Selected quad for the lemma: death_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
death_n	bear_v	sin_n	world_n	4,338	5	4.9247	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A92138	The divine right of church-government and excommunication: or a peacable dispute for the perfection of the holy scripture in point of ceremonies and church government; in which the removal of the Service-book is justifi'd, the six books of Tho: Erastus against excommunication are briefly examin'd; with a vindication of that eminent divine Theod: Beza against the aspersions of Erastus, the arguments of Mr. William Pryn, Rich: Hooker, Dr. Morton, Dr. Jackson, Dr. John Forbes, and the doctors of Aberdeen; touching will-worship, ceremonies, imagery, idolatry, things indifferent, an ambulatory government; the due and just powers of the magistrate in matters of religion, and the arguments of Mr. Pryn, in so far as they side with Erastus, are modestly discussed. To which is added, a brief tractate of scandal ... / By Samuel Rutherfurd, Professor of Divinity in the University of St. Andrews in Scotland. Published by authority.	Rutherford, Samuel, 1600?-1661.	1646 (1646)	Wing R2377; Thomason E326_1; ESTC R200646	722,457	814

in way of Preaching or in way of censure is a part of the Gospel But Pastors are to Preach the Gospel to all to great and small who stand in need of Reconciliation 2 Cor. 5. 20 Act. 9. 15. He is a chosen vessel to me to bear my name before Gentiles and Kings and the Children of Israel Erastus It is false that the Sword of the Magistrate is not sufficient to coerce sins Psal 101. Kings have put to death those that seek not God It is nothing that you say the Priest judged those same sins in a spirituall manner that the Magistrate judged politically for it is false that the Priests judged in a Judicature separated from the Civill Judges as your Presbytery sitteth See Levit. cap. 4. 5. 6. God seemeth to have given no Laws of punishing offenders by themselves as with us least we should imagine two distinct Judicatures Ans We deny not but the Sword is sufficient to punish offenders in its own kinde in order to the peace of the Common-wealth to remove evil to cause others fear to pacifie Gods wrath as the Scriptures speak so David and good Kings purged the city of God but Erastus cannot deny but God ordained spirituall means of rebukings putting out of the Camp eschewing the company of offenders that they may be ashamed and those spirituall means have a spirituall influence on the soul to remove offences to gain the offenders Matth. 18. 15. Psal 110 2. Isa 11. 4. Psal 141. 5. 2 Thess 3. 14 15. 2. The word maketh the Priests separated from Civill Iudges Zach. 3. 7. The Angel of the Lord protested unto Ioshua the high Priest if thou wilt walk in my wayes and keep my charge then thou shalt also judge my house and thou shalt keep my courts The Civill Magistrate judged not the house of God the way that the High Priest did The Divines that noteth on the place say The chief part in Ecclesiasticall affairs was upon the High Priest Deu● 17. 12. 2 Chron. 19. 11. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is given to the Priest is to judge to give out sentence in judgement the very word that is given to King Iosiah He judged the cause of the poor and needy and Ier. 5. 28. They judge not the cause the cause of the fatherlesse and Ier. 21. 12. O house of David execute judgement in the morning and the sons of Aaron the Priests 1 Chron. 24. 5. are made some of them Governors of the sanctuary and Governors of the house of God It is the word that signifies Princes 2 Kin. 9. 5. A word to thee O Prince 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Sam. 22. 2. 1 Chro. 11. 6. Ier. 17. 25 Num. 23. 3. 10. All the princes of Moab Isa 30. 4. Isa 10. 8. Are not my princes Kings and Lev. 4. 5 6. chapters judiciall acts are given to the Priest that are proper to him as Priest which none do but he nor have the Civill ludges any part in it more then they can offer sacrifices which none do but the priests for he was to judge of the quality of the sins and might not offer any sacrifice for every sin nor dip his finger in the blood of the bullock seven times for every sin this spirituall judicature was the Priests And neither Moses the Prince nor any Civill Iudge on earth could share with the Priests in judging this all the world will say the judge may use the sword against the Murtherer and Elders or Pastors have not to do with the sword at all and the Pastors are to convince rebuke and work upon the conscience of the Murtherer to gain him to repentance and no civill judge as a civill judge hath to share with him in this here be distinct punishments one corporall and civill another spirituall why then must they not flow from two distinct Iurisdictions or if it displease any man that we call Church-censures with the name of punishment we can forbear the name for rebukes suspension from the Sacraments Excommunication because they are intrinsecally and of their own nature such as tend not to the hurt but to the gaining and saving of the souls of the persons censured they are unproperly punishments as the power and court they come from is unproperly a rod a Iudicature a Court and those that inflict the censures improperly Iudges yet can it not be denied to be spirituall Government and that there is a spirituall sword the word of God and a spirituall coaction flowing from Heralds or servants in the name of the King of Kings and Head of the Church who reigneth in his own Ordinances and Ministers Erastus The priests bade Uzziah not burn incense because it was their part only to sacrifice But vvhere is it vvritten that the King vvas condemned by the sentence of the Priests Ans The Priests were a Colledge of Elders who not only judicially condemned the Kings fact as against the Lavv of God but 2 Chron. 26. Azariah and eighty priests vvith him vvithstood him and resisted him yea they gave out sentence against him ver 18. It pertaineth not unto thee Vzziah to burn incense to the Lord but to the Priests the sons of Aaron that are consecrated to burn incense go out of the sanctuary for thou hast trespassed they give out the sentence of the Law of God Numb 16. 40 Nor might any come in to the Holy place but the Priests and Levites Num. 18. 6 7. here is a sentence judiciall by the voyces of 80. Priests in an externall court given out against the supream Magistrate for they gave not out this sentence as private men but as Priests judging according to the Law and in this the King was subject to Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction Erastus It is a vaine thing to say they Excommunicate not the Magistrate as the Magistrate none but Kata-baptists and such as deny Magistracy to be an Ordinance of God can say that Every man might excuse rebellion so and say I persecute not the Magistrate as he is a Magistrate but as he is a tyrant But I say you may not reproach the Magistrate Exod. 22. farre lesse may you punish him How can I obey him whose whole life and actions I may by Power and coaction limit The Magistrate so is but a servant to the Presbytery Ans Erastus scorneth this distinction to say the Magistrate not as a Magistrate but as a scandalous man is Excommunicated Yet we can make him receive the distinction whether he will or not For Erastus saith that Pastors may rebuke convince and threaten the Magistrate Good man may Pastors threaten and rebuke the Magistrate as the Magistrate or may they only threaten and rebuke him as an offending man Erastus dare not say the first for so he were a grosse Kata-baptist for then Pastors were to rebuke the very office and to condemne it if he say the latter as he doth in expresse words then he acknowledgeth that Pastors may bind

Manners of Nations except they mean sinfull Customes as Sacramentall eating and drinking And the like may be said of all the alterable Ceremonies sometimes in use in England and now in force amongst Papists 3. Arg. That Commandement which Timothy is ●o keep without spot unrebukeable untill the appearing of our Lord Iesus Christ 1 Tim. 6. 13. is no alterable command that falleth and riseth with the Customes Civill Laws and Manners of men But Paul commandeth under that every Positive Law of Church-Discipline to be thus kept of which he speaketh in these Epistles to Timothy Mr. Hooker denyeth the assumption For Paul saith he restraineth the words to one speciall Commandment amongst many and therefore it is not said keep the Ordinances Laws Constitutions which thou hast received but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that great Commandment which doth principally concern thee and thy calling that Commandment that Christ did so often inculcate unto Peter Feed my sheep and that Act. 20. Attend to your selves and all the flock c. And that 2 Tim. 4. 1. I charge thee in the sight of God c. Preach the word and teach the Gospel without mixture c. And these words till the appearance of Christ doth not import the time wherein it should be kept but rather the time whereunto the finall reward for keeping it was reserved according to that henceforth is laid up for me a crown of Righteousnesse It doth not import perpetuall observation of the Apostles Commandment for it bindeth not to the Precept of choosing of Widows as the Adversaries grant We do not deny but certain things were Commanded to be though Positive yet perpetuall in the Church Ans 1. If Paul restrain this to one speciall Commandment sure it is so generall and comprehensive a Commandment of feeding the Flock as taketh in all the speciall Positive Commandments belonging to feeding by both Word and Discipline which is enough for the perpetuity of all Positive precepts of Discipline and Policie even till Christs appearance to judge the world and I wonder that Hooker expoundeth this by 2. Tim. 4. 1. As if Paul did mean the precept of Preaching only and that soundly and without mixture and yet passe by the Parallel place 1 Tim. 5 21. A●lmostin the same stile of Language in which place he speaketh of many speciall Positive precepts and Rules of Policie as of poor widows the Almes to be given to them the not rebuking of an Elder the office of Elders Governing and of Elders labouring in the Word and Doctrine the not receiving an accusation against an Elder but under two or three Witnesses the publike rebuking of those who offend publikely the not admitting to the Ministry raw and green souldiers not tryed and many other particulars of Policie of all which he saith gravely v. 21. I charge thee before God and the Lord Iesus Christ and the Elect Angels that thou observe these things c. Certainly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 these things was not one Commandment but all the precepts of Faith and of Church-Government spoken of in this Epistle and truly ● shall think that Paul who particular●z●th that Timothy should not drink water but a little wine because of his infirmity and of bringing with him the cloak that he left at Troas and the parchments 2 Tim. 4 doth far more spec●fi● all the positives of policie and writ how all the Timothies and Pastors are to behave themselves in the Church of God If Ceremonies and all these alterable trifles had not been excluded out of the Platforme for a Religious Masse-Surplice is of far more consequence then Pauls old cloak and yet Paul spake of the one in Canonick-Scripture never of the other and Oyle Spittle Salt Crosse in Baptisme being positive significant Rites and having continued in the Church so many hundred years should far rather have been specified in Scripture then Timothies drinking of water yea and if all the alterable positive things of Policy as Crosse Surplice be commanded as necessary in the generall though not in this or that particular as Hooker and other Formalists do teach then sure the meaning must be I give to thee O Timothy charge in the sight of God who quickeneth all things and before Christ Jesus c. That thou keep this Commandment of Crossing Surplice bowing to Altars of corner-Cap or of the equivalent of these without spot irrebukeable to the appearance of Jesus Christ for the precept of feeding the Flock must include all these and though Ceremonies in particular be alterable and not commanded in Hythothesie yet that in generall there should be such positive Ceremonies is necessary and the Apostle say they commandeth them 1 Cor. 14. 40. Yea as Dunam saith humane Holy-dayes are commanded in the fourth Commandment and Burges saith all the Ceremonies are commanded in the third Commandment and Formalists who denyed the Prelate to be of Divine institution made a Ceremony of him and made him a decent and orderly thing which as the Poet said to me is like the act of death that brought Great Alexander to whom the whole world was not sufficient in small bounds in the Grave under two foot of earth and this maketh the great Pope the Catholick Bishop of the earth a little Ceremony But this little Ceremony hath these many hundred years infested the whole earth 2. If this precept be not a perpetuall binding precept till Christs second appearance but only rewarded with life eternall at Christs appearance yet shall it follow that all things included in the precept of feeding the flock and so all the Surplice Crossing Will-worship or their equivalent without which feeding cannot be in a decent and orderly way as they say from 1 Cor. 14. 40. must be rewarded with life eternall let Formalists wait at the day of judgement for a reward of a Garment of glory for wearing a linning Surplice my faith cannot reach it 3. For the choosing of Widovves that are poor to take care of the poor and sicke in Hospitals we think it just as necessary now as then though no wayes if there be none sick and poor in the Church But that Widows were Church-Officers ordained as were Deacons Act. 6. 6. we never thought and therefore we do not see that the wanting of such Widows is the want of a Positive institution of Church-Policy for other positive things of policy that should be of perpetuall use and not all of the same kinde and of equall necessity I see no reason which I speak for Apostles which were necessary then and not now But if from thence Formalists infer that many positive things of policy are alterable I can infer with equall strength of reason that then Pastors and Teachers are alterable by the Church for if the one have a Divine institution to warrant it Eph. 4. 11 12 13. so hath the other and if Prelates may come themselves into the Church without any warrant but this that Apostles are

in the Idoll-Temple to come to the Lords Table except they repent and try themselves Hence it must follow that if Christ have commanded his Stewards to dispense the word of promise and threatnings and comforts according to the temper of the flock so must they dispense the Seals and so by good consequence Paul said I will not have the Lord and Satan mingled nor a partaker of Satans Table admitted to the Lords Table 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Erastus his Arg. 13. 1 Cor. 10. God spared not idolaters and murmurers yet they eat we and they of the same spirituall meat and drinke the same spirituall drinke and so had the same Sacraments otherwise the Argument of the Apostle were nothing if ours and their Sacraments were not all one if then those that were idolators fornicators were admitted to their Sacraments then also to ou●● under the New Testament Ans Beza answereth well to that Manna and the water ouf of the Rock as they had a spirituall Relation to Christ were holy things and types of Christ just as our Sacraments are signes of Christ already come in the flesh and so agreed in the kinde of holy signes with our Sacraments yet Manna and the water out of the Rock were also ordained to be bodily food for the famishing and thirsty people good or bad holy or unholy these two Manna and water out of the Rock were given by the Commandment of God and the Priests to the people both as Gods people in Covenant with God and to them as men starving in the wildernesse and dying for thirst for they had not plowing earing harvest bread vineyards wine fountains in the wildernesse and therefore no marvell then such holy things being also beside that they were holy things such as were necessary to keep them from starving and bodily death as the shewbread which was also a type of the word of life revealed to the Ministers of God was given to keep David and his men from starving No marvell I say then these bodily helps though in another higher signification they were Sacramentalls were by Gods command bestowed on many wicked men who often partake both of outward Ordinances and temporall deliverance from death and famishing because they are mixt with the people of God But Erastus if he would prove any thing against us should have proved that circumcision the Passeover and other holy things of God ordained for the visible Saints to shew forth our spirituall Communion with Christ and which were never ordained for necessiry helps to sustain the naturall life were to be administred to those that were openly prophane and wicked and therefore we deny this connexion Manna signified the very same thing to wit Christ our food of life which bread and wine signifies Ergo As Manna was given both as a holy signe to figure out Christ our life and to feed the bodies of openly holy or openly prophane to sustain their bodily life so also baptisme and the Lords Supper which serve for no bodily use should be administred to those that are openly prophane Erastus is put to a poor shift with this solid Answer of that Reverend Learned and holy Divine Theod. Bez● he saith Vis dicam quod sentio Tui ubique similises The sea and the cloud saith he were not necessary to feed the body It is true Erastus the Physician would think the cloud and pillar of fire can neither be Physick for the sick nor food for the whole yet Physitians say Manna is apt for both not is the dvided Red-Sea food or Physick But good man he knowes the cloud was their guide and convey by night and day through the wildernesse and appointed by God to convey the Leapers the unclean and all those who were Excommunicated from the holy things and the Idolators and openly wicked as well as the clean and the holy and he knew the s●me that the people had no food but Manna a holy signe that those who were unclean seven dayes and often many times longer were not to starve for hunger but must eat Manna though a holy yet their only necessary food then without which they could not live But I hope Erastus cannot prove while they were unclean or put out of the Camp or yet extreamly wicked that they might eat the Passeover which was a meer holy Sacrament not ordained for the feeding of the body as Manna and water out of the Rock were Erastus may know the dividing of the Sea was necessary to preserve the life of the most wicked and unclean God being pleased for his Churches cause to bestow Temporall deliverances on wicked men mingled with the godly from being drowned with the Egyptians and that God who will have mercy and not sacrifice may well by a positive Law appoint that holy and unholy clean and unclean shall have the use of such holy things as are not meerly holy but mixt being both means of Divine institution and also necessary Subsidies for mans life but it followeth not therefore holy things that are purely holy should be prostitute to holy and unholy the clean and unclean Erastus God in the Church of the Jews punished wicked men with bodily punishments not with Exclusion from the Sacraments and Paul threatneth death and sicknesse not Excommunication to those that did eat and drink unworthily Ans Then putting out of the Campe was no Exclusion from the holy things of God all the world not onely will cry shame on this Divinity But they will say Erastus his Logick is bad God punisheth some wicked men with death and the sword of the Magistrate and stoning Ergo he appointed no Ecclesiasticall debarring of the unclean from Circumcision 2. It is false that Paul threatneth death to unworthy Communicants only he saith God ●lew many of them for that sin and hence it follows well the Officers should hinder the scandalous to rush into such a sin as is the not discerning the Lords body which bringeth death and diseases on the actors What consequence is this God punisheth wicked men Ergo the Officers should not rebuke them for those sins nor the Magistrate or Church punish wicked men God punisheth ●●ubborn Rebels to parents Ergo the judge should not stone them the contrary Logick is the arguing of the Spirit of God Erastus Every one is to try himself therefore there is no need of any other to try him for Paul speaketh of that which is proper to every mans conscience Ans It is an unlearned and vain consequence It is commanded that every one try if he be in the Faith or no for the peace of his conscience and this is so proper to a man himself and so personall that no man can try or know certainly whether be in the state of grace but he himself 2 Cor. 13. 5. Rev. 2. 17. None can joyn with him in this as none can joyn with a man to try if he have faith to discern the Lords body and eat worthily

is not to kill were Hymeneus and Alexander delivered to Satan that they might learn not to blaspheme what learning or Discipline can dead men be capable of 2. There 's need of mourning when any is cut off from Christs body it being the highest judgement of God on earth 3. Without the visible Church altogether as Heathens are there is no salvation But to be so without the Church as the casting out is a medicinall punishment That the soul may be saved in the day of the Lord is a mean to bring the soul in to both the invisible and visible Church and putteth none in that state that they cannot be saved but by the contrary in a way to be saved so the man periret nisi periret Erastus It would seem it may be proved from the Text that the man persevered not in that wickednesse for the Text saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He that hath done and that hath wrought this deed not he that doth this deed and therefore it seems Paul would inflict punishment as a good Magistrate useth to do even though the man repent and he saith that his spirit may be saved then the man repented Ans 1. Reconcile these two Paul was as a good Magistrate to kill the man though he should repent and yet at their intercession saith Erastus he did forgive him durst Paul at the request of men pardon a Malefactor contrary to the duty of a good Magistrate 2. Can Paul intend in miraculous killing only the saving of the mans soul and knowing that he was saved and having obtained his end yet he will use the mean that is he will kill him or if he intended another end also that others might fear how could he not kill for this end A good Magistrates zeal should not be softned and blunted for the request of men Erastus he saith He decreed to deliver the man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh that the soul may be saved now 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to give over to permit here a person given a person to whom a person giving to wit Paul and the end wherefore that the spirit may be saved it is as if I would give my son to a Master either to be instructed or chastised so 1 Tim. 1. Act. 27. 28. Matth. 5. 18. Matth. 24. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mar. 15. The brother shall deliver the brother to death and the Lord saith to Satan behold 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I give him to thee this is to deliver one afflicted killed condemned Ans All this is needlesse to be delivered over is to be recommended and taken in a good sense also Act. 14. 26. Commended to the grace of God Act. 15. 40. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and we deny not but to be delivered to Satan is to be delivered to be afflicted but the question is what affliction is meant here the affliction of the flesh say we or of the unrenewed part opposed to a saved spirit Erastus It is unpossible that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 destruction can be shown to signifie the destruction of the desires of sinfull flesh in all the New-Testament it alwayes signifieth killing death destruction nor doth the thing it self compell us to take it other wayes here nor for killing and death as 1 Thes 5. It is true 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rom. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to kill destroy crucifie are so taken but never 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in either sacred or prophane Authors Ans I conceive Chrysostom knew Greek better then Erastus the man was delivered to Satan 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That he might scourge him as he did Job with a hurtfull boyle or some other sicknesse Hence as that learned and judicious Divine who hath deserved excellently of the Protestant Churches Petrus Molineus saith on the place Chrysostom Homo Grece eloquentiae R●rum exemplum A rare example of Grecian eloquence doth think per 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the word destruction not death but some heavy torment to be meant And I am sure Hieronymus a man in the tongues incomparably skilled said by destruction here was meant jejunia egrotationes fasting and diseases 2. Nor need we contend for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which in all Authors of the world signifieth destruction for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to destroy the question will rather be what is meant by the flesh but certainly it is in prophane Greek Authors as unusuall I except sacred Greek Authors such as Basil Chrysostom who knew what mortification meant to speak as Paul doth Rom. 8. 13. If ye mortifie the deeds of the flesh ye shall live Let Erastus finde me a parallel to that in the New Testament 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I think Erastus may not deny that this is to mortifie the sinfull works of the body of sin yet Aristotle Plato Lucian Plutarch H●siod Homer nor any prophane Greek Author ever spake so We shall therefore deny that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth never to Greek Authors any thing but bodily death for 2 Thess 1. 9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 everlasting destruction is some more then bodily destruction 3. We say it is unpossible that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 can be showen to signifie in either Old or New Testament a miraculous destroying of the body by Satan we retort this reason back upon Erastus his Exposition is not tollerable because it wanteth a parallel place it is his own reason Erastus The destruction of the flesh must be the destruction of the body not of concupiscence because he addeth that the spirit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be saved here the soul is opposed to the body Ans Though we should grant that by the flesh is meant the body yet it followeth not it is the miraculous killing of the man as I observed before 2. It maketh nothing against Excommunication for many learned Protestants teach that though to deliver to Satan were a bodily punishment or conjoyned therewith as the Learned Anto. Waleus doth observe yet the Apostle is clear for Excommunication in this chapter the learned Molineus denyeth delivering to Satan to be expounded of Excommunication and will have the destruction of the flesh to be some bodily tormenting of his body by Satan so doth sundry of the Fathers especially Ambrose Hyeronimus Augustinus and Chrysostom though Augustine be doubtful Yet Molineus saith Certum est paulum velle hunc incestum moveri communione Ecclesia sed id vult fieri ab ipsa Ecclesia Cor●nthiacâ dicens ver 13. Tollite istum sceleratum è medio vèstrúm And that grave and judicious Divine Piscator saith on the place That the forme of Excommunication is this delivering to Satan but the destruction of the flesh he thinketh to be the exhausting of the naturall strength of the body with sorrow for his sin according to that Prov. 17.

The Church of the Iews was tyed to one certaine place but every particular Church hath alike power To be cast out of the Synagogue then with the Iews must be another thing then to be Excommunicated now for he that is cast out of one particular Church is cast out of the whole Catholick Church But it was not so in Iudea for Sacrifices and Sacraments except circumcision and expiation were only at Ierusalem not in Synagogues how then could they deny Sacraments which they wanted themselves they could not deny what was not in their power to give Moses was read in their Synagogues every Sabbath No man could be forbidden to heare the word read this had been against a manifest precept It is like they admitted heathens to the Synagogue Act. 13. 14. c. 12. c. 18. But it was not lawfull for heathen to enter into the Temple And when Moses commanded all the clean to go to Ierusalem no Synagogue could forbid them to go Ans That the Synod might have divers significations I deny not but that to be cast out of the Synagogue had divers significations we deny Yea it signified no other thing but to be cast out of the Church and the Lord Iesus speaketh of it and the Evangelists as of a standing censure in the Jewish Church which the spirit of God condemneth no where except when it was abused Ioh. 9. 22. Ioh. 12. 42. Ioh. 16. 2. Luk. 6. 22. Ioh. 9. 35. so is the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nadah to Excommunicate as an unclean thing Esay 66. 5. Your Brethren that cast you out Pagnin and Mercer expound it of casting out of the Synagogue and they cite Ioh. 9. and 12. and 16. to make it signifie Excommunication 2. That a circumcised Iew could by no Law be cast out of Iudea seemeth to say that banishment was not a lawfull punishment Surely David against all Law then did banish Absolon 2 Sam. 14. 13. and when the King of Persia Ezra 7. 25 26. commandeth Ezra to restore judicatures as at the beginning It would seem that banishment was an ancient punishment amongst the Iews Therefore Erastus craftily saith that no born Iews were so cast out of Iudea that they were compelled to say they were not Iews Surely we never dreamed of such an Excommunication that the excommunicated should be compelled to lie and say that though they were Iews and Christians yet they should say they were not Iews or Christians 2. When the people was in Egypt 2 Mac. they were killed who denyed themselves to be Iews and deservedly for they denied their Religion and their God What is this against Excommunication We plead not for such an Excommunication as was a locall extrusion of a person out of the land of Iudea nor for such a one wherey they denyed their Nation that was a sinfull lying But such whereby Church priviledges were denyed to some for scandals 3. Nor do we expound casting out of the Synagogue literally as Erastus doth to be a casting out of the Synagogue or from the Ordinances there and from hearing the word or the Law of Moses for the Synagogue is the Church and it was to be debarred from the Temple Passeover and other Holy things though these should be tyed to one certaine place to wit to the Temple and I doubt if the excommunicated be to be debarred from hearing the word 1. Because the excommunicated is to be admonished as a brother 2 Thes 3. 15. and the word preached is a mean simply necessary for the mans gaining 2. Because heathens were not excluded from hearing the word 1 Chron. 14 23. Act. 17. 16. 17 18 19 20. c. Act. 14. v. 15 16 17. But from the Temple and Sacraments they were excluded We have often answered that all the Morally unclean though they were ceremonially clean are not only not commanded to go up to Ierusalem that is to the Temple and holy things that they are rebuked and accused because they stood in the Lords Temple with their bloods and idolatries and other abominations in their skirts Ieremiah 7. verse 9. 10. Ezekiel 23. 38 39. Esay 1. verse 10 11 12 13 14 15 16. Erastus They call Christ a Samaritan Ioh. 8. Those of Nazareth not onely cast him out of the Synagogue but out of the town and strove to throw him over the brow of a mountain Who d●ubts then but they cast Christ out of the Synagogue when they made a Law that if any should confesse him he should be cast out of the Synagogue Yet never man objected to Christ It is not lawfull to thee to go into the Temple for thou art cast out of the Synagogue Ergo to be cast out of the Synagogue was not to be excommunicated Ans All these are poor conjectures for Erastus granteth there was such a censure as casting out of the Synagogue But he sheweth not what it is But I retort this argument if Christ had been cast out of the Synagogue those that called him a Samaritane and cast out of their Synagogues such as confessed him would have sometime said it is not lawfull to thee to go into the Synagogues and teach for thou art cast out of the Synagogue But by the contrary Christ till the day of his death openly taught in the Synagogues Ioh. 18. 20. I spake openly to the world I ever taught in the Synagogue and in the Temple whither the Iews alwayes resort Luke 4. 15. he taught in their Synagogues Luke 4. 16. as his custome was he went into the Synagogues Mat. 4. 23. Mark 1. 39. Mark 3. 1. Luk. 6. 6. Mat. 9. 35. Luke 13. 10. and therefore it is a demonstration to me that they never cast Christ out of the Synagogue what hindred them saith Erastus I answer Let him shew me what hindred them to stone him Ioh. 10. and not to put him to death till his houre came Erastus speaketh not like a divine who scoffeth at the secret Counsell of God For God had the sufferings of his owne sonne Christ in a speciall manner determined and weighed in number weight and measure And therefore though they made a Law that all that confesseth Christ should be cast out of the Synagogue and though those that sinned against the Holy Ghost Matt. 12. called him a Samaritane and out of a sudden passion those that wondred at the gracious words that proceeded out of his mouth would cast him over the brow of a Mountaine Yet I hold they never made any Law no● did execute any Law nor did cast out of their Sgnagogue or excommunicate the Lord Iesus I leave Erastus to his conjectures Erastus Act. 4. and 5. The Apostles were scourged and cast out by the high Synagogue summa Synagoga yet presently they teach in the Temple and use the Sacramen●s Act. 21. When Paul Act. 21. was to go to the Temple to sacrifice the Apostles who counselled him so to do do not object that he was excommunicated and so could not

the Magistrate under the New Testament because they were killed in the Old Then are we to stone the men that gathereth sticks on the Lords day the childe that is stubborn to his Parents the Virgins daughters of Ministers that committeth fornication are to be put to death Why but then the whole judiciall Law of God shall oblige us Christians as Carolosladius and others teach I humbly concieve that the putting of some to death in the Old Testament as it was a punishment to them so was it a mysterious teaching of us how God hated such and such sins and mysteries of that kinde are gone with other shadows But we read not saith Erastus where Christ hath changed those Laws in the New Testament It is true Christ hath not said in particular I abolish the debarring of the leper seven dayes and he that is thus and thus unclean shall be separated till the evening nor hath he said particularly of every carnall Ordinance and judiciall Law it is abolished But we conceive the whole bulk of the judiciall Law as judiciall and as it concerned the Republick of the Iews only is abolished though the morall equity of all those be not abolished also some punishments were meetly Symbolicall to teach the detestation of such a vice as the boaring with an A●le the ear of him that loved his Master and desired still to serve him and the making of him his perpetuall servant I should think the punishing with death the man that gathered sticks on the Sabbath was such and in all these the punishing of a sin against the Morall Law by the Magistrate is Morall and perpetuall but the punishing of every sin against the Morall Law tali modo so and so with death with spitting on the face I much doubt if these punishments in particular and in their positive determination to the people of the Iews be morall and perpetuall As he that would marry a captive woman of another Religion is to cause her first pare her nailes and wash her self and give her a moneth or lesse time to lament the death of her Parents which was a Iudiciall not a Ceremoniall Law that this should be perpetuall because Christ in particular hath not abolished it to me seems most unjust for as Paul saith He that is Circumcised becomes debter to the whole Law sure to all the Ceremonies of Moses his Law So I Argue à pari from the like He that will keep one judciciall Law because judiciall and given by Moses becometh debter to keep the whole judiciall Law under pain of Gods eternall wrath We do not teach that men are to be Excommunicated for whatever scandalous sins deserve death at the hand of the Magistrate whether they openly repent or not if any give evident signification of their repentance for murther they are not to be Excommunicated for the end of Excommunication being once obtained which is the visible and known repentance and saving of the offenders soul the mean is not to be used which is Excommunication But if any commit murther whether he repent or repent not the Lord hath made no exception of regenerate or not regenerate of men repenting or not repenting he should die by the sword of the Magistrate Gen. 9. 9. It is true some are to be Excommunicated for the very atrocity of the sin it being parricide but that is because he giveth no positive signes of repentance to the Church which is contumacy added to his parricide Erastus would prove That God would not have men dedebarred from the Sacraments because they commit haynous sins to be punished with death by the Judge 1. Facinora saepe sunt occulta such crimes are often unknown to the world Ans That which is denied is not concluded a fault in Logick for only scandals as scandals to the Church and so known to the Church are to be censured with Excommunication Erastus He thus would prove the same often these crimes cannot be punished as David durst not punish the murther of Ioab 2 Sam. 3. Often for other causes they are neglected by the Magistrate as David neglected to punish the incest and murther of Absolon but shall we think such were not to come to the Temple and Sacraments so Psal 14. David saith There was not one that doth good those were not all punished by the Magistrate yet were they not removed from the Sacraments Ans Let Erastus argue here and we shall see his logick Those that commit parricides sorceries and do trample the holy things of God under feet whom yet the Magistrate dare not punish because of their power and greatnesse those are not to be debarred from the Sacraments But there be many scandalous persons in the Church such as Ioab whom the Magistrate dare not punish for their greatnesse Ergo Ans The Major is manifestly false and a begging of the question For Erastus saith pag. 207. He thinketh such ought not to be admitted to the Sacraments who will trample on the Sacraments and prophane them For though the Magistrate dare not punish them which is his sinfull neglect if they be dogs and swine as often they are and bloody men such as Ioab they ought not yea they never were by any Law of God admitted to the Temple and Sacraments what they did de facto or the Priests permitted is not the question It was Davids sinne that he took not away the head of bloody Ioab when he killed Abner and Amasa 2. How doth Erastus prove that David neglected to punish the incest of Absolon his sinfull neglect in not punishing his murther I yield for Absolon was never in Davids power to punish after he committed that incest possibly he neglected to punish his owne Concubines that is but a conjecture It is as like Absolon forced the Concubines to that incest as any other thing 3. For that Psal 14. There is none that doth good it is spoken of the naturall corruption of all mankind who therefore cannot be justified by the works of the Law as Paul expoundeth it Rom. 3. 9 10 11 19 20 21. and not of scandals punishable by the Magistrates and where this corruption did break out in bloods within the Church it ought to have been punished both by the Magistrate and Church so it is an argument yet a facto ad jus and a great inconsequence 4. I aske for what cause doth the Spirit of God rebuke killing of the Children to Molech and coming that same day to the Temple Because it was a sinne and particularly a prophaning of the Sanctuary which was one speciall holy thing to God Ezek. 23. 38 39. Ier. 7. 8 9 10 11. It was no sin to come to the Temple Sure it was commanded of God in his Law as Erastus yieldeth What was the sin then to come with their hands full of blood and of the unnaturall blood of their owne Children was the sinne and yet if they had repented to come after they had killed their Children was