The Divine Right of Church Government and Excommunication

Quest. 3.

WEe take types of uncleanness in the Old Testament, to be rightly expounded, when the holy Ghost in the New-Testament doth expound them. Now that Ceremonial uncleanness did typify Moral uncleanness is clear, 2 Cor. 7. 17. Touch no unclean thing, and I will receive you, 18. And I will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my Sons and Daughters, saith the Lord Almighty. This is a manifest Exposition of the Ceremonial holiness and cleanness, commanded in the book of Leviticus, for after the Lord hath given them a number of Laws, about eschewing of unclean things, he saith in general, Lev. 26. 3. If ye walk in my Statutes, and keep my Commandments, and do them. 11. I will set my Tabernacle amongst you, and I will be your God, and ye shall be my people. And it is a clear allusion to Numb. 19. 11. He that toucheth the dead body of any man, shall be unclean seven days. 16. He that toucheth one that is slain with the sword, in the open field, is unclean. 22. Whatsoever the unclean person toucheth shall be unclean: So Paul, Tit. 1. 15. To them that are defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure, but even their mind and conscience is defiled.

2. The Prophets expound it so, Ezek. 36. 25. Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean. From all your filthiness, and all your Idols will I cleanse you. Hath he not a clear reference to the water of Separation, Num. 19.? With this water the unclean person, and his clothes were washed, yea, the Tents and the Vessels, ver. 17, 21. According to which, saith Paul, 2 Cor. 7. 1. Having therefore these promises (dearly beloved,) let us cleanse ourselves, from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit: Here a clear Allusion to Ceremonial filthiness bodily, and of the flesh▪ and of Tents and Vessels, Heb. 10. 22. To both these washings there is a reference. Let us draw near, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water. And Heb. 9. 13. If the blood of bulls and goats, and the ashes of an heifer (mingled with running water, Num. 19. 17. which purged vessels that were but capable of Ceremonial uncleanness) sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh. 14. How much more shall the blood of Christ,—purge your conscience from dead works? It is clear also, that the unclean were separated and the Leper put out of the campe, so as the children of Israel might not touch anything Ceremonially unclean, and all unclean persons were put out of the Congregation. Hence the Hypocrites word alluding to that separation, Esa. 64. 5. Stand by thyself, come not near to me; for I am holier then thou. So was Miriam removed, and leprous King Uzziah out of the Congregation of the Lord.

Ans. All this is a mere cavilling at the wisdom of God, in making such Ceremonial laws, and such punishments against the transgressors of them, as the wise Law-giver of his free-will thought fit, because these Laws seem ridiculous. But the foolishness of God is wiser then men. 1. We say not, that the punishment of legal and moral uncleanness is all one every way, and always; it is enough for our purpose that God will have those who are legally unclean separated from holy things, while they be purified, and little sin and guiltiness seem to be in legal uncleanness, as when bodily Leprosy came on persons against their will, yet when God will have them punished with being removed from the people of God, from the Sanctuary and the holy things, this could not be for it self; for as Paul saith, Doth God take care of Oxen? So we, doth God hate bodily diseases, which are his own just actions, not our sinful doings? since I say God hateth them not, and putteth not punishment on them for themselves; therefore it must be to signify what detestation and punishment the Lord our God, would have his Church to put upon moral wickedness: So we think Erastus might have spared paper and pains, in proving a difference (which no Divine denieth,) between Ceremonial and Moral uncleanness, and the punishment of the one and of the other, for it can never prove his conclusion. Ergo, Separation for legal uncleanness, cannot typify separation for Moral uncleanness. I could give eight and twenty differences between Isaac and Christ, as Erastus giveth seventeen or eighteen between Legal and Moral uncleanness, and the punishment of both: But I hope that should never conclude against the Holy Ghost, Heb. 11. 17, 18, 19. Gal. 4. 28, 29, 30. Rom. 9. 9. that Isaac was not a type of Jesus Christ. 2. Night pollutions are not altogether against our will, they are sinful pollutions, except concupiscence, and lustful habitual day lusts, the cause of them, be not sinful pollutions; yea, and forbidden in the seventh Commandment.

3. These pollutions Legal caused by invincible ignorance, were types or symbolical signs of our original iniquity, and give me leave to doubt, if all actual touching of things unclean, was no Moral sinfulness. I conceive the Jews, as the Christians also were obliged to walk 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Ephes. 5. 15. and were to take heed to the outer-man, that they should come near no unclean thing, in some cases leprosy and other legal uncleanness came on them without either will or knowledge. 4. If the standing beside the dying friends be all one with touching the dead, I remit to the principles of Physic, and if the touching of any dead be excepted in the Law Ceremonial, let the learned judge. All the other differences assigned by Erastus I leave, as not concludent against us, they tend all either to blame God, who should punish some legal uncleanness, that is, altogether against the will of man, with any punishment at all, as the three first differences insinuate. Or, 2. that God punished some Legal uncleanness more severely then homicide and Moral uncleanness, as the 5. difference doth insinuate, and the 4. difference. And this is to challenge God, to whom I desire to ascribe a Sovereignty, both in punishing, or pardoning as he thinketh good: Or in punishing more severely, or more mildly these same sins, or in punishing greater sins with lighter punishment, and with a heavier rod lighter sins.

Ans. The most that were legally unclean, were also morally unclean, in that they willingly transgressed a known Law; Ergo, Legal uncleanness, was also Moral uncleanness. 2. Though we debar not all wicked men, but only the scandalous, yet we have in readiness vengeance against all, and so against latent disobedience, which is a high censure, in debarring hypocrites from heaven; and we conceive Legal uncleanness as the monthly diseases of women, night pollutions, want of Circumcision did typify much natural and original heart corruption, which cannot be punished by men or the Church; but it follows not, because Legal uncleanness signifieth some other uncleanness then that which is scandalous and censurable by the Church; Ergo, it signifieth not sins scandalous and censurable by the Church.

Ans. This is a poor argument, because Ceremonial Excommunication differeth from Christian Excommunication; Ergo, the former is not a type of the latter, it followeth not. Isaac's blood was never really shed, Christ was really crucified, Isaac was not mocked, spitted on, did not wear a crown of Thorns, Jews and Gentiles crucified him not, between two Theevs. Ergo, Isaac was no figure of Christ offered for our sins, it followeth not. 2. Nor are Lepers no Jews, but in some respect, they might no more come to the Temple. 2. Nor amongst the people of God, nor 3. Eate the Passover, then Heathens might do; and so are the Excommunicated with u • , they are not exempted from faith, repenting, afflicting their soul for the sins of the Land, nor are they eternally damned, so they repent. But Erastus hath no ground to say, because the unclean were to afflict their souls, and abstain from servile work in the day of atonement, (as our Excommunicants are not loosed from the duties of the ten Commandments wholly, but from some public Church duties) but I see not how it follows; Ergo, The unclean were to come to the holy convocation in the day of expiation, and to observe the public solemnities with God's people; One Law of God is not contradicent to another, and the Leper and unclean were separated, Ergo, God could not tie them to be mingled with his people. 3. The Leper was not punished by the Magistrate, for he suffered only for his Leprosy. But it followeth not that the Magistrate should not punish a person obstinate to the Church.

Answ. Moses bade the unclean come, he bade all clean, so they were not scandalously and openly wicked, come; and some came that were not bidden, but rebuked for their coming, as Ier. 7. 8. 9. Psal. 50. 15. Here is no contradiction.

Ans. Circumcision, the Lord's Supper, are signs and Symbols of things present, as of Original sin, our present union with Christ, and communion of love amongst ourselves, Col. 2. 11. 1 Cor. 10. 16, 17, 18. 2. Scandals, as they are spiritual wickedness, incur not in our senses, yet other ways they are visible. 3. Christ's dying was both tyipfied to John the Apostle, and Mary, and his death incurred in their senses, they saw him die. So was Christ raised from the dead, typified by Jonah in the belly of the Whale, and with their eyes they saw him, after he rose again.

Ans. I am ashamed and wearied to put in Paper such childish things, all this will not prove that Legal uncleanness is no type of Moral uncleanness; Isaac was but a man, Moses a man only; Ergo, they cannot be Types of Christ who is more then a man; Bread and Wine are some other thing then Christ, then cannot these be symbols of Christ, and our spiritual communion with him. I see nothing here, but a challenging of God's wisdom, who hath chosen leprosy bodily, to figure out sins spiritual Leprosy. Erastus will say not so, Leprosy is in the category of quality, and sinful actions in the category of actions.

Ans. Yea but Leprosy and other uncleanness legal, was contagious and infectious, and did relate to wicked actions that infect as a canker; sin original being common to all▪ is not that contagious from one to many; nor did the Lord ever command Separation for sin Original, but for transgression of Ceremonial Laws he did.

Ans. All the arguments that Erastus made to prove that legal separation and uncleanness, proveth not Excommunication and Moral uncleanness, will with the same force conclude, that Legal uncleanness is not that which excludes men out of heaven, As for instance; to begin with the last, Legal uncleanness signifieth sin original, not wicked actions, therefore it signifieth not scandals, then by this Legal uncleanness that caused legal separation, is signified men's exclusion out of the high Jerusalem, for only sin Original, not for actual sins. This type must be a lying type, for actual sins especially deba • res us out of the New Jerusalem, Rev. 21. 8. c. 22. 15. 1 Cor. 6. 9. 2. Legal uncleanness and corruption of nature, differ as much as legal uncleanness and actual wickedness. But Erastus said the former cannot typify the latter. 1. Because Legal uncleanness is often involuntary, 2. It is not universally forbidden. 3. Many godly men may be legally unclean, but actual moral wickedness is not so, even so say I. 1. All natural or original uncleanness is voluntary in Adam. 2. Is universally forbidden. 3. It cannot consist with that holiness which we must have, or we cannot see God. 3. By Erastus his fourth difference, legal uncleanness was otherwise punished then natural corruption, for natural corruption is punished with the first and second death, Ephes. 2. 2. Rom. 5. 15, 16. the like may be said of all the rest. 4. Numb. 12. 14. Shame was inseparably annexed to Leprosy with contagion, so leavening of others, and shame is annexed to • oul scandals, and annexed to casting out of the Church, 1 Cor. 5, 6, 7. 2 Thes. 3. 14. Gal. 5. 9, 10. But though a necessity of washing may be holden forth to us in Legal uncleanness, ere we enter into Heaven; yet not so directly as in legal separation, for in it men scandalous are excluded out of the church, least the unclean should infect the clean, as is clear as the light, Num. 19. 22. Hag. 2. 13. Gal. 5. 9. 10. 1 Cor. 5. 6, 7. but wicked men are not excluded out of the New Jerusalem in heaven, for fear they should infect and defile any person in heaven. 2. Separation from the Church is medicinal, Num. 12. 14. that the party may be humbled and pardoned, 2 Cor. 5, 6, 7. that the Spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord, 1 Cor. 5. 5. and the man shamed for his further good, 2 Thes. 3. 14. But exclusion of men out of the New Jerusalem for their uncleanness, Rev. 21. is not medicinal, that they may be humbled, but for their everlasting shame and destruction; and therefore a separation from the Church by way of discipline is here intended, not any exclusion out of heaven.

Ans. We grant all, and therefore legal uncleanness did hold forth actual scandalousnesse, not natural corruption.

Ans. The Antecedent is not universally true: Capitall faults, as I said before, were only thus punished; the consequence is null.

Ans. This is to dispute with God; God made a law, that he who being legally unclean, should touch men or things legally unclean, should pollute; This Law, God freely made as a positive statute; who can tie God to make the like Law touching those that are morally unclean? no man: now because God made no such Law, it leaveth not off to be the sin of the Priests, that they brought the uncircumcised in heart to the Sanctuary, as God complaineth, Ezek. 44. 8, 9. c. 22, 26. And that the Church should hinder the wicked to pollute the holy things of God. 2. The adulterous woman was brought to the Priest and Temple to be judged, God had so commanded, and therefore no wonder she polluted neither Priest nor Temple, but had she not polluted the Passover Morally, though I say not Ceremonially, if she had eaten without Repentance and offering for her sin? I think she would.

Ans. But by this that God punisheth the pollution of non-converting Ordinances with death, we gather that the Church should also hinder the pollutions of them, and punish Swine that trample on Pearls, and not prostitute holy things to their lust. Beza said, those that were unclean, had need of Sacrifices, Ergo, They were guilty of sin. Erastus saith, that external uncleanness was not sin, but because it put us in mind of our natural corruption, that had need to be purged in Christ's blood. Ans. The breach of a Law is sin, a Ceremonial Law is a Law. 2. It was punished often with cutting off from the Congregation, but God did not cut off men from the Congregation for natural corruption, as Erastus granteth.

Ans. It is weakly argued, for the father to kill the son, then should be no sin; God commanded Abraham to offer up his son Isaac; it is not properly a defiling, nor a sin, when God Levite. 21. willeth the Priest to be near those of his kin when they die, it is God's own exception from the Law, though to come near to others when they are dead be sin. God's commanding and forbidding will is the formal cause and rule of obedience and sin.

Ans. It is written, Ezek. 44. 99. c. 22. 26. the Priests should not have admitted the uncircumcised in heart to the Sanctuary; Ergo, they should have tried if they were such ere they admitted them. Yea, if in the very day of his oblation ere he offer, the sinner must first restore what he hath unjustly taken away, Lev. 6. 4, 5, 6. Ergo, The Priest except he rule unjustly, should judge whether he have first restored it in the principal, and added the fifth part more into it, Levite. 6. 5. As Ezra the Priest stood up, and said unto them, ye have transgressed, and have taken strange wives,—now therefore make confession, and separate yourself from the people of the Land, and from the strange wives, Ezra, c. 10. v. 11, 12. And this they did ere they sacrificed; Ergo, the Priests judged of their repentance, before they were admitted to Sacrifice: and the washing of the hands in Innocency before the person compassed the Altar, Psal. 26. 6. must be tried by the Priest, if not, the Priest offered to God the Sacrifice of fools, and did eat the sins of the people, in offering for contumacious impenitents.

Ans. Ezra was a Priest, and Shechaniah saith, ver. 5. Arise, this matter belongs to thee, and he is ordinarily called Ezra the Priest.

Quest. 4.

Ans. There is no scope of our Savior to prevent heathen judicatures dreamed of in the Text, nor a shadow thereof, Vel per decimam tertiam consequentiam. 2. He speaks not of small injuries only. 1. Christ must not be straitened in his words; he speaks of scandals in general, ver. 7. Woe to the world, because of offenses, they be not light that bringeth a woe upon the world. 2. He saith indefinite, If thy brother shall trespass against thee, this is comprehensive of all offenses. 3. He speaks of such offenses, from which I am to gain my brother. Verse 15. But I am to gain him from all, great or small. 4. He speaketh of such as I must bring before the Church, in case of my brothers obstinacy; but that is comprehensive of all, verse 17. 5. He speaketh of such as are bound in heaven, these be great and small, verse 19. 6. He speaks of such as I must forgive, v. 15. but I must forgive all to seventy seven times as Luke 17. 7. He speaketh of such as being persisted in, maketh a brother no brother, but as a Heathen and a Publican, but great and public Scandals rather do this, then small and private ones.

Ans. If this be the sense, it is farther from the understanding many miles then the words; a common reader may come after, and find a more native sense. 1. If thy brother offend thee, &c. should not be restricted to the Jews only, nor the Gentiles only, the Disciples, for the most were Gentiles and nearer Christians then Jews. 2. Brother is as large as the offender, as those of the Church. 3. As large as the offender, to be gained, Paul was to do what he could to gain Jews and Gentiles, and both may offend. 2. Christ's scope is not so much to free the Plaintiffe from injuries, (it is a carnal like gloss) as to remove Scandals and Stumbling blocks out of the way of both; and gain the offenders soul. Observe that the Exposition of Erastus is so wild, that sense, scriptures, or Greek Authors cannot dream that (let him be as a Heathen) can be in sense all one with this, Pursue him for his injury before the Roman judicatures. But the Exposition we give according to the word in its first notion, doth offer it self to the understanding: For, Let him be to thee, as an Heathen, is, let him be counted as one that is without the Church, and not of the people of God, as the word Heathen is t •• en, Levite. 25. 44. 2 King. 17. 8. Psal. 2. 1. Psal. 44. 2. Psal. 46. 6. Jer. 9. 16. Lam. 1. 3. Ezek. 20. 23. Lam. 1. 10. Act. 4. 27. Cor. 5. 1. Eph. 2. 11. 1 Thes. 4. 5. 1 Pet. 2. 12. Rev. 11. 12.

3. It will be long, ere Scripture make a parallel to this; Tell the Church, that is, Tell the King, tell the civil judge, that is, tell not the Church; For the Church dealeth with spiritual Armor (and the King is not the Church) 2. with no force or violence, but the word and discipline; 3. with the man's conscience, to gain the man to repentance, for so all Christ's three steps is to save the soul and to gain him to repentance.

Erastus lays a good Iron club over the offenders shoulders, and brings the offender to a Civilian, to whom Christ never committed the Gospel: What? shall the justice of peace, preach Christ to the offender, and wield the rod of Christ's power out of Zion to him? Is there no way but that to gain a soul? 2. He brings him to one who hath no weapon, to a Magistrate, but a weapon of steel, the sharp sword; or 3. will this Magistrate not labor to gain him, which clearly is Christ's intent (O he is greedy in his stairs to have the lost gained, as is ver. 11. 12.) then Christ misseth his end. But whether the man repent or no (saith Erastus ) the Magistrate as such, must cudgel the offender. 4. It is admirable that ( Let him be to thee as a publican and a Heathen ) must be a new Judicature, and this is to drive him to Caesars Tribunal; a strange gloss: but 1. This will loose him out of hand; will Nero and the Heathen judge, Preach him back a submissive Lamb to the Jews? But. 2. How do you this Citrà offensionem, without scandalizing? Paul cannot advise what Erastus doth; he thinks Christians should rather suffer injuries, then to implead a brother before a Heathen judge, 1 Cor. 6. Yea, but ere you suffer so (saith Erastus) cause him to compear, and answer the highest Heathen judge on earth, to teach him better manners: This is a vindictive-like way: 2. Scandalous heathens will say, See how these Disciples of Jesus agree: 3. Its the highest rupture of love, 1 Cor. 6.

Ans. 1. Christ would so many injuries to be pardoned, as is comprehended in this general ( If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him ) but this comprehendeth great injuries, and all injury • : It being as Erastus saith, parallel to Lev. 19. 18. Thou shalt not suffer sin in thy Brother. What? must we not suffer a small sin in our Brother, because that were to hate him in our heart? But we may suffer great sins in him, and not rebuke him; yet that should not be hatred of our Brother. 2. Christ is not only teaching how to remove scandals; but how to remove them by gaining our Brother, even by telling the Church; If need be, that they may labor to gain him also, if one brother, and if one with two or three witnesses cannot gain him to repentance; and so he would have all injuries pardoned, out of which we are to gain our brother. 3. It is too narrow a compass, to which Erastus draweth Christ in his words, only to remove the scandal without offending the weak, to labor to remove only petty scandals and not great; yea, and public to our whole Church: 4. Erastus seemeth to imagine, if we draw our brother before the Church, that is, the Civil Magistrate, we do not then forgive him, it being now a great injury, but he is deceived, we are to forgive our brother, and to pray for his forgiveness; even when we make the offense public, and when he repenteth not, as Christ did forgive as man, those that Crucified him, though they did not repent, 1 Pet. 2. 21, 22, 23. Luk. 24. 35, 36, 5. Erastus cannot deny but great injuries should be brought before the Magistrate, and a little injury, when an offender refuseth to obey the Christian Magistrate, must be a great injury, which maketh the man, as a heathen and a publican; What is before answered, I shall not need to trouble the Reader withal to repeat.

Ans. This shall make the whole ten Commandments, Exod. 20 and the whole Gospel and the profession of it, Rom. 10. 9. which are all spoken to one in the singular number, often in the second person to command private virtues, and forbid private sins only, and not to be Laws obliging the Church in public duties, and to eschew public sins.

Ans. 1. Its most false, that all the precepts of the Decalogue are all of them spoken to all and every man: Honor thy Father and mother that begat thee, is one of the Commandments; and it is not spoken to those that are only Parents themselves, and have their natural parents dead: but doth it follow that that Command doth enjoin private obedience, and forbid only private, not public disobedience to natural Parents: So the sixth Command saith, If thy brother fall in a Lions den to the hazard of his life, pull him out; if thou cannot rescue him thyself alone, take three with thee and assay it; if thou cannot so rescue him, tell it to twenty: The man is not to rescue every brother here, but only the brother that is in danger to be devoured with the Lyon: will any say the Law of the sixth Commandment is given here, to one private man to help another in a private danger? This ( rebuke thy brother ) is the Law of nature, and it is under this, Levite. 19. 17. Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thy heart: And if I rebuke him not for sin, any sin, and the most public, and so most offensive and scandalous to many; I hate him; nay, I am not so much to rebuke him and gain his soul, because the sin is an injury done to me, as because it is done against the Majesty of God, and destructive to the offenders soul, and I must labor to gain his soul. 2. Erastus dreams that that is a private sin, which is done to one man, or one rank of men; to a Magistrate, not a subject; he is beguiled, an offense and public stumbling-block may be laid before one man, and it is often a public sin. 3. The speaking of it in the second person is nothing, for, If thou believe thou art saved, Rom. 10. 9. is as public and universal, as John 3. 16. Whosoever believeth he is saved. The second person in all precepts of Law and Gospel (and this, rebuke an offending brother, is both,) is as broad as the third person, and as large in extent, except you say the verse John 3. 16. comprehendeth some more believers that are saved, then Rom. 10. 9. which is against sense. 4. Christ ought not to have spoken to his Disciples as a Church, because he is directing them as members and parts of a Church, how to deal with an offender: but if he hear not the Church, that is, the Christian Magistrate, he should die, saith Beza. Erastus answereth, But the Church or Jewish Synedrie had not power of life and death now they were under the Roman Empire.

Ans. Christ here then showeth not a way to remove Scandals, because the Roman Emperors sword is not Christ's Spiritual way, 2 Cor. 10. The weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God.

Ans. There is a twofold forgiving, one private, in passing the private revenge of the fault and grudge against the person of the offender: thus the whole argument is granted, for Members and Church both are to pray, Forgive us our sins, as we forgive them that sin against us: I hope the Synedrie, the Roman President, the Magistrate, thus are obliged to forgive those whose heads they justly take from them, so Luke 17. We are to forgive our brother seventy seven times a day, though he neither repent nor crave pardon, but far more, if he crave pardon. But by this Argument the Christian Magistrate should use the sword against no bloody Parracide, for he is thus to forgive him, and much more, if he say he repenteth. 2. To forgive, is to remit all punishment, and so what is said to one Member of the Church, is not said to the whole Church. Private men have not power of Church-punishment to forgive it. The Church hath a power limited by Christ, that is to forgive and open heaven, in so far as they see Christ go before, and see the man penitent, and therefore Erastus his consequence is short, it follows not, that the Church should no more excommunicate then one Member. Erastus looks far beside the book, in that he thinks it is all one to forgive an injury, and to remove a scandal in the way of Christ in laboring to gain a brother. I may forgive one that offendeth me, and not labor at all to gain his soul.

Ans. It is not denied by us, but that the Scandal in the rise may be private, but Erastus will have our Savior to speak only of private Scandals. 2. If one Church shall offend another, the offended may admonish, and if the Church be not gained, the offended Church is to tell more Churches Synodically convened, as may be gathered from Christ's Scope, to remove all Scandals between brother and brother, Church and Church.

Ans. 1. I may tell him between me and him, a public fault: this proveth only my admonition to be private, when the fault is known to twenty and scandalizeth them, and it proveth not the fault to to be private. But you will say, then I must take these twenty who are offended, no less then I am to go myself. I answer, not so; For 1. I may be ignorant that any knows it, and I am not to uncover what God hath covered, except it were a sin that bringeth wrath on the whole Land, as blood, and the Canaanites sins. 2. Though I should know twenty were offended, charity will bid me try, if I only can gain him, and then love maketh the work easier to twenty.

Ans. Though it be true, Matthew and Luke c. 17. speak both of scandals and scandalous sins in general, yet it is evident they speak of two sorts of scandals; Luke speaketh v. 3. of scandals between brother and brother, which may at first be taken away by rebukes; but he hath nothing of the Churches part touching these. But Matthew hath it at length, chap. 18. ver. 15, 16. 17, 18. 19. 20. The Luke 17. 4. and Matthew more distinctly, chap. 18. ver. 21. upon the occasion of Peters question, resolveth a case of conscience; how Christians are to pass by in love the faults one of another, even to seventy times seven; they are not scandals of one and the same nature, as Erastus conceiveth: The former is, how we may gain an offending brother from the guilt of active scandal in giving offense to us, and that is by free rebuking; and if that gain him not, then by taking witnesses and rebuking him; and if neither that can do it, by telling the Church, to which Christ hath given a more powerful way, to bind and loose in earth and heaven, saith Matthew: Luke speaketh only of simple rebuking, which tendeth to the other two. The latter way, is how we ourselves may be freed from passive scandal, if our brother provoke us seven times, or seventy seven times a day: this must be by a private pardoning, and laying aside all grudge, or hints of revenge toward our brother, and this is a great mistake in Erastus, that he confoundeth those two scandals, which by two Evangelists are distinguished, for Peter upon occasion of the former Church-scandals, proposeth the second, Mat. 18 21. then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? Peter asketh nothing of gaining the offender, and Christ answereth nothing of gaining him, having satisfied them fully in that before: But Peter came in with a new question, concerning private forgiving. 2. It is evident in the former, that Christ speaks not of sins, that one brother may forgive another; for then it were free to the offended, after two admonitions ineffectual to gain the offender, to forgive and desist, as he doth in the matter of forgiving: But it is not free to him to desist; if the offender refuse to be gained, and add contumacy; the offended cannot pardon the punishment (he ought to remit the private grudge) he is under a command of Christ to tell the Church, that is one punishment, and if he yet be obstinate, he is to be reputed as a Heathen and a Publican, that is another punishment, which a private man cannot dispense with: 1. He cannot dispense with Christ's command. 2. He cannot omit all Lawfull means of gaining the soul of his brother; for the Law of nature tieth him to it. Erastus will have it a matter of holding off of an injury, only by complaining to the Roman Emperor, a carnal way. Christ is on a higher and more spiritual strain to gain a soul, as is clear, If he hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother, rest there: But if he hear thee not, go yet on to gain him: Take with thee two or three, then if he had been gained at first, a second admonition before two or three were needless. But if yet he be not gained, then go yet on, to seek the gaining of his soul; and tell the Church, and if the Church cannot gain him: then let him be as a Publican, and cast out: This is also a way of gaining, that his spirit may be saved, 1 Cor. 5. Therefore this is most false, that Christ speaketh of those sins which we may forgive: Who can believe that it is credible that our Savior hath a more noble end, and more excellent then to gain a brothers soul? or that he doth teach us in these words to descend from such a spiritual end, as the repentance of an offender, to a far baser end, to hold off injuries by fleeing to a heathen Judicature?

Ans. This is for us, he speaketh of such sins that the offender will persist in, against the Authority of witnesses, Synedrie, or Church and Magistrates, as Erastus thinketh while he be as a Profane Heathen; Ergo, he may deny them: 2. If we suppose three faithful witnesses, who have seen and heard, such as will testify the sin before the Church, it is like to be a grievous and public trespass. Nor would Christ have the Magistrate troubled, and the Church offended for such sins as may fall out, in a brother, seven times; yea, seventy seven times in one day, and may be, by private transactions pardoned, as Erastus saith: How should Erastus his civil throne, sink under threescore and ten scandals in one day?

Ans. True, if we believe Erastus begging the question. 2. To declare a brother, no brother, but a profane Heathen, without Christ in the world, nad out of the Covenant of Grace, must be the highest Church-censure, & must be more highly punished then so.

Ans. Such as contumaciously defended, makes a man none of Christ's, but the profanest living; yea, of a believing Jew, an Apostate, and a Heathen, deserveth to be punished by the judge.

Ans. There be no smell of an Heathen, or Roman Judge in the Text, Id Erastus adjecit de suo. 2. It is not free to gain, or not gain, my brothers soul, or obey Christ's command, or not obey it.

Ans. Its true, Paul giveth instance, in those that he calleth things of this life, but in opposition to the great matter of Judging the world and Angels: 2. Paul saith generally; Ye go to law one with another, 1 Cor. 6. 1, 2, 3, 4. And he esteemeth it such a fault, that he saith of it, v. 9. Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the Kingdom of God.

Ans. True, but not for small offenses falling out seventy seven times a day, for which the Magistrate will not punish, such as these offenses be, saith Erastus, pag. 181. pag. 28. Thes. 42. But being accused of a high crime of life and death. 2. He appealed not from a godly Magistracy, such as the Syned • y holdeth forth, but from bloody judges: 3. In matters not with Saints, as 1 Cor. 6. And brethren to whom you are to grant pardons, seven, and seventy seven times a day, but with Blasphemers, and Murderers of Christ, Act. 18. 6. 1 Thes. 2. 15.

Ans. Theres not a footstep of injuries, or Magistrate, or sword in the Text: 2. ver. 7. And all along he speaketh of scandals that may hinder our entering to heaven, and these words; rebuke him, Thou hast gained thy brother, are clear as the Sun, that he intendeth the offended, in all these steps, is to gain the soul of the offender.

Ans. I may say, as he saith to that Apostolic servant of God, holy Beza, Egregia vero ratiocinatio: The question is now touching the scope of Christ, Matth. 18. Erastus proveth repairing of civil injuries to be Christ's scope, and how proveth he it? Because he that is gained to God by repentance, is a made friend, and will leave off to do civil wrongs: Just as if one should say, the scope of the holy Ghost, in the history of the Creation, in the two first chapters of Genesis, is to make the Reader a good Philosopher: Why? because he that understandeth the works of Creation, the Heaven, Stars, Sun, Moon, Seas, dry Land, Trees, Herbs, &c. Must not this man be an excellent Astronomer, Geographer, Physiloge, &c? So may he say, the scope of the holy Ghost, in the ten Commandments, is to make a man an excellent Citizen of London, or Paris, Why? how is that the scope of the ten Commandments? by Erastus his Argument, What better way can there be to make a good social Civilian, then if he be well versed in the Doctrine of the ten Commandments? so may I say, the scope of Paul in the first eleven Chapters of the Epistle to the Romans, is to make a man love his brother, why? Because if he know God, and free justification by faith in Christ, and our freedom from the Law, and the Doctrine of Election by Free-grace, and the like, he cannot but love his brother▪ Now how can that be Christ's scope, which is neither spoken In terminis? Nor so much as insinuated? Now to gain an offending brother is In terminis spoken, ver. 15. Thou hast gained thy brother: so Erastus granteth this is Christ's scope, but not his last scope; and gaining of his soul he will have, but a scope for a civil end to hold off injuries: How carnal is the glos • e of Erastus? Now the scope of Erastus is never spoken, never hinted at: Erastus cannot deny our scope, only he will not have it the chief scope of the words; the best ground he hath for his scope is that, Tell the Church, is, Tell the Civil Magistrate.

Ans. If Christ's inten • ion be, that he may rather acknowledge his fault to God then to the offender, as Erastus granteth, then Christ's scope in these words, must be his spiritual gaining to God, not a civil depulsion of a civil wrong, but the former▪ Erastus granteth: 2. If spiritual gaining be intended in all the steps of our Savior's progress, and when this is obtained, the progress doth cease; then means rather crossing and thwarting that scope, then suitable spiritually thereunto, are not to be attempted: then is not civil depulsion of injuries our Savior's scope in the words, but the former is true; Ergo, So is the latter; the Proposition is evident, from the nature of a scope, and end in any speech. I prove the Assumption by parts. 1. If rebuking of an offending brother, gain him to repentance, then it is clear the offended man is to rest there, and not to Tell the Church or Magistrate, for he hath obtained even the end, for which Erastus contendeth, and who goeth about new means to compass an end already obtained? Christ would never command that; yea, when Christ saith, ver. 16. If he hear not thee, then take with thee one or two more; Ergo, If he had heard him, he was not to take one or two more, and ver. 17. If he should neglect to hear them, he▪ was to tell the Church: Ergo, If he should hear them, he was gained, and was not to tell the Church; Ergo, spiritual gaining must be Christ's scope. 2. If to tell the Church, be as Erastus dreameth, to tell the Civil Magistrate, and then the Roman Emperor; this was no suitable mean to gain the man's soul; a club was never dreamed of by our Savior to compass the spiritual end, or nearest scope of gaining any to repentance; for the end of the Magistrate, as a Magistrate, is to bring no man to repentance, but to take away evil out of the land, to cause Israel fear, and do so no more, to be an avenger of evil doing, far less is there any shadow of reason to dream that Christ intended by Caesars, or any Heathen Magistrates sword, to gain an offending brother to repentance, and that he commandeth the offended brother to use such a carnal mean so unsuitable to such a spiritual end. Lastly, How a private brother cannot be said to bind and loose, I have cleared already.

Ans. Here is a groundless conjecture, for a Publican was large as odious as a Heathen, being a companion to sinners, and the worst of the Heathen.

2. How proveth he that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that Heathen is meant of those Heathen only, that were servants to the Romans, and would acknowledge no Judge but Caesar. 1. The Jews themselves said, We have no King but Caesar: 2. The holy Ghost doth not restrict the Heathen so; What warrant hath Erastus to be narrower in his gloss then the holy Ghost is in the Text. If in these, ( Let him be as an Heathen ) the threatening be perpetual, to remove all scandals, to the end of the world; when most of the Heathen shall not acknowledge the Iudicatures of Heathen Rome, then the word Heathen must be as large as all Heathen, all wicked and all scandalous men, such as Publicans, and so there is no hint at the Heathen Romish Judge here, which is the way of Erastus. But the former is true; or this Law of Christ is to remove scandals amongst the Disciples when the Roman Empire shall fall as the Lord in his word hath prophesied. The Scripture speaks not so, Mat. 6. 7. Use no vain repetition in prayer. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Here is the Article 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : Can Erastus say none use babbling prayers but such heathen as were subject to the Roman Empire? Gal. 2. 9. That we should go 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , to the Heathen, here is an Article also; belike Paul should preach to no Gentiles but those under the Roman Empire: A frothy dream, Gal. 3. 8. The Scripture foreseeing God would justify 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the Gentiles. Here also an Article; belike then no Gentiles are justified by faith, but these that are Officers to the Romans, and vexed the Jews, Act. 18. 6. Henceforth I will go 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , to the Gentiles, Act. 21. 19. Paul told what things the Lord had done by his Ministry 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , amongst the Heathen, Act. 26. 23. that Christ should show light to the people, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and to the Heathen, not the Romish heathen only, except Christ be a Savior to no other Heathen in the world: I need not weary the Reader to resute these unsolid conjectures of Erastus.

Ans. Converted Publicans left not off to be Publicans, but they left off to be such as went under the name of Publicans; that is, abominable Extortioners and grinders of the Poor: and therefore it follows well, that to be as a Publican in the common speech of the Jews familiar to our Savior, was to be a wretched godless profane man, without the Church, and without God and Christ in the world, as also the Heathen were, Eph. 2. 11, 12. 1 Cor. 5. 1. 1 Pet. 4. 3, 4. Acts 21. 11. Rom. 2. 24 blasphemers of the Name of God, and 1 Cor. 12. 2. Ye know that ye were Gentiles carried away with dumb Idols, Eph. 4. 17. That ye walk not as other Gentiles, in the vanity of their mind. 18. Having the understanding darkened, being strangers from the life of God: These and many other Scriptures confirmeth me much, that in Christ's time to be as a Heathen and a Publican, was to be cast out, whereas the man was once a brother, a believer, and a member of the Church, and in profession in the covenant of God, and a brother to Peter, John and the Lord's Disciples, and a Christian and professing Saint, as the disciples of Christ were; but now one who is turned out of that society, and as a Gentile serving Satan, walking in the vanity of the mind, as an uncircumcised man, &c. This is as like Excommunication, as one egg is like another, we have clear Scripture for this Exposition, but it is good Erastus never gave us one syllable of Scripture for his exposition▪ Nor can it be shown that to be as a Heathen and a Publican by Scripture, or any that ever spoke Greek, is to be in subjection to the Roman Empire, or liable to their laws, only we have 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of Erastus for it.

Ans. 1. The Major is false. The Leper because a Leper was by no Law of God cursed, and execrable, nor was he worthy of hatred, but of pity; yet was he by an express Law debarred from the Temple and holy things of God.

2. The Minor is false in the sense we contend for, the office of a Publican in abstracto was not execrable, nor worthy of hatred: but the thing signified, and that which proverbially went under the name of a Publican amongst the Jews, to wit, a professed extortioner, a robber, a grinder of the face of the poor, is both execrable and hateful: the conclusion in the former sense is granted, and it is nothing against us: But in the latter sense, the Assumption being false, the conclusion followeth not; not to say that in ordinary, none was a Publican, but he that was either an heathen, and so execrable, or then an Apostate wretched lewd Jew.

Ans. If we give the matter to Erastus his word, all he says are demonstrations: Let the reader read and judge. 2. All his argument here proceedeth on a false ground, while he contendeth so much to justify Publicans he presumeth (to be as a Publican) to • e in our sense all one with this, (to be excommunicated.) But 1. we lay the least weight on the word ( Publican ) and more on this, ( to be as an heathen. ) 2. We take them not divisively, but as Christ speaketh them, copulatively. We say, not to be excommunicated, is all one, as, let him be as a Publican, but that to be excommunicated, is to be as an Heathen 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and as a Publican.

Ans. 2. All the wits on earth cannot make us see another place for Erastus his explication of this place Matth. 18. and of 1 Cor. 5. But we hope it shall appear we have more from Scripture, to say for Excommunication then this one place, or then Erastus and all his party can say against it; here is all that Erastus can say against this strong place, built upon one Article • ; a poor and ignorant Grammattication. 1. He culleth out the word ( Publican ) of less weight with us, from the word ( Heathen ) and would prove that no Publican because a Publican, and for the office, was debarred from the Jewish Sacraments, which we grant; for no office or place lawful in it self, debarred any from▪ Christ; Centurions were hateful to the Jews, and put over them by the Romans, yet I should conceive the Centurion, whose servant Christ cured, Luke 7. was a Proselyte, and a member of the Jewish Church, a lover of the Nation, else I see not how the Jews would have accepted that he should build them a Synagogue, as he did v 5. and Publicans might have been Proseli • es also, but that which was signified by a Publican to the Jews, was no less odious then the name of a hangman or a most wicked and flagitio • s man, as Matth. 5. 45, 46, 47. and by Christ decourted from the number of the children of our heavenly Father: Amongst the Jews it was counted abomination to eat with Publicans, Matth. 9. 11. Matth. 11. 19. Luk. 7. 34. And when Christ saith, Matth. 21. 31. of the Rebellious Jews; Verily, I say unto you, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the publicans and harlots shall enter into the Kingdom of God before you: He clearly maketh Publicans the wickedst of men▪ shall these two, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 make us think Erastus were not dreaming, if he should from these words gather that Christ, meaneth only of such Publicans and Harlots as acknowledged no other Magistrate, but the Roman Magistrate? And the Article 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is doubled in the following verse also. 2. Let us retort this Argument, he that heareth not the admonitions of brethren in secret, and of the Church in public, is to be reputed, not as a Jew, or a brother and member of the Church having right to the holy things of God, but as a Heathen.

Now a Heathen to the Jews was no brother, and had no right to the Sacraments, either of the Jewish, or Christian Church, as is clear by the word of God, therefore he that heareth not a brother in secret, or the Church in public, is to be reputed as no brother (I mean in that public visible way he once was) but as a Heathen, who hath no right, Iure divino, by God's Law to the Sacraments. 3. What means all this trifling about the Article:? Say that the Article; should restrict Heathens and Publicans, to such and such Heathens and Publicans: I shall deny, In eternum, this consequence, Ergo, He means no other but only such Heathens and Publicans, as did acknowledge no other Magistrate, but a Roman Magistrate. There is no shadow in the Scripture, or any Greek author for the Word, but rather 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifieth the quality and spiritual condition of any, especially when Christ speaketh of gaining of souls, as here, Mat. 18. 15. so I am sure 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifieth John. 1. 14. Ma • . 6 • 0. 1 Pet. 1. 19. so doth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signify Mat. 6. 5. and elsewhere, enough I deny not but it may signify a civil or natural si •••• tude, but Christ doth here speak of neither, as is clear. 4. If here a Publican as a Publican be meant, as Erastus saith; Ergo, All Heathens and all Publicans are here to be understood; Ergo, Not these only that had this common to them both, to wit, that they both acknowledged no civil Magistrate but the Romans, the contrary of which Erastus asserteth. 5. Yea, this is not emphatick and discretive of Heathen and Publican, Christ acknowledged no civil Judge as King over the Jews at this time but only Caesar, when he said Mat. 22. Give unto Caesar, the things that are Caesars, and to God the things that are God's. And the Jews themselves did so when they said, We have no King but Caesar; If then to be as an Heathen and a Publican, be all one as to acknowledge no King, nor judge but Caesar, then to be as a Heathen and Publican, must be all one with this, to be as Christ and the Jews, for this was common to Heathens, Publicans, Jews and Christ, to acknowledge Caesar was their only King and civil Judge. 6. They were the worst of the Heathens and Publicans, who in a peculiar manner acknowledged no lawful Judge but Caesar, and hated the Jews, the only Church of God most at this time; Ergo, If the Article 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 infer that a disobedient brother is most like these Heathen, they must be greatest enemies to the Jews, and so remotest from Circumcision, and all right to the holy things of God, being the worst of the Heathen, and so Erastus hath gained nothing, but lost much by his poor Grammattication. Yea, if the offended brother should repute the offender as the worst of the Heathen, he is to esteem him who was once a Member of the Church, in that he was obliged to hear the Church, now as a Heathen, and so no brother, no Member of the Church, and here Erastus must grant that one brother may un-church and Excommunicate any other for disobedience to the Church, but the Church may not.

Ans. I deny the consequence, for by Publicans are meant men wicked and unpure by conversation, and by Heathen men unclean by condition, because without the Church, and strangers to the Israel of God, and without Christ and God in the world. 2. We have proved what is meant by a Publican, by evident Scriptures, but that by a Publican is understood one who acknowledged no Magistrate, but a Roman, no Scripture; no Greek Author warranteth us to think it, never man dreamed it, but Erastus.

Ans. Christ was a born Jew and circumcised; yea, and what can the Practice of the Murderers of Christ prove? It is no Law. But the Romans never sacrificed in the Temple, but gave Liberty to the Jews to serve God, according to his word, and to hear Christ preach, and that Christ kept the Ceremonial Law, and taught others, even the cleansed Leapers so to do, Matth. 8. is clear.

Ans. To these the keys are given, who retain and remit sins, as Erastus saith: But these be such as are sent of Christ, as the Father sent his son, John. 20. 2. Either in this place there is given power to bind and loose by public preaching the word, or by some other place; but this power to bind and loose by public preaching, is only given to Pastors and Teachers, 1 Cor. 12. 29. Eph. 4. 11. 12. And Erastus granteth elsewhere, that every private man by his office cannot preach, nor administer the Sacraments, and by no other place is this given to Pastors, for I could elude all places, with the like answer, and say there is a public Baptizing and Administration of the Supper, by Ministers and sent Pastors only, and a private also performed by private Christians; yea, by a woman, and both are valid in Heaven, and the binding and loosing of both ratified in Heaven. 3. Christ spake this to the Disciples, who before were sent to Preach, and cast out Devils, Matth. 10. and saith not, Whom thou binds on earth, but in the plural number, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , What things you bind on earth, shall be bound in Heaven. Erastus saith all this upon the fancy, that binding and loosing of the Church, and Peters private forgiving of his brother seven times a day must be all one, which I do prove in another place to be different, and amongst other reasons this is one, because the Church pardoning hath a threefold order: 1. between brother and brother: 2. before two or three: 3. Before the Church, and the end of all is the gaining of the offending brother, Matth. 18, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20. But the private forgiving of a brother, of which Peter speaketh, Mat. 18. 21, 22, 23. and Luke 17 4, 5. is of an inferior nature; for I know not, if you can gain a brothers soul seven times a day, if he but say, It repenteth me, Luke 17. 4. or seventy seven times, Mat. 18. 22. These words, It repenteth me, said seventy times a day to the Church cannot satisfy to the gaining of a soul, whereas to the private remitting of revenge, it were enough. We have the Text to warrant us, that Christ spa • e to Stewards to whom the keys are committed. Erastus doth but wickedly assert, he spoke to those who were as Christians in that act, but the Text is clear he speaketh of binding and loosing spiri • ually, which is nothing to the holding off of a civil injury, which Erastus saith is the scope of our Savior here, and how hungry must that sense be: That you deal with him as with an Heathen, who acknowledgeth no Judge, but a Roman judge, is a matter ratified in heaven? 4. A private man is to forgive an injury even though the offender repent not, Mat. 14. 15. Rom. 12. 19, 20. Col. 3. 13. but that pardon cannot be ratified in heaven. 5. See what we have said of binding and loosing before.

Ans. That dependeth on the proving that there be ruling Elders in the Church, which I conceived have proved else where, from Rom. 12. 8. 1 Cor. 12. 28. 1 Tim. 5. 17. I conceive when Christ spake this, there was neither a formed Presbytery, nor a formed Church.

Ans. Nor do we say, that two or three can make an Excommunicating Church, but Christ argueth a minore, if the Lord hear two or three on earth, far more will he hear a Church, and ratify in heaven what they do in binding and loosing offenders in Earth; But how shall these words agree to the interpretation of Erastus? for he expoundeth two or three and the whole Church, to be but one Christian Magistrate; can he be said to agree to himself? Or can one or two or three meet together in Christ's Name? And what coherence is here? Two or three conveeneth to pray that he that will not hear the Christian Magistrate may be dealt with as a Heathen man before the Roman judge, how violent and far off is this gloss, and how unsuitable to the Text?

Ans. To bring him before the civil Magistrate either Christian or Heathen, whose intrinsical end by virtue of their office, is not to gain, souls, but to draw the blood of ill doers, is far from gaining of Souls.

Ans. That they argue authority judicial, is proved already by many Scriptures, and judicial authority Ecclesiastical it must be, which agreeth to the Church, and it was never heard that the Church especially in the New Testament, doth signify the Magistrate. 2. There is no necessity to say there was a Christian Church court in Christ's time, because there was not a Christian Magistrate at this time, but the Jews had then a Church-court, before which Christ was convened. Caiaphas being President, and the blind man, John 9. who was cast out of the Synagogue, for that he confessed Christ. 3. Christ speaketh of that which was to be, though in its frame not yet erected.

Ans. If loosing and binding Matth. 16. be preaching of the Word of God, and loosing be Christian forgiving of an injury, then are women who are taught in the prayer of Christ, Mat. 6. to forgive one another, invested with the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, to preach the Gospel; and why not also to administer the Seals? and so are all private men clothed with the keys to take in and cast out at their pleasure, and what are Ministers that are over the people in the Lord, and watch for their souls? 2. We never said, to bind was to debar from the Sacraments, except consequently only, to bind, is to declare an obstinate man as a Heathen, and so no member of the house of Christ, and consequently to have no right to the bread of the children of the house, nor say we, that to Excommunicate is formally to debar men from the Sacraments, it is to cast them out of the house: hence it must follow that the privileges of the house belongeth not to them. 3. You may dissuade a man from doing a civil injury, and never gain his soul, but the Magistrates club, for which Erastus contendeth in these words, cannot reach the soul.

Ans. Then none can bind and loose but private men, and the keys of heaven are given to all private persons, nor can private persons by forgiving, so remit the person as he is loosed in heaven. 2. The Church is offended at Scandals, and are sufferers; Ergo, The Church must bind and loose: Let Erastus teach us the way except by Church-censures.

Ans. The legal purging of the Leper, was only by pronouncing him▪ clean, and could not be done but by the Priest, and it was a loosing of him.

Ans. Christ according to the mind of Erastus does here institute a throne for the Christian Magistrate, how doth he then institute a way how the Christian Magistrate may remove private Scandals and not public? for public Scandals hurt the Church ten to one more then private do. Christ speaks of sins in their rise private, between brother and brother, but he speaketh of public Scandals, of such as will not hear the Church, and for these only we Excommunicate. 2. Tha • is not true, that any one place of Scripture, where an institution is that all the substantials of that institution, should be expressly set down in that place, it is enough that all be held forth in either one Scripture, or other, as in Christ's sufferings, Baptism, Pastors, &c.

Ans. Here is nothing but Grammatications that cannot convince: it is true, that Christ speaking of two, he speaketh of private men, but many will not grant so much, for they say, that by two the smallest number is meant, a Church of the fewest, by a Synecdoche, and two may be taken for a small convention and number which do literally exceed two, Jer. 3. 14. Rev. 11. 3. I will give power to my two Witnesses; they be more Martyrs who witnessed against Babylon then two literally, and this Exposition seemeth to me as good as the other, and then if the smallest Church do bind and loose in heaven and earth, so much more the Church; and so all shadow of this unsolid Grammattication is removed. 2. The proportion is well kept, if two praying on Earth be so heard in Heaven, as by their prayers, they may obtain that these be ratified in Heaven which they ask on earth; far more is that ratified in heaven, which the Church in a judicial and authoritative way, doth on earth, in the Name of Christ: for praying of private Christians, and public and authoritative binding of the Church do both agree in this, that the Father of Christ ratifieth both in heaven, which is a due keeping of proportion, and not such a crooked comparison as Erastus would make between an aged man, & a rich & good man 3. Though two private men have the same Analogical binding in Heaven and earth with the Church, it followeth not that the binding of the Church is not a Church-binding, as the binding of the two private men is also a binding, but no public, no Churchbinding. 4. How shall Christ's words keep either sense or Logic with the exposition of Erastus? If he will not hear the Christian Magistrate, complain to the Heathen Magistrate; and again I say, if the Lord hear two praying on earth, far more will he ratify in Heaven, what a profane Heathen Magistrate doth on earth against a Christian offender; judge what sense is in this gloss.

Erastus hath no reason to divide these words, ver. 19. Again I say, if two agree, &c. from ver. 17. 18. Because they are meant of the Magistrate (saith Erastus ) against all sense, and join them to the words of the. 15. and 16. verses: for there is no mention of binding and loosing by prayer, ver. 15, 16. But only of rebuking, and here Erastus shall be as far from keeping his proportion, of rebuking and praying, as he saith, we do keep proportion between Church-sentencing and praying. To Theophylact Chrysostom and Augustine, Beza answered well, and Erastus cannot reply: 6. If there be binding and loosing between brother and brother in the first and second Admonition, before the cause be brought to the Church, what need is there of binding the man as a Heathen before the Heathen Magistrate? And what need of the Heathen Magistrates prayer to bind in Heaven? Was there ever such Divinity dreamed of in the world?

Ans. All know that Christ ascendeth in these three steps: 2. Erastus granteth the cause is not brought to the Church, but by two or three witnesses which is a judicial power, as in the Law of Moses and in all Laws is evident: if he hear not a brother, he is not to be esteemed, as a Heathen and a Publican, but if he hear not the Church, he is to be reputed so. 3. We reason never from power of rebuking to the power of Excommunication; but thus, The Church hath power to rebuke an offender, and if he will not hear the Church, then is the man to thee, that is, to all men, as a Heathen and a Publican; Ergo, The Church hath power to Excommunicate.

Ans. He could as well direct them to remove scandals for time to come, as he could after his Resurrection say, Mat. 28. 19, 20. Go teach and baptize all Nations, which commandment they were not presently to follow, but Act. 1. 4. to stay at Jerusalem, and not To teach all Nations, while the Holy Ghost should come: I ask of Erastus, how Christ could lay a Ministry on his Disciples, which was not in the world? What directions doth Christ, Mat. 24. and Luk. 21. give to his Church and Disciples that they had not occasion to obey many years after? is how they should behave themselves, when they should be called, before Kings and Rulers: 2. Nor were the Apostles who were already in the room of Priests and Prophets to Teach and Baptize (he after being to institute the other Sacrament) to wonder at a new form already half instituted, and which differed not in nature from the former Government, save that the Ceremonies were to be abol • shed.

Ans. This will prove nothing, John hath much which we believe with equal certainty of Faith, as we do any Divine institutions; shall therefore Erastus call the turning of water into wine, the raising of Lazarus: The healing of the man, born blind, and of him that lay at the Pool of Bethesda, Christ's heavenly Sermons, Io • . cap. 14. 15, 16. his prayer▪ cap. 17▪ which the other Evangelists mention not, Fi • men • a hominum, men's fancies, as he calleth Excommunication? 2. Did the Disciples understand well the dream that Erastus hath on the place, and took they it as granted, that to tell the Church is to tell the civil Magistrate? And that not to hear the Church is civil Rebellion, and to be as a Heathen is to be impleaded before Caesar or his Deputies only? This is a wonder to me; Matthew setteth up this way, an institution of all Church-Government, which no Evangelist, no word in the Old, or New Testament establisheth.

Ans. That the Church here is the multitude of Believers, men, women, and children, is not easily believed by us. 2. And we are as far from the dream of a mere civil Synedry, which to me is no suitable mean of gaining a soul to Christ, which is our Savior's intention in the Text. 3. Erastus setteth up a Christian Magistrate to intercept causes and persons, to examine, rebuke, lead witnesses against a Jew before ever Caesar their only King of the Jews, or his Deputies hear any such thing, this is as far against the only supreme Magistrate, and as scandalous to the Pharisees, as anything else could be: 4. Had not John the Baptist, and Christ's disciples drawn many of the Jews and Profylites to a new Sacrament of Baptism, and to the Lamb of God, now in his flesh, present amongst them? this was a more new Law, then any Ordinance of Excommunication was, especially since this Church was not to be in its full constitution, till after the Lord's Ascension.

Erastus. It is known this anedrim delivered Christ bound unto Pilate, condemned Steven, commanded the Apostles to be scour • e • and put in Prison. Tertullins saith of Paul before Felix, we would have judged him according to our Law; Paul said, Act. 23. to Anani • s, thou sittest to judge me according to the Law, Act. 26. P • ul confesseth before Agrippa and Festus, that he obtained power from the high Priests, to hale to prison and beat the Christians, and Paul for fear of the iniquity of this Church or Sanhedrin, dealt with them as Heathen, and appealed to Caesar. Ans. But by what Law of God did they this? It is not denied but the Jews Sanhedrin being two courts did inflict punishment; But that Christ establisheth a civil Sanhedrin 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 add, if any obeyed not the Church, that is, the Sanhedrin, as Erastus saith, they might be stoned to death as Steven was: Was this Christ's mild way, to cite them only before the Roman Senate? Were dead men capable of answering to any further Iudicatures? 2. The last step of convening Heathens and Publicans before the Roman Senate, according to Christ's 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 labor to gain all, even those that are without the Church, 1 Cor. 9. 19, 20, 21, 22. 1 Pet. 3. 1. And this is Christ's way of gaining all, to rebuke and admonish them: Ergo, it was never Christ's 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 Ecclesiastical crimes, that the Jews had power of life and death, in the matter of Steven and of Paul, if he had not appealed to Caesar to save his head: Josephus de bel. Judaic. Lib. 5. Cap. 26. Antiquit. Lib. 14. Cap. 12. But in things politick, Caesar took all power of life and death from them: Hence only is Christ's time the footsteps of the two distinct courts remained, and the Priests, not the civil Magistrate had the power of Church-discipline. But all was now corrupt.

Quest. 5.

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.

Ans. Exclusion from the Sacrament, is but one of the fruits of Excommunication; not formally Excommunication; yet he harpeth on this always, 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 only, 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 again, unless 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 intrinsical end of putting to death a Malefactor, is to avenge God's quarrel, Rom. 13. 4. That all Israel may hear and fear, and do no more any such wickedness, Deut. 13. 11. To put away the guilt of sin off the Land, Numb. 34. 33, 34. that the Lord's 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 soul of the Malefactor, and there is nothing of such an end here. But the intrinsical end here, is, that the man's 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 Jesus, 1 Cor. 5. 4. 5. Now the Son of man came to save souls, not to destroy bodies, and burn cities; and though by the power of Christ, Peter miraculously killed Ananias and Sapphira, and Paul stroke Elimas the Socererer blind, yet these being Miracles, we hear not that this was done by any intervening act of the Church convened, or by their prayers to bring vengeance, by a miracle, on the ill do • r. Peter and Paul do both these not asking any consent, or intervention of the people's 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 civil 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 Analogy like to this, to remove the scandalous person, but we find 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 faithful 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 everyone who were puffed up, and mourned not at this man's 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 everyone, because they prayed not, and mourned not to God, that Paul wrought not this miracle in killing the incestuous man, they behooved to have a word of God, for their warrant, commanding them to pray: O Lord give power to Paul, to kill such▪ an incestuous man miraculously: For such Faith of miracles had Christ, and all the Prophets and Apostles, Joh. 11. 41. So did Sampson pray in faith, Judge. 16. 28. and Elias 1 Kings 18. 36, 37, 38. and so did the Apostles pray, Act. 4. 24, 29, 30. and with them the Church of believers, for working of miracles in general; for the Apostles had a word of promise in the general for working of miracles, Mar. 16. 17, 18. But that the Apostles had before hand revealed to them all the miracles they were to work: I cannot believe by any Scripture, But that it was revealed to them upon occasion only, by an occasional immediate Revelation, Do this particular miracle, Hic & nunc: And this I am confirmed to believe: Because Elisha, 2 Kin. 4. was mistaken in sending his servant with his staff to raise the dead son of the Shunamite (a Pastor with nothing but a club and naked words cannot give life to the dead) ver. 31. and therefore the working of a miracle in particular Hic & nunc was not always revealed to the most eminent Prophets, such as Elisha was; and so I believe, as working of miracles on this; and this man, came not from an habit in the Prophets and Apostles, far less from a habit subject to their free will, but God reserved that liberty to himself, to act his servants immediately, both to pray by the faith of this miracle, Hic & nunc, and to work this miracle, Hic & nunc. Now to the Assumption: How can Erastus or any of his followers assure our conscience that God had given the Faith of miracles to all the sanctified in Christ Jesus at Corinth, whom Paul so sharply rebuketh, 1 Cor. 5. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. That this being revealed to them by God, and they having the faith, that it was the will of Jesus Christ, that Paul should kill, or (as some say) deliver to Satan this incestuous man to be miracuously tormented in the body or flesh, as Job was, that he might repent; is it like Christ would reveal more of his will, touching every particular miracle to be done by Paul, to all and every secure one in the Church of Corinth that were puffed up, and mourned not for this man's fall, then he revealed to the Apostles themselves? But I have proved that the Apostles and Prophets knew not, nor had they the particular Faith of this, and this miracle, how then had all and everyone of the Church of Corinth this Faith? Now they behooved to have this light of Faith of this miracle revealed to them, that this was Christ's will, that Paul should work a miracle for the destruction of the man; else the Corinthians could no more be justly rebuked, because they prayed not to God, that Paul might work this miraculous destruction of the man (which yet he never wrought, as its clear, 2. Cor. 2. he was not killed, but repented, and was pardoned) then because they prayed not, that he miraculously might cure the criple man at Lystra, Act. 14. or that he might work any other miracle. Now how was this revealed to all of the Church of Corinth that this was Christ's will? If it be said, they were to pray conditionally that God would either by a miracle take him away, or then in mercy give him repentance to prevent destruction: 1. We have no surer ground for a conditional and dis-junctive Faith of miracles in the Corinthians, then for an absolute Faith: 2. If it was the will of Christ, that the man should by himself be miraculously killed, why did not the Apostle immediately by himself kill him? Why? It was the Apostles fault as well as the sin of the Corinthians, that the man remained as a leaven to sour and infect the Church; yea, it was more the Apostles fault then theirs, for he had only the immediate power miraculously to purge the Church; some may say, as the Lord Jesus was hindered some time to work miracles, because of the people's unbelief, Matth. 13. 58. So here Paul was hindered to work this miracle on the scandalous man, because of their unbelief.

Ans. Paul could not profess this; for he had not assayed to work any miracle of this kind, as Christ had done, Matth. 13. But only showeth them of a report came to him of the fact, and of their security, and not mourning: 2. Paul should then rather have rebuked their unbelief, and not praying that God would miraculously destroy the man; but this Paul doth not. 3. Paul rebuketh them, for not judging him, not putting him out of the midst of them: Must that be Paul's meaning; pray to God that I may have grace and strength immediately from God, to kill him miraculously, and to judge him. Now they knew the Apostle miraculously thus judged those that are without, as he stroke with blindness; Elymas who was without the visible Church: I conceive the whole Churches were to pray, as the Apostles do with the Saints, Act. 4. 29. 30. That miracles may be wrought both on those that are without and within: But of this judging he saith, ver. 12. What have I to do to judge them also that are without? Do not ye judge them that are within? 4. It is directly contrary to Christ's direction, Matth. 18. Which is, that by rebukes we gain the offending brothers soul: Now Erastus will have him gained to Christ, by removing his soul from his body, and by killing him. Yea, the Apostle writing of the censuring of those in Thessalonica, who walked unorderly, and obeyed not the Apostles Word, which doth include such as break out in Incest, Adulteries, Murthers, is so far from giving direction to kill them miraculously, that he biddeth only keep no Church company, nor Christian fellowship with them, but yet they are to be admonished as brethren; Ergo, they were not to be miraculously killed, for then they should be capable of no admonition at all being killed; And could there be worse men then was amongst the Phillipians, Enemies of the cross of Christ, whose end is destruction, whose God was their belly? Yet there was no blood in the Apostles pen, he chides not the Phillipians, nor the Galatians who had amongst them men of the same metal, Gal. 5. 7, 8, 9, 10. Ver. 19. 20, 21. Nor the Timothies who would have to do with far worse men, 2 Tim, 3. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Nor Titus who had to do with wicked Cretans, Tit. 1. because they cried not to God, for Paul's bloody sword of vengeance, that these wicked men might be cut off by Satan, nor doth the Apostle to the Hebrews draw this Sword against those who sinned against the Holy Ghost, c. 10. c. 6. Nor James against bloody warriors, Murderers, Adulterers, Oppressors, c. 4. c. 5. Nor doth Peter and Jude use this sword, or command the Churches to use such carnal weapons against the wickedest of men, but recommended longsuffering, rebuking, the rod of Church-discipline, to reject Heretics after admonitions. Hence I argue negatively; in all the Scripture, never did the Lord command that they should pray to God and mourn, that he would inflict bodily vengeance and death, or yet sickness on any scandalous professor, nor is there promise, precept, or practice in any Scripture of this Church censure. 5. Erastus doth think a court of the Church, that hath power to lead Witnesses, judge and censure offenders an extreme wronging of the Magistrate, and an encroaching on his Liberties, but here is a more bloody Court, for if the whole faithful are to pray for bodily death by the Ministry of the Devil, upon one of their own brethren, because he hath lain with his fathers wife, or fallen in Adultery, or Murder, as David did: Surely they must pray in faith, and upon certain knowledge that he is guilty; the Law of God and Nature must then have warranted the whole Saints, Women and Children, to meet in a grand Jury and Inquest, either to have the fact proved by Witnesses, or to hear his own confession; else how could they pray in faith, if it was not sure to their conscience that the man had done this deed? Here is a Jury of men and women, I am sure unknown to the Apostolic Church. 2. A greater abridging of the Magistrates power then we teach: The Church shall take away the life of a Subject & never ask the Magistrates leave. 6. It is against Christ's mind, Mat. 18. • s Erastus expoundeth it, that Christians should go any further against an offending brother, then implead him before an Heathen, though he add injury to injury: But this wa • maketh the Holy Ghost sharply to rebuke all the Saints when they are off •• ded, before the bar of Heaven, by crying miraculous blood • e vengeance upon the Offender. 7. It is evident this man repen • ed, and that the Corinthians confirmed their love to him, and did forgive him, 2 Cor. 2. 7. 10. Ergo, He was not miraculously killed. But we never read, where it was God's will and Law that an • ll doers life should be spared, though he should repent, because his taking away is for example that others may fear. 2. That evil, and as it is here, leaven may be taken away; if then it had been bodily death, I see not how Paul and the Corinthians could have dispensed with it. 8. Erastus doth not, nor can he confirm his unknown Exposition by any parallel Scripture of the Old and New Testament, which I objected to him in his Exposition of Matth. 18. Let the Reader therefore observe how weak Erastus is, in arguing against pregnant Scriptures, for Excommunication.

Ans. That is denied; to be debarred from the Sacraments, is but a consequent of Excommunication: 2. It is a putting of the man from amongst them, not by death, that we have refuted; not from eating and drinking with him only, that I improved before: Ergo, it must be a Church ou • -casting.

An. Ergo, he repen: ed, and was pardoned by the Corinthians, 2 Cor. 2. 10. after he had been killed, which is absurd.

Ans. This is a mere conjecture as Erastus granteth most he saith against the place is; for he saith, Aliam conjecturam etiam addidi, such a violent remedy of repentance, as is the cutting off of a member from Christ's body, being the most dreadful sentence of the King of the Church, nearest to the last sentence, was to Paul, and ought to be a matter of sorrow to all the Servants of God, as the foretelling of sad Judgments, moved Christ to tears, Matth. 23. 37▪ Luke 19. 41, 42. And moved Jeremiah to sorrow, cap. 9. 1. And yet Christ was glad at the home-coming of sinners, Luke 15. 6, 7, &c. These two are not contrary as Erastus dreameth, but subordinate; to wit, ( That Christ should inflict the extremist vengeance of Excommunication, which also being blessed of God, is a saving, though a violent remedy of repentance, ) and ( To rejoice at the blessed fruit of Excommunication, which is the man's repentance: ) And the Apostle 2 Cor. 7. professeth his sorrow, That he made them sad, ver. 8. and also rejoiceth at their gracious disposition who were made sorry: He is far from excusing himself, as if he had done anything in weakness; this were enough, and it is an Argument of our Protestant Divines, to prove that the Books of the Macabees, are not Dited by the Holy Ghost, as Canonic Scripture is; because the Author 2 Macab. 15. 38. excuseth himself in that History, as if he might have erred, which no Penman of holy Scripture can do: And Erastus layeth the like blame on Paul, as if he had repented that he made them sorry, by chiding them, for not praying for a miraculous killing of a Brother: This is enough to make the Epistles of Paul to be suspected as not Canonic Scripture; yea, Paul saith the contrary, 2 Cor. 7. 9. Now I rejoice, not that ye were made sorry, but that ye sorrowed to repentance, for ye were made sorry after a godly manner, that ye might receive damage by us in nothing, and 2 Cor. 2. 8, 9. he exhorteth them to rejoicing, at the man's Repentance, and to confirm their love to him, (which demonstrates that he was now a living man, and not miraculously killed,) and commendeth their obedience, v. 9. in sorrowing, as he did chide them that they sorrowed not, 1 Cor. 5. 2. So that Paul is so far from accusing himself for making them sad, that by the contrary, he commends himself for that, and rejoiceth thereat. And if the matter had been Excommunication, while the man should repent, (saith Erastus) they knowing this ought to be in the Church, they should rather have rejoiced, then been sorry. And I answer, if the matter had been a miraculous killing of him, that his Spirit might be saved in the day of the Lord: should they not rejoice at his saving in the day of the Lord, whether this saving be wrought by bodily killing, or by Excommunication? And so this conjecture may well be retorted. 2. They were not to be sorry at the man's repentance, but to rejoice; yet were they to be sorry at the violent mean of cutting him off from Christ's body, as a father may be glad at the life and health of his child, 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 child. 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.

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 Paul's 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 Murderer against God's express Law, should sin; and Paul should sin in pardoning upon request, where God would not pardon.

Ans. This is but a shadow of a reason against the Word of God, for to be cast out of Christ's 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 again, and to be written amongst the living in Jerusalem, is like the rising from the dead, as may be gathered from Rom. 11. 15. and is far more then deliverance from miraculous killing.

Ans. The hazard of losing his soul, repentance not being so easy, as Erastus imagineth, had been a greater loss, then the loss of a temporal life, the soul being to be saved in the day of the Lord.

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.

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 work this and this particular miracle; or that without error he might write this or that Canonic Scripture, and therefore because this delivering to Satan, was commanded to the convened together Church, with his Apostolic 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 persuaded it was no miracle proper to Paul only. 2. How prove you that Paul, his alone without the Church Excommunicated Hymenaeus? 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 only, 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 clear by the Illation. I have decreed, though absent, to deliver such a one to Satan. Hence his consequence, v. 7. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Purge out therefore. 2. To deliver to Satan, is either all one with judging 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 Paul's v. 5. by miraculous killing, and another of Paul's and the Church, v. 12. This latter must be some Church judging of those that are within the Church, common to Paul and the Corinthians, as the words clear, and which is opposed to God's 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 believers and Saints, as Erastus yieldeth. 3. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to put away the man, which is expressly commanded to the Church of Corinth, v. 13. must be the same 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and putting away, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , in the same word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 joined 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.

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 is not to kill: were Hymenaeus 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 Christ's body, it being the highest judgment 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 medicinal 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.

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 man's 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 softened and blunted, for the request of men.

Ans. All this is needless; 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. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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.

Ans. I conceive Chrysostom knew Greek better then Erastus, the man was delivered to Satan, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . That he might scourge him (as he did Job) with a hurtful boil or some other sickness. 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which in all Authors of the world, signifieth destruction, for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is to destroy; the question will rather be, what is meant by the flesh, but certainly it is in profane Greek Authors as unusual (I except sacred Greek Authors, such as Basil, Chrysostom, who knew what mortification meant) to speak as Paul doth, Rom. 8. 13. If ye mortify the deeds of the flesh, ye shall live: Let Erastus find me a parallel to that in the New Testament, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 I think Erastus may not deny that this is to mortify the sinful works of the body of sin, yet Aristotle, Plato, Lucian, Plutarch, H • siod, Homer, nor any profane Greek Author ever spake so: We shall therefore deny that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifieth never to Greek Authors anything but bodily death: for 2 Thess. 1. 9. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 everlasting destruction, is some more then bodily destruction. 3. We say it is unpossible that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 can be shown to signify 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 tolerable, because it wanteth a parallel place, it is his own reason.

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 conjoined therewith, as the Learned Anto. Waleus doth observe; yet the Apostle is clear for Excommunication in this chapter; & the learned Molineus denieth 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 communion Ecclesia: sed id vult fieri ab ipsa Ecclesia Cor • nthiacâ, dicens, ver. 13. Tollite istum sceleratum e medio vestrúm: And that grave and judicious Divine Piscator saith, on the place; That the form of Excommunication is this delivering to Satan: but the destruction of the flesh, he thinketh to be the exhausting of the natural strength of the body with sorrow for his sin, according to that Prov. 17. 22. A broken heart drieth the bones: And therefore it is to be observed that • rastily, Erastus insisteth most on those points and syllables of a Text, whereon all Divines, Ancient and Modern do place least strength for Excommunication; I might therefore pass all Erastus his force against Excommunication in these, and he shall be not a whit nearer his point. 2. But I shall follow him; when 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the flesh, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the spirit are put together, I see no reason that the one should signify the body, the other the soul: I know the contrary to be, Rom. 8. 1. Those that walketh 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 after the inordinate affections, and lusts of the flesh, are opposed to those that walk, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 after the spirit, and Gal. 5. 17. the flesh, ( 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ) lusteth against the spirit, and the spirit ( 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ) against the flesh, Joh. 3. 6. That which is born of the flesh, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is flesh, it is not that which is born of the body as body, and that which is born 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of the spirit is spirit, so Rom. 8. 9. 13, 14. Erastus should have shown us such places wherein 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the flesh and the spirit signifieth the body and the soul, when the matter of salvation is spoken of as here, That the spirit may be saved, ver. 5. then 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the flesh is for the most part, if not always, taken in an evil part, for the corruption of man's nature.

Ans. Let Erastus answer, How could the Corinthians beseech Paul not to kill him, that his soul may be saved in the day of the Lord? How could Paul grant such a Petition, as that the man should not be saved in the day of the Lord? How could Paul by pardoning the man, permit, that he should not be saved in the day of the Lord? for the saving of the man's soul, is no less a fruit of this delivering to Satan, then is the destroying of the lusts of the flesh. 2. They might well desire that upon the man's repentance Paul would take a milder way and course to effectuate these two desirable ends, the mortification of his lust, and the saving of his soul, then the last and most dreadful remedy, which is the censure of Excommunication. 3. The destruction of the lusts of the flesh is a Scriptural remedy for saving of the soul in the day of Christ, at is clear, Rom. 7. 7, 8, 9, 10. Gal. 5. 24, 25. But whether miraculous killing be such a mean ordained of God is the question, and ought to be proved by some word of God, beside this place in controversy.

Ans. That they hold forth no such thing, is evidently proved, for how were they to cast him out and judge him? And how was Paul to pardon him, and they and Paul to confirm their love? 2. When Peter saith, 1 Pet. 1. 7. That your faith may be found unto praise, honor and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ? were all these presently? Because Paul and the faithful Philippians were waiting for their Savior's second coming, who should change their vile bodies, were they to die presently? When Paul prayeth, that Onesiphorus may find mercy in that day, 2 Tim. 1. 18. I pray you, will it follow that Onesiphorus was presently to die?

Ans. 1. To be debarred from the society of the faithful, as Hagar was, as Cain was; as David was, Cast out of the Lord's inheritance by Saul; yea, to be rebuked, Ezech. 3. 25, 26. are evils, but they are not evils of sin; Ergo, He speaks not like a Divine, who will not have them punishments; if to enjoy the Sanctuary, Church, holy things of God, and the society of the Saints be a rich, blessing of God, as the Scripture saith it is, Psal. 42. 4. Psal. 27. 4. Psal. 84. 10. Psal, 110. 3. Psal. 63. 1, 2, 3. Cant. 1. 7. 8. Cant. 2. 16. 17. Cant. 5. 1. Cant. 6. 1, 2, 3. Rev. 2, 1. and to deny this be a symtome of profanity, then to be separated from these as a Heathen, must be to the children of God, the greatest evil of punishment and matter of sorrow on earth, it smelleth not of piety to deny this.

Ans. 1 Tim. 1. 20. I delivered them to Satan. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . It is like to edifying discipline, and agreeable to Paul's use of the rod of discipline, 2 Cor. 10. 8. Though I should boast somewhat more of our authority, which the Lord hath given us for edification, and not for destruction. Now it were safer to give a sense congruous to the intrinsical end of discipline, which was not for destruction of the body, but for the edifying of souls. 2. Yea, so Paul had no less the Sword, then the rod of the Word, Nero had not so heavy a sword, as miraculous killing: Should not Paul speak rather as a Pastor of Christ, then as a bloody Magistrate?

Ans. Nor do we put that necessity on the Sacraments, but where the man is excluded from the Sacraments, for such a sin as if he repent not, he is excluded from Salvation; it concerneth him much to think it a weighty judgment to be excluded from the Seals.

Ans. Erastus