the Congregation was not to kill but it was the Iewish Excommunication greater or lesse 2. That Moral sins under the Old Testament debarred men from the holy things of God while the Priests sacrificed for them and brought them in a capacity to receive the holy
the preaching of the word in which Commandments Promises and threatnings are proposed to all in generall there be rebukes of the Church the sentencing of such and such persons by name as Hymeneus and Philetus and other Blasphemers the Authoritative Declaration that such a brother is to be esteemed as a Heathen and a Publican and brotherly fellowship of eating and drinking with such an one denied that he may be ashamed if these be then are some debarred from the holy things of God by Church-Censures beside the preaching of the word of God But the former is true Ergo so is the latter The Proposition is proved because all wicked persons and heart-hypocrites are excluded from the holy things of God by the Preaching of the Word But only these that are notoriously and by testimony of witnesses convinced to be scandalous or contumacious in atrocious sins after they are by name rebuked and are declared to be esteemed as Heathen and Publicans and from whom we are to withdraw brotherly fellowship are excluded from the holy things of God by Discipline and Church Censures The Assumption I prove Because the word is preached to all by one in office and that a Steward and dispenser of the mysteries of God and he excludeth all unworthy ones known to be such or invisible only from the kingdom of God But the Censure 1. Is inflicted by many 2 Cor. 26. by the Church Matth. 18. 17. conveened together 1 Cor. 54. 2. It is applied to such persons by name 1 Cor. 5. 5. He that hath done such a deed ver 2. Hymeneus Alexander 1 Tim. 1. 20. Jezabel Rev. 2. 20. 3 The whole congregation is not to eat or Table with such an one 1 Cor. 5. 11. We are to note and observe him and to have no company with him that he may b ashamed 2 Thes 3. 14. to esteeme him as an Heathen and a Publican and exclude him from the Seals of the Covenant so long as he remaineth in that state 3. Arg. If a person may for not hearing the Church be judged as an Heathen and a Publican and his sinnes bound in heaven by the Church then by discipline he is excluded from the holy things of God in a peculiar way in the which contumacious persons uncircumcised in heart are excluded in foro interno Dei in Gods secret Court But the former is true Matt. 18. 15. 16 17 18. Ergo c. Now if there be two Courts one before God Rom. 2. 16. Rom. 14. 4. 1 Cor. 14. 25. 1 Ioh. 3. 21. Another of the Church Mat. 18. 15. 16 c. 1 Cor. 5. 4 5 6 11 12. and two sorts of bindings two sorts of Witnesses two sorts of Sentences then can it not be dedenyed but the Church hath a spirituall Court for censures as well as for preaching the Word 4. Arg. Exclusion of an offender from the societie of the Saints and not to eate or drinke with him is some other reall visible censure accompanied with shame then any censure by the preaching of the Word but there is such a censure inflicted by the Church Ergo The Proposition is cleare from Rom. 16. 17. Now I beseech you brethren marke them that cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which yee learned 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and avoid them Here is a reall visible and personall note of shame put on Schismaticks a bodily declining and avoiding of their company which could not possibly be done by preaching of the Word But some may say this was not done by the Church court but every one as private christians were to eschew the society of Schismaticks and by this you cannot conclude any Church censure Answ Not to say that it were unjustice to decline any and renounce society with him before he were convinced to be factious according to Christs order Mat. 18. which to Erastus is a way of common and naturall equity And so in order to some publique censure before the Church Paul wâ—iâ—eth to a constitute Church at Rome in which he prescribeth Rom. 12. the Officers duty as what Pastor Doctor Elder Deacon ought to doe in a Church body We cannot imagine he could command every private Christian to inflict the censure and punishment for a punishment it is in order to a publike sin of avoiding any in Church communion professing they serve the Lord Iesus Christ as these doe verse 18. upon their owne private opinion Iesus Christ and his Apostles must have left men loose in all order and discipline by this way howbeit the adversary would deny a church punishment here is a punishment inflicted by many 2 Cor. 2. 6. And it is not inflicted by way of preaching so 2 Thes 3. 14. If any man obey not our word by this Epistle note that man have no company with him that he may be ashamed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the learned is to put a publike church note on him that he may be confounded make him a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a publike wonder that he may be ashamed as Piscator and P. Baynes observe on the place expounding it of excommunication and the same word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is here is used toward the incestuous man who was to be excommunicated 1 Cor. 5. 9. I wrote unto you in an Epistle not to keepe company with fornicators the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ver 1. is ascribed to the incestuous man and here they are not to be mixed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with fornicators vers 11. But now I have written unto you not to keepe company if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator or covetous or an idolater or a railer or an extortioner with such a one no not to eate And that we may know that this is a church censure he addeth ver 12. For what have I to doe to judge them also that are without Ergo this no keeping company with such is a Church judging 5. Arg. The Church of Pergamus is rebuked for having amongst them such as hold the doctrine of Balaam and Revel 2. 14. and Thyatira that they suffered Iezabel to preach and seduce the servants of God ver 20. as the Church of Ephesus is praised v. 2. that they cannot beare with them that are evill but had tryed such that said they were Apostles and were not and had found them liars Rev. 2. 3. Here is it clearely supposed that these churches were to censure false teachers if any shall say they were to censure them no other waies but by preaching against their errors 1. This would establish a Prelate above the Church contrary to that of Mat. 18. Tell the Church and 1 Cor. 5. Where the Church gathered together was to excommunicate 2. The Angel of the Church is taken collectively for all the Rulers and the whole Church to whom Christ writeth as is cleare in that he saith so often He that hath an eare let him heare what the Spirit saith to
the Gospel to them if they were amongst us except that such as are to communicate according to the will of Christ are Christians members of the Church who doth try and examine themselves and Jews and Turks though dwelling and born amongst us are not such yet Erastus would that such should never be admitted to the Lords Supper though they should desire it Officers also have a command not to dispense some parts of the word to all as we are not to rebuke open Scorners Should any of our Church turn Iew and blaspheme Christ and pertinaciously after conviction persist in his Apostacy might not Erastus aske by what command of Christ will ye not Preach the Gospel to such an one Christ made no exception but said Preach to all Nations why do you make Exceptions might we not answer Christ hath given a power of dispensing the Gospel to all yet hath he excepted some because it s against the will of Christ that such can obey the Gospel We are bidden pray for all yet are there some that we are not to pray for because they sin unto death so is the case here in some kinde 7. It is for our instruction that the Priests were rebuked for that they admitted into the Sanctuary the uncircumcised in flesh and heart that they put no difference betweene the cleane and the uncleane and prophaned the holy things of God Ezek. 44. 9. Ezek. 22. 26. Hag. 2. 11 12 13. And this was a shadow of things to come as was observed before teaching us that farre lesse should the Pastors of the New Testament suffer the holy things of God to be prophaned 8. We read that Iohn Baptist and the Apostles baptized none but such as confessed their sinnes and professed â—aith in Iesus Christ it would then appeare to be the will of Christ that every one should not be admitted to the Lords Supper though some say the Apostles baptized single persons not in Church communion so that Pastors administer the Sacraments by reason of the power of order as they are Pastors not by power of jurisdiction as having warrant from any Church in regard Churches at the beginning had the Word and Sacraments before they had any Church Government yet I conceive the Lords Supper is a Seale of a Church-communion 1 Cor. 10. 16. 17. and the like I say of Baptisme typed by Noahs Arke 1 Pet. 3. 19 20 c. and though the Apostles partly by priviledge partly through necessitie the parts existing before the whole were necessitated first to baptize and then to plant Churches yet the Churches being once constitute these are Church priviledges to be dispensed both by the power of order and the power of jurisdiction CHAP. VI. Quest 2. Some speciall Reasons of Thomas Erastus against Excommunication examined THomas Erastus a Physitian who medled not much with Divinity save in this in which he was unsound in his reply to Beza laboureth to make Excommunication a dreame and nothing but a device of Pastors affecting domination 1. Object Onely Petâ—r killed Ananias onely Paul excommunicated Alexander and Hymeneus onely Paul said he would come to the Corinthians with the rod and for a long time onely Bishops excommunicated Presbyters gave advise onely Ergo This power is not in the Church Ans The consequence is naught Christ said only to his Disciples in person Go teach and Baptize Is it a good consequence therefore that none hath power to teach and Baptize but only the Apostles Only Paul exhorted the Corinthians to mourn for the incestuouâ— mans fall therefore no Pastors have power to exhort in the like kinde 2. We grant the Apostles did many things out of their Apostolick power which in a constitute Church the Church onely may doe as Paul his alone disputed against Circumcision of the Gentiles Act. 15. 2. What Ergo Paul in a Synod and a Synod hath not power to dispute and determine the same the contrary is evident Act. 15. 12 22 23. 3. It is false that the Authority and rod with which Paul said he would come to the Coriuthians 2 Cor. 10. 8. was proper only to Paul an Apostle the same he giveth to Timothy and to all the Elders 3. If Bishops exercised the same power for many ages Erastus must shew us Bishops who could kill miraculously such as Ananias and Elimas and work miracles now beside that Erastus must with his new opinion hold up a new creature called a Prelate unknown to the Apostles or Ierome and the Fathers he must parallel Bishops for working of miracles to Paul and the Apostles Obj. 2. The Apostles declared many to be excluded out of the kingdom of heaven and so bound in heaven whom they did not excommunicate from the Sacraments so also do the Ministers daily and yet Christ in his word commanded not those to be debarred from the Lords Supper Ans It is very true the Apostles and Pastors of Christ that now are denounce eternall wrath and that authoritatively against those that are invisibly to men heart-hypocrites who yet before the Church who know not the heart go for Saints and are neither excluded from Sacraments nor so much as rebuked But it is a vain collection that therefore externally scandalous are not to be debarred from the Supper and Excommunicated The Prophets 1 Cor. 14. did preach that Heathens remaining Heathens were excluded out of the Kingdom of God yet Heathens cannot be Excommunicated and yet I hope Erastus dare not deny but Christ hath forbidden that Heathen remaining Heathen be admitted to the Sacraments Though I dare provoke any Erastian and attest them by their new Doctrine to shew me a warrant from Christs Testament why the Church should refuse the Seals to a Turke they will say A Turk is not willing to receive and therefore the Seals may be denied to him and yet cannot be denied to a member of the Church though scandalous if he desire it and professe repentance But I answer Though a Turk be unwilling to receive the Seals What if he should be willing and require to be Baptized yet remaining ignorant of Christ and the Gospel we should not Baptize him Now by the Doctrine of Erastus we have no more re warrant to deny the seals to him then to deny them to Judas we desire a Scripture from the adversary which will not conclude with equall strength of reason against the giving of the seals to any scandalous member of the Church it is true a Turk ignorant of Christ though he should desire the seals is uncapable and he is unwilling vertually in regard he as yet refuseth the knowledge of the Gospel and so is the scandalous professor no lesse uncapable though we may grant degrees of incapacity for he is vertually unwilling to receive Christ in regard he is unwilling to part with his idol-sins 2. Though a Turk should be unwilling as its like enough he will be yet we desire a Scripture why we cannot make offer of
repent and die devoutly Beza saith Pastors should give food to the hungry sheep though they know not the moment when they do repent Erastus Replyeth Then give Word and Sacraments to those who seek them Ans This is more Charity then the Scripture knoweth belike Erastus will have all those that seek God daily and delight to know his wayes and ask for the Ordinances of Iustice and take delight in approaching to God to be all hungry souls hungring for Righteousnesse and so blessed Matth. 5. 6. Luk. 1. 52. Isa 55. 1. Whereas Isaiah saith They may do all that and be but plaistred Hypocrites Isa 58. 1 2 3 4 5 6. Erastus But if the Excommunicated man repent whether soon or late he was never cut off from inward communion with Christ for then the elect might perish if David and Manasseh had been excommunicate and died they had been saved except we deny the perseverance of the Saints Ans Erastus evidenceth he hath little skill in Divinity he thinks a regenerate man not capable of Excommunication why and the sad falls of David Peter and others prove they may fall in as great sins as not hearing of the Church 2. If one repent in his death as the repenting Theef will that infer he was never all his life separated from Christ The contrary is true and cleare in the Ephes 2. 1â— 12 13. Tit. 3. 3. â— Tim. 1. 13 14 15. 3. This is as strong as it is weake as water against all the threatnings denounced against such sinners as the Lord gisteth with Repentance for Excommunication to the regenerated is a sort of Evangelick conditionall threatning Erastus To give internall communion with Christ is a spirituall thing Ergo The Church cannot take it from any and that same power that giveth taketh away then the Presbytery cannot by loosing give salvation nor by binding take it away Excommunication on earth is nothing except God binde first in heaven then it is but a declaration of what God doth to shew the sentence that another judge hath given out is not to judge there is a difference between those that by authority give out a sentence and those who as servants doth promulgate the sentence So Luther tom German 1. fol. 239. Excommunicare non est ut quidam opinantur animam Satanae tradere precum fructu à piis factarum spoliare Nam ubi vera fides charîtas in corde remanent etiam vera communio Dei precum Christianitatis fructus permanent postquam aliud est excommunicatio nec fieri aliud potest quam privatio externi Sacramenti ac commercii cum hominibus ac si in custodiam traditus externâ amicorum consuetudine priver amore favore eorum interea non spolier Ans This is but the old argument of Erastus repeated almost a hundred times to please the people We never taught that either Presbytery or Minister can give or take away inward Communion with God But hence it will not follow that Excommunication is an empty thing for all we doe is but a Ministery Christ doth make the whole Gospel promises threatning Sacraments effectuall else What is Paul What is Apollo but the Ministers by whom ye beleeve And what is the planting of Paul or the watering of Apollo except God give the increase If this anull Excommunication because Excommunicators are not properly judges but onely Servants and Heralds to declare what Christ doth in Heaven then may Erastus prove that the Word Promises threatnings of the Gospel The Apostles Evangelists Pastors Teachers are nothing for all of themselves are meere declarations of Gods will 2. Those who Excommunicate because they judge not but declare the will of Christ they are not for that void of all authority for their declaration is authoritative What did Ieremiah but declare Gods will yet it is such a propheticall and authoritative declaration as I conceive Baruch or any other not sent as a Prophet of God could not beare that which God putteth on Ieremiah c. 1. 10. See I have this day set thee over the Nations and over the Kingdomes to root out and to pull downe to destroy and to pull downe to build and to plant Hath Ieremiah no Propheticall authority over the Nations and Kingdomes to whom he prophesieth in the Name of the Lord to build and destroy to root out and to plant because he declareth and prophesieth that such Nations shall be destroyed and rooted out for their wickednes and such shall be builded and planted Then meer declaration saith nothing against Excommunication Paul saith he and the rest of the Apostles were nothing but Ministers 1 Cor. 3. 5. and yet authoritie they had else he could not say 2 Cor. â—0 6. We have in readinesse vengeance against all disobedience Verse 8. For though I should boast somewhat more of our Authority c. I should not be ashamed and 2 Cor. 5. 20. Now then we are Ambassadors for Christ but I pray you 1 Cor. 12. 29. Are all Apostles Are all Prophets Are all Teachers 3. What Luther saith is true Excommunication can put none out of the state of saving Faith and inward Communion with God nor doth deprive men of the fruit of the Prayers of the godly for the godly pray that Excommunication may be medicine effectually blessed of God for the saving of the mans soul yea Gods not hearing of the prayers of the godly praying in a Church way that he may be humbled is a mean to humble the cast out man nor is the man delivered to Satan morally to be hardned but judicially and withall medicinally to be softned that his spirit may be saved Nor is the Church to hate him but to admonish him as a brother 2 Thes 3. 15. And he is so deprived of the externall society and meanes as the operation of the ordinances is suspended Erastus If any should die in their typicall uncleannesse were they so Excommunicated that their salvation was in hazard Ans Not so they repented What then Ergo Excommunication was not ratified in Heaven it followeth not Erastus Beza saith Those that were morally polluted with hainous sins were more unclean then those who were typically only unclean Ergo They should be far rather excluded from the holy things of God Erastus answers If God had commanded them to be punished with the same punishment and not with diverse it would follow that those that are morally impure should rather be debarred then the other Ans But the Ceremoniall uncleannesse was punished so to signifie Gods detestation of morall uncleannesse and how hatefull they were who would multiply sacrifices and yet had hands full of blood Esa 1. And who would steal murther whore and yet come and stand before God in his house and cry The Temple of the Lord are these Ier. 7. 49. And that God punished the one with heavier plagues then the other is much for us that adulterers far more and the uncircumcised in heart were to be
come to the Supper Be not Iudges of mens Conscience Ans Christ Commanding not to cast Pearls to Swine and scourging out those that polluted that Temple that was a type of his body doth Argue clearly that the holy things of God should not be prophaned But that Christ rebuked all abuses in the worship of God in particular Erastus cannot say 2. It is one thing to forgive our brother by putting away private grudge and a church-pardoning in the name of Christ is another in the former sense we are to forgive our enemy though he repent not Mat. 6. 12. 14 15. Rom. 12. 19 20. Luk. 23. 34. But this forgivenesse Luk. 17. is not said to be ratified in heaven for God doth not alway forgive when we forgive God doth forgive when the sinner repenteth Erastus will have a lying confession ratified in Heaven 3. When the Church in Christs Name forgiveth not upon words and lies but upon Visible Testimonies of repentance they are no more Iudges of the heart then Isaiah when he said Except ye believe ye shall not be established and Paul when he said to the Jaylor Believe and thou shalt be saved for without more then lying words of mouth yea without true lively faith neither could the one be established nor the other saved Erastus When Paul dehorteth the Corinthians to eat things Sacrificed to Idols in the Idols Temple because they could not be partakers of the Table of the Lord and of the Table of Devils he bids them not forsake the Supper of the Lord but only not to go to the Feast of Idols because the Supper and these Tables of Devils are inconsistant therefore he saith I will not have you to have fellowship with Devils but he saith not I will not have you to come to the Supper of the Lord nor deth he bid them approve their repentance â—re they come to some I know not what Presbyters And in this place he speaketh of an externall Communion as the purpose and words prove because he speaketh of Israel according to the flesh 3. Because those that eat things Sacrificed to Idols were perswaded there was no difference between those meats and other meats Ans Erastus his Argument is this being reduced to form is if Paul say not 1 Cor. 10. I will not have you come to the Lords Supper but only I will not have you to have fellowship with the Devil in his Table then he will have none debarred by the Elders from the Lords Supper But the latter is true I deny the Proposition it is a connexion that one who taketh on him to refute such a precious and eminent divine as Theod. Beza may be ashamed of and yet his book from head to foot standeth most upon a negative Argument from some particular place of Scripture for he speaketh nothing of the power of Elders to keep the holy things of God pure What if he should say Moses in the first of Genesis saith not I will not have you not to come to the Lords Supper Ergo there is no authoritative debarring of men from the Lords Supper Such sandy consequences no learned Divines would ever dream of 2. Beza nor any of our Divines never dreamed that God in the Old or New Testament said Nolo vos ad mensam domini ad sacramenta venire which are the words of Erastus so his conclusion cometh not near the controversie Iews and Gentiles are invited and commanded to come to Christ and so to all the Ordinances and Sacraments but I hope this will not infer that all should come to the Sacraments hand over head and whether they be clean or unclean circumcised or Baptized or not circumcised not Baptized God commanded Aarons sons to serve in the sanctuary and appear before him in their charge What Ergo it is not Gods will that they come not to the Sanctuary and before him unwashed and with strange fire and without their holy garments this is the very consequence of Erastus Our question I conceive is whither all must be admitted promiscuously and whether even those that come immediatly from the Devils Table without any preparation known to the Church should be set at Christs elbow to eat the Lords body and blood Erastus saith Paul never said Nolo vos ad mensam domini venire then because two negatives make one affirmative Paul must say I will that all that are partakers of the table of the Devil come and be partakers of the Lords body But the conclusion is contradicent to Erastus himself who faith right down I judge that he vvho vvill but trample the Sacraments should not be admitted unto them and to Paul 1 Cor. 11. 27 c. 3. Erastus confoundeth two Questions one is whither all should be admitted to the Lords Supper Erastus saith every where in his book none are to be debarred another by whom are they to be admitted or debarred By the civill Magistrates saith Erastus by the Stewâ—rds and Officers of the house of God the rest of the Church consenting say we 4. The Argument will conclude that not onely the Church or Magistrate ought to admit those that have fellowship with the Devil to the Table of Christ but they ought to command them to come it being Christs will they should be admitted and that they themselves who are Communicants are obliged though keeping fellowship with the Devil to come and eat their own damnation for Paul saith by this reason in the place 1 Cor. 10. No more I will not have the partakers of the Devils table to come to the Lords table nor he saith I will not have the Elders to debar them if Erastus say they should try and examine themselves and come He flees from the controversie which is not whether the worthy but whether the scandalous and unworthy should come Erastus saith all should come 5. Whereas Erastus will have the Apostle to speak of the externall Communion of the Elements onely 1. It is false 2. Nothing to the purpose it is false 1. ver 16. It is called the Communion of the body and blood of Christ and that must be more then externall Communion 2. ver 17. We many are one body this is not an externall body only for it is the unity of the body of Christ signified by one bread 3. It is not externall only but internall and spiritual fellowship with Devils that is condemned ver 20. 21. Ergo It must be internall Communion with Christ in his death that is sealed and commanded 4. This is meer Socinianisme to have the Sacraments only memorative signes as is clear 2. It is not to a purpose for if the Church debar only from externall society from the Church and externall Seals this debarring being ratified in Heaven Matth. 18. It is sufficient for our conclusion 5. Paul his condemning of eating at the Idols Table as inconsistent with eating and drinking of the Lords body he must expresly forbid those who eateth
brother that is a fornicator Erastus saith he forbiddeth no such thing 2. Though I think Christians may eat with heathens 1. Cor. 10. 27. and that Paul did eat with heathen yet it is no argument to say it is therefore lawfull to eat with one cast out of the Church because we may eat with heathens to gain them and we are not bidden abstain from heathens company that they may be ashamed of their religion though Christians are to use no heathens with intimate familiarity as we do our brethren in Christ But we are to eschew intire fellowship with a scandalous and cast out brother to gain him that he may be ashamed 2 Thes 3. 14. and in this a scandalous brother is in worse case then a heathen But in other respects he is in better condition as being under the medicine of the Church 3. Though we may have commerce and buy and â—ell with heathens and neglect no dutieâ— of humanity to them as to receive them into our house and to be hospitall to them Heb. 13. 2. Iob 31. 32. Yet this will conclude intire fellowship with neither heathen or scandalous brethren Yea we are not to receive a false teacher into our house 2. Ioh. ver 10. Yet are we not forbidden to neglect duties of common humanity to false Teachers though we be forbidden intirenesse of Brotherly fellowship with them Erastus There is not the same reason of holy things and of private civill things for this not eating belongeth to private conversing with men not to publike Communion with them in the holy things of God One saith It is in our liberty Whether we converse familiarly with wicked men or not But it is not in our power Whether we come to the Lords Supper or not And Paul will not have us to deny any thing that belongeth to Salvation and therefore he saith 2 Thess 3. Admonish him as a Brother and none I hope can deny but the Sacraments are helps of godlinesse and Salvation Ans 1. It is true that avoiding of the company of scandalous Brethren hath in it something civill but it is a censure-spirituall and a Church-censure two wayes 1. Objectively in its tendency Respectu termini ad quem 2. Effectively in its rise and cause Respectu termini à quo it is a spirituall censure Objectively because it tendeth to make the party ashamed that he may repent and become a Brother with whom we are to converse and therefore is destinated for no civill use but for the good of his soul that is a member of a Church that he may return to what he was 2. This censure though one private Brother may exercise it upon another yea a woman on a man who yet hath no Authority over the man is notwithstanding in its rise and efficient cause a Church-censure 1. If Christ will not have one Brother to condemne another while first he rebuke him and if he be not convinced while he do the same before two or three witnesses and if he yet be not gained one private Brother may not after conviction before two or three witnesses repute him as a Heathen or complain of him before an Heathen Iudge as Erastus saith How shall we imagine any one single Brother may withdraw Brotherly fellowship from another Brother by his own private Authority while he first be sentenced before the Church And the Church shall convince him to walk disorderly to cause divisions and offences to be a Fornicator a Covetous person and so to be unworthy of the intire Brotherly fellowship of another For if this order were not in the Church every Brother might take up a prejudice at his Brother and so break all bands of Religious Communion and Brotherly fellowship and dissolve and make ruptures in the Churches Now certain it is These Texts Rom. 16. 17 18. 2 Thes 3. 11 12 c in the letter intimate no such order as is Matth. 18. But it is presupposed as clear by other Scriptures we are not to withdraw from an offending Brother but after such an order Now the places in the letter except we expound them by other Scriptures do not bear that we are to rebuke our Brother before we withdraw from him contrary to Levit. 19. 17. 2. If I am to withdraw from a Brother all Brotherly fellowship by these places then I am to esteem him as a Heathen and as a Brother in name not in reality 1 Cor. 5. 11. Whereas once I esteemed him a Brother and did keep Brotherly fellowship with him now this is materially Excommunication I do no more in this kinde to one who is formally Excommunicated yea I am not so strange to a Heathen Ergo This I must have done upon some foregoing sentence of the Church otherwise I might un-Church and un-Brother the man whom the Church neither hath nor can un-Church and un-Brother 3. Eschewing of Brotherly fellowship to any is an act of Government distinct from the Preaching of the Word tending to make a Brother that walketh disorderly ashamed that he may repent and of a Brother in name only may become a Brother in reallity 2 Thes 3. 14. But this act of Government belongeth not to the Christian Magistrate for every Brother saith Erastus may exercise it toward his Brother Ergo here is Church-Government that the Magistrate hath no hand in contrary to the way of Erastus and not in the hands of Pastors for it is distinct from Preaching nor is it in a Colledge of Pastors Doctors and Elders for Erastus denyeth any such Colledge Ergo here every one must govern another the man the woman and the woman the man the son the father if he walk unorderly and the Father the Son this can be nothing but the greatest Confusion on Earth 4. To put any to shame especially publikely by way of punishment for publike sins must come from some Iudges or others armed with Authority Iudg. 18. 7. 1 Cor. 4. 14. 1 Cor. 6. 5. 1 Cor. 25. 34. Then the Apostles sense cannot be that every one hath power of himselfe without the Church or any authority there from to put his brother to shame for when a brother is not to eat with a scandalous brother he must be convinced by the Church to be scandalous and so cast our 1 Cor. 5. 11 12 13. as we have proved before and every man here should be his owne judge and party in his owne cause except he put his brother to some shame by an higher authority then his owne The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to put a publike note or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 upon the offender So Stephanus So Piscator Nota ignominiosâ excommunicationis Pomponius laetus de Magistr Rom. â— 21. Censores quintoâ— quoque anno creari solebant hic prorsus cives sic notabantur ut qui Senator esset ejeceâ—etur Senatu qui eques Romanus equum publicum perderet c. Mathaeus Harnish Gec Gabellus who adde to Zanchius his Commentary in 2
Thes say Est not â— quâdam insignire et in aliquem animadvertere ut censores apud Romanos notare aliquem solebant they expound it the publike note of Excommunication Beza saith it is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signifie and declare but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 notate veluti inustâ not â compungite So Calvin Marlorat And I wonder that Erastus can say with any that it is in our power to converse or not to converse with wicked men are we not discharged by Gods Spirit to converse with them As we are commanded to eat and drinke at the Lords Table and is it in our power morally to obey or disobey any Commandement of God Except Erastus will say with Papists that God doth here give counsels not commands Rom. 16. 17. 2 Thes 3. 14. 1 Cor. 5. 9 11. And whereas Erastus saith Paul will have us 2 Thes 3. 15. to admonish this man as a brother Ergo In holy things and in the Sacraments that are helpes of piety and Salvation we are not to â—ast him off It is true the cast out man is not to be reputed as an enemy but a brother Yet a sicke and diseased brother under the roughest Medicine of the Church to wit the rod of Excommunication that the Spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord. But withdrawing of brotherly fellowship is not a meere civill unbrothering of him for if the brotherly fellowship of Christians must be spirituall religious and for the edifying of one anothers soules for exhorting one another to prevent hardning of heart for provoking one another to love and to good works to teach one another to comfort and support one another as we are expresly commanded by the Holy Ghost Heb. 3. 13. Heb. 10. 24. Col. 3. 16. 1 Thess 5. 11 14. Mal. 3. 16. Jer. 50. 5. Zach. 8. 22. Psal 42. 4. I wonder where Erastus learned this Divinity to say the denying of this edifying Communion to a scandalous brother while he be ashamed and repent Is to deny nothing that belongeth to his salvation Admonition is but one of twenty comfortable acts of Communion which we deny not to him least the man should despaire and we should cast off all care hope or intention to save his soul whereas the genuine and intrinsecall intention of avoiding him and casting him out of the Church is that he may be saved Lastly we deny not admonition and preaching of the word to the man thus cast out because they be converting Ordinances simply necessary to work the mans humiliation and repentance but the Lords Supper is a confirming Ordinance and denied to the excommunicated while he is in that condition upon that very reason that it is denied to Pagans and Heathens and though it be an help of piety it is no help either to a Pagan or an excommunicate man but damnation But it may be the excommunicate man hath faith I answer To us in the Court of the Church in which the Seals are dispensed he hath no more then a Heathen hath and therefore in confirming Ordinances he is looked on by the Church as an Heathen and if the reason of Erastus be good The Church is to deny no helps of godlinesse and salvation to him though we deny private food to his body because the Sacraments are necessary helps Then 1. I much doubt if the Church be to deny the necessary helps of godlinesse and salvation to a Pagan living amongst us Ergo shall we not deny the Sacraments to a Pagan 2. We are not to avoid his company and deny the edifying acts of Communion which I named before for these are necessary helps of salvation 3. It is not the mans sin by this reason That he eateth and drinketh unworthily for if it be not the Churches sin to give him the seals because the Seals are adminiclees and helps of piety and saving of the soul by the same reason it is not the mans sin to receive the Lords Supper for it must be equally an help of godlinesse and salvation to the Communicant receiving as to the Church giving Now Paul saith 1 Cor. 11. He that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh to himself judgement So Erastus teacheth us that it may be a sin to Swine publikely known to be such to receive pearles when it is no sin but the Churches duty to give these pearls to such known Swine which is most absurd and impious Erastus I said before that God doth not exclude sinners from the Sacraments but gather them in to them that they may be more and more invited to repentance and more easily raised up again for Sacraments and so many Ceremonies also were for this end ordained that they might draw men to the love and care of true piety and holynesse as Moses saith Deut. 14. Ans Erastus acknowledgeth this to be no new Argument therefore we may passe it it is the chief pillar of his opinion But I put it in forme thus to Erastus Those whom God inviteth to repentance those he will not exclude from the Sacraments But now under the Gospel he inviteth all even many Pagans and Heathen to repentance 1 Tim. 2. 4. God will have all even Heathen Magistrates to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth so Act. 17. 30. God now commandeth all men every where even the Idolators and blinde Philosophers at Athens who erected an Altar to the unknown God ver 23. and who jeered at the Doctrine of the Resurrection ver 32. even those God inviteth to repentance Ergo God excludeth not Pagans from the Sacraments but the conclusion is absurd and blasphemous therefore so must one of the premises be but the Assumption is Scripture Ergo The Major Proposition of Erastus must be blasphemous God inviteth scorners to repentance and rebukes are means of repentance Ergo we may rebuke scorners Gods spirit saith Rebuke not a scorner Prov. 9. 7 8. His Proposition then must be Those whom God inviteth to repentance those God excludeth not from any mean of piety and sanctity It is most false God inviteth Dogs and Swine to repentance and commandeth them to be holy and the pearls of the Gospel are means of repentance and holinesse Must we therefore Cast pearls to dogs and swine The contrary our Saviour injoyneth Matth. 7. 6. 2. Moses Deut. 14. 1. forbiddeth diverse Ceremonies and Sacraments of the Heathen by this Argument Ye are the children of the Lord your God and he saith expresly that the stranger may eat some unclean thing but the Lord saith to them You shall not do so for thou art an holy people to the Lord thy God Whence it is evident Moses saith poynt blank contrary to Erastus for Moses saith that Ceremonies and Sacraments are for this end to draw only the holy and sanctified people of God to a further love and study of true piety and sanctity was not the eating of the Passeover a mean of Repentance as well
Lords table were one and the same punishment Beza saith the one is a lesse the other a greater punishment 2. If it be true in gifts that he to whom lesse is given more is given then it holdeth here in our case because private fellowship with the Saints is a gift of God and if the Lords body given for us and to us in the Lords supper be not a greater gift it is nothing so then if a lesse gift be denied the Lords supper a greater gift is denied 2. It must hold in the private punishments inflicted for an higher punishments cause private communion with the Saints is denied because the man is cast out of the Church Ergo farre more are the highest priviledges of the Church denied as liberty is denied to a man because he is condemned to dye Ergo farre more is life denied to him a mans house is denied to him because he is banished Ergo farre more is his city and countrey denied to him But a man is not punished in his purse because he is condemned to dye it followeth noâ— Ergo he should rather dye because the one punishment is not relative to the other 3 Because not eating with a scandalous man is a spirituall punishment as I have proved therefore it is of that same kind with excommunication and therefore it holdeth here 4. Abstinence from the private fellowship of a scandalous brother is not free but commanded of God and so is debarring from the Lords supper not free but commanded Erastus when he forbiddeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 no not to eat he forbiddeth 1. Neer communion of familiarity 2. Not to eat with them which is to forbid all signes of neer communion Ans It is clear he proveth they should cast him out because I wrote to you that you should not keep company with such v. 9. no more to eat with such Ergo farre lesse would he say should he be a leavening member in the lumpe and masse of Christs body Erastus I wrote unto you that ye should not keep company with such then Paul speaketh here of a thing concerning which he had spoken before though they understood him not it is like they sought Pauls judgement of their conversing with men But of delivering the man to Satan he had not spoken before as is clear in the Text. Ans This is a strong argument for us if Paul had never spoken nor written to them of the delivering of the man to Satan that is of the miraculous killing of him how could he in reason and conscience chide them because they prayed not that he might be miraculoâ—sly killed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is not possible they could mourn for not joyning in a businesse that Paul had never revealed to them to be Gods will Yea it is a strong argument to me that delivering to Satan was excommunication of which he had taught them before else their mourning had been unreasonble and which he pointed at to them as a limbe of excommunication to wit their not familier conversing with the scandalous Erastus And when he has showâ—n how they ought to flee the company of the scandalous he returneth to his former purpose commanding the wicked man to be killed This then he saith I commanded you to eschew the company of wicked brethren not of the heathen whom the Lord shall judge Ans 1. The Text can bear no such exposition for the reasons I have given before 2. The coherence is clear I wrote before that you should not keep company with wicked brethren therefore put out that wicked man from amongst you But by Erastus his glosse there is neither sense nor coherence in the words Erastus The end of refusing familiar conversing with the scandalous is that he may be ashamed and you say that same is the end of debarring from the supper then it must follow as private conversing can do the contrary to wit it can soment and nourish sinnes both in the brother we converse with and in us so the frequent use of the Lords supper should nourish vices in us vvhich vvere vvickednesse to think Ans This presumeth that to avoyd a scandalous brother and to debarre him from the Sacraments must be formally one which we teach not 2. Hence it followeth since they be divers formally they cannot have the same formall and intrinsecall ends 3. The frequent eating at the Lords table in a scandalous man doth dispose him more and more to sinne as frequently sinning inclineth more to sinne but this is by the frequent abusing of Gods ordinance and not from the nature of the Sacrament Erastus Paul forbiddeth not ill men of the company of good men but he admonisheth good men to flee ill men that they may be ashamed But vvhen you deuy the Sacraments to any you command not the Godly not to come to the supper with the wicked but you forbid the scandalous to come to the supper Ans There is no solidity in this conjecture it leaneth upon the perpetuall mâ—stake of Erastus in all this dispute as if we held That to be debabred from familiar fellowship with the Saints and from the Sacrament were one and the same thing Else I see no conclusion that Erastus doth or can infer against us 2. It is false that wicked men are not discharged the company of Saints for in so far as fellowship with the Saints is a spirituall mean of the gaining of their souls by Teaching Exhorting Edifying Comforting the wicked and scandalous being Dogs and Swine are forbidden to touch such a Pearl Yea God layeth a charge on wicked men while they remain in that case not to meddle with Confirming Ordinances with some Converting Ordinances they may as Psal 50. 16. But to the wicked God said What hast thou to do to declare my Statutes or that thou takest my Convenant in thy mouth 17. Seeing thou hatest Instruction and castest my Word behinde thee Here the wicked are forbidden to Teach or speak to the instructing of others which is a speciall act of Christian fellowship between Brother and Brother Col. 3. 16. Heb. 3. 13. Heb. 10. 24. 1 Thes 5. 11. 14. Because they hate to be Instructed of others And you know how Christ speaketh to the unworthy intruder of himself on the secrets and spirituall marrow and comforts of the Gospel Matth. 22. ver 12. Friend How camest thou here not having thy Wedding garment Ezra 4. 3. But Zerubbabel and Joshua and the rest of the chief of the Fathers came and said unto the Adversaries of Iudah and Benjamin You have nothing to do with us to build an house unto our God But we our selves together will build unto the Lord God of Israel Doth not God expresly forbid David to build an house to his name 1 Chron. 22. 8. 2 Chron. 6. 9. And we know it is a typicall discharge layed upon men of blood not to touch the holiest things of God but that men of Peace must meddle
and every where to be observed in all Churches Yet Paul neither practiseth it here nor else where nor commandeth others to practise it now here he desireth they may be cut off but not excommunicated Ans We say the last is no question you never read in the New-Testament or in the Old that Prophets or Apostles consulted or advised with the people whether they should work miracles or not 2. Though Excommunication was an ordinary power as the power of binding and loosing given to the Church Matth. 16. 19. and 18. 18. Ioh. 20. 22 23. Yet the actuall exercise of Excommunication being the highest and weightiest censure and the most severe of any other on earth it is no wonder that Paul be as sparing and rare in the exercise of it as the Apostles were in killing mens bodies 3. It is a begging of the question to say Paul neither practised himself nor commanded others to excommunicate for he did both Erastus That which is Rom. 16. spoken for eschewing of those who cause offences is that every one single person beware of false Teachers it is not spoken to the Church to Excommunicate those false Teachers and therefore there is no such need of such a Presbytery as you dream of but only of good and diligent Ministers who may rightly instruct and prudently teach their hearers what Teachers they ought to eschew Ans 1. The eschewing of false Teachers is a generall and a duty no question given to all and every one of the Church But the place doth no more say in expresse terms that a single Pastor should give warning particularly by name that this man Iohn Hymeneus Alexander are those false Teachers to be eschewed then it saith that the Presbytery which we assert doth in expresse termes shew what false Teachers they be who by name are to be Excommunicated and eschewed but you see that Erastus is overcome by truth so far as he must say one single Minister may declare that such a false Teacher by name is to be eschewed as a Heathen and a Publican and so in effect excommunicated and put out of the Church but he denieth that the Church may declare him a Heathen as Matth. 18. and that many Elders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 gathered together in the name of Christ as it is 1 Cor. 5. may put out a false Teacher or a wolf out of the flock 2. We grant that it is spoken to every one that he should eschew false teachers yea and 2 Thes 3. All that walketh unordinately all fornicators extortioners drunkards 1 Coâ— 5. But that every man should eschew those whom he in his private judgement conceiveth to be such before he rebuke them and labour to gain them and in case of obstâ—nâ—cy Tell the Church as Christ commandeâ—h Matth. 18. is not commanded buâ— forbidden Matth. 18. Lev. 1917. Col. 3. 15. For if this should be that I might immediatly upon my own private grudge unbrother and cast out of my heart and intire fellowship every one whom I conceive offendeth me and walketh unordinately without observing Christs order or previous rebuking of him I make a pathway to perpetuall Schismes 2. A violation of all Laws of fraternity and Christian Communion 3. A dissâ—lving and breaking of all Church Communion and iâ— were strange if Erastus will have Christs order kept Matth. 18. in private offences done by one brother to another and not in publick offences when a brother offendeth twenty and a whole Church as if I were obliged to seek to gain my brothers soul in private and lâ—sse injuries and not in publick and more hainous offences Hence it is clear to me If we are to reject an Heretick after once or twice admonition and not to receive in our houses false Teachers and 1 Tim. 6. 3. If any teach otherwise and consent not unto the wholesome word even the words of our Lord Iesus Christ being given to perverse disputing as men of corrupt minds and destitute of the truth 1 Tim. 6. 3 4 5. We are to withdraw our selves from such and to save with severity and plucking out of the fiâ—e those that cannot be cured then certainly the Church of Christ must also turn away from such men and acknowledge them as no members of the body whereof Christ is the head if we say not this if one hath leave in a constituted Church to jâ—dge and condemne his brother and then we shall not take the course of the Apostles in the like case as Act. 15. which is not Apostolick for when false Teachers troubled the Brethren they would not peremptorily though great Apostles as Paul and Barnabas determine against either the false doctrine or the persons of the Teachers while the Apostles Elders and Brethren did meet in a Synod and determine against the Error and against the men as such as troubled the Brethren with words and perverted their souls Act. 15. Now Erastus is willing to acknowledge a sort of Divine Excommunication not a humane as he is pleased to call that Ordinance of separating of wicked men from the Church and holy things of God which yet was in the Church of the Jews instituted by Christ and his Apostles and which no Church wanted as learned Beza saith even in the time of persecution had Erastus explained to us his divine Excommunication as he calleth it it were easie to bring most of his owne Arguments with greater strength of reason against it then against ours which is the truely divine Excommunication CHAP. XIV Quest 10. Whether Erastus doth strongly prove that there is no Presbytery nor two distinct judicatures one of the Church another of the State Erastus I deny not First such a Presbytery as the Evangelists mention which is called a Presbytery a Synedry a Synagogue this was the civill Magistrate who had amongst the Jews the power of the sword 2. I deny not a Presbytery 1 Cor. 6. when the Church wanteth a civill Magistrate 3. I deny not a Presbytery of learned men who being asked may give their judgement of doubts of which Ambrose there was nothing of old done sine seniorum consilio without the Counsels of the Elders But I deny a Senate collected out of the body of the Church to judge who repenteth and are to be excommunicated and debarred from the Sacraments and who not or I deny any Ecclesiasticall judicature touching the manners and conversation of men different from the judgement or court of the civill Magistrate or that there be two supream Courts touching manners in one Common wealth Ans One simple head in a moment may deny more then many wise men can prove in a whole day it proveth they are more cumbersome in their disputes then strong that there was a Iewish Presbytery â—hat is a civill judicature is conâ—uted by Lev. 10. 10. where there is a Court of Aarons sonnes whose it was to judge of Church matters only and to put difference betweene holy and unholy betweene
Church But it is presumed the power is given when Christ saith v. 19. I will give unto thee the keys of the Kingdome of Heaven 2. We read not that God giveth a power a gift a talent or an office but he judgeth it a sinne in those to whom he giveth it not to put forth in acts and in exercise that gift talent and office either by themselves or his deputies which latter I speak for the King who in his own person and in the person of inferiour judges sent by him do put forth in acts of justice the Royall power that God has given him The assumption is Scripture Erastus has no answer to this but the keys were given to Peter as representing all the faithfull not the Elders and that all private Christians do bind and loose Ans Besides this is answered fully above and is a meer anarchicall Democracy it 2. concludeth well that Christ gave not to the Magistrate as the Magistrate the keys but to the Magistrate as he is a Christian making that same Christian confession of faith with Peter Mat. 16. and as he is an offended brother who may bind and loose in earth and heaven so Erastus Thes 54. p. 42. and so by this the Magistrate hath no more power to debarre from the seals then all other Christians have 3. If Christ give the key of knowledge to the Elders then he cannot give the power of studying Sermons and preaching the word to another so if Christ give the power of breaking the bread of life to the children of the house then he cannot give the power of judging who are the children of the house who not to another Ob. But the Magistrate is only to examine the fact to punish adultery incest and the like that deserve to be punished by the sword but not whether it be a scandall that deserve exclusion from the Sacrament or not Ministers are to take the probation of the scandalous fact by witnes from the Magistrate so to exclude from the Lords supper and to deal with the mans conscience to bring him to repentance so do some argue Ans If the Church be to try the penitency or impenitency of the fact and not to cognosce and try whether he hath done the fact upon the same ground the Magistrate is to try and punish the disturbance of the peace of the Common-wealth that adhereth to the fact and not to try the fact 2. It is not possible that the Church can know whether the man be penitent or no except by witnesses they know the fact for they shall run a preposterous way to work the man to a godly sorrow for that sinne which possibly he never committed now that of which the Church is to convince the man and from which they are to gain his soul that they are to find out 2. This is against the way of Erastus who will have the Magistrate to exclude from the Sacraments and none other 3. The word knowes no such thing as that Ministers should be led in the acts of their Ministeriall duties to whom they should dispense the mysteries of the Gospel and to whom they should deny them by the Magistrate by a good warrant the Magistrate is to lay a tye on the consciences of Elders what they should dispence as to whom they should dispense sure if the Magistrate as the Magistrate must prescribe to Ministers to what sort of persons they must dispence word and Sacraments he must upon the same ground as a Magistrate prescribe what Doctrine they should preach to this man not to this whether Law or Gospel and so the Magistrate as the Magistrate must be a Pastor to cut the word aright 2 Tim. 2. 15. Eze. 3. 18 19 20. Eze. 13. 19. to command to preach life to this man death to this man 4. If the Church must cast him out and judge him who has done this wickednesse 1 Cor. 5. 2 12. and 4. 5 6. 7. then must they judge of his scandall that according to the quality of the scandall they may proportion the measure of the punishment Ergo a pari they must judge whom they debarre from the seals 5. The debarring any from the seals must be proportioned to the end of all spirituall censures that the man be gained and his sinne loosed in heaven Mat. 18. 15. 18. that his soul may be saved in the day of the Lord 1 Cor. 5. 4. That he may be ashamed and so humbled 2 Thes 3. 14 15. 2 Cor. 2. 6 7. that he may learn not to blaspheme 1 Tim. 1. 20. But the Magistrates excluding of any from the Sacraments is no mean congruous to such an end for he can command nothing but the disobedience of which he can and ought to punish with the sword now a carnall weapon cannot be congruous and proportionable to a spirituall end 6. If the Magistrate as a Magistrate must so farre have the keys of Discipline then as a Magistrate he must catechise examine and try the knowledge of the Communicants and so watch for their souls as those that must give an accompt to God 7. The Magistrate must have a Negative voyce in all the acts of the Church and the man must be bound in heaven but not except the Magistrate will and loosed in heaven but not except the Magistrate will for all must depend upon the consent of him to whom Iesus Christ has committed the supream and highest and only power of governing the Church now this is the Magistrate as the Magistrate to Erastus 8. The Magistrate as the Magistrate must forgive sinners and relaxe them from excommunication 2 Cor. 2. 7. and restore those that are overtaken in offences with the spirit of meeknesse Gal. 6. 1. and rebuke publikely those that sin publikely 1 Tim. 5. 20. and so be a spirituall man and a Pastor Neither doth it follow that the Pastors as Pastors only should debarre from the Communion though virtute potestatis ordinis as Pastors they are to keep themselves pure and not to give pearls to swine nor to communicate with other mens sins yet because the Sacraments are Church ordinances they are to be dispensed by the Church that is by the Elders with consent of the people it is one thing to dispense ordinances to those that receive them and another thing to dispense them ceâ—â—o ordine after a Church way the former is from power of order the latter from power of jurisdiction and from the Church only CHAP. XV. Quest 11. Whether Erastus do validly confute a Presbytery Erastus What consequence is this Lev. 10. God commandeth Aaron and his sonnes to put a difference between the holy and prophane the cleane and the unclean this difference they were to teach the people out of the Law Ergo God hath ordained a Colledge of Ecclesiasticall Senators to exercise the power of the Civill Magistrate it is like this God commanded the Pastors to teach the people and dispense the Sacraments Ergo
Law of God so the seventy translate it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hieronym intrabunt in Ecclesiam Domini Vatablus in Not. erint de consortio populi Sancti The English Annotators cite for this Nehe. 13. 1 2. the Law is that the Moabite and the Ammonite should not enter into the Congregation of the Lord for ever It is said v. 3. They separated from Israel all the mixed multitude so that cleare it is to enter into the Congregation is to become a Member of the Church then to be separated from the Congregation must be to be cast out of the Church and deprived of the holy things of God as heathens and strangers were according to that Levit. 22. 10. There shall no stranger eate of the holy thing What is this but Excommunication call it with another name we care not it is really to be separated from the Church 7. It is admirable to me to heare Erastus say It cannot be that God who is no accepter of of persons will not receive into his Kingdome a Bastard an Ammonite a Moabite Is not this to reason against the Law of God and the wisedome of God Deut. 23. 1. 2 3. who saith that he will not receive such into his Church which is his Kingdome and a company of Kings and Priests unto God which he hath freely loved Exod. 19. 5 6. Psal 149. 1. Deut. 7. 7. Deut. 26. 16 17 18. as â—oâ— the rejecting of men from his heavenly Kingdome according to Gods decree of eternall Reprobation I deny Excommunication to be any such rejection of men it being onely a casting them out from the visible Church and the speciall Church priviledges that their Spirits may be saved in the day of the Lord and what can be more contrary to the Word then that Erastus should say God declared not that it was his will that Moabites Ammonites should not be circumcised anâ— admitted to the Sacraments Why then did hee not chuse Moabites and Ammonites for his people and make a covenant with them and give Circumcision a Seale of the Covenant as he dealt with the Iewes if he mean God will not exclude Moabites and Ammonites from the Sacraments so they repent and turne to him but now Erastus fights with his owneshaddow Who denieth but Iewes and Gentiles so they call on him are welcome to all the holy things of God and not to be cast out of either Church or Synagogue 8. To say to cast out of the Synagogue is a meeker word then to Excommunicate is but to beg the question Yea but saith Erastus it is lesse and a milder thing then to destroy and pro deplorato habere to esteeme a person lost we say Excommunication is not to destroy or to give for lost but though it be the most violent yet it is a saving remedy that the man may be ashamed humbled and his Spirit saved 9. We reason not from the fact of Pharisees if they cast any out of the Synagogue for a just cause they ought also by Gods Law to debarre them from Temple and Sacraments and therefore if they did not debarre it was their sinne not our Rule CHAP. XXI Quest 17. Divers other Arguments vindicated as from Communion with the Church subjection of Magistrates and Ministers The Ceremonially unclean from Matth. 18. Tell the Church Erastus Christ hath given a power to his Church to loose Ergo also to binde The Church admitteth Believers into Communion Ergo they cast out the impenitent Erastus Answereth Such a power as they have to Ioose and to admit such and no other have they to binde and to cast out but it follovveth not Ergo it is a povver to debar from the Sacraments and to Excommunicate it is à Genere and Speciem affirmativè Ans Erastus is mistaken and formeth the Argument as he pleaseth The Church pardoneth as a Church and receiveth into her body believers to participate of Church-priviledges and Sacraments in a Church Communion Ergo the Church hath power to binde and cast out from this same church-Church-Communion those that leaveneth the whole lump as a City may admit a stranger to all the City priviledges Ergo the same City may for offences against the City cast out and deprive of City priviledges offenders is this a Genere ad speciem affirmativè If the Church have a power to cast out 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from amongst them a Member we shall not contend for the name of Excommunication Erastus The Ministers have none by whom in their office they can be corrected But saith Erastus If every soul be subject to the higher powers how are Ministers excepted if Ministers correct Ministers they play to others hands spare thou the nails and I shall spare the teeth Ans The Author doth not except Ministers from civill subjection to Magistrates But only he saith In Ecclesiasticall censures the Magistrate is not to judge the Ministers because a Ministery being an Ecclesiasticall office as such it is not liable to the civill power only the Ministers as they erre and sin in their persons are liable to civill punishment but not to Ecclesiasticall to be inflicted by the Magistrate 2. Through the corruption of mens nature every one may wink at anothers faults It is true But consider if this slow from the nature of Gods Ordinance to wit that the Citizen obey the Laws of the City whereof he is a member This is an Argument against any Senate Parliament Counsell of State or War or Aristocracy on earth if of an hundreth Lords of the States Generall one or ten play the Traytor to the State who shall take order with them Their Collegues and fellow-Senators Partiall judging falls out here through mens corruption spare thou the nails and I le spare the teeth and from Erastus his way if you Argue from mens corruption the same will follow May not the Magistrate say to the Minister Honour me before the people and Preach not against the sins of King and Court and I will oversee and wink at thy Pluralities non-residencies soul-murthers And may not the Minister say to the Magistrate Let me be above all Civill Laws and be Lord Prelat and sit on the necks of my Brethren and defraud oppresse and I shall be silent and preach nothing against the idolatry oppressions Sodomy uncleannesse of Magistrate and court Erastus The Ceremonially unclean were excluded from the Sacraments Ergo far more the Morally unclean But how saith he doth this follow You Excommunicate none but the obstinate for those that were Ceremonially unclean against their will were excluded from the holy things Ergo far more he that is Morally unclean is to be debarred though he be not obstinate How could Paul Excommunicate the incestuous man 1 Cor. 5. he was never admonished or Peter Excommunicate Annanias as you say Ans All Types or comparisons hold only in that for which the spirit of God doth bring them Now the Ceremonially unclean were debarred from
and God inviteth them to repentance and the staying in the Church And the Sacraments are to Erastus means of repentance and this casting out must be to save them for no power is given of God to the Magistrate or Church for destruction but for edification Now to put them out of the Church that they may be saved is as Erastus conceiteth to cast a lascivious Virgin out of the company of chaste Matrâ—ns to the end she may preserve her chastity I speak here all in the language of Erastus who useth all those against casting any out of the Church by Presbyters but they stand with equall strength against his casting out of idolaters and apostates out of the Church and so do the rest of his Arguments Therefore this conclusion of Erastus is a granting us the whole cause after in six books he hath pleaded none should be Excommunicated he falleth on Bellarmines Tutissimum igitur c. when he had written six books against justification by faith Lastly why should idolaters apostates and obstinately wicked men be excluded from the dispute of Excommunication and suspension from the Sacraments for he knoweth that Beza and Protestant Divines do make these the speciall though not the whole subject of the dispute Now Erastus concluding his six books doth hereby professe he hath never faithfully stated the question when he excludes those from the subjectum questionis who especially heareth not the Church and ought to be Excommunicated Thus have I given an account as I could of the wit of Erastus against the freedome of the Kingdome of the Lord Iesus CHAP. XXIII Of the power of the Christian Magistrate in Ecclesiasticall Discipline QUEST XIX Whether or no the Christian Magistrate be so above the Church in matters of Religion Doctrine and Discipline that the Church and her Guides Pastors and Teachers do all they do in these as subordinate to the Magistrate as his servants and by his Authority Or is the spirituall power of the Church immediately subject to Iesus Christ only VVEE know that Erastus who is Refuted by Beza Vtenbogard whom Ant Walens Learnedly Refuteth Maccovius opposed by the Universities and Divines of Holland Vedelius Answered by Gu. Apolonius and others and the Belgick Arminians in their Petition to the States and Hu. Grotins against Sibrandus Lubert Divers Episcopall Writers in England do hold That the Guides of the Church do all in their Ministery by the Authority of the Christian Magistrate I believe the contrary And 1. We exclude not the Magistrate who is a keeper of both Tables of the Law from a care of matters of Religion 2. We deny not to him a power to examine Heresies and false Doctrine 1. In order to bodily punishment with the sword 2. With a judgement not Antecedent but Subsequent to the judgement of the Church where the Church is constituted 3. With such a judgement as concerneth his practise lest he should in a blinde way and upon trust execute his office in punishing Hereticks whether they be sentenced by the Church according unto or contrary to the word of God as Papists dream 3. We deny not but the Prince may command the Pastor to Preach and the Synod and Presbytery to use the keys of Christs Kingdom according to the Rules of the Word But this is but a Civill subjection though the object be spirituall But the Question is not 1. Whether the Christian Magistrate have a care of both Tables of the Law 2. Whether he as a blinde servant is to execute the will of the Church in punishing such as they discern to be Hereticks we pray the Lord to give him eyes and wisdom in his Administration 3. Nor thirdly Whether he may use his coercive power against false Teachers that belongs to the controversie concerning Liberty of Conscience 4. The Question is not Whether the Magistrate have any power of jurisdiction in the Court of Conscience they grant that belongeth to the Preaching of the Word But the Question is touching the power in the externall Court of Censures 5. The Question is not Whether the power of exercising Discipline be from the Magistrate I mean in a free and peacable manner with freedome from violence of men we grant that power and by proportion also that exercise of Discipline is from him But whether the intrinsecall power be not immediately from Christ given to the Church this we teach as the power of saying peacably from danger of Pirats and Robbers is from the King but the Art of Navigation is not from the King But the Question is whether the Magistrate by vertue of his office as a Magistrate hath Supream power to Govern the Church and immediatly as a little Monarch under Christ above Pastors Teachers and the Church of God to Iudge and determine what is true Doctrine what Heresie to censure and remove from church-Church-Communion the Seals and Church-offices all scandalous persons and that if Pastors or Doctors or the Church Teach or dispense censures they do it not with any immediate subjection to Christ but in the Name and Authority of the Magistrate having power from the Magistrate as his servants and delegates To this we answer negatively denying any such power to the Magistrate and doe hold that the Church and Christs courts and Assemblies of Pastors Doctors and Elders hath this power onely and immediately from Iesus Christ without subordination in their office to King Parliament or any Magistrate on earth by these Arguments 1. Because in the Old Testament the Lord distinguished two courts Deut. 17. 8. If there arise a matter too hard for thee in judgement 10. Thou shalt come unto the Priests the Levites and unto the Iudge that shall be in those dayes and inquire and they shall shew thee the sentence of judgement And thou shalt doe according to the sentence which they of that place which the Lord shall chuse shall shew thee c. There be here two Courts clearly one court of Priests and Levites that were Iudges another of the Iudge Now the King by vertue of his Kingly office might not usurpe the Priests office 1. Vzziah was smitten with Leprosie for so doing 2. It is evident in Moses his writing that Aaron and his sonnes the Priests and Levites were separated for the service of the Tabernacle to teach the people to carry the Arke to sacrifice to judge the Leper and to judge between the clean and the unclean to put out of the campe out of the congregation the unclean and to admit the clean Lev. 1. 7 9 12 c. and 5. 8. and 7. 7. and 13. 3 4 c. 23. Numb 5. 8. c. and 18. 4 5. 2 Chron. 29. 11. You hath the Lord chosen to stand before him 1 Sam. 21. 1 2. Lev. 21. 1. Iosh 3. 8. 1 Kin. 8. 3. 1 Chron. 8. 9. 2 Chron. 5. 7. and 7. 6. and 8. 14. Zeph. 3. 4. Hag. 2. 11 12. Mal. 2. 7 Deut. 10 9. and 21. 5. Num. 1.
corrupt Heterodox and all the Pastors have corrupted their wayes 5. Civill punishing of Church-men when they are Hereticall and scandalous we heartily yield to Magistrates But that Magistrates as such should Excommunicate and admit such to the Sacrament and reject other such and rebuke or that the Magistrate as the Magistrate did of old judge between the clean and the unclean cast out from the congregation and camp and receive in and so governe the Church is altogether unwarranttable Now the adversaries as Erastus grant that Idolaters Apostates and extreamly prophane men are to be cast out of the Christian society and not to be suffered there and also that Dogs and Swine and Apostates persecutâ—rs are neither to be admitted to hear the Word nor partake of the Sacraments So also Mr. Pryn if Magistrates must cast them out of the Church by vertue of their office and judge as Magistrates who are prophane and who truly feare God and who are dogs and Apostates who not surely then Magistrates as Magistrates must discerne between the cleane and the uncleane as Priest of old and must separate the precious from the vile as the Prophets did of old and so were the mouth of God and must stand before the Lord leâ— 15. 19. Then must Magistrates as Magistrates be Pastors called in the Pulpit as well as in the Throne and the Bench and that by vertue of their calling which neither Erastus nor the reverend Mr. Pryn will owne Now if the Elders of the Church with the consent of the people must cast such out of the Church and from communion in the holy things of God here is in expresse termes the very Ecclesiasticall Excommunication which Mr. Pryn denieth to be an Ordinance of God and yet it must be commanded by Iesus Christ in these words Mat. 7. 6. Give not holy things unto dogs and therefore keep not in Church communion the prophane and by the way Mr. Pryn to me yeeldeth the cause and granteth that Excommunication and suspension from the Sacraments doe both fall under this precept of Christ Mat. 7. That which falleth under a command of Christ to me is a Divine Ordinance 2. He saith also reasoning against are suspension from the Sacraments Obstinate scandalous sinners make no conscience at all of receiving the Sacrament and voluntarily suspend themselves there-from in case they be freely admitted to other Ordinances it being onely the totall Exclusion from the Church and all Christian society not any bare suspension from the Sacrament which worketh both shame and remorse in excommunicate persons as Paul resolveth 1 Thes 3. 14. 1 Cor. 5. 13. compared with 1 Cor. 1. to v. 10. 3. This is in terminis excommunication proved from divers places of Scripture for it is a totall Exclusion from the Church and all Christian society working shame and remorse as Paul resolveth We seeke no more Pauls resolution to us is a Divine right Those words of that Learned and Reverend man have give me leave by the way to say for I hope worthier then I am do answer fully all he hath said in this subject all that we crave For 1. obstinate men will voluntarily suspend themselves from the Sacrament Ergo the Church should not suspend them onely but also Excommunicate them I grant all if they be obstinate they are to be not only suspended but also excommunicated Ergo they are not solie and onely to be suspended Pro hac vice for this time it followeth no waies all that this Reverend Lawyer saith against sole suspension from the Sacrament of an obstinate offender is nothing against us if he be obstinate he is not onely to be suspended from the Sacrament but also if he goe on in refusing to heare the admonitions of brethren and of the Church he is to be excommunicated Ergo he is not first hac vice to be suspended from a confirming Ordinance given to those onely who are supposed to have the life of faith and can onely eat and drinke spiritually and by faith the body and blood of Christ It followeth not I thinke Mr. Pryn would not have Hereticks and Apostates suddenly and at the first totally as he saith excluded from the Church and all Christian society sure we owe some gentlenes and patience even to them If God peradventure may give them Repentance to scape out of the snare of the Devil 2 Tim. 2. 24. 25 26. yet if an Heretick and Apostate that same day that the Lords Supper were to be celebrated should deny the Resurrection and Iesus Christ to be God blessed for ever and not equall with the Father nor consubstantiall with him and withall should that same day have offered his childe to Molech and yet professe his desire to come to the Lords Supper professing he had tryed and examined himselfe and his desire to come to eate and drinke with Iesus Christ the great Prophet of his Church Would not Mr. Prynne thinke he should not be admitted to the Lords Supper and yet that he should not totally be excluded from the Church and all communion from the Church and holy things of God I should think if he cannot be presently excommunicated yet he should not be admitted to the Sacrament for sure he cannot but be in a doggish and swinish disposition in one degree or other And my reason is he is as Erastus saith non rectè institutus not rightly instructed but heterodoxe and so cannot try and examine himselfe while he be better principled in the faith so a suspension for a time from the Lords supper and ex natura rei without totall exclusion from the Church and all Christian society were as necessary whether the Magistrate or Church suspend I dispute not now as a degree of punishment or a preventing of eating of damnation is necessary hiâ— nunc O but saith Master Prinne Christ knew that Iudas was worse than an heretick and yet he denied not to admit him to the Supper Ergo though we knew such a one the Sacrament being a converting Ordinance it followeth not that we should debarre him from the Sacrament Ans Whether Iudas did eat the Supper of the Lord or not I think nothing of the matter only Master Prinne hath duram provinciam and a very hard task to prove it from Scripture If I were to examine his book I should deny his consequences from the Evangelists for not any of them can prove that Iudas did communicate at the last Supper But 1. Christs example in this being an act of Christ as God permitting the greatest hypocrisie on earth is no rule to the Church to give the Lords Supper to Iuddasses First Iudas was visibly and infallibly to Christ a man who deserved to be totally excluded out of the Church and all Christian societie and to Christ a knowne traitor a Devill an hypocrite Ergo as Christ did not exclude him out of the Church neither should the Saints now exclude from their society nor should the Christian