Selected quad for the lemma: power_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
power_n	day_n	lord_n	sabbath_n	3,174	5	9.9898	5	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

Paul for fear of the iniquity of this Church or Sanedrim dealt with them as Heathen and appealed to Cesar Ans But by what Law of God did they this It is not denyed but the Iews Synedrim being two courts did inflict punishment But that Christ establisheth a civill Sanedrim as a mean Matth. 18. To gain the soul of a brother is now the question we utterly deny this and gave reasons before thereof to which I adde if any obeyed not the Church that is the Sanedrim as Erastus saith they might be stoned to death as Steven was Was this Christs milde way to cite them onely before the Romane Senate Were dead men capable of answering to any further Iudicatures 2. The last step of conveening Heathens and Publicans before the Romane Senate according to Christs order is not to be observed with them for even Heathens and Publicans are so far forth our brethren that 1. We are not when they offend us to suffer sin in them but to rebuke them as Christians Lev. 19. 18. For this is the Law of nature The Law of nature will teach us not to hate an Heathen in our heart 2. We are to labour to gain all even those that are without the Church 1 Cor. 9. 19 20 21 22. 1 Pet. 3. 1. And this is Christs way of gaining all to rebuke and admonish them Ergo it was never Christs meaning to deal with Heathens and Publicans so as at the first we are to drag them before the Heathen Magistrate that by his sword he may gain them or take away their life yea and Erastus granteth in Ecclesiasticall crimes that the Iews had power of life and death in the matter of Steven and of Paul if he had not appealed to Cesar to save his head Josephus de bel Judaic Lib. 5. Cap. 26. Antiquit. Lib. 14. Cap. 12. But in things politick Cesar took all power of life and death from them Hence only is Christs time the footsteps of the two distinct courts remained and the Priests not the civill Magistrate had the power of Church-discipline But all was now corrupt CHAP. IX Quest 5. The place 1 Cor. 5. for Excommunication vindicated from the Objections of Erastus Erastus Paul did nothing contrary to the Command of Christ But Christ excluded no man from the Passeover not Iudas Ergo Neither minded ●e to exclude the incestuous man he saith not 1 Cor. 5. Why debarred you him not from the Sacrament But why did you not obtain by your tears and prayers as Augustine expoundeth it that the man might be cut off by death Ans Christ would not take the part of a visible Church on him to teachus that none should be cast out of the Church for secret and latent crimes 2. Paul did nothing without the Command of Christ But Christ neither in the Old or New Testament commanded his Church to pray for the miraculous cutting off of a scandalous person give an instance in all Scripture except you make this one which is contraverted your instance Erastus Paul 2 Cor. 2. absolveth the man from all punishment and nameth onely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rebuking Ergo He was not excluded from the Sacrament Ans Exclusion from the Sacrament is but one of the fruits of Excommunication not formally Excommunication yet he harpeth on this alway that to be excommunicated or to be delivered to Satan is but to be debarred from the Sacrament 2. The answer presupposeth he was Excommunicated we urge the place for a precept only of Excommunication if he repented to the satisfying of the Church there was no need of Excommunication 3. If the man 2 Cor. 2. was delivered from rebuke onely and if that was all his punishment Ergo he was not miraculously cut off for then he must have been miraculously cut off and raised from death to life againe unlesse miraculous cutting off had been no punishment But if he was not miraculously cut off because he prevented it then with what faith could the whole Church pray for the miraculous killing of a brother and not rather that he might repent and live 4. In all the Word of God the intrinsecall end of putting to death a Malefactor is to avenge Gods quarrell Rom. 13. 4. That all Israel may hear and feare and doe no more any such wickednes Deut. 13. 11. To put away the guilt of sinne off the Land Numb 34. 33 34. that the Lords anger may be turned away and a common plague on the Church stayed when justice is executed on the ill doer Psal 106. 28 29 30 31. And it concerneth the Church and Common-wealth more then the soule of the Malefactor and there is nothing of such an end here But the intrinsecall end here is that the mans Spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus and this delivering to Satan is in the Name and authority and by the power of the Lord Iesus 1 Cor. 5. 4. 5. Now the Sonne of man came to save soules not to destroy bodies and burne cities and though by the power of Christ Peter miraculously killed Ananias and Saphira and Paul stroke Elimas the Socererer blinde yet these being Miracles we heare not that this was done by any interveening act of the Church conveened or by their prayers to bring vengeance by a miracle on the ill do●r Peter and Paul doe both these not asking any consent or intervention of the peoples prayers but by immediate power in themselves from the Lord Jesus 2. If any such power were given to the Church by their Prayers to obtain from God a miraculous killing of all scandalous persons who infecteth the Church in case the civill Magistrate were an Heathen and an enemy to Christian Religion and refused to purge the Church Christ who provideth standing remedies for standing diseases must have left this miraculous power to all the christian Churches in the earth that are under Heathen Magistrates or some power by way of Analogie like to this to remove the scandalous person but we finde not any such power in the Churches under Heathen Magistrates except power of refusing to the offender the Communion and rejecting him as an Heathen and Publican that he may be ashamed and repent 3. The whole faithfull at Corinth men women and children and all the Saints for to those all i● this power given as Erastus saith must have had a word of promise if they ought to have prayed in faith as the Prophets and Apostles prayed in faith that they might work miracles that Paul was miraculously to kill the incestuous man But that all and every one who were puffed up and mourned not at this mans fall had any such word of promise I conceive not imaginable by the Scriptures for the Proposition I take it as undeniable if Paul rebuked the Corinthians all and every one because they prayed not and mourned not to God that Paul wrought not this miracle in killing the incestuous man they behoved to have

retorted 2. They were not to bee sorry at the mans repentance but to rejoyce yet were they to be sorry at the violent mean of cutting him off from Christs body as a father may be glad at the life and health of his childe and and yet be sorry that by no other mean his health can be procured but by cutting off a finger or a hand of his childe 3. They knew that miraculous killing as Erastus dreameth was also a saving ordinance the remaining in the Church or not remaining is all one because Paul chideth them as he dreameth that the man might be miraculously killed Erastus What need was there that the Corinthians with such diligence should intercede for the man if they knew when he repented he was to be received againe into the Church Now that they interceded for him is clear for Paul saith 2 Cor. 2. 10. To whom yee forgive any thing I forgive also Ans Because there is a great hazard in Excommunication of an higher degree of obduration and condemnation if the party be not gained 2. I see no ground for this conjecture that the Corinthians interceded for him at Pauls hand for if he ought to have been miraculously killed then whether he repented or repented not both Paul and the interceders sinned Paul in being broken they in requesting for a dispensation of a Law in which God would not dispense as he that would request to spare the life of a repenting Murtherer against Gods expresse Law should sinne and Paul should sinne in pardoning upon request where God would not pardon Erastus How excuseth Paul himselfe that he would try their obedience that c. 7. he would have their care for him made manifest if he had not commanded a greater thing then to debarre a wicked man from the Sacraments Ans This is but a shadow of a reason against the Word of God for to be cast out of Christs body and not acknowledged for an Israelite of God and that in heaven and earth and so to be debarred from the Seals is a higher thing then bodily killing as to be received as a Member againe and to be written amongst the living in Ierusalem is like the rising from the dead as may be gathered from Rom. 11. 15. and is farre more then deliverance from miraculous killing Erastus These words ye was made sorry according to God that ye might receive dammage of us in nothing cannot agree with the purpose they should have suffered no losse by obtaining pardon to a miserable man excluded from the Sacraments while he should repent but if he was to be killed they should have lost a brother and so suffered dammage Ans The hazard of losing his soule repentance not being so easie as Erastus imagineth had been a greater losse then the losse of a temporall life the soule being to be saved in the day of the Lord. Erastus Paul requireth his Spirit and the power of the Lord Iesus to this worke Ergo It was more then to debarre from the Sacraments Ans Erastus should prove Ergo It was more then to Excommunicate 2. Ergo It was rather more then bodily death His seventh reason I hope after to examine Erastus Paul saith he decreed to doe this and does not command the Church to doe it or that the Church alone should doe it We never read that Paul whether alive or dead did write to one or many to deliver any to Satan for the destruction of the flesh that was proper to the Apostles onely as the gift of healing was Act. 5. and c. 13. and he writeth he will come himselfe with the rod and he himself 1 Tim. 1. delivered Hymeneus and Alexander to Satan Ans This is much for us you never read that Paul did write to one or many and did chide them because they prayed not that he might worke this and this particular miracle or that without error he might write this or that Canonick Scripture and therefore because this delivering to Satan was commanded to the conveened together Church with his Apostolique spirit and warrant to deliver such a one to Satan and to judge him v. 12. And to purge him out and cast him out therefore am I perswaded it was no miracle proper to Paul onely 2. How prove you that Paul his alone without the Church Excommunicated Hymeneus Paul saith that Timothy received the gift of God by his laying on him hands 2 Tim. 1. 6. Ergo By the laying on of his hands onely and not of the whole Presbytery It followeth not the contrary is 1 Tim. 4. 14. 3. Delivering to Satan v. 5. is all one with purging out v. 7. as is cleare by the Illation I have decreed though absent to deliver such a one to Satan Hence his consequence v. 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Purge out therefore 2. To deliver to Satan is either all one with judgeing those that are within v. 12. And so with judging this man and with putting of him out v. 13. or it is not all one if these be all one then hath the Church a hand in this delivering to Satan and so it is not a miraculous killing Erastus granteth the consequence if these be not all one this is two judgings of the man one of Pauls v. 5. by miraculous killing and another of Pauls and the Church v. 12. This latter must be some Church judgeing of those that are within the Church common to Paul and the Corinthians as the words cleare and which is opposed to Gods judging of those that are without and this is so like Excommunication that Erastus must make some other thing of it Now we cannot say that there was any miraculous judging of this man common to Paul as an Apostle and to the Corinthians the ordinary beleevers and Saints as Erastus yeeldeth 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to put away the man which is expresly commanded to the Church of Corinth v. 13. must be the same 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and putting away 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the same word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is v. 2. But that taking out of the midst of them is a miraculous killing of the man as Erastus saith now this cannot be for then the people must be joyned in the same work of miraculous killing with the Apostle Paul now both we and Erastus must disclaim this Ergo there must be some common Church casting out common to both Erastus To put away out of the midst of them is not to debar from the Sacraments but to kill if it were but to extrude the man out of the society of the faithfull what need was there of publick mourning and if he had been to be cast out amongst the heathen how could the spirit be saved as is said for without the Church there is no salvation Ans To put away out of the midst of them is to put the man out of the Congregation as the word Careh is expounded before and

out a corrupting and leavening incestuous man and this is all we seeke for Excommunication Erastus I never finde the name of the Passeover in the New Testament put for the Supper of the Lord. Ans We are not in such need of that interpretation as to put the name of the one for the other But let Erastus shew where he readeth that the thing to wit that the one Sacrament succeeded to the other and Beza may thence inferre his point if God would have no man to eat the Passeover with leavened bread and if eating of leavened bread and bread it selfe was to be put out of all the houses of Israel thereby signifying that incestuous and scandalous persons are to be cast out of the Church and so from the Sacraments let Erastus see what Beza hath said amisse here Erastus God would have the Iewes to eate the Passeover without leavened bread that they might remember of their wonderfull deliverance out of the hard bondage of Egypt and of the deliverance of their first borne Ans Reverend Beza saith thesetwo were by-past benefits remembred in that Sacrament But we have the Holy Ghost expounding that ●he putting away of leavened bread did typifie the purging out of the incestuous men and other scandalous persons out of the Church which is our point otherwise let Erastus shew us what is meant by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the whole Masse and lumpe for it signifieth either one single man Or 2. The Masse and body of the visible Church of which the incestuous man was a Member or some third thing which Erastus and his followers must teach us Now the whole lumpe can neither signifie the incestuous man nor any other single member of the Church Not the incestuous man 1. He was not the whole lumpe in danger to be leavened for he was the leven then he was not the lump in danger to be leavened for the one is the agent infecting the other the patient infected The whole lumpe was the thing out of which the leaven was to be removed the terminus à quo the incestuous man was to be purged out therefore the leaven cannot signifie wickednesse in abstracto as Erastus saith but the wicked man in concreto for the leaven must signifie that which is cast out 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 out of the midst of them v. 2. Now this was not incest but the man that had his fathers wife and had done that deed 2. Again the leaven was the person to be delivered to Satan that had a soul to be saved in the day of the Lord Iesus But wickednesse in abstracto is not delivered to Satan nor hath it a Spirit to be saved in the day of the Lord. 3. The leaven is such a one as is to be judged as is within the Church v. 12. and is called a brother with whom we are not to eat v. 11. now this cannot be said of wickednesse in abstracto But neither can the whole lumpe be one single man 1. One single man needed not the solemn conveening of the Church in the Name and power of the Lord Jesus for his personall purging for his personall purging is not a Church-act but an act of a mans daily conversation and Christian walking 2. The purging out and the casting out is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 2 out of the midst of them then there was a society to be purged Ergo not a single man onely Much more I said before which cannot but mist Erastus or any his followers except they expound this whole lump to be the body of the visible Church of Corinth 2. So Gal. 5. 9. he addeth v. 10. he that troubleth you the lump in danger to be leavened shall bear his judgement v. 12. I would they were cut off that trouble you Then the whole Churches of Galatia were the troubled lumpe so it must be here if this truth be so convincing out of the Text let any Erastian extricate himself if he can deny but here is a Church-lump a Church of Rulers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 gathered together in the Name and power of the Lord Iesus that purgeth out of it selfe leaven not wickednesse in abstracto as I have demonstrated but a wicked man named a brother lest he leaven the whole Church to the end his Spirit may be saved Iudge reader if this be not name nature and thing of that which Erastians deny to wit of Excommunication I humbly provoke them to make good sense of the 1 Cor. 5. and shew me what is the wicked man 2. The casting out of the midst of you 3. The saving of his Spirit 4. The convened together court instructed with the Name and authority and power of Christ and if this be not a Church power efficacion and authoritative being steeled with the power of the Head of the Church 5. What is the leaven 6. What is the act of leavening 7. What is the whole lumpe 8. What is the purging out putting out and judging of the man 3. We know Erastus denieth any Church Government at all but some acts of punitive justice in the Magistrate But the Churches praying consenting that a scandalous person shall be delivered to Satan or some other waies punished by the Christian Magistrate are acts of Church government so proper to the Church as the Magistrate as the Magistrate cannot exercise such Acts. Erastus Paul-delivered Hymeneus and Alexander the same way to Satan by miraculous killing of him and whereas it is said that they may learne not to blaspheme Judges speake so when they kill Murtherers and Theeves that he shall teach them to doe so no more by taking the head from them Ans That word of a judge killing a man for Murther Sirra I le teach you other manners then to kill can no waies be ascribed to Paul who doth not scoffe so at taking away mens lives Paul who wished to be separated from Christ for the contumacious Iewes and would not kill any by Satan since his rod and power was for edification 2 Cor. 10. 8. and that the Spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord 1 Cor. 5. 5. he speaketh more gravely and lesse imperiously and without boasting and jeering in a matter of Salvation 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that they may be instructed or disciplined not to blaspheme cannot be simply that they may blaspheme no more because killed by the Devill For 1. let Erastus in the Old or New Testament produce a parallel place for that Exposition where the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be instructed is ascribed to the dead but this is a common fault in all Erastus his expositions of Scripture that they want all ground in Scripture as let me put upon all the followers of Erastus to give a parallel to this Exposition of Mat. 18. Let him bee to thee that is to thee onely when Christ speaketh of a generall Rule of all that scandalizeth 2. Let him be as a

and not Sacrifice or I will have mercy rather then Sacrifice doth imply that both mercy and Sacrifice are lawfull and acceptable to God in their owne order and way But where saith God I will have sacrificing rather then sacrificing with bloody hands so as both sacrificing and sacrificing with bloody hands shall be lawfull and acceptable to God in their owne order for Sacrificing with bloodie hands was never lawfull never acceptable to God in any order Nor said God ever he would chuse the coming of those to his Sanctuary who the same day they came in had slaughtered their sonnes to Molech God alwaies hated it and never chose it if at the same time both mercy and sacrifice cannot be as David starving cannot both abstaine from eating shew-bread as the Law in its letter required and shew mercie to his life and the life of his followers and eate yea he is to eate and the Priests knowing his case doe give him the Shewbread to eat forbid abstinence as they would forbid selfe-murthering and selfstarving so here where at one time eating at the Lords Table and reconciliation with the widow and fatherlesse cannot be co-existent together at one time and place an exigence of divine providence forbidding both the bloodie man is to debarre himselfe from the Lords Supper it being as sacrificing and lesse necessary if we speake comparatively and the Elders are not to give those holy things to the bloodie man while 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 first he be reconciled to the widow and Orphane which now comparing the one with the other is mercy whereas eating and drinking at the Lords Supper is but Sacrifice but it should be as sacrificing with bloodie hands which God condemneth and forbiddeth and the Priests and Elders knowing it to be such a sinne ought to forbid and to hinder it Hence as this I will have mercy and not sacrifice hath this sense I will have you to omit Sacrifice when it cannot be done without neglect of mercie vvhich is more acceptable to me then all Sacrifices so I vvill have reconciliation to the offended widdow and Orphanes and not coming to the Lords Supper vvithout the former for the former is more acceptable to me and should be to you and the Elders in your practice then the latter and therefore the comparison of eating and eating undecently halteth for eating undecently before another which would procure deadly sicknesse to your brother ought to be forbidden by the Ruler it being known to be so and ought to be abstained from hic nunc as a sinne and a hurting of your brothers health and yet the Ruler cannot forbid totall abstinence from meat to him that eateth undecently as the Elders cannot command totall abstinence from the Sacraments 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 alwayes and in all cases 2. We draw no conclusion of erecting a Presbytery from those places but those two we draw Ergo 1. It is a sin to the people themselves to sacrifice with bloodie hands because God condemneth such a manner of sacrificing 2. Ergo they are to be debarred by some who hath the charge of the holy things of God but from the Antecedent we neither inferre Ergo Presbyters nor Ergo the people nor Ergo the Prince should debarre them 3. Calling on God is not to be forbidden nor giving of almes because they are abused but the manner of the abusing those ordinances are forbidden by God and may be hindred by the Church and forbidden under the pain of Excommunication The Church cannot forbid men of totall abstinence from the Lords Supper but they can command him that is not reconciled to his brother and visibly under the guilt of blood to leave the Table as Christ Mat. 5. 23. commandeth the unreconciled man to leave his gift at the Altar and goe first be reconciled with his brother and then at the next occasion come to the Lords Supper so the Church of the Iewes could not forbid the Pharisees to pray but they could passe such an act as is Act. 15. 22. We forbid Pharisees or any other to bring their private prayers to the Markets and streets and when they are to give almes we forbid them with sound of Trumpet to make proclamation to all men that they are the onely holy and charitable men in the earth Nor doe we thinke that the Church can debarre men from the Sacraments for inward and and invisible unworthinesse but onely for visible and professed uncleannesse and Levit. 9. 13. it is clear the man that is uncleane is forbidden to keepe the Passeover Will Erastus say O he is not forbidden to eate the Passeover but onely he is forbidden to eat it tali modo being unclean and therefore it is not the Priests sinne if he should give the Passeover to the uncleane man and forbid him to eate tali modo in his uncleannesse see Erastus himselfe against this lib. 1. c. 3. page 103. 104. where he confesseth that the unclean are debarred and yet uncleannes in the eaters of the Passeover was an abuse onely and made not eating of the Passeover unlawfull in it self So the Lord complaineth Ezek. 23. 38. Moreover this they have done unto me they have defiled my Sanctuary in the same day and have prophaned my Sabbaths 39. For when they had slaine their children to their Idols then they came 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the same very day into my Sanctuary to prophane it and loe this they have done in the midst of my house Will Erastus now say It was Ceremoniall uncleannes not Morall to kill their seed to Molech and that Morall uncleannesse and bloodie murthering of their seed in the same day when a person is to come to the Lords supper known to be such a Murtherer to the Elders who have power to judge the scandalous and to cast him out 1 Cor. 5. did not sinne if they should be instrumentall to lead Murtherers into the Temple and say to them Take yee eate yee this is the body of the Lord that is broken for you Erastus answereth The Prophet Ezek. 23. accuseth not the Priests or Elders that they debarred not those Murtherers from the Temple and Sacraments if there had been any precept for this some footstep should have appeared in Gods rebuking of them Ans The Lord doth not particularly reprove the Priests by name in every place in which he reproveth the people But expresly for this same very sinne the Lord reproveth the Priests Ezek. 44. 7. Let it suffice you that ye have brought into my sanctuary strangers uncircumcised in heart and uncircumcised in flesh to be in my sanctuary to pollute it 8 And ye have not kept the charge of my holy things but ye have set keepers of my charge in my sanctuary for your selves 24. And in controversie they shall stand in judgement he had spoken of their teaching the people to discerne between the clean and the unclean v. 23. and they shall judge it according to

the Church though amongst the Turkes is in the world but not of the world If he keep the faith and if he do so he shall repent and come home to Christs visible Kingdom but because he keepeth the faith yet he is not a member of a visible Church except he professe it and repent for even the sound in faith if obstinate in Scandals may deserve Excommunication 6. There is nothing said against Excommunication in the two last Reasons but what striketh against Timothy his publike rebuking and threatning wrath against those that sin openly for they may through their owne corruption so farre abuse publike threatnings as they may be led on despaire and hypocrisie Now Erastus as we shall hear granteth those are to be rebuked openly who sin openly 7. We say not to deliver to Satan any man is to deliver him to the World but to cast him out of the Church that consequenter he may be left to the World but that he should sinne and be led away with the World is neither the intrinsecall end of Excommunication or of the Church but an event or end by accident the intrinsecall end is the Salvation of the man Beza saith that Paul speaketh of a spirituall punishment and not of a corporall Erastus saith When Peter killed Ananias corporally was not this corporall punishment When Paul gave some to Satan for the destruction of the flesh and God punisheth our sinnes with temporall death how shall you prove that God and the Apostles punisheth not sinnes with corporall or politicke punishment Ans The instance of Peters killing Ananias is in vain brought in It s but a begging os the question for it is not said Peter delivered Ananias to Satan that his Spirit might be saved Who revealed this secret to Erastus that Peter used the Ministery of Satan in killing Ananias We have as good reason to say Peter delivered Ananias to a good Angell to be killed as Erastus hath for his dreame 2. We deny not but God and the Apostles did punish sinne with corporall punishment but let him show without the bounds of the place in controversie for we must expound Scripture by Scripture where ever the Church conveened together in the Name of the Lord Jesus did judge and miraculously kill any member of the Church that the Spirit may be saved in the day of God Beza said This killing by the people would be ground of a great Calumnie to make many say Christians did usurpe the Sword of the Magistrate and that they were not subject to the Magistrate Erastus We give this power of miraculous killing onely to the Apostles Ans Yea But the calumny standeth so long as Erastus giveth to all the people the faith of Miracles to conveene and pray that Paul might miraculously kill those that offended the Church and its probable when the enemies objected to Christians all they could falsely they would not have omitted this that the very people by their prayers meet in one Church-jury to kill Cesars Subjects Beza said The Christian Magistrate should by this kill all the drunkards fornicators and the like with the Sword Erastus answereth 1. All faults deserve not killing but some other punishment of a lower degree 2. The Lord himselfe appointed that the Magistrate should compell men to doe their duty why then should Beza speake against God and call this a compelling of men to be Hipocrites Ans If other sins as drunkennesse fornication extortion doe infect the Church and be scandalous to the very Gentiles as the Apostle saith of incest 1 Cor. 5. 1. 6 7. Upon the same reason Paul should have rebuked them because they did not from the faith of Miracles pray that Paul might inflict some miraculous judgement by the Ministery of Satan though lesse then death for other sinnes But I pray you Paul had either a warrant from God to kill this man or he had none at all If he had a warrant why did he not that which is the part of a miraculous Magistrate without the prayers of the Corinthians Did Paul chide them because they prayed not to God that he might doe his duty if he had no warrant at all Why should he chide the Corinthians for that they prayed not that he might doe a duty which was not his duty For that is not Pauls duty for the doing whereof he hath no warrant from God if it was his duty onely conditionally 1. What warrant is there in Scripture to say Paul should have miraculously killed the incestuous person upon condition that the Corinthians had by the faith of Miracles prayed that he might worke that miraculous slaughter which because they did not Paul was either exonered of that as no duty or then Paul chided them because they prayed not to prevene Pauls sinfull neglect 2. How was this revealed to the Corinthians that they should pray that God by Paul as by his Magistrate might revenge this incest and not revenge their fronication coveteousnes extortion Idolatry especially seeing he saith that v. 9. He had written to them in another Epistle not to ke●p company with such Whence I thinke it evident that Paul in another Epistle had ordained separation of Fornicators Coveteous persons and the like from amongst them and so censures for all scandalous persons And how shal we believe he would not teach them to cast out incestuous persons that are far more scandalous And if so he must have written in another Epistle of this miracle that they were to pray he might work Is it not evident by this that Erastus his way is full of Conjectures and groundlesse uncertainties 2. We deny not that the Magistrate may compell men to do their duty nor doth Beza deny that But that the Church hath or had any influence in the blood of an incestuous person and in working of miracles for the bodily destruction of any is most false and cannot be proved by this Text Nor do we think that the Church the weapons of whose warfare are carnall can compell any man by corporall punishment to duties by the Sword for so their Spirituall way which is terminated on the Conscience should lead men to Hypocrisie in profession of the truth for so reasoneth Erastus the Magistrate with the Sword rather punisheth sins committed in Gods Service then forceth to duties The fifth Argument of Beza is vindicated already Erastus We say not that Paul was to deliver the man to Satan that he may be saved but that Paul was to punish this high transgression with the Sword to the terror of others but only he set bounds to Satan that he should only kill his body but not meddle with his soul but because the man repented Paul hoped well of his soul that his soul should be saved in the day of Christ Ans 1. Here Erastus doth more fully reveal the vilenesse of his opinion for he granteth the intrinsecall end of this miraculous killing is not the Salvation of the mans

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

should chuse the Elders at least at the first even though the Church doe not consent But how can they sit in place of the Church and judge who were against the will and minde of the Church chosen to be Judges for though the Magistrate be a chiefe Member of the Church yet to Tell the Church is not to Tell the Magistrate as you say but to Tell the whole Church and it is no ●xcuse that the Magistrate doth but once chuse the Elders for if hee have no right nor Law from God to doe it he can never doe it and if he have Law from God to doe it he ought alwayes to doe it Ans Here Erastus reasoneth against some Au●hor that inclineth to the way of Morellius If there bee no formed Church endued with knowledge and discretion to chuse their owne Elders if there be godly men fit to be chosen they are to convene and chuse from amongst them Elders the godly Magistrate is to joyne his Vote and Power because there is a Church not yet constitute it is now Perturbatus aut corruptus Ecclesiae status and I ever judged it a golden saying of that great Divine Fran. Iunius that when the Magistrate will not concurre the Church in that extraordinary case may doe somewhat which ordinarily they cannot doe and againe when the Church doth not their duty the Magistrate in that case may doe something more then ordinary to cause the Church doe their dutie for its a common La● to ills out of order remedies out of the road way may be applyed So if the Priests and Levites be corrupt Iehoshapaht and Hezekiah and Iosiah may reforme And therefore though the godly Magistrate jure communi by the common Law of Nature imploy his power to appoint Elders all Errors and confusions in the Church are in some measure out of order yet it followeth that jure proprio and ordinarily he should alwayes doe this 2. Elders are not properly Representators of the Church to me while I be better informed for power of feeding and ruling is immediately given by Iesus Christ to the Elders and not by the interveening mediation of the Church but onely by their designation to the office th●s power is given by the people 3. The Magistrate as the Magistrate and by vertue of his place is neither a Member farre lesse a chiefe Member of the Church for then all Magistrates should be Members of the Church even Heathen Kings and Rulers which no man can say The Christian Magistrate as a Christian is a Member of the Church But that is nothing to helpe Erastus Erastus Because the multitude can doe nothing in order therefore say they they have power to choose Elders to whom belongeth the power of Excommunication But how prove they this Though a company vvanting a Magistrate have this power shall it follovv that a company to vvhom God hath given a godly Magistrate should have this povver But because confusion vvould follovv therefore Elders are to be chosen Ergo Such Elders as make up your Presbyterie à genere ad speciem affirmativè nulla est consequutio Ans 1. Not only from necessity of eschewing confusion but from the positive Ordinance of God we infer Presbyters we do not own any such consequence Prela●es and Papists argue for a Monarchy in the Church from order we know no creatures of the like frame Erastus is for a Bishop he may so argue not we We finde Christ hath placed such organs in his body as Eph. 4. 11. 12. 1 Cor. 12. 28. 1 Tim. 5. 17. 1 Tim. 3. 1 2 c Act. 6. 1 2 c. and 14. 23. Ergo they ought to be for we think the Church cannot govern it self 2. If the Church wanting a Magistrate as the Apostolick Church did have power to chuse Presbyters and by a Divine Law how dare Erastus say That it followeth not when the Church hath a godly Magistrate she should keep the same power Can the godly Magistrate when he cometh into the Church take any Divine power from the Church Is the Magistrate given to the Church as a Nurse-father to preserve that power that Christ hath given to his Spouse or is he given as a spoiler at noon day to take to himself the power and make the Ambassadors of Christ his Ambassadors and Servants to preach in his Name whereas before when they had no Magistrate Pastors did preach only in the Name of Iesus Christ Erastus Sure the Lord hath concredited to the Magistrate the Command and all power of externall Government so as he hath subjected not only Civill but also Sacred things to his power that he may manage the one according to the Word of God the other according to Iustice and equity which since it is Commanded in the Old Testament and practised by all holy Iudges and Kings and we finde it not changed in the New Testament We justly say that the Church that hath a godly Magistrate cannot by Gods will chuse a new Senate or Presbytery to exercise publikely Iudgement for God hath not armed subjects against their Magistrates Nor hath he Commanded them to take any part of their power from them and give it to others and to subject them to externall Dominion Ans Sure the Lord concredited to the Priest not to King Vzziah to burn incense and to the Priests to rebuke Vzziah and command him to desist and this is no lesse externall Governing of the house of God quoad hoc in this particular then Excommunication for to Excommunication on the Churches part as Excommunication is no more required but that the scandalous and murthering Magistrate should not come to the Table of the Lord or remain in the society and Church-fellowship of the Saints as a Member of the Church Now if the Magistrate obey not the Church as the Church can use no bodily coaction or restraint to hinder the Magistrate to obtrude himself upon the holy things of God though other either fellow-Magistrates or the inferior Magistrates if the party ●xcommunicated be the supream Magistrate or the Parliament may and ought to use their power as Magistrates by the sword to hinder the holy things of God to be prophaned for I think it easie to prove if this were a fit place that inferior Magistrates are essentially Mag●strates and immediatly subject to the King of Kings for the due use of the sword as the supream Magistrate or King And therefore there is no more externall dominion used in Excommunicating a bloody and scandalous Magistrate then in rebuking and threatning him Now Erastus granteth That Pastors may rebuke and threaten according to the Word of the Lord even Magistrates and Kings 2. If because Iudges in the Old Testament as Eli and Samuel Sacrificed and we finde this not changed in the New and nothing extraordinary in this Ministers in the New Test●ment may do the same Then the Iustice of Peace and Mayors of Cities and every constable may by vertue of

names and most superstitious and cannot be used in a religious state I grant we may not term our Jehovah Jupiter or Baal nor Christ Mercurius though he be the word of Gods mind to us for God teacheth us other words and language in his Word The truth is that learned noble Lord said well and judiciously all the indifferencie in the world lyeth in our understandings and the darkenesse thereof but there is none in the things themselves or actions which are still either unlawfull or necessarie And this is most true in actions morall and humane The Church putteth indifferencie on nothing there a necessitie in respect of our darknesse many be scandalized at things which seeme not necessarie to them yet are they in re in themselves necessarie But conformists object That the very will of the Church Act. 15. made things indifferent before the act now to become necessarie if then the Church may take away indifferencie she may give also But I answer The antecedent is most false Junius Calvin Beza Bullinger Brentius Pomeranus Marloret and the text clearly saith by the law of Nature these were scandalous So Origen thinketh to eat bl●oà was scandalous And Strabo saith the heathen in their sacrifice dranke blood Yea saith Tertullian the heathen dranke mens blood and Augustine saith they forbade these for a time in the case of scandall that the ancient Synogogue might be buried with honour Yea Ireneus Tertullian and Cyprian will have these drawne to a spirituall sense that they should abstaine from Idolatrie shedding of blood and fornication And the Jesuit Lorinus saith this was a positive Law which without the case of scandall doeth not strictly abolish Cajetanus Fornication by Gods law was forbidden the other things in the Canon were forbidden to gratifie the Jews Philippus Gamethaeus a Sorbenist saith they were forbidden to nourish concord betwixt Jew and Gentile for the infirmitie of the Jewes 2. That the will of the Councell made them not necessarie whereas before the act they were indifferent is cleare 1. It had then been needlesse to discusse the matter by Scripture 2. To alledge the holy Ghost as author of the Synod It seemed good to the Holy Ghost c. if the bare will of men had made them necess●rie But saith Paybodie Any good thing may become an occasion of evill by accident and through our fault the Word condemneth not occasions of ill by accident but such only as are occasions of evill and in themselves evill things indifferent are not in themselves evill Ans All occasions whether ill in themselves or indifferent are occasions of sinne by accident and through our fault who abuse them but all occasions because occasions and not because evill are forbidden when as they are not necessarie and this is Gods argument to prove that the Jewes are not to marry with the Canaanites for saith the law they will turne away your heart after their Gods to send abroad a goaring oxe to seeke his food hath no sinne in it save only it may occasion the killing of men and the building of houses without battlements and the going by the doore of the whoore or comming neere her house are not of themselves ill but only forbidden under this reduplication because they are occasions of ill sinnes as sinnes are forbidden and as occasions of sinnes they are also new sinnes having a distinct illegalitie and guiltinesse in them from this that they occasion sinne and Gods law as all Divines reach forbiddeth sinne and all occasions of sinne Drunkennesse is both forbidden as intemperancie and also as an occasion of lust and of speaking perverse things as is evident Pro. 23. 33. For then the spirit of Gods argument were null to disswade from drunkennesse as he doth in these wo●ds Thine eye shall behold strange women and thine heart shall utter perverse things Now we can shew that many wayes Ceremonies occasion sinne as 1. they trimme and decore a Church for harlot lovers from Rome forbidden Jer. 2. 33. Suarez Franciscus de sancta clara Gretserus and other Papists for these werein love with the Church of England 2. They occasion dissention in Gods house and are contrary to peace Ps 34. 14. Heb. 12. 19. Rom. 12. 18. and so to be rejected 3. They beare false witnesse of Poperie which we disclaime 4. They are against the spirituall worshiping of God and lead us backe to the carnall commandements and beggerly rudiments of the law from the Gospell against the word of God Joh 4. 24. Gal. 4 9 10. Heb. 7. 16. Heb. 9. 8. 9. Gal. 3. 25. 26. Gal. 4. 1. 2. Coll. 2. 20. They are torches in day light and vaine and uselesse 5. They bring us under bondage to men contrary to the Apostle Col. 2. 20. and to the ordinances of men and under the power of things 1 Cor. 6. 12. 6. They are against our Christian libertie They answer especially Paybodie and D. Forbes that Christian libertie is not restrained by doing or not doing a thing indifferent for so there should be no lawes made at all by the Church concerning things indifferent but Christian libertie not hurt if 1. the Ceremonies be free to the conscience and not made necessarie 2. If they be not made necessarie to salvation 3. If they be holden alterable by mans authoritie Ans The question is perverted for we question not if the use of things indifferent lay a bond on Christian libertie but if the will of authoritie can make a law of things indifferent when there is no intrinsecall necessitie in the things themselves when necessitie of edification layeth on a tye Christian libertie is not indeed restrained for God then layeth on a bond 2. Externall eating of meats and observing of dayes is a part of the libertie wherewith Christ hath made us free Coll. 2. 21. Eat not touch not taste not men eat not meat with their minde or conscience but with the teeth of their body and to such externall eating men are dead with Christ as touching externall observation thereof and Paul Gal. 2. 19. as dead to the Law living to God and crucified with Christ is freed from such Judaizing as Peter fell into but that Judaizing did not bind Peters conscience neither was it repute of him as necessarie to salvation as he had taught Act. 10. And the false Apostles pressed Circumcision not as tying the conscience or as necessarie for salvation but Gal. 6. 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. only that they may not suffer affliction for the crosse of Christ and yet to be circumcised externally without necessitie of conscience before God crossed directly the libertie wherewith Christ had made them free Gal. 5. 1. and 1 Cor. 9. Have we not power to lead about a wife and sister aswell as others Yet if the Prelates at Corinth should have made an act forbidding Church-men to marry though they had esteemed not