The Divine Right of Church Government and Excommunication

Quest. 6.

Ans. Whether, to be delivered to Satan, be to be put formally in his power, that he may vex the spirit, that the man may be humbled for sin, or if it be to be given to Satan only, consequenter, and cast out of the Church, that is, Christ's office-house of Grace, to live as the world, of which Satan is God and Prince, 2 Cor. 4. 4. Joh. 12. 31. John. 14. 30. It is not much to be disputed: But this reason is against the wisdom of God, who hath appointed that the shame, grief and sorrow of being put out of Christ's family, should exceedingly humble the spirit of any in whom there is anything of God.

And Erastus might as well say to Paul, why dost thou command the Saints not to eat and drink with those that are called brethren, and yet are fornicators, covetous, extortioners, 1 Cor. 4. 11. and such as cause divisions and walk inordinately, as Rom. 16. 17. 2 Thes. 3. 14, 15. and to withdraw from their company? they must then converse only with the slaves of Satan, and the wicked of the world, when they are deprived of the society of the godly, and that is the way to loose them; were it not better to command the just contrary, that the godly should eat, drink and converse with inordinate walkers? for they may turn them from their evil way; for will an unchaste virgin be made chaste by being cast out of her fathers house into a Bordel-house? Will not slaves of Satan rather be healed amongst the children of God, then amongst the wicked?

But Erastus seeth not, that God's aim in this separation, is not only, that the cast out man may be ashamed, 2 Thes. 3. 14, 15. and so humbled and brought to repentance, when he findeth he is deprived of the blessings of the Saints, of their society, Ordinances: But also God hath a higher aim, to the end, the whole lump of Christ's body, be not leavened and infected with the contagion of one man, 1 Cor. 4. 6, 7. Gal. 5. 9. 10.

Ans. This similitude is the holy Ghosts in the very sense we use it, 2 Tim. 2. 17. Their word shall eat as a canker, a Metaphor (as Calvin, Piscator, Marlorate observe) from a rotten member that corrupteth the whole body, and to say, because a man hath reason and so free-will, that he will not be corrupted; whereas the whole member by necessity of nature cannot but be corrupted by a rotten member, is to speak not like a Divine, but as Pelagius speaketh; for except we use the remedy appointed of God, to eschew the contagion of the wicked, and eschew their company, as we are commanded, and as the godly have done, and the wicked have not done, and therefore have been infected with the way of other evil men, Prov. 22. 24. Prov. 5▪ 8, 9. Psa. 26. 4, 5. Esa. 2. 6, 7. Psa. 119. 63. Psa. 139. 21, 22. Rev. 18. 4. 2 Chro. 19. 2. (though we should not actually be corrupted) yet we sin and tempt the Lord, in that we seek a temptation to ourselves; yea, as all the reasons of Erastus are natural and against the wisdom of God in his Ordinances, so expressly this; God forbiddeth his people to marry with the Canaanites, or to make Covenants with them, Exod. 34. 12, &c. Because (saith the Lord) they will ensnare thee, and draw away thy heart after their God's: May not Erastus say, But men have reason and free-will not to consent to the enticing counsels of the Canaanites, though they be joined in Covenant, and marriage with them: Preterea non est necesse sic alios a malis contaminari. 3. It is good, that Erastus granteth, that pertinacious Heretics, because uncurable, may infect others, for so the word expressly saith, what shall be done with them? Erastus granteth they be rotten members: Ergo, either they must, by Excommunication be separated from the body, as we teach, or the body must separate from them; if this latter be said, all that Erastus inferreth against us, shall fall against himself: 1. We shall not need to be infected with the Heresy of such: Utimur ration, We have the Armor of reason and freewill, against this rotten and rotting member, saith Erastus: 2. We shall expose Heretics to the Kingdom of Satan, and the world, by which they shall be hardened in their pernicious Heresies: Beside 3. We make them Hypocrites: 4. I see no warrant Erastus hath to say, That Heretics erring in fundamentals are more contagious and rotten members then slaves of Satan, failing against the second Table: 5. He that is cast out of the Church, though amongst the Turks, is in the world, but not of the world: If he keep the faith, and if he do so, he shall repent and come home to Christ's visible Kingdom, but because he keepeth the faith, yet he is not a member of a visible Church, except he profess it, and repent; for even the sound in faith, if obstinate in Scandals, may deserve Excommunication. 6. There is nothing said against Excommunication in the two last Reasons, but what striketh against Timothy his public rebuking, and threatening wrath against those that sin openly, for they may through their own corruption, so far abuse public threatenings, as they may be led on despair and hypocrisy. Now Erastus as we shall hear, granteth those are to be rebuked openly, who sin openly. 7. We say not to deliver to Satan any man, is to deliver him to the World, but to cast him out of the Church, that consequenter he may be left to the World; but that he should sin, and be led away with the World, is neither the intrinsical end of Excommunication, or of the Church, but an event or end by accident▪ the intrinsical end is the Salvation of the man.

Beza saith, that Paul speaketh of a spiritual punishment, and not of a corporal.

Ans. The instance of Peters killing Ananias is in vain brought in▪ Its but a begging os the question, for it is not said Peter delivered Ananias to Satan, that his Spirit might be saved. Who revealed this secret to Erastus, that Peter used the Ministry of Satan in killing Ananias? We have as good reason to say, Peter delivered Ananias to a good Angel to be killed, as Erastus hath for his dream. 2. We deny not, but God and the Apostles did punish sin with corporal punishment, but let him show without the bounds of the place in controversy; (for we must expound Scripture by Scripture) where ever the Church convened together in the Name of the Lord Jesus, did judge and miraculously kill any member of the Church, that the Spirit may be saved in the day of God.

Beza said, This killing by the people, would be ground of a great Calumnie, to make many say, Christians did usurp the Sword of the Magistrate, and that they were not subject to the Magistrate.

Ans. Yea, But the calumny standeth so long as Erastus giveth to all the people the faith of Miracles to convene and pray that Paul might miraculously kill those that offended the Church, and its probable when the enemies objected to Christians, all they could falsely, they would not have omitted this, that the very people by their prayers meet in one Church-jury, to kill Caesars Subjects. Beza said, The Christian Magistrate should by this kill all the drunkards, fornicators, and the like with the Sword.

Ans. If other sins, as drunkenness, fornication, extortion, do infect the Church, and be scandalous to the very Gentiles, as the Apostle saith of incest, 1 Cor. 5. 1. 6, 7. Upon the same reason Paul should have rebuked them, because they did not from the faith of Miracles pray that Paul might inflict some miraculous judgment by the Ministry of Satan, though less then death for other sins. But I pray you, Paul had either a warrant from God to kill this man, or he had none at all: If he had a warrant, why did he not that which is the part of a miraculous Magistrate without the prayers of the Corinthians? Did Paul chide them, because they prayed not to God that he might do his duty? if he had no warrant at all, Why should he chide the Corinthians, for that they prayed not that he might do a duty, which was not his duty? For that is not Paul's duty, for the doing whereof he hath no warrant from God; if it was his duty only conditionally; 1. What warrant is there in Scripture, to say, Paul should have miraculously killed the incestuous person, upon condition that the Corinthians had by the faith of Miracles, prayed that he might work that miraculous slaughter, which because they did not, Paul was either exonered of that as no duty, or then Paul chided them, because they prayed not to prevene Paul's sinful neglect? 2. How was this revealed to the Corinthians, that they should pray that God by Paul, as by his Magistrate might revenge this incest, and not revenge their fronication, coveteousnes, extortion, Idolatry, especially seeing he saith that, v. 9. He had written to them in another Epistle, not to ke • p company with such? Whence I think it evident, that Paul in another Epistle, had ordained separation of Fornicators, Coveteous persons, and the like, from amongst them, and so censures for all scandalous persons: And how shall we believe he would not teach them to cast out incestuous persons, that are far more scandalous? And if so, he must have written in another Epistle of this miracle, that they were to pray he might work: Is it not evident by this, that Erastus his way, is full of Conjectures and groundless uncertainties. 2. We deny not that the Magistrate may compel men to do their duty; nor doth Beza deny that: But that the Church hath or had any influence in the blood of an incestuous person, and in working of miracles for the bodily destruction of any, is most false, and cannot be proved by this Text: Nor do we think that the Church (the weapons of whose warfare are carnal) can compel any man by corporal punishment, to duties by the Sword; for so their Spiritual way, which is terminated on the Conscience, should lead men to Hypocrisy in profession of the truth, for so reasoneth Erastus; the Magistrate with the Sword rather punisheth sins committed in God's Service, then forceth to duties: The fifth Argument of Beza is vindicated already.

Ans. 1. Here Erastus doth more fully reveal the vileness of his opinion, for he granteth the intrinsical end of this miraculous killing, is not the Salvation of the man's soul, but the revenging of the wickedness of the sin, for the terror of others: Which is 1. Contrary to the Text, which saith, He was to be delivered to Satan▪ 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that the spirit may be saved. This noteth that the intrinsical end of this delivering to Satan, was the Salvation of the man's soul: But the Text saith nothing of Erastus his end, that others may be terrified, though that may be an end. It is a wonder to me, that since Erastus granteth the man repented, even when Paul did in this Chapter chide with the Corinthians, that they delivered him not to Satan: For Erastus saith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , He that hath done this deed, not he that continueth pertinaciously in it (saith he:) hence it is clear, that he repented at this time: How doth Paul chide them for not delivering a repenting man to the Devil? that his Spirit may be saved; if he repented, his spirit was saved; Ergo, Paul was in the fault, and chid them without reason; if they say, though he did repent, yet for example to terrify others he should have been killed, 2 Cor. 2. saith, He was not killed; and Erastus saith it; Ergo, yet Paul failed, and they also. 3. It is against the intrinsical end of that power which Erastus saith is miraculous: For Paul saith the end of that power is for Edification, not for Destruction, 2 Cor. 10. 8. Now the intrinsical end of bodily killing, is peace, and terror to others, that they may be afraid to do so anymore▪ But the intrinsical end, and finis operis, is not Edification, but finis operantis only, for acts of Magistrates are not acts of the first Table which kindly, and per se, regardeth edification, but acts of the second Table, if their souls be saved who die, for their enormous crimes by the hand of the Magistrate: It is not from the violent death, as if it were an intrinsical mean and ordinance appointed of God for conversion: But because God giveth to those who die that way, repentance. Yea, it is no more a mean of saving of the soul, then if they should die in their beds by some disease.

To the examples of Hymenaeus and Alexander, that they were not killed miraculously, I answered before. Erastus addeth no new reply to Beza.

Quest. 7.

Ans. I hold that learned Beza hath well expounded the leaven here; he compareth the scandals of wicked men to leaven, the holiness of the Saints to unleavened bread, and the public Congregation to the feast of the Passover, and Excommunication or putting away to the removing of the leaven; for a scandalous man corrupteth the whole Church: so the Jews and Rabbin's, as Buxtorfius saith, that the Rabbins call natural concupiscence, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Rabbi Alexander said after his Prayer: Lord, It is known to thee that it is my will to do thy will: But what retardeth me? the leaven in the mass or lump, and Buxtorfius citeth the same place, 1 Cor. 5. 6. and Gal. 5. 9. And least we should think that he meant nothing but natural concupiscense; he saith in the Targum, They take the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for wickedness and folly; he citeth Medraseh Koheleth, cap. 7. ver. 8. except R. Samuel, had been long suffering, The Persian that he taught, had returned to folly, or his old wickedness. Paul saith the same, Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump: He speaketh to the Church convened. 2. The comparison runneth so, that the Corinthians were to purge out the old leaven of wickedness, and cast out the incestuous man, that they might be a new lump; and this if it must always be done, far more when they are to celebrate that feast that came in place of the passover: Nor is the Apostle only Teaching what they could not lawfully do, all their life, as they were single Christians, but what was their duty as Christians, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 convened together in a Church way, for Paul doth not command one single Christian to cast him out, but he commandeth the Church, gathered together in the name of the Lord Jesus, with Paul's spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, ver. 4. 5. To purge out, not the leaven of sin in themselves, but the man, ver. 2. That he that hath done this deed may be put out, and ver. 7. Purge out the old leaven, and that the Apostles precept is to cast out the man, he saith it in express terms, ver. 13. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Cast out that wicked man from amongst you, and ver. 12. They were to judge him, as one that is within: 2. Because without convening together in their daily conversation, they were to purge the leaven of m • lice out of their heart, it were a ridiculous thing for Paul to command them to convene altogether, to lead a godly life: 3. There was no need that they should convene with Paul's spirit, and in the name and power of our Lord Jesus Christ to lead a godly life, and for a personal purging of every man his own soul from this leaven. 4. They were to judge this man, ver. 12. Therefore this cannot be meant of a personal judging everyone of themselves, but of a Churchjudging of an offender. 5. If Erastus grant that Paul expoundeth the Ceremony of leaven, and putting away leaven in the Passover: Let him see how he can apply this to killing of every single man that liveth wickedly: We apply it to the casting out of the scandalous out of the Church, as leaven was to be put out of the houses of all who were to eat the passover.

Ans. There is no ground that God any way would have them to be killed, that did eat unleavened bread, and that we find none for that cause ever killed, is much for us: for then God did not execute any such Law, which (as Erastus saith) was broken by many: It is like God never made any such Law: 2. Because it is said, he shall be cut off, who eateth leavened bread, it followeth not that therefore this was done immediately by God; for it is said, Lev. 18. 29. Whosoever doth any of these abominations, even the soul that committeth them, shall be cut off from amongst the people; if that be killing; it is known, the Magistrate was to kill such as committed incest, & did lie with beasts: But Vatablus expoundeth it of Excommunication, thus, Id est, Deus non agnoscet illum tanquam Israelitam & circumcisum: and Vatablus understood the Hebrew Tongue better, then Erastus who professeth he understandeth nothing of it. 3. That which Erastus saith of Paul, That God himself killed these at Corinth, who did eat and drink unworthily; may as well insinuate the Magistrate should kill with the sword, all that communicateth unworthily (which is absurd) as it can prove, that those that eat leavened bread were immediately killed of God.

Ans. 1. This is Erastus his Argument, not the Argument of Beza, for eating of leaven signifieth a scandalous and openly wicked man; and if this be the Assumption, it is true, but the Syllogism so formed, shall conclude against Erastus: 2. It is certain that God commandeth the Priests not to violate his holy things, Ezech. 22. 26, Hag. 2. 11. 12. Ezech. 44. 8, 9, 10, 11. Else how failed they in keeping the charge of the Lord, in not differencing between the clean and the unclean? Now to eat the passover with leavened bread is an express violation of the holy things of God, Exod. 12. ver. 8. You shall eat the flesh in that night, roast with fire and unleavened bread, ver. 11. And thus shall ye eat it —ver. 15. Seven days shall ye eat unleavened bread, even the first day, ye shall put away leaven out of your houses: 2. He that is unclean is forbidden to eat the passover, Lev. 9. 13. The clean only is to keep it: And he that is clean, and not on a journey, and keepeth it not, that man shall bear his sin; Ergo, the unclean are excepted; and he who is sanctified according to the purification of the sanctuary only by the Law, is to eat, 2 Chro. 3 • . 9. Therefore Hezekiah prayed that God would pardon them that were not so cleansed, ver. 18. To crave pardon presupposeth a sin, Num. 9. 3, 4, 5, 6. But so it is, That he that eateth unleavened bread in any of these seven days, was unclean, and to be cut off for his uncleanness, and transgressed this Ceremonial Law, Exod. 12. 8. 15. Levite. 9▪ 13. Ergo, he was not to be admitted to the holy things of God, except the Priests and those who had the charge of the Passover▪ should know him to be purified, Ezech. 22. 26. Hag. 2. 11, 12. And we know it was the Priests part to pronounce any clean or unclean, & that the passover was one of the chief of the holy things of God. 3. Erastus his conjecture, That he that did eat leavened bread, was not to absent himself from the Passover; but to come tali modo, according to the Law: As the child that clattereth in time of Sermon, is not bidden be absent from the Sermon, may prove as well that no unclean, no heathen, or uncircumcised, are forbidden to eat the Passover; for no Law of God forbiddeth either to eat the Passover, except this, that only the circumcised and the unclean were forbidden; when the Lord in his Law putteth an express and a differencing, or discriminative character on those that eat, to wit, that they be circumcised and clean who shall eat; Ergo, God, in that putteth an evident inhibition on those that are uncircumcised heathen and unclean, that they are not to eat, as when God Commandeth every Male to be circumcised; we infer then no Female were to be circumcised. And by this means the uncircumcised Moabite, the Philistine, were not by the Priests and Porters debarred out of the Temple, or from the Passover, so they would be circumcised and turn Jews: Even as the child is not excluded by a command of the Master from hearing Sermon, only he is forbidden to clatter in time of Sermon: But a Jew was both forbidden uncleanness Ceremonial by an express Law, and by another Law he was forbidden to come to the Passover; and a heathen, as heathen, was both forbidden to eat, and the Priests forbidden to admit him.

Ans. 1. We contend not, that debarring of men from any one Ordinance, was signified by putting away of the Leaven: But that by putting of leaven from their houses and Table, was typified (as Paul here expoundeth it) the putting of a wicked person out the midst of the Church, 1 Cor. 5. 2. compared with ver. 5, 6, 7. 13. If the Feast of unleavened bread, typified all our life that we should be holy; yet it had a special relation to our Purification, when we did partake of the most holy Ordinances of God, such as was the Passover then, and to us the Lord's Supper: Else, Erastus might say, God hath forbidden single Christians to live at all, except they lived holily, which is a vain conceit. It is not lawful to Erastus to put significations on types, it his will; and therefore that that Feast pointed out holiness all our life, is utterly denied; for eating of leavened bread, except in these days forbidden, was not a sin, nor any Ceremonial type at all, no more then our common bread and wine are signs of Christ's body and blood. 2. Paul compareth the Feast to the lump of the Visible Church; so as the leaven was to be removed out of all houses of Israel; because it did Ceremonially infect, corrupt, and leaven them, and so was to be purged; so did the in •• stuons man, leaven the Visible Church of Corinth, and was to be purged out: Nor do I contend, that the Lord's Supper here is meant, though I know no solemn Spiritual Feast that the visible Church now hath, but the Supper of the Lord: But rather I understand, Church-Communion in the dain • ies of the Gospel, which are set forth to us under the similitude of a Feast, Matth. 22. Luke 14. 16, 17, 18, &c. Prov. 9. 2, 3, 4, 5. Cant. 5. 1.

Ans. The Leaven of the Passover, signified so impurity, as we are to put out the person that leaveneth the Church, out of the Church, as they were to put leaven out of the house; and not only simply, not to eat it; so are we not only, not to eat and drink with a scandalous man, but he is to be reputed no member of the Church, but a leavening and contagious man; and therefore Paul doth not here, as Erastus dreameth, show what way everyone in his own personal practice and duty, as a single Christian is to do, that he may save his own soul; and therefore everyone was to celebrate a Christian Passover in his own soul, laying aside the leaven of malice: Though I grant, That Paul, ver. 8. doth infer and draw a conclusion of a personal purging out of the leaven of malice and hypocrisy out of every man's heart: But Paul doth expressly command the Corinthians as a convened Church, to put out from amongst them another man, for the saving of that other man's soul: And what they should do in a Church society toward the man, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Who hath done this, to wit, down right they should Judge him, Cast him out, purge him out as a leavening piece. And the world cannot give any other meaning of the words, then that, as the Jews were to put all leaven from amongst them, when they were to celebrate their Passover: So the Corinthians were to exercise the like work, upon this incestuous man, and to put him out from amongst them, as one delivered to Satan, as a lump of sour leaven; and we seek no more for Excommunication. 2. Leaven signifieth Matth. 13. good, the Kingdom of God is compared to leaven: But here it is corruption of contagious scandal in this incestuous man; and such leaven as is to be cast out, and purged away. Now, I hope, we must not purge out, and cast away the Kingdom of heaven: and Matth. 16. 6. The leaven of the corrupt and false Doctrine of Pharisees and Sadducees, that corrupteth the hearts of men, is meant, and of this leaven we are to beware: But why doth Erastus strive to bring the reader in a good opinion of leaven, which Paul would have us to detest? I know not a reason, but because the place is so evident for the casting out of an incestuous man from amongst the Corinthians, lest he should infect the flock, and that by the Church convened together in the name and power of Christ, that his soul may be saved; and this is the very excommunication that we assert. 3. This leaven, (saith he) may signify natural corruption: Now Erastus putteth us to (a may be,) but (a may be) will not do it: For the Text saith not, I hope, by Erastus his confession, that the poor man must be delivered to Satan, that is, miraculously killed, for natural concupiscence. All the world thus are delivered to Satan, as being heirs of wrath for sin Original, at least in demerit. 2. The man was not judged, purged out, and cast out, as leaven that soured the Church, for natural corruption. 3. Paul offendeth not with them, that they were puffed and mourned not for the man's Original sin, but for his actual wickedness, because he had gone in to his fathers wife, an Abomination that the Gentiles are ashamed to name.

Ans. We denied that those that eat leavened bread with the Passover were killed, but only excommunicated and cut off from the congregation: God never subjected any to the sword, for that cause. 2. We deny that therefore by proportion the incestuous man should be killed; by what consequence will Erastus prove that those that gathered sticks on the Lord's day, those that are stubborn to Father or Mother, those who commit fornication now in the Israel of God under the New Testament, must be stened to death by the Magistrate, or miraculously killed by the Apostles? it must be by the same consequence, that Erastus reasoneth here. But did God kill immediately any offenders at all for original sin, someone more nor other? as Erastus dreameth this man was killed. 3. What warrant hath Erastus that the Devil killeth any one of the visible Church now under the New Testament, and any of the children of God, whose spirit are saved in the day of the Lord? proferat tabulas. Erastus saith it, neither Prophet nor Apostle in the Old or New Testament ever said it.

Ans. Where the Holy Ghost giveth the sense, it is false, saith Beza. 2. Why doth then Erastus conclude miraculous killing from the Types of the Old Testament?

Ans. The word Excommunication may be by the Church used as the Word, Sacrament, Trinity. But the thing is not ours, but an ordinance of Jesus Christ. 2. Paul saith in this very place, as Israel were to put away leaven in their Passover, so is the convened Church of Corinth in the name and power of Christ to put out, judge and purge out a corrupting and leavening incestuous man, and this is all we seek for Excommunication.

Ans. We are not in such need of that interpretation, as to put the name of the one for the other. But let Erastus show where he readeth that the thing, to wit, that the one Sacrament succeeded to the other; and Beza may thence infer his point, if God would have no man to eat the Passover with leavened bread, and if eating of leavened bread, and bread it self was to be put out of all the houses of Israel, thereby signifying that incestuous and scandalous persons are to be cast out of the Church, and so from the Sacraments; let Erastus see what Beza hath said amiss here.

Ans. Reverend Beza saith thesetwo were by-past benefits remembered in that Sacrament: But we have the Holy Ghost expounding that • he putting away of leavened bread, did typify the purging out of the incestuous men, and other scandalous persons out of the Church, which is our point, otherwise let Erastus show us what is meant by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the whole Mass and lump, for it signifieth either one single man; Or 2. The Mass and body of the visible Church, of which the incestuous man was a Member; or some third thing, which Erastus and his followers must teach us. Now the whole lump can neither signify the incestuous man, nor any other single member of the Church. Not the incestuous man, 1. He was not the whole lump in danger to be leavened, for he was the leaven, then he was not the lump in danger to be leavened; for the one is the agent infecting, the other the patient infected. The whole lump was the thing out of which the leaven was to be removed, the terminus à quo, the incestuous man was to be purged out, therefore the leaven cannot signify wickedness in abstracto, as Erastus saith, but the wicked man in concreto; for the leaven must signify that which is cast out, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , out of the midst of them, v. 2. Now this was not incest, but the man that had his fathers wife, and had done that deed. 2. Again, the leaven was the person to be delivered to Satan, that had a soul to be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. But wickedness in abstracto is not delivered to Satan, nor hath it a Spirit to be saved in the day of the Lord. 3. The leaven is such a one as is to be judged, as is within the Church, v. 12. and is called a brother, with whom we are not to eat, v. 11. now this cannot be said of wickedness in abstracto. But neither can the whole lump be one single man; 1. One single man needed not the solemn convening of the Church in the Name and power of the Lord Jesus, for his personal purging, for his personal purging is not a Church-act, but an act of a man's daily conversation and Christian walking. 2. The purging out, and the casting out is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , v. 2 out of the midst of them, then there was a society to be purged; Ergo, not a single man only. Much more I said before, which cannot but mist Erastus, or any his followers, except they expound this whole lump to be the body of the visible Church of Corinth. 2. So Gal. 5. 9. he addeth v. 10. he that troubleth you, (the lump in danger to be leavened,) shall bear his judgment, v. 12. I would they were cut off that trouble you. Then the whole Churches of Galatia were the troubled lump, & so it must be here, if this truth be so convincing out of the Text, let any Erastian extricate himself, if he can deny, but here is a Church-lump, a Church of Rulers 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 gathered together in the Name and power of the Lord Jesus, that purgeth out of it self leaven, not wickedness, in abstracto, as I have demonstrated, but a wicked man named a brother, lest he leaven the whole Church, to the end his Spirit may be saved; Judge reader, if this be not name, nature and thing, of that which Erastians deny, to wit, of Excommunication. I humbly provoke them to make good sense of the 1 Cor. 5. and show me what is the wicked man. 2. The casting out of the midst of you. 3. The saving of his Spirit. 4. The convened together court, instructed with the Name, and authority, and power of Christ, and if this be not a Church power, efficacion, and authoritative, being steeled with the power of the Head of the Church. 5. What is the leaven? 6. What is the act of leavening? 7. What is the whole lump? 8. What is the purging out, putting out, and judging of the man? 3. We know Erastus denieth any Church Government at all, but some acts of punitive justice in the Magistrate. But the Churches praying, consenting that a scandalous person shall be delivered to Satan, or some other ways punished by the Christian Magistrate, are acts of Church government, so proper to the Church, as the Magistrate as the Magistrate, cannot exercise such Acts.

Ans. That word of a judge killing a man for Murder, Sirra, I will teach you other manners then to kill, can no ways be ascribed to Paul, who doth not scoff so at taking away men's lives. Paul who wished to be separated from Christ, for the contumacious Jews, and would not kill any by Satan, since his rod and power was for edification, 2 Cor. 10. 8. and that the Spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord, 1 Cor. 5. 5. he speaketh more gravely and less imperiously, and without boasting and jeering in a matter of Salvation. 2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that they may be instructed or disciplined not to blaspheme; cannot be simply that they may blaspheme no more, because killed by the Devil. For 1. let Erastus in the Old or New Testament produce a parallel place for that Exposition, where the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to be instructed is ascribed to the dead; but this is a common fault in all Erastus his expositions of Scripture, that they want all ground in Scripture, as let me put upon all the followers of Erastus to give a parallel to this Exposition of Mat. 18. Let him be to thee, that is, to thee only, when Christ speaketh of a general Rule of all that scandalizeth. 2. Let him be as a Heathen. Give a place of Scripture for this. 1. Let him be as such Heathen only as acknowledge Caesar, and his Deputies for lawful Judges. 2. A parallel for this we seek, Let him be as a Heathen, that is, convene him before an heathen Judge. 3. What Scripture expoundeth delivering to Satan for edification, and not destruction, 1 Cor. 5. to be a Magistratical killing by the power of the Devil, that others may fear. 4. Put out, purge out, judge those only that are within, are expounded by Erastus, pray for a miraculous destruction by the devil, as the lictor and hangman of the Apostle, that none may be killed miraculously for enormous scandals, no not such as Elimas the sorcerer, who was never within the Church; but those that are within: And did the company of the Saints, pray with the Saints, that signs and wonders, and so miraculous killing might be wrought, not on any but on those that are within the visible Church, not on the enemies, and Jews haters of Christ, and without the Christian Churches, when the Apostles miraculously escaped out of their prisons? Act. 4. 29, 30. Act. 5. 19, 20, 21, 22. Act. 12. 7, 8, 9. Act. 16. 25, 26. 27, 28? I might allege many other such like interpretations of Erastus. 5. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the New Testament, signifieth to instruct and chastise the living, never any such thing is ascribed to the dead. Gal. 5. 22, 30. Tit. 2. 20. Rev. 3. 19. Heb. 12. 10. Luk. 23. 16, 22. 2. Cor, 6▪ 9. Act. 22. 3. Act. 7. 22. as they that are taught to sin no more by being killed. 6. Robert Stephan. citeth in the margent, 1 Cor. 5. 5. to expound it of excommunicating of Hymenaeus and Alexander, so doth Piscator, so Calvin, Beza, Marlorat, so Vatablus saith, Quos eje • i ex ecclesia et censui magis dignos esse ecclesia Satane quam Christi, si non resipiscant. 7. Beza De Presbyt. p. 87. learnedly observeth that it is no Grammar; for if the effect of learning not to blaspheme be suspended upon the miraculous killing of Alexander, then he was first killed, & then learned not to blaspheme. But so Paul could have said he was killed, ut non blasphameret, that he might not blaspheme, not that he might learn not to blaspheme.

Quest. 8.

BEsides other arguments from Mat. 18. and 1 Cor. 5. for excommunication, we argue thus: Those upon whom the Church is to put such a public note of shame or a 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , as they are to withdraw from their company, and not to eat and drink with them, those are cast out of the Church, and so cut off from the body of Christ, and excommunicated.

But the Church is to put such a note of shame, as to withdraw from the company of, and not to eat with those that are named brethren, and yet are fornicators, covetous, idolaters, extortioners, railers, 1 Cor. 5. 11. and cause divisions and offenses contrary to the Doctrine of the Gospel, who serve not the Lord Jesus, but their own belly, Rom. 16. 17, 18▪ who walk disorderly, are busy-bodies, idle, and obey not the Doctrine of the Apostles. 2 Thes. 3. 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, Ergo.

The proposition I prove, 1 Cor. 5. 11. he saith, v. 9. I wrote to you in an Epistle, not to keep company with fornicators, the same word that in the abstract is spoken of the incestuous man, v. 1. by which it is clear Paul had forbidden any company with such incestuous men. Now he had not forbidden them to keep company with dead men, if the man was to be miraculously killed, Ergo, it was his will before, that such a one should be judged, and put out, else he could not so sharply rebuke them, for not casting him out, and if now only he had first taught, and written to them to cast him out: as if excommunication had been in this same very Chapter instituted by Paul, and v. 11. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 now I have written unto you, not to keep company with one named a brother, who is a fornicator; this must be in the same Chapter, for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 now I have written, must be in relation to this v. 9. I wrote unto you in a Epistle before: now if here at this present he wrote to them, not to keep company with him, it must be when he commandeth to cast him out v. 13. and to judge him v. 12. so that not to keep company with such fornicators, must necessarily presuppose a casting out, and that the fornicator, with whom we are not to keep company in a familiar manner, is a man cast out of the Church, and so excommunicated. 2. Paul would never forbid brotherly familiarity with any remaining a brother, a member of the Church, and of a body with us in visible profession of the truth, as partakers of one body and blood of Christ, as all the members of the Church eating at one Lord's table are, 1. Cor. 10. 16, 17. 3. The Apostle saith such a fornicator is but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 named▪ a brother, and so in the esteem of the Church no brother, and so not of the visible body of Christ. 4. Paul bringeth in this as a reason why they should cast out the incestucus man, v. 9. did not (saith he) I write to you before, and do I not now write, v. 11. even now that you are not to k • ep intimate familiarity with such titular brethren, who are brethren in name only? Therefore put out from amongst you this man, v. 13. the Apostles argument to infer they ought to judge, and put such a man out of the Church; because they are not to eat with him, were of no weight, if this • schewing of familiarity with one who is a brother only in name, did not infer the Churches casting of him ou • .

Ans. This is to beg the question, Erastus should teach us how Paul's argument cohereth; for the text saith, he must be cast out; why? you must not eat with him; then he supposeth he must be a living man, for Paul needed not fear they would eat with dead men, nor can this be Paul's consequence; you are not to eat with the incestuous, Ergo, he must be delivered to Satan, that he may be miraculously killed; for that is a false consequence, for then all covetous persons, all drunkards▪ all idolaters, all extortioners, should have been killed by Paul, because with none of these we are to eat.

Ans. 1. Let the reader judge whether Erastus resuteth Paul, or Beza, Paul forbiddeth to eat with a brother; that is a fornicator: Erastus saith, he forbiddeth no such thing. 2. Though I think Christians may eat with heathens, 1. Cor. 10. 27. and that Paul did eat with heathen; yet it is no argument to say, it is therefore lawful to eat with one cast out of the Church, because we may eat with heathens to gain them, and we are not bidden abstain from heathens company, that they may be ashamed of their religion, (though Christians are to use no heathens with intimate familiarity as we do our brethren in Christ;) But we are to eschew entire fellowship with a scandalous and cast out brother, to gain him, that he may be ashamed, 2 Thes. 3. 14. and in this a scandalous brother is in worse case then a heathen: But in other respects he is in better condition, as being under the medicine of the Church.

3. Though we may have commerce, and buy and • ell with heathens, and neglect no duty • of humanity to them, as to receive them into our house, and to be hospital to them, Heb. 13. 2. Job 31. 32. Yet this will conclude entire fellowship with neither heathen, or scandalous brethren; Yea, we are not to receive a false teacher into our house, 2. John. ver. 10. Yet are we not forbidden to neglect duties of common humanity to false Teachers, though we be forbidden entireness of Brotherly fellowship with them.

Ans. 1. It is true, that avoiding of the company of scandalous Brethren, hath in it something civil; but it is a censure-spiritual, and a Church-censure, two ways: 1. Objectively, in its tendency, Respectu termini ad quem. 2. Effectively, in its rise and cause, Respectu termini à quo, it is a spiritual censure Objectively, because it tendeth to make the party ashamed, that he may repent, and become a Brother with whom we are to converse; and therefore is destinated for no civil use, but for the good of his soul, that is a member of a Church, that he may return to what he was. 2. This censure, though one private Brother may exercise it upon another, yea, a woman on a man, who yet hath no Authority over the man, is notwithstanding in its rise and efficient cause, a Church-censure. 1. If Christ will not have one Brother to condemn another, while first he rebuke him; and if he be not convinced, while he do the same before two or three witnesses; and if he yet be not gained, one private Brother may not after conviction, before two or three witnesses repute him as a Heathen, or complain of him before an Heathen Judge, as Erastus saith; How shall we imagine any one single Brother may withdraw Brotherly fellowship from another Brother, by his own private Authority, while he first be sentenced before the Church? And the Church shall convince him to walk disorderly, to cause divisions and offenses, to be a Fornicator, a Covetous person, and so to be unworthy of the entire Brotherly fellowship of another? For if this order were not in the Church, every Brother might take up a prejudice at his Brother, and so break all bands of Religious Communion, and Brotherly fellowship, and dissolve and make ruptures in the Churches: Now certain it is, These Texts, Rom. 16. 17, 18. 2 Thes. 3. 11, 12, &c▪ in the letter, intimate no such order as is Matth. 18. But it is presupposed, as clear by other Scriptures, we are not to withdraw from an offending Brother, but after such an order: Now the places in the letter, except we expound them by other Scriptures, do not bear that we are to rebuke our Brother, before we withdraw from him, contrary to Levite. 19. 17. 2. If I am to withdraw from a Brother, all Brotherly fellowship by these places; then I am to esteem him as a Heathen, and as a Brother in name, not in reality, 1 Cor. 5. 11. Whereas once I esteemed him a Brother, and did keep Brotherly fellowship with him; now this is materially Excommunication▪ I do no more in this kind to one who is formally Excommunicated; yea, I am not so strange to a Heathen; Ergo, This I must have done upon some foregoing sentence of the Church, otherwise, I might un-Church and un-Brother the man whom the Church neither hath, nor can, un-Church and un-Brother. 3. Eschewing of Brotherly fellowship to any, is an act of Government distinct from the Preaching of the Word, tending to make a Brother that walketh disorderly ashamed, that he may repent, and of a Brother in name only, may become a Brother in reality, 2 Thes. 3. 14. But this act of Government belongeth not to the Christian Magistrate; for every Brother (saith Erastus ) may exercise it toward his Brother; Ergo, here is Church-Government that the Magistrate hath no hand in, contrary to the way of Erastus, and not in the hands of Pastors, for it is distinct from Preaching; nor is it in a College of Pastors, Doctors, and Elders, for Erastus denieth any such College; Ergo, here everyone must govern another, the man the woman, and the woman the man; the son the father, if he walk unorderly, and the Father the Son; this can be nothing, but the greatest Confusion on Earth. 4. To put any to shame, especially publicly, by way of punishment for public sins, must come from some Judges, or others armed with Authority, Judge. 18. 7. 1 Cor. 4. 14. 1 Cor. 6. 5. 1 Cor. 25. 34. Then the Apostles sense cannot be, that everyone hath power of himself without the Church, or any authority there from to put his brother to shame; for when a brother is not to eat with a scandalous brother, he must be convinced by the Church to be scandalous, and so cast our, 1 Cor. 5. 11, 12, 13. as we have proved before, and every man here should be his own judge, and party in his own cause, except he put his brother to some shame by an higher authority then his own. The word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , is to put a public note or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 upon the offender. So Stephanus. So Piscator, Nota ignominiosâ excommunicationis. Pomponius laetus de Magistr. Rom. • . 21. Censores quinto • quo{que} anno creari solebant, hic prorsus cives sic notabantur, ut qui Senator esset ejece • etur Senatu, qui eques Romanus equum publicum perderet, &c. Mathaeus Harnish & Gec. Gabellus, who add to Zanchius his Commentary in 2 Thes. say, Est not • quâdam insignire, et in aliquem animadvertere; ut censores apud Romanos notare aliquem solebant, they expound it the public note of Excommunication. Beza saith it is not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to signify and declare, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 notate, & veluti inustâ not â compungite. So Calvin, Marlorat.

And I wonder that Erastus can say with any, that it is in our power to converse, or not to converse with wicked men; are we not discharged by God's Spirit to converse with them? As we are commanded to eat and drink at the Lord's Table, and is it in our power morally to obey, or disobey any Commandment of God? Except Erastus will say with Papists, that God doth here give counsels, not commands, Rom. 16. 17. 2 Thes. 3. 14. 1 Cor. 5. 9, 11.

And whereas Erastus saith, Paul will have us 2 Thes. 3. 15. to admonish this man as a brother; Ergo, In holy things, and in the Sacraments▪ that are helps of piety and Salvation, we are not to • ast him off: It is true, the cast out man is not to be reputed as an enemy, but a brother. Yet a sick and diseased brother, under the roughest Medicine of the Church, to wit, the rod of Excommunication, that the Spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord. But withdrawing of brotherly fellowship, is not a mere civil unbrothering of him, for if the brotherly fellowship of Christians must be spiritual, religious, and for the edifying of one another's souls, for exhorting one another, to prevent hardening of heart, for provoking one another to love, and to good works, to teach one another, to comfort and support one another, as we are expressly commanded by the Holy Ghost, Heb. 3. 13. Heb. 10. 24. Col. 3. 16. 1 Thess. 5. 11, 14. Mal. 3. 16. Jer. 50. 5. Zach. 8. 22. Psal. 42. 4. I wonder where Erastus learned this Divinity, to say, the denying of this edifying Communion to a scandalous brother, while he be ashamed and repent, Is to deny nothing that belongeth to his salvation: Admonition is but one of twenty comfortable acts of Communion, which we deny not to him, least the man should despair, and we should cast off all care, hope, or intention to save his soul, whereas the genuine and intrinsical intention of avoiding him, and casting him out of the Church, is, that he may be saved: Lastly, we deny not admonition, and preaching of the word to the man, thus cast out, because they be converting Ordinances, simply necessary to work the man's humiliation and repentance; but the Lord's Supper is a confirming Ordinance, and denied to the excommunicated while he is in that condition upon that very reason, that it is denied to Pagans and Heathens; and though it be an help of piety, it is no help either to a Pagan, or an excommunicate man, but damnation: But it may be, the excommunicate man hath faith. I answer, To us in the Court of the Church, in which the Seals are dispensed, he hath no more then a Heathen hath; and therefore, in confirming Ordinances, he is looked on by the Church as an Heathen; and if the reason of Erastus be good, The Church is to deny no helps of godliness and salvation to him, though we deny private food to his body, because the Sacraments are necessary helps. Then 1. I much doubt, if the Church be to deny the necessary helps of godliness and salvation to a Pagan living amongst us; Ergo, shall we not deny the Sacraments to a Pagan? 2. We are not to avoid his company, and deny the edifying acts of Communion, which I named before, for these are necessary helps of salvation. 3. It is not the man's sin by this reason, That he eateth and drinketh unworthily; for if it be not the Churches sin to give him the seals, because the Seals are adminiclees and helps of piety, and saving of the soul; by the same reason, it is not the man's sin to receive the Lord's Supper, for it must be equally an help of godliness and salvation to the Communicant receiving, as to the Church giving: Now Paul saith, 1 Cor. 11. He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh to himself judgment. So Erastus teacheth us, that it may be a sin to Swine publicly known to be such, to receive pearls, when it is no sin, but the Churches duty to give these pearls to such known Swine, which is most absurd and impious.

Ans. Erastus acknowledgeth this to be no new Argument; therefore we may pass it, it is the chief pillar of his opinion: But I put it in form thus, to Erastus.

Those whom God inviteth to repentance, those he will not exclude from the Sacraments: But now under the Gospel, he inviteth all, even many Pagans and Heathen to repentance, 1 Tim. 2. 4. God will have all, even Heathen Magistrates, to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth, so Act. 17. 30. God now commandeth all men, everywhere, even the Idolaters, and blind Philosophers at Athens, who erected an Altar to the unknown God, ver. 23. and who jeered at the Doctrine of the Resurrection, ver. 32. even those God inviteth to repentance; Ergo, God excludeth not Pagans from the Sacraments; but the conclusion is absurd and blasphemous; therefore so must one of the premises be, but the Assumption is Scripture; Ergo, The Major Proposition of Erastus must be blasphemous. God inviteth scorners to repentance, and rebukes are means of repentance; Ergo, we may rebuke scorners; God's spirit saith, Rebuke not a scorner, Prov. 9. 7, 8. His Proposition then must be, Those whom God inviteth to repentance, those God excludeth not from any mean of piety and sanctity: It is most false, God inviteth Dogs and Swine to repentance, and commandeth them to be holy, and the pearls of the Gospel are means of repentance, and holiness: Must we therefore, Cast pearls to dogs and swine? The contrary our Savior enjoineth, Matth. 7. 6. 2. Moses, Deut. 14. 1. forbiddeth diverse Ceremonies and Sacraments of the Heathen by this Argument: Ye are the children of the Lord your God; and he saith expressly, that the stranger may eat some unclean thing, but the Lord saith to them, You shall not do so, for thou art an holy people to the Lord thy God: Whence it is evident Moses saith point blank contrary to Erastus; for Moses saith, that Ceremonies and Sacraments are for this end, to draw only the holy and sanctified people of God, to a further love and study of true piety and sanctity; was not the eating of the Passover a mean of Repentance, as well as the eating of the Lord's Supper? no question, but God invited the uncircumcised to repentance, but forbiddeth them to eat the Passover.

Beza said, Sinners were indeed called to the sacrifices, but such as professed repentance.

Ans. We are not willing to hold up a needless controversy with Erastus; but Erastus saith, and his Arguments conclude in the Old Testament, None for Moral uncleanness, and impenitency were debarred from the holy things of God; Ergo, We are to debar none in the New Testament; yea, 2. Paul did never command to debar any, nor did Christ debar Judas, nor the Pharisees debar the • ewdest Publicans, nor the Apostles Simon Magus from the Sacraments; Ergo, saith he, we are to debar none at all: now here Erastus clearly contradicteth himself, and saith, We dispute only of such as acknowledge their • ins and promise amendment: But let Erastus say, Did Judas acknowledge his • in and promise amendment: Did all the morally unclean in Corinth, such as repented not of their uncleanness, and fornication, and lasciviousness which they committed, 2 Cor. 12. 21. acknowledge their sin, and promise amendment? and did those that were partakers of the Table of Devils acknowledge their sin and promise amendment? And yet I brought the very words of Erastus, in which he saith right down in a Catholic assertion, without exception, not any of those are to be debarred from the Sacraments: Why? The Sacraments (saith he) are Adminicula pi • tatis, et resipiscentiae, are helps to godliness and repentance: And I ask of Erastus, doth the Lord invite none to repentance, but those that do acknowledge their sin and promise amendment? And will Erastus have helps of repentance denied to all those who acknowledge not their sins? then let him give us Arguments in the Old or New Testament, by which he can demonstrate, that those who acknowledge not their sins, and promise not amendment, are debarred in the Old Testament, from all the holy things of God, and in the New, from the Sacraments: Let Erastus extricate himself if he can.

It is worthy consideration, whether Erastus will have all those only that acknowledged their sins and repent, admitted to the holy things of God in the Old Testament; if not, he must show a difference, why pearls might be cast to Swine, and scorners rebuked, and holy things profaned by the uncircumcised & profane in the Old Testament, not in the New: this he shall not show, if they were debarred who repented not, how saith he in all his book, that none were debarred from the holy things of God in the Old Testament for Moral uncleanness?

Ans. 1. Elsewhere I have proved from Scripture, that the Priests did try judicially, those for whom they offered Sacrifice: If the Leaper had not bidden so many days as the Law required, if the Priests should offer for him, he should be partial in the Law, and if the disease be not removed, he cannot offer for him, Matth. 8. 4. Lev. 14. 3, 4 9▪ 10, 11, 12▪

2. Observe good Reader, How craftily Erastus passeth from one question to another: All his Arguments hitherto, both in his Thesis and in his Book, conclude that no man, in either Old, or New Testament, ever was, or ought to be debarred from the holy things of God: Because there is neither precept, nor promise, nor practice in Moses, in the Prophets, or Apostles for it: 2. Because, The Sacraments are helps of repentance. 3. Because all are invited and commanded to come. Now here Erastus flieth to another Question: Whether the unworthy should be debarred by Priests in the Old, and by certain select and chosen Elders in the New Testament? This is a far other Question: for let him answer our Arguments, by which we prove that pearls and the holy things of God, ought to be denied to all Dogs, Swine, and profane men, whereas Erastus saith, all those are invited to come; and then we shall yoke with Erastus, or any other, by whom, or by whose authority these pearls ought to be denied: whether by the Church, that is, by the Elders of the Church, and people consenting, or by the civil Magistrate. Now this latter question to Erastus, is no question at all▪ for if none ought to be debarred from the Sacraments at all; but all must come promiscuously, as their own good or evil spirit inclineth them, it is a vain thing for Erastus to make any question at all, by whom they ought to be debarred; for it is all one, as to ask the question, by whom should those who are to be gradued Doctors of Physic, be tried and examined, whether by the faculty, and College of of Physicians of the place, or by none at all: If you lay down this ground, that there neither is, nor ought to be any graduated Doctors at all in the world, the other of those, who are to try those who are graduated is vain, if all be invited to a free banquet, poor, and rich, leaper, and clean: it is a vain question, whether be there some Masters of the house who should try who are worthy, and to be admitted to the feast, and who unworthy, and to be debarred.

Ans. Neither Beza, nor any of ours say, that they are both one punishment; but that where we are forbidden to eat with a scandalous brother, it is presumed the Church doth cast him out of her society: nor doth Paul 1 Cor. 11. invite all to come to the supper.

Beza said, he to whom less is denied, as that we eat not with him, in our private houses, to him more is denied, to wit, that he should not be admitted to the Lord's supper.

Ans. Erastus in this granteth he wrongeth Beza, as if he had said, to deny a private table, and the Lord's table, were one and the same punishment. Beza saith, the one is a less, the other a greater punishment. 2. If it be true in gifts, that he to whom less is given, more is given, then it holdeth here in our case; because private fellowship with the Saints is a gift of God, and if the Lord's body given for us, and to us in the Lord's supper, be not a greater gift, it is nothing: so then if a less gift be denied, the Lord's supper a greater gift is denied. 2. It must hold in the private punishments, inflicted for an higher punishments cause, private communion with the Saints is denied, because the man is cast out of the Church; Ergo, far more are the highest privileges of the Church denied: as liberty is denied to a man, because he is condemned to die; Ergo, far more is life denied to him; a man's house is denied to him, because he is banished; Ergo, far more is his city and country denied to him: But a man is not punished in his purse, because he is condemned to die, it followeth no • ; Ergo, he should rather die, because the one punishment is not relative to the other. 3 Because not eating with a scandalous man is a spiritual punishment, as I have proved: therefore it is of that same kind with excommunication, and therefore it holdeth here. 4. Abstinence from the private fellowship of a scandalous brother is not free, but commanded of God, and so is debarring from the Lord's supper, not free, but commanded.

Ans. It is clear he proveth they should cast him out, because I wrote to you that you should not keep company with such, v. 9. no more to eat with such; Ergo, far less (would he say) should he be a leavening member in the lump and mass of Christ's body.

Ans. This is a strong argument for us, if Paul had never spoken, nor written to them of the delivering of the man to Satan, that is, of the miraculous killing of him, how could he in reason and conscience chide them, because they prayed not that he might be miraculo • sly killed? 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ? it is not possible they could mourn for not joining in a business, that Paul had never revealed to them to be God's will. Yea it is a strong argument to me, that delivering to Satan was excommunication, of which he had taught them before, (else their mourning had been unreasonble) and which he pointed at to them as a limb of excommunication, to wit, their not familier conversing with the scandalous.

Ans. 1. The Text can bear no such exposition, for the reasons I have given before. 2. The coherence is clear; I wrote before that you should not keep company with wicked brethren: therefore put out that wicked man from amongst you. But by Erastus his gloss, there is neither sense, nor coherence in the words.

Ans. This presumeth, that to avoid a scandalous brother, and to debar him from the Sacraments, must be formally one, which we teach not. 2. Hence it followeth, since they be divers formally, they cannot have the same formal and intrinsical ends. 3. The frequent eating at the Lord's table, in a scandalous man, doth dispose him more and more to sin, as frequently sinning inclineth more to sin; but this is by the frequent abusing of God's ordinance, and not from the nature of the Sacrament.

Ans. There is no solidity in this conjecture, it leaneth upon the perpetual m • stake of Erastus in all this dispute, as if we held, That to be debabred from familiar fellowship with the Saints, and from the Sacrament, were one and the same thing: Else, I see no conclusion that Erastus doth, or can infer against us. 2. It is false, that wicked men are not discharged the company of Saints; for in so far as fellowship with the Saints, is a spiritual mean of the gaining of their souls by Teaching, Exhorting, Edifying, Comforting the wicked and scandalous, being Dogs and Swine are forbidden to touch such a Pearl; Yea, God layeth a charge on wicked men, while they remain in that case, not to meddle with Confirming Ordinances (with some Converting Ordinances they may,) as Psal. 50. 16. But to the wicked God said, What hast thou to do to declare my Statutes: or that thou takest my Convenant in thy mouth? 17. Seeing thou hatest Instruction, and castest my Word behind thee. Here the wicked are forbidden to Teach or speak, to the instructing of others, which is a special act of Christian fellowship between Brother and Brother, Col. 3. 16. Heb. 3. 13. Heb. 10. 24. 1 Thes. 5. 11. 14. Because they hate to be Instructed of others: And you know how Christ speaketh to the unworthy intruder of himself on the secrets and spiritual marrow and comforts of the Gospel, Matth. 22. ver, 12. Friend, How camest thou here, not having thy Wedding garment? Ezra 4. 3. But Zerubbabel and Joshua, and the rest of the chief of the Fathers came and said unto the Adversaries of Judah and Benjamin, You have nothing to do with us, to build an house unto our God; But we ourselves together will build unto the Lord God of Israel: Doth not God expressly forbid David to build an house to his name? 1 Chron. 22. 8. 2 Chron. 6. 9. And we know it is a typical discharge laid upon men of blood, not to touch the holiest things of God; but that men of Peace must meddle with them, Isa. 1. 13. Bring no more vain Oblations, &c. All which holdeth forth, that not only those who have the charge of the house of the Lord, to see that no Swine and Dogs profane the holy things of God; but they are forbidden all private Ordinances and public, in so far as they can make no other use of them, but to defile them.

Erastus saith, They be wickedly forbidden to come to the Lord's Supper, who desire to Celebrate the memorial of his death.

Beza Replieth well, 1. What if he know not what he desireth who cometh? 2. What if there be just suspicion or clear evidence that he playeth the Hypocrite? 3. What if it concern the whole Church that his desire be suspended?

Ans. 1. Erastus professeth he standeth for their admission to the Lord's Supper, who are Recte instituti, & profitentur dolere se propter peccata sua, who are instructed in the grounds of Christian Religion, and repenteth of their sins, or professeth it: And he said before, as I observed it, If any shall be found who shall trample on the Sacraments, Ego hunc minime admittendum censeo: I judge such a man should not be admitted to the Sacraments: Whence it is clear, That Erastus professeth that the ignorant and the scandalous should be debarred from the Lord's Supper: But, good Reader, Observe that Erastus contradicteth himself in all his Arguments; for he proveth, that not any one Christian in the Visible Church, ignorant, or not ignorant; who profess their Repentance, or not profess it, can be excluded from the Sacraments; but that all are commanded by Christ to come. But Erastus saith, Scriptura illos, de quibus nos loquimur, nec à sacrificiis arcet, nec à sacramentis aliis ullis: Imo sub penâ capitis mandat, ut universi mares, &c. The Scripture excludeth none from Sacrifices, or any other Sacraments: But commandeth that all the Male Children, Jews and strangers, who are not legally unclean, and from home, should compear at Jerusalem thrice a year before the Lord: And pag. 104. In sacris literis non tantum non inveniri aliquos à sacramentis propter solam vitae turpitudinem, ab actos esse, sed contrarium potius probari: And John the Baptist (saith he) Baptized all that came to him, Pharisees and Sadducees, whom he affirmeth to be a Generation of Vipers, Ex quo intelligimus: Whence we understand, that Ministers are not to deny the Sacraments to those who seek them, and the Judgment is to be left to God, Whether he who professeth Repentance, dissemble, or deal truly and sincerely: Yea, when Erastus saith, That it is not in all the Scripture to be found, Aliquos a Sacramentis propter solam vitae turpitudinem abactos esse: That any were debarred from the Sacraments for only wickedness of life; but rather the contrary may be proved, either ignorance of God, opposed to due instruction, and professed impenitency, is no wickedness of life, which is most absurd; or then in Scripture, some must be debarred from the Sacraments for wickedness of life only: But Erastus saith plainly, None in Scripture are debarred from the Sacraments, for only wickedness of life: And so they are not debarred, because they profess not Repentance. And Erastus saith, Christ said, Drink ye all of this and Judas was not excepted: Christ went into the Temple with most wicked men: the Pharisees and Sadducees were Baptized with the same Baptism of John with them: Then Erastus will exclude none at all, no not those whom Christ pronounced to sin against the Holy Ghost, and the convincing light of their own mind, Matth. 12. 31, 32. John. 9. 39, 40, 41. and 15. 24. and 7. 28. Yea, pag. 117. He will have none excluded in Corinth, not those that are impenitent, and those that were partakers of the Table of Devils. Pag. 116. When Christ commandeth all to eat and all to drink, he excludeth none that professeth themselves to be Disciples: But many profess no Repentance, Who profess themselves Disciples: See pag. 117, 118. and the following pages. 2. Erastus saith, He is compelled to think, That he that publicly professeth sorrow for sin, doth think as he speaketh: But to whom shall he profess it? To the Church? Then hath the Church power to accept the confession of scandalous men, ere they be admitted to the Lord's Supper: Erastus will stand at this, for it is Government in the hands of the Church; if he must confess to the Civil Magistrate, who made him a Steward of the Seals, and Mysteries of the Gospel? Nor is the Church to think, as Erastus is compelled to think, manifest Hypocrites, and those that trample the Sacraments under their feet, will make profession of sorrow for sin: and Erastus thinketh such are not to be admitted: Erastus saith, they may change their purpose of Repentance, and so may he do himself. Valeat totum, granting all, that is, nothing to us, for any Divinity we have proof of in Erastus his book▪ I should humbly conceive when he speaketh so ignorantly of the work of Repentance, and preparations for the Lord's Supper: he hath been a man non recte institutus, not well instructed, and so without the lists of the disputation by his own word, and so not to have been himself to be admitted to the Sacraments.

2. Nor is it in Beza his head only, that those who desire the Sacrament have true piety, for Christ saith, Wicked men are known by their works; otherwise if tramplers of the Sacrament, and the ignorant desire the Sacrament, as ignorance is neighbor to arrogance and presumption: let Erastus give us a rule in the Word by which they are to be debarred, all his arguments will prove that they are to be admitted: and if Erastus deny that the judgment of men either of Church or Magistrate is to be interposed in the excluding of those who are, non recte instituti, not rightly instructed, and do not profess sorrow for their sin, he must speak against sense, if he grant some must judge, who are ignorant, and openly impenitent; then I say to Erastus what he saith to Beza, your opinion dependeth on the opinion and judgment of men. 3. If God have not commanded either Elders, or any other (as Erastus saith,) to examine and judge, who are fit for the Lord's Supper, who not: Then seeing Erastus saith the profane, the ignorant, the impenitently scandalous, known to be such, are to be debarred. I ask of Erastus, to whom Christ hath commanded the trial of this, who are ignorant, and non recte instituti? Men cannot debar themselves from the Sacraments in a judicial way, most of men conceiting well of themselves, rush upon the ordinances of God, not knowing that they do evil: Workers of iniquity, who cry, Lord, Lord, Adulterers, Thieves, Idolaters, who dare come to the Temple of the Lord and cry, The temple of the Lord, The temple of the Lord are these, Ier. 7. 9, 10, 11. will also fast and profess Repentance, Esa. 57. 3, 4, 5. even when their wickedness testifieth to their face against them in the eyes of all, Ier. 2. 1, &c. Ier. 2. 34. Esa. 1. 9. and they will desire • o partake of the Lord's Supper, as is evident, Esa. 57. 2. Now there are none on earth, neither Elders, or any any others to debar them; Erastus saith, Taceo jam, quod Deus non praecepit vel Presbyteris, vel aliis tale examen. Let Erastus answer us in this, and by what charity is Erastus obliged to believe, all that seeketh the Lord's supper, do it in truth? God has given to us men's works, not their words, of which hypocrites are liberal, and shall we foment hypocrisy, and men's eating their own damnation, under Erastus his pretence of encouraging, and not suffocating seeming godly desires? Lastly, Erastus saith, it doth not concern the Church, that the man defer to do that which Christ commands him to do, this is to beg the question. Doth Christ command a man to eat his own damnation?

Quest. 9.

Ans. Erastus perverteth the sense of Beza his words, for Beza has no such conclusion as to prove a formal excommunication by the Elders, or Church judicature; this is Erastus sained conclusion. Beza inferreth from these words, that there is here gravissimae excommunicationis species, a kind of heavy excommunication, materially, to be eternally separated from Christ, called the great excommunication. And it was to be accursed while the Lord come, and therefore this may prove there is a kind of lesser excommunication, in the Church, and Moses his cursing by way of preaching, may well inserre, that because there be Church censures, therefore there is a Church cursing heavy, and less heavy. But Beza intendeth not to prove excommunication by the Church from this, but only that Christ's enemies are cursed, though they be other ways in the Church; and this kind of excommunication, of shutting impenitent sinners out of heaven, is in a thousand places of scripture, and nothing can hence be concluded against Beza; and the like excommunication is Gal. 1. And when John. 2. Ep. forbiddeth to receive a fa •• e teacher into your house, if he be a member of the Church, he is to be far less kept in Christ's greater house the Church; but is to be cast out.

Ans. 1. The place, Gal. 5. 12. I wish they were cut off that trouble you, is expounded by Piscator of cutting off from the visible Church; Yea he saith, convene the Church, when he saith, v. 9. a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump, that is, a little false Doctrine infecteth the whole Church, and v. 10. I am confident of you, that ye will be no otherwise minded; but he that troubleth you shall bear his judgment, whoever he be: then he hopeth well of the Galatians that they will be of one mind to judge, and cast out the false teacher, this is parallel to 1 Cor. 5. though Paul do not so right down chide them for neglect of Church censures, as he doth 1 Cor. 5.

Ans. Then Paul, 1 Cor. 5. far less could rebuke the Corinthians; because they prayed not that the incestuous Corinthian might be miraculously killed by Paul: for Paul had not power to kill him; because it was not necessary, nor profitable: the man repented, and was never killed. 2. Judge if it be probable that Paul would wish to work a miracle in killing false teachers, when it was neither profitable, necessary, nor sa • e for the Church to have them killed. 3. Paul was confident the man who troubled them should bear his judgment. Erastus saith, it was not God's will he should be miraculously killed; Ergo, it was not miraculous killing, but some Church censure; or then Erastus must find out another kind of judgment.

And why (may some say) doth not Paul write to Excommunicate him, as he did the incestuous Corinthian? Beza Answereth, Paul would not 1 Cor. 5. take that Authority to himself, but would do it by the suffrages of the Church: So here he showeth what he desireth, but happily it was not expedient that they should be presently cut off: So Beza: Yea, the words do well bear, that Paul thought fit, That they should bear their Judgment who had troubled them, and that that leaven should be purged out. 2. Yea, if this cutting off be miraculous, it is clear, Paul could not Communicate it to others, for it was Paul's will that the incestuous Corinthian should be delivered to Satan by the suffrages of the Corinthians: Nor do we read that the Apostles wished to cut off men miraculously, but were not able to do it.

Ans. Paul chideth them, that they were puffed up, and mourned not, that the man might be put out of the midst of them: Then, whereas it might be said, we want the presence of the Apostle Paul, and his privity to the business: To this Paul saith, ver. 3. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , For me (saith he) I have, as if I were present in body when you are Convened together, &c. Iudged to deliver such a one to Satan: Now that this Decree was the judicial Decree and sentence of Paul as a miraculous Magistrate giving sentence judicially, when Paul himself was absent, and had not convinced the man, nor spoken with him, I do not believe; 1. Because, though 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 may signify such a sentence of a man when the guilty is before him, yet the word doth not necessitate us to this Exposition, Luk. 19. 22. Out of thy own mouth will I judge thee; for it doth as often signify a simple act of the mind, and the opinion of any not sitting in judgment, as Act. 13. 46. Ye judge yourselves 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 unworthy of life Eternal, 1 Cor. 2. 2. I determined 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to know nothing but Christ, Luk. 7. 43. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , saith Christ to Simon the Pharisee who was not on the bench, Thou hast judged rightly, Tit. 3. 12. I have determined there to winter, 1 Cor. 10. 15. Judge ye what I say, Act. 27. 1. When it was determined to sail into Italy. 2. We do not read that Apostle, Prophet or Judge, gave out a sentence of death against any, the person condemned not being present nor heard: the Lord himself did it not to Adam, nor to Sodom; he came down to see, he examined Adam: Moses did not so condemn the man that gathered sticks on the Sabbath day: Joshua convinced Achan, the Prophet convinced Gehazi, ere he smote him with Leprosy, Peter convinced A • anias and Sapphira to their faces, ere he killed them, so did Paul convince Elimas the sorcerer in his face, so did Christ in his miraculous purging of the Temple, convince them that His Fathers house should be a house of Prayer. Now Paul here giveth a judicial sentence of death on a man, he never spake of being at Philippi whence he wrote, and the delinquent at Corinth, if we believe Erastus. 3. Erastus judgeth that Paul knew this man to be penitent, and how knew Paul this? It must be a miraculous knowledge, by which Paul at Philippi looked upon the man's heart at Corinth, one of the greatest miracles that ever Paul wrought for Paul had the knowledge of the man's sin only by report, v. 1. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 it is reported; between Paul's writing the first verse of that Chapter, and his writing the third verse there must interveene a miraculous discovery of the incestuous man's heart, Paul being at Philippi, and the man at Corinth; and Paul knowing the man to be penitent, and because of his penitency (as Erastus saith) Paul did not kill him: Yet Paul so far absent, must have given out a miraculous sentence, as a miraculous Magistrate. I (saith he) by revelation as having the sword of God now in my hand, have judged, and given out sentence, that this man shall be miraculously killed by Satan, before your eyes, that all may fear, and do so no more, and yet I know him to be penitent, and that he shall not be killed by Satan; a monstrous and irrational sentence, if it be said, that by report Paul had knowledge of his sin, and by report also he had knowledge of his repentance, and that his spirit would be saved in the day of the Lord, and that this knowledge came not to Paul by any immediate revelation. I answer, Yet the sentence must stand by Erastus his mind touching 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . I have judged and condemned him as a miraculous Magistrate to die upon a report, though I never heard him, and I know he shall not die for this sault: for can it be said, that Paul retracted a sentence which he gave out as the deputy of God, and he even then, when he wrote the sentence, kn • w there was so much repentance in the man, as he would for it be moved not to kill him. 4. There is no ground in the Text, why Paul should be said to seek the naked presence of the whole people, to do such a miracle before them, he being himself absent; for there is more then a naked presence of the Corinthians, as only witnesses that they might be afraid & do so no more: for they were present as instructed with the spirit of Paul, and the power of the Lord Jesus Christ▪ to deliver such a one to Satan: as the words bear, v. 4. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . For to be convened in the name of Christ, being spoken, Mat. 18. v. 20. of a Church meeting, or in reference thereunto in the same phrase, and to be convened with the power and spirit of Paul, and of the Lord Jesus, cannot agree to Paul; nor can it be said, I Paul absent in body, and present in spirit, in the name of the Lord Jesus, and with my spirit, and the power of the Lord Jesus, have decreed to deliver such a one to Satan. For, 1. the Grammar of the words cannot bear that, for ( being convened in the name of the Lord, with my spirit ) are constructed together in the Text. 2. It is no sense, nor any Scripture phrase. I present in spirit, and with my spirit have decreed to deliver such a one to Satan. 3. It is evident that Paul would, as it were absent, recompense his bodily absence, with the presence of the spirit, and road of Church censure, which the Lord had communicated to them. 5. Erastus needeth not object, that there was a convening of the Church, not of some Elders, for as there is no word of the word Elders in the Text, so is there no word of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the Text, and so the debate will be, what is meant by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 whether Elders, or people, or both; but though everyone in their own place were understood, yet the words bear a juridical convention, being convened in the name of the Lord Jesus, and with my spirit, and the power of the Lord Jesus.

Ans. We say the last is no question, you never read in the New-Testament, or in the Old, that Prophets or Apostles consulted, or advised with the people, whether they should work miracles or not: 2. Though Excommunication was an ordinary power, as the power of binding and loosing given to the Church, Matth. 16. 19. and 18. 18. John. 20. 22, 23. Yet the actual exercise of Excommunication, being the highest and weightiest censure, and the most severe of any other on earth, it is no wonder that Paul be as sparing and rare in the exercise of it, as the Apostles were in killing men's bodies. 3. It is a begging of the question, to say, Paul neither practiced himself, nor commanded others to excommunicate, for he did both.

Ans. 1. The eschewing of false Teachers is a general, and a duty no question given to all and everyone of the Church: But the place doth no more say in express terms that a single Pastor should give warning particularly by name, that this man, John, Hymenaeus, Alexander, are those false Teachers to be eschewed, then it saith, that the Presbytery, which we assert, doth in express terms, show what false Teachers they be, who by name are to be Excommunicated and eschewed; but you see, that Erastus is overcome by truth, so far, as he must say one single Minister may declare that such a false Teacher, by name, is to be eschewed as a Heathen and a Publican, and so in effect excommunicated, and put out of the Church; but he denieth that the Church may declare him a Heathen, as Matth. 18. and that many Elders, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 gathered together in the name of Christ, as it is, 1 Cor. 5. may put out a false Teacher, or a wolf out of the flock. 2. We grant that it is spoken to everyone, that he should eschew false teachers, yea, and 2 Thes. 3. All that walketh unordinately, all fornicators, extortioners, drunkards, 1 Co • . 5. But that every man should eschew those, whom he in his private judgment conceiveth to be such, before he rebuke them, and labor to gain them, and in case of obst • n • cy, Tell the Church, as Christ command • h, Matth. 18. is not commanded, bu • forbidden, Matth. 18. Lev. 1917. Col. 3. 15. For if this should be, that I might immediately, upon my own private grudge, unbrother and cast out of my heart and entire fellowship, everyone whom I conceive offendeth me, and walketh unordinately, without observing Christ's order, or previous rebuking of him, I make a pathway to perpetual Schisms: 2. A violation of all Laws of fraternity, and Christian Communion. 3. A diss • lving and breaking of all Church Communion, and i • were strange, if Erastus will have Christ's order kept, Matth. 18. in private offenses done by one brother to another, and not in public offenses, when a brother offendeth twenty, and a whole Church, as if I were obliged to seek to gain my brothers soul in private and l • sse injuries, and not in public, and more heinous offenses.

Hence it is clear to me, If we are to reject an Heretic, after once, or twice admonition, and not to receive in our houses false Teachers, and 1 Tim. 6. 3. If any teach otherwise, and consent not unto the wholesome word, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, being given to perverse disputing, as men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, 1 Tim. 6. 3, 4, 5. We are to withdraw ourselves from such, and to save, with severity and plucking out of the fi • e, those that cannot be cured; then certainly the Church of Christ must also turn away from such men, and acknowledge them as no members of the body, whereof Christ is the head; if we say not this, if one hath leave in a constituted Church, to j • dge and condemn his brother, and then we shall not take the course of the Apostles in the like case, as Act. 15. which is not Apostolic, for when false Teachers troubled the Brethren, they would not peremptorily, though great Apostles, as Paul and Barnabas, determine against either the false doctrine, or the persons of the Teachers, while the Apostles, Elders, and Brethren did meet in a Synod, and determine against the Error, and against the men, as such as troubled the Brethren with words, and perverted their souls, Act. 15. Now Erastus is willing to acknowledge a sort of Divine Excommunication, not a human, as he is pleased to call that Ordinance of separating of wicked men from the Church and holy things of God, which yet was in the Church of the Jews, instituted by Christ and his Apostles, and which no Church wanted, as learned Beza saith, even in the time of persecution: had Erastus explained to us his divine Excommunication, as he calleth it, it were easy to bring most of his own Arguments with greater strength of reason against it then against ours, which is the truly divine Excommunication.

Quest. 10.

Ans. One simple head in a moment, may deny more then many wise men can prove in a whole day, it proveth they are more cumbersome in their disputes, then strong; that there was a Jewish Presbytery, • hat is, a civil judicature, is con • uted by Lev. 10. 10. where there is a Court of Aaron's sons, whose it was to judge of Church matters only, and to put difference between holy, and unholy, between clean, and unclean. 2. A Presbytery of arbitrators in matters civil, to keep Christians from going to law one with another, before heathen judges: Is not a Presbytery, 1 Cor. 6. one wise man might do that, and he is no Presbytery. 2. There is no judicatures of Officers there; they were but gifted men arbitrarily chosen for a certain business, and were not judges, habitu. 3. A Presbytery for Doctrine only is further to seek in the word, I hope, then our Presbytery; Erastus should teach us where it is. 4. He denieth a Presbytery for manners, then all scandals must come before the civil Magistrate. Who made him a Church officer to judge of the affairs of the Church? Who is to be admitted to the seals, who not? For two supreme Courts, I shall speak God-willing.

Ans. There is a company gathered together in the name of our Lord Jesus with the spirit of Paul, and the power of our Lord Jesus, 1 Cor. 5. 4. 5. who did judge those that are within, and put out from amongst them an incestuous man, v. 12, 13. least he should leaven the whole Church, v. 6. this is a College of judges. 2. There is a number of builders and laborers with God, 1 Cor. 3. 9, 10, 11, 12. Ministers of God, dispensers of the mysteries of Word and Sacraments of God, 1 Cor. 4. 1. such as Paul, Apollos, Cephas, and others, 1 Cor. 1. 12, 13. 1 Cor. 4. 6. A number that had power to punish, to forgive, 2 Cor. 1. 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. 3. A number of Prophets who judged of the Doctrine of the Prophets, 1 Cor. 14. 30, 31, 32. these be very like a College of Presbyters. O but Paul writeth not to those, but to those who were puffed up, and mourned not, 1 Cor. 5. 2. These were the people and Church. Ans. Yea these were the eyes, ears, and principal parts of the Church, 1 Cor. 12. 14, 15, 16, 17, 18. now he writeth to the Church, 1 Cor. 1. 1▪ 2.

Ans. All that Erastus saith against a Presbytery, is to improve excommunication: But there may be excommunication by the people, as many hold, where there be no Elders at all. 2. Let Erastus point out the time, when a number of preaching Prophets were instituted at Corinth, whether in this Chapter (which to me is a dream) or before. 3. He had cause to rebuke all; All were secure, the Elders who cast him not out, the people who said not to their Elders, as the Colossians are bidden say, Col. 4. 17. to Archippus; and will Erastus say that preaching Elders, who by office, are the eyes of the Church, 1 Cor. 12. 17, 28. were not to be chief in mourning to God, and praying that the man might be miraculously killed? and yet he reproveth all equally. 4. He reproveth them all that the man was not cast out of the Church, and this includeth a reproof, that he enjoyed all the Church privileges, especially the Sacraments. 5. It is false that there is no mention of judgment, v. 12. Do not ye judge those that are within? for election, there is none in the Chapter, nor any Presbytery instituted in this Chapter; it was before: Erastus hath the like reason to say, that there was no instituted Church at Corinth, because in the 1. or 2. Epistle to the Corinthians: we read not where he instituted any such Church; if we find the thing instituted, we know it had an institution, and let Erastus show us when Paul received the institution of the Lord's supper, from the Lord: shall we deny he received any such thing contrary to 1 Cor. 11. 23. because we find not where and how he received from the Lord? 6. There is no asking of suffrages mentioned Act. 1. at the choosing of Mathias, nor Act. 6. at the choosing of the Deacons that we read of; Ergo, there were no suffrages there; it followeth not. 7. And ought not far rather suffrages to have been asked before the people should take on their heads the man's blood, by consenting thereunto, and praying for it, as Erastus saith?

Ans. I know no man but Erastus that dreameth of any such sense, there is no institution of a Presbytery in this Chapter, no calling of Ministers; but it presupposeth a ministry before s •• led. But if th • se words. I have decreed, &c. have the Erastian sense, I have given s ••• e • c • as a Magistrate, that the man be killed by the ministry of the Devil; and that you shall be my Heralds to proclaim this sentence: it is a wonder the Text give not any hint of such a sense.

Ans. 1. This Erastus on his word asserteth, without probation: We deny it, it is but par • llel with God's judging. 2. It is an act of the keys. 3. It is relative to casting out by those that are convened in the name of the Lord Jesus, with the spirit of Paul, and the power of our Lord Jesus: Was every Girle, and believing servant capable of this spirit▪ and power?

Ans. 1. We owe Erastus thanks for granting this; but what if the aged be sound grossly ignorant, and uncapable of the seals? and some wicked men will trample the seals as swine, and yet they desire the seals. Erastus said before, such should not be admitted; who should debar them; either the Church of believers, or those that are over them in the Lord, or the Magistrate must debar them: if the first and second be said, Erastus cometh to find some use for a Presbytery; if the Magistrate be an heathen, he cannot examine or debar any from the seals. Let Erastus answer, if he be a Christian, how can it be denied; but if the Magistrate by his office is to steward the bread to one of the children, not to another, but he is a steward to cut and divide the word, and seals both aright; and how could Paul make it one of the properties of the Pastor, 2. Tim. 2. to cut the word, and by the same reason to distribute the seals aright, if it depend upon another officer by his office to command him to divide it to this man, whom he hath examined, and findeth in his mind qualified, and not to this man? We judge the Elders of the New Testament do agree in this common and perpetual morality, that both are to put difference between clean, and unclean, holy, and unholy, though many things were unclean to the Jews, that are not unclean to us, and that the Church hath yet a power to bind and loose, Mat. 16. 9.

Ans. Erastus is seldom happy in his Logic, his Sy • logismes are thin sown, all God's laws are most wise, but if this be a good Argument, was not their Church, their Religion, their Ceremonies, their judicial Laws, all wise and righteous? Then the Christian Church should be conform yet to the Jewish, we should have those same bloody sacrifices, judicial laws, Ceremonies that they had. The Iudicatures and officers are positive things, flowing from the positive will of God, who doth appoint one jurisdiction for them, most wise, and another to Christians different from them, and in its kind, most wise. 2. We give two judicatures in the Church of the Jews, concerning manners, one civil, acknowledged by Erastus; another spiritual & Ecclesiastic, ordaining Ecclesiastic and Spiritual punishments upon the unclean, Lev. 10. 10. As to be removed out of the campe, and such like, and Deut. 17. Thou shalt come to the priests, the Levites, and the Judge, that shall be in those days, according to the sentence which they of that place (which the Lord shall choose) shall show thee, and thou shalt observe to do according to all that they inform thee, ver. 12. And the man that will do • presumptuously, and will not hearken 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to the Priest, (that standeth there to minister before the Lord thy God) or unto the judge, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 even that man shall die, and thou shalt put awdy evil from Israel. There is here an evident disjunction that clearly holdeth forth, that both the Priests and the civil judge judged in matters of manners, and that he that presumptuously despised the sentence of either was to die: a judicature of the Priests is evidently here, and a judicature of the civil judge, Erastus cannot deny, and that the Priest judged in subordination to the civil judge, is refuted by the words, which saith the Priest was immediately subordinate to God, not to the Magstistrate: He that will not hear the Priest ( that standeth to minister before the Lord thy God ) shall die: Ergo, He is the Minister of the Lord; and God called and separated Aaron and his sons, to stand before the Lord, and to minister, and he did call the Levites, the Magistrate called them not to office.

Ans. Certainly, if Erastus deny the charge of the Priest and the King to be different offices, because once Moses did offer Sacrifice, (and so was Melchizedek both a King and a Priest, Heb. 7.) he must say that Moses offered Sacrifices, Levite. 8. not as a Priest. (Sure I am, Moses was a Prophet, and a Prince and Ruler, but no Priest.) But Moses by Erastus his way, must as a civil Magistrate have offered Sacrifices, and not as a Priest or privileged person by a special and an extraordinary commandment of God; for to deny the two offices of Priest and King to be different offices, because one man discharged some Acts proper to both Offices, as Moses both did bear the Sword of God, as a Prince, and did also discharge some Acts proper to the Priest, as Erastus saith he did, Leviticus 8. is a poor and naughty Argument: undeniable it is that Melchizedek was both King and Priest, but even then to be a King and to be a Priest, were two distinct offices, in nature and essence, because Melchizedek did not take away the life of a Murderer, as a Priest, but as King of Salem, Heb. 7. 1. Nor did Abraham pay tithes to Melchizedek as to a King, but as to a Priest. Tithes in Moses Law as tithes, were never due to any but to the Priests: and therefore even in Melchizedek, the Kingly and Priestly office, were formally distinct Ordinances of God, just as David as a King and judge took away the head of the man who brought Saul's head to him, and not as a Prophet he did this; so as a Prophet he penned the Psalms, not as a King: If one and the same man be both a Musician and a painter, he doth paint excellently as a painter, not at a Musician, and he singeth excellently not as a Painter, but as a Musician; and though one and the same man do acts proper to both, that may prove that Music and the art of painting are one subjectively only, that they may both agree to one and the same man, but not that they are not two faculties and gifts of God different in spece and nature. 2. Though Erastus confess that it was unlawful that Vzzias and Saul should sacrifice, yet he will have the Kings office, and the Ministers office under the New Testament not so different; for he said expressly, Who knoweth not now when Aaron's Priesthood is removed, but we are all equally Priests? Saul and Uzziah sinned when they were bold to sacrifice and burn incense, but the Magistrate doth not therefore sin, who exerciseth the charge of the Ministry, if he might for his business perform both, doth Paul make exceptions of Magistrates and Potentates, when he saith, 1 Cor. 14. You may all prophecy? Hence he must grant that the civil Magistrate now may both preach, baptize, and administer the Supper of the Lord, and therefore not only hath the Church no Senate, nor Ecclesiastical court to punish faults, and scandals with Ecclesiastic censures; but there is no Presbytery of Elders to give their judgment in matters of doctrine, for the Magistrates and all Christians may as well prophecy by • Cor. 14. as Ministers, saith he, yea the faculty of preaching is no more proper to the Ministers of the Church, then to the Magistrates of the city. Now by this nothing is proper to the Magistrate, as the Magistrate, but to the Magistrate as a Christian, and to all Christians. But Erastus contendeth that the government of the Church, and punishing of Scandals, which we say belongeth to those that are over the people of God in the Lord, and to Church Rulers, doth belong to the Magistrate as the Magistrate, and virtute officii, by virtue of his office: so that if any Jew or Turk, or any ignorant or extremely scandalous should attempt to intrude himself upon the Seals, the Magistrate as the Magistrate and virtute officii, is to examine and judge if he be unworthy, & to debar him, or as he findeth him worthy, admit him to the Seals. Now any seeth that it is but a deceiving of the Reader, to say that one man may discharge both the place of the Magistrate, and the Minister of God, as Moses did, and Joshua, & David: For let Erastus and his followers show us roundly and down-right, whether or no prophesying, debarring the unworthy from the Seals, and all acts of Church government, not proper to the Magistrate as the Magistrate, and virtute officii; And if so, (as indeed Erastus teacheth) it is bu • a poor shift to say, that one and the same man may both exercise the part of a Magistrate, and of a Minister.

Ans. If you take punishing for inflicting Church-censure, (as we here take it) then all the places that says the Priests pronounced the Leper clean or unclean, to put out of the campe, or take in, to judge of the adulterous woman, of the restitution made by those for whom they offered Sacrifices, to judge between the clean and unclean; to hold out of the Sanctuary the unclean, the uncircumcised in heart and flesh, Levite. 13. 3, 4, &c. and 20, 22. and 21. 26, and 30. 44. and 31. 50. Ezek. 22. 26. and 44. 8, 9, 10. Num. 3. 6, and 5. 18, 19. Deut, 17. 12. say the Priests had power to punish for transgressing of God's Laws, and where the Prophets complain of the Priests mis-government and unjustice, it is presupposed they were to govern justly according to the Law, Ier. 5. 31. 2 King. 12. 4. Ier. 26. 7, 8, 11. Hag. 2. 11, 12. Ezek. 44. 8, 9, 10. 2. For the place 2 Chron. 19. it is evident that Jehoshaphat doth reform both Church and State, and brought the corrupted Iudicatures to that which they should be by Law; and v. 5, 6, 7. He set judges in the fenced cities of Judah: Here is the civil judicature. And v. 8. Moreover in Jerusalem did Jehoshaphat set of the Levites, and of the Priests, and of the chiefo of the fathers of Israel, for the judgment of the Lord, and for controversies, when they returned to Jerusalem. Now that this second is a Church judicature, I am confirmed, 1. Because Jehoshaphat appointed civil judges in all the fenced cities of Judah; Ergo, Also in Jerusalem the prime fenced city: Now this civil judicature was not tied to a place, but was in every city, even all the fenced cities; but the Synedrie of Priests, Levites and Elders was only at Jerusalem, in the place that the Lord should choose, Deut. 17. 8. Hence a judicature tied to no city, but which is in every fenced city, 2 Chron. 19. 5. Deut. 17. 8. and a judicature tied to Jerusalem, the place that the Lord did choose, Deut. 17. 8. 2 Chron. 19. 8. must be two distinct judicatures, but such were these. 2. There is a ( moreover ) put to the Judicature at Jerusalem, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and also in Jerusalem did Jehoshaphat set of the Levites, &c. This could not have been said, if this had not been a judicature different from the former, for if Jehoshaphat appointed Judges in all the fenced cities; Ergo, He appointed them first at Jerusalem, the Mother city and fountain of justice; now then he should say the same thing needlessly, and with a moreover, if this judicature at Jerusalem were not a judicature Ecclesiastic and different from the judicature civil, that he appointed at Jerusalem as one of the prime fenced cities, which was common with the civil judicatures in other fenced cities. 3. The persons in the judicatures are different, for v. 5. the members of the court, 2 Chro. 19. 5, 6, 7▪ are called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 judges; these could not be Churchmen, for of these he speaketh v. 8. & they are expressly distinguished from the Levites, Priests and Elders, v. 8. who are all Church-men, for the fathers of the people were no other thing then our governing Elders, and these were members of the other court, v. 8. 4. The objects of these judicatures are very different. The Spirit of God saith of the one ver. 5. That they judge for the Lord, ver. 13. for▪ all the Kings matters, this must be all civil causes, in which the King, and inferior judges under the King do judge; but the object of the other is higher. The Priests and Levites are appointed by Jehoshaphat for the judgment of the Lord, ver. 8. And in every matter of the Lord, v. 13. Now whereas Erastus putteth a note of ignorance on all that hath been versed in the Old Testament before him, whereas he confesseth he understandeth not the Original Language, let the Reader judge what arrogance is here, where ever there is mention (saith he) of judgment, there is signified not religious causes, but also other causes, especially the cause of the widow and Orphan: It bewrayeth great ignorance. For, 1. The matters of the Lord, and the matters of the King, are so evidently distinguished, and opposed the one to the other, by two divers presidents in the different judicatures, the one Ecclesiastical, Amaziah the chief Priest, in every word or matter of the Lord▪ and the other Zebadiah, the son of Ishmael the ruler of the house of Judah, for all the Kings matters, that the very words of the Text, say that of Erastus which he saith of others, that he is not versed in the Scripture: for then the causes of the Lord, and the causes of the King in the Text, by Erastus should be the same causes, whereas the Spirit of God doth distinguish them most evidently. 2. If the cause of the King, were all one with the judgment of the Lord, and the cause of the Lord, yea, if it were all one with all causes whatsoever either civil or Ecclesiastical, what reason was there they should be distinguished in the Text? and that Amaziah should not be over the people in the Kings matters, though he were the chief Priest, and Zebadiah though a civil Judge over all the matters of the Lord, and causes Ecclesiastical? 3. The Kings matters are the causes of the widow, and orphan, and oppressed, as is evident, Ier. 22. 2. O King of Judah, v. 3. execute ye judgment and righteousness, and deliver the spoiled out of the hand of the oppressor, and do no wrong, do no violence to the stranger, the fatherless, nor the widow, so Esa. 1. 10. 17. Prov. 31. 4, 5. Job 29. 12, 13, &c. Then the▪ Text must bear that every matter of the King is the Judgment of the Lord, and the matter of the Lord; and every matter and judgment of the Lord, is also the matter of the King, and to be judged by the King, then must the King as well as the Priest, judge between the clean and the unclean, and give sentence who shall be put out of the Campe, and not enter into the Congregation of the Lord, no less then the Priests. Let Erastus and all his see to this, and then must the Priests also relieve the fatherless and widow, and put to death the oppressor. 2. The different presidents in the judicatures maketh them different judicatures. 3. It is denied, that all causes whatsoever came before the Ecclesiastical Synedry at Jerusalem, Erastus doth say this, but not prove it; for the place 2 Chron. 19. doth clearly expound the place, Deut. 17. for the causes of the brethren that dwell in the Cities, between Blood and Blood, between Law and Commandment, Statutes and judgments are judged in the Ecclesiastical Sanhedrin at Jerusalem not in a civil coactive way by the power of the sword. 1. Because all causes are by a coactive power judged, as the matters of the King, the supreme sword bearer, 2 Chron. 19. 5. v. 13. Rom. 13▪ 4. to eschew oppression, and maintain justice, Ier. 22. 2, 3. But the causes here judged in this Sanhedrin, are judged in another reduplication, as the matters of the Lord differenced from the matters of the King, 2 Chron. 19. 13. now if the Priests and Levites judged in the same judicature, these same civil causes, and the same way by the power of the sword, as Magistrates, (as Erastus saith) why is there in the Text, 1. Two judicatures; one, v. 5. in all the fenced cities; another at Jerusalem, v. 8? 2. What meaneth this, that the Kings matters are judged in the civil judicature, not by the Priests and Levites? (as Erastus saith) for the Ruler of the house of Judah was president in these, and the matters of the Lord were judged by the Priests and Levites? and Amariah the chief Priest was over them? for then Amariah was as well over the Kings matters, as the Ruler of the house of Judah, and the Ruler of the house of Judah over the Lord's matters, as over the Kings; for if Priests and Levites judged as the Deputies subordinate to the King, and by the power of the sword, the Kings matters are the Lord's matters, and the Lord's matters the Kings matters, and Amariah judgeth not as chief Priests, as he doth burn incense, but as another judge, this truly is to turn the Text upside down. 2. The causes judged in the Sanhedrin at Jerusalem, are said to be judged as controversies, when they returned to Jerusalem, 2 Chr. 19. 8. and matters too hard, between plea and plea, between blood, and blood, between stroke and stroke, Deut. 17. 8. and so doubts of Law, and cases of conscience. Now Mal. 2. 7. The Priests lips should preserve knowledge, and they should seek the Law at his mouth; for he is the messenger of the Lord of hosts, and this way only the Priests and Levites judged, not that they inflicted death on any; but they resolved in an Ecclesiastical way, the consciences of the judges of the fenced Cities, what was a breach of the Law of God Moral or Judicial, what not; what deserved Church censures, what not, who were clean, who unclean; and all these are called the judgment of the Lord, the matters of the Lord; because they had so near relation to the soul and conscience, as the conscience is under a divine Law. 3. Erastus saith, it is known that the Levites only were Magistrates in the Cities of refuge, but I deny it; Erastus should have made it known to us from some Scripture: I find no ground for it in Scripture.

Ans. The Magistrate even King David leaveth not off to be supreme, because Nathan commandeth him in the Lord; nor the King of Nineveh and his Nobles leave not off to command as Magistrates, though Jonah by the word of the Lord bring them to lie in sackcloth, and to Fast; all the Kings are subject to the rebukes and threatenings of the Prophets, Isa. 1. 10. Jer. 22. 2, 3. Ier. 1. 18. 2 Kin. 12. 8, 9. 10, 11, 12. 1 Kin. 21. 21, 22, 23. Isa. 30. 33. Hos. 5. 1, 2. and to their commandments in the Lord: If Presbyters do command as Ministers of Christ, the highest powers on earth if they have souls, must submit their consciences to the Lord's rebukings, threatenings and Commandment in their mouth: Court Sycophants say the contrary, but we care not. 2. But they punish the Christian Magistrate (saith he) if there be any Church Censure, as we suppose there is, this Objection should not have been made against us; because of the Magistrates supremacy; it doth conclude with equal strength, that Pastors should use it against no man: Now there be some swine that trample the Sacraments, some not well instructed in the grounds of Christian Religion▪ and Erastus said, pag. 207. Such should not be admitted to the Lord's Supper▪ Now the Magistrate the King is such; Let Erastians say, the Pearls of the Seals of the Covenant are to be given to no swine, except the swine be Magistrates, and that which the Church bindeth on earth is bound in heaven, except it be the Magistrate; Erastus saith, he may go to Hell by privilege of his place; and that whose sins the Elders of the Church retaineth are retained, except it be the Kings sins, and that we are to put shame upon scandalous persons, and to refuse to eat with them, Romans 16. 17. 2▪ Thess. 3. 14, 15. 1 Cor. 5. 11. 2 John. 10. Except they be Magistrates; Sure God is no accepter of persons.

Ans. That it is lawful for the Magistrate to preach and Administer the Sacraments, 1. Destroyeth the Ordinance of Pastors, and a sent and called Ministry under the New Testament, against the Scriptures, Heb▪ 5. 4▪ No man taketh on him this honor to himself▪ except he that is called of God, as was Aaron: So also Christ glorified not himself, to be made an high Priest, &c. • 2. God often maketh an honor of a calling to the Ministry, that he hath separated them to it, Numb. 16▪ 9. Moses saith to Korah; hear now • e sons of Levi, Seemeth it a small thing unto you, that the God of Israel hath separated you from the congregation of Israel to bring you near to himself to do the service of the tabernacle of the Lord, Deut. 10. 8. At that time the Lord separated the tribe of Levi to bear the Ark of the Covenant of the Lord, to stand before the Lord to minister unto him, Numb. 8▪ 6. 7. 8. 9. But that same honor is put upon the Preachers of the Gospel, Rom▪ • . 1. Paul the servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an Apostle, separated unto the Gospel of God, Act. 13. 2. The holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them: If it be an honor, and no man, though gifted as Christ was, can take honor to himself: No Magistrate can take on him to discharge the office of a Minister.

Ans. If being called to be Magistrate, he be also called to be a Minister, then being called to be a Minister, he is called to be a Magistrate, and Hoc ipso that he is a Minister, be may usurp the sword, and usurp the Throne and the Bench▪ But Christ being sent to be a Prophet, and to preach the Gospel, Esa. 61. 1. Luk. 4. 20. 21. ve • . 43. refused to divide the inheritance, and to be a a Judge, Luk. 12. 13, 14. He would not take on him to be a judge, except God had made him, and called him to be a judge; If any say the Magistrate, being the supreme place, containeth eminently all inferior offices▪ as to be a Minister, a Lawyer, a Physician, &c. but the inferior does not contain the superior, I Ans. Then the Magistrate being called to be a Magistrate and King, he is called to be a Priest to burn incense, which the Lord condemned in his word▪ in Uzzah; then when Saul is called to be a King, he is called to be an Astronomer, Lawyer, Physician, Sayler, Tailor: Now God giveth a spirit to be a King, but no gifts to those offices; Ergo, No calling thereunto, for no gifts argue no calling of God. 2. If a man called to be a judge, be also by that same calling, by which he is made a judge, made a Minister, then it is all one to be called to be a judge, and to be a Minister; and so a Magistrate as a Magistrate doth preach and administrate the Sacraments, then 1. All Magistrates should preach and administrate the Sacraments, and Nero, and heathen Magistrates are gifts, actu primo, given by Christ ascending on high, for the edifying the body of the Church, Ephe. 4. 11, 12.

Ans. If God lawfully call the Magistrate to preach the Gospel, woe be to him, if he preach not, he should lay aside all other employments and preach, God never gave a talent and calling to any to preach, but he ought to lay aside other things, and employ that talent to the honor of God, otherwise he sinneth in digging his Lord's talent in the earth, whereas he is obliged to make five talent ten. 2. If he preach as a Pastor not as a Magistrate, then he hath another calling of God to be a Pastor, and another to be a Magistrate, and •• rtaine it is, as a Magistrate he doth not preach; because there be far other qualifications required in a Magistrate, as Deut. 1. 12. that he be wise, and understanding, and known, and a man of truth, hating covetousness, Exo. 18. 21. But there is far other qualities required in a Bishop, 1 Tim. 3. 1, 2, 3. Ergo, it is one thing to be called to be a Minister, and another to be called to be a Magistrate. 3. In all the word, Christ never commanded the Magistrate to preach and baptize▪ this negative Argument Erastus useth often against us, to prove that none ought to be excluded from the Sacraments, because Priests, Prophets, Christ, Apostles never excluded any: But Christ commanded the Ministers to preach and baptize, and gave them the Holy Ghost for that effect, and sent them as the father sent him, as having received all power from the father, Math. 28. 18, 19, 20. Mark. 16. 15, 16. John. 20. 20, 21, 22. and least we should think this charge was given to Apostles as Apostles, he teacheth that it is given to all faithful Pastors to the end of the world, Math. 28. v. 20. Lo I am with you, even unto the end of the world, Amen. Not to say, that if it be peculiar to Apostles to preach and baptize, neither Pastors, far less Magistrates can do it, or then Pastors and Magistrates are Apostles sent to preach to all the world, and can work miracles, which is absurd. 4. Christ ascending to heaven, left Apostles, Evangelists, Pastors and Teachers, for the perfecting of the Saints, and work of the Ministry; not Kings and Magistrates. 5. How shall they preach, except they be sent? Magistrates as Magistrates bear the sword, and have carnal weapons, and are not sent; the weapons of Ministers are not carnal, 2 Cor. 10. 4, 5. For Erastus his Argument, God has not forbidden Magistrates to preach; Ergo, it is lawful for them to preach, it followeth not▪ for such positive ordinances as preaching Ministers, must be appointed by a positive command, for where hath God forbidden women to baptize? Ergo, they may baptize; is not the Lord's commanding the Apostles to go teach and baptize all Nations, and his not giving any such commandment to others, as good as a forbidding of them? But I hope this is examined already suffi • ientl • . 2. For Samuel his being both Judge and Prophet, I grant it; but as an extraordinary dispensation of God, which Christ would not take on him to do, Luk. 12. nor is it left to us as a rule. 3. That Aaron's sons had no tribunal of their own different from the tribunal of Moses, is proved to be false from 2 Chr. 19, 8. 4. That the Priests were Magistrates having the power of the sword, cannot be proved by any word of God, the pl •• e Ez • . 44. is every way for us, all the power given in that Cha▪ is Ecclesiastical, none Civil, as to k • ep the charge of the Lord's holy things, to exclude the uncircumcised in heart and flesh, out of the sanctuary, to come near to the table of the Lord and Minister, v. 16, to enter into the gates of the inner courts, clothed in linen, &c. and many the like, did no more agree to a Magistrate then to burn incense, which to do, Erastus granteth was unlawful in King Uzziah; yet he would prove that it is lawful under the New Testament to exercise both, so the Magistrate were able to do both; because Samuel exercised both. But might not King Uzziah exercise both without impeachment of his business? and where was he forbidden? but in this God made choice of the tribe of Levi, and of no others, which also he has done under the New Testament▪ as is proved.

Ans. 1. Well, then Erastus granteth that the Ministers are to preach the Word and dispense the Sacraments: But not to judge of those that profane the holy things of God, nor to debar from the Sacraments any who desire them; if Erastus did mean a bodily debarring by the power of the sword, if any openly profane shall violently intrude himself, we should yield that to the Magistrate as the keeper of both Tables. But Erastus is of that mind, that as the Magistrate may preach and dispense the Sacraments, he may by that power also Ecclesiastically cognosce, and judge of the scandals, for which the openly profane are to be debarred, and accordingly debar. Now Erastus saith he may preach as a Christian, because that all Christians now under the New Testament may preach and prophecy, all are Priests and Prophets, so saith he, page 175. So the Magistrate by this as a Christian, and so all Christians women and children, may try and examine all that are openly profane, and unworthy of the Seals: this can be nothing but popular Anarchy; yet that the Magistrate, as a Magistrate, and not as a Christian, is to examine and try who are unworthy communicants, I conceive is the mind of Erastus, as I have proved before: Which though it be a plain contradiction, yet it is the pillar of all the Erastian doctrine, that the Magistrate as the Magistrate hath the supreme power of all Church government. Therefore (saith he, page 171.) they do wickedly who take from the Magistrate that part of the visible jurisdiction in government of the Church which God hath given to him, and subject the Magistrate to some other jurisdiction,—Magistrates are God's.

Ans. If to preach, dispense the Sacraments, and to judge who are unworthy of the Seals, and debar them, be taken from the Magistrate as he is a Christian, this power of visible jurisdiction over the Church is no more taken by us from the Magistrate, then it is taken from all Christians as Christians, and in regard of any such power Magistrates are no more God's and Nursefathers in the Church, then all Christians are God's and Nursefathers of the Church: for by the reason of Erastus, p. 175. that all Christians now are Priests and Prophets, and so may examine who are worthy of the seals, who not, then the Civil Magistrate can be, by us, spoiled of nothing that God has given him, as a Magistrate, except Erastus say that he doth all these as a Magistrate & virtute officij; which when he or any of his Disciples shall assert, beside that it is contradictorious to his way, we are ready to demonstrate that it is blasphemous & contrary to the word of God. But that Erastus does take from the Elders of the Church, and give to the Magistrate a power to judge in an Ecclesiastical way, who are to be debarred from the seals, I argue on the contrary thus; those who are to cut the word, and distribute it aright, are also to distribute the seals a right, to the worthy, not to dogs and swine, not to heathens and publicans, for it is evident that the right stewarding and distributing of ordinances doth essentially include the stewarding of them, with judgment and discerning, to those that are worthy, not to those that are unworthy. But Elders, not Civil Magistrates are to do the former, Ergo the latter also. 2. Those to whom Christ committed the power of the keys to open and shut, to bind and loose, to those he hath given the use and exercise of the keys. But Christ gave the power of the keys to the Apostle Peter, as representing the Rulers of the Church, Mat. 16. 19. & to the Church, Mat. 18. 18. and not to the Magistrate as to the Magistrate; Ergo, The proposi • ion I prove from the Texts, Mat. 18. 18. What ye sh • ll bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven, &c. and Cha. 16. 19. the same is repeated: now actual binding is the use and exercise of the keys given to Peter and the Church. But it is presumed the power is given, when Christ saith, v. 19. I will give unto thee, the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven. 2. We read not that God giveth a power, a gift, a talent, or an office, but he judgeth it a sin in those to whom he giveth it, not to put forth in acts and in exercise that gift, talent, and office, either by themselves, or his deputies; which latter I speak for the King, who in his own person, and in the person of inferior judges sent by him, do put forth in acts of justice, the Royal power that God has given him. The assumption is Scripture.

Ans. Besides, this is answered fully above, and is a mere anarchicall Democracy; it, 2. concludeth well that Christ gave not to the Magistrate as the Magistrate, the keys, but to the Magistrate as he is a Christian, making that same Christian confession of faith with Peter, Mat. 16. and as he is an offended brother, who may bind and loose in earth and heaven, so Erastus Thes. 54. p. 42. and so by this the Magistrate hath no more power to debar from the seals, then all other Christians have. 3. If Christ give the key of knowledge to the Elders, then he cannot give the power of studying Sermons, and preaching the word to another; so if Christ give the power of breaking the bread of life to the children of the house, then he cannot give the power of judging, who are the children of the house, who not, to another.

Ans. If the Church be to try the penitency, or impenitency of the fact, and not to cognosce and try whether he hath done the fact, upon the same ground the Magistrate is to try and punish the disturbance of the peace of the Common-wealth, that adhereth to the fact, and not to try the fact. 2. It is not possible that the Church can know whether the man be penitent, or no, except by witnesses they know the fact, for they shall run a preposterous way, to work the man to a godly sorrow, for that sin which possibly he never committed; now that of which the Church is to convince the man, and from which they are to gain his soul, that they are to find out. 2. This is against the way of Erastus, who will have the Magistrate to exclude from the Sacraments, and none other. 3. The word knows no such thing, as that Ministers should be led in the acts of their Ministerial duties, to whom they should dispense the mysteries of the Gospel, and to whom they should deny them; by the Magistrate? by a good warrant the Magistrate is to lay a tie on the consciences of Elders, what they should dispence, as to whom they should dispense; sure if the Magistrate as the Magistrate must prescribe to Ministers, to what sort of persons they must dispence word and Sacraments, he must upon the same ground as a Magistrate prescribe what Doctrine they should preach to this man, not to this, whether Law or Gospel; and so the Magistrate as the Magistrate must be a Pastor to cut the word aright, 2 Tim. 2. 15. Eze. 3. 18, 19, 20. Eze. 13. 19. to command to preach life to this man, death to this man. 4. If the Church must cast him out, and judge him who has done this wickedness, 1 Cor. 5. 2, 12. and 4. 5, 6. 7. then must they judge of his scandal; that according to the quality of the scandal, they may proportion the measure of the punishment; Ergo, a pari they must judge whom they debar from the seals. 5. The debarring any from the seals, must be proportioned to the end of all spiritual censures, that the man be gained, and his sin loosed in heaven, Mat. 18. 15. 18. that his soul may be saved in the day of the Lord, 1 Cor. 5. 4. That he may be ashamed, and so humbled, 2 Thes. 3. 14, 15. 2 Cor. 2. 6, 7. that he may learn not to blaspheme, 1 Tim. 1. 20. But the Magistrates excluding of any from the Sacraments is no mean congruous to such an end, for he can command nothing, but the disobedience of which he can and ought to punish with the sword; now a carnal weapon cannot be congruous and proportionable to a spiritual end. 6. If the Magistrate as a Magistrate must so far have the keys of Discipline, then as a Magistrate he must catechise, examine, and try the knowledge of the Communicants, and so watch for their souls, as those that must give an accompt to God. 7. The Magistrate must have a Negative voice in all the acts of the Church, and the man must be bound in heaven, but not except the Magistrate will, and loosed in heaven, but not except the Magistrate will, for all must depend upon the consent of him to whom Jesus Christ has committed the supreme▪ and highest and only power of governing the Church; now this is the Magistrate as the Magistrate to Erastus. 8. The Magistrate as the Magistrate must forgive sinners and relaxe them from excommunication, 2 Cor. 2. 7. and restore those that are overtaken in offenses, with the spirit of meekness, Gal. 6. 1. and rebuke publicly those that sin publicly, 1 Tim. 5. 20. and so be a spiritual man, and a Pastor. Neither doth it follow that the Pastors as Pastors only, should debar from the Communion, though virtute potestatis ordinis as Pastors, they are to keep themselves pure, and not to give pearls to swine, nor to communicate with other men's sins; yet because the Sacraments are Church ordinances, they are to be dispensed by the Church, that is, by the Elders with consent of the people: it is one thing to dispense ordinances to those that receive them, and another thing to dispense them ce •• o ordine after a Church way, the former is from power of order, the latter from power of jurisdiction, and from the Church only.

Quest. 11.

Ans. This consequence is so strong (though the consequent be not ours) to prove a Synedrie, that Erastus shall never be able to refute it; for that the Priests might teach the people, they were to judge and govern the people, and w • re to judge between the holy and profane, not only that the Priests might inform the p • oples minds, but that the Priests and Levites might, 2 Chron. 9. 8▪ 9 10. Deut. 17. 8, 9 give judgment between blood and blood, between plea and plea, between stroke and stroke, being matters of controversy, and hard to be judged by the inferior judges; these concerned not the instruction of the people as matters of opinion, as Erastus imagineth; but they concerned the governing of the people in justice, that v. 12. the man that will do presumptuously, or will not hearken unto the Priest or the judge, shall die the death? Was not this to govern the people and to judge them? Certainly Erastus in the same Chapter saith so, to wit, that there was one common Sanhedrin of civil judges, Priests and Levites at Jerusalem, that the Priests and Levites were Judges in capital matters, and gave out the sentence of death, de capite & sanguine, and he proveth page 270. 271. that the Priests were civil judges, and did give s •• tences of blood, of life and d • ath: Ergo, the Priests did not discern between the clean and the unclean, between blood and blood only, that they might teach the people, but that they might regulate their own practice in judgment, and govern the people; yea that the Priests might pronounce some unclean, and to be put out of the Campe so many days, that they might debar out of the Sanctuary the uncl • an, the uncircumcised, the strangers, and Lev. 10. the end of judging and governing is expressly set down, v. 10. and so a judicature, and the other end, v. 11. that they may teach the children of Israel all the Statutes which the Lord hath spoken by the hand of Moses. 2. From the Elders preaching the Word and dispensing the Sacraments, simply we infer no judicature at all, far less a politick judicature, which we do not ascribe to the Priests, for John the Baptist both preached the Word and baptized, and yet was no judge, nor did he erect any Church judicature, but from the power of the keys given to the Church, and exercised by the Church, Mat. 16. 19. Mat. 18. 15, 16, &c. 1 Cor. 5. 1, 2, 3. &c. Revel. 2. 1, 2, 3, &c. we infer a Church judicature, we never placed a Presbytery in place of the Magistrate; for it is no more the Magistrates place, then to sacrifice is the place of the Magistrate.

Ans. Erastus declares himself to be a child, not versed in Protestant Divines, for we except Musculus, Gualther, Bullinger, some except Aretius, all our Protestant Divines go the way Beza goeth. 2. Let him produce any of ours, who say that the Synedry that Christ speaketh of, was Jewish, and ours say that Christ alludeth to the Jewish Synedrie: But all (few excepted) that Christ Mat. 18. speaketh of the Christian Church to be erected. 3. The Kings of Israel punished scandals, but that is not enough, did they govern the Church, pronounce who were clean or unclean? or middle with the charge of Ecclesiastic Government committed to Aaron and his sons? 4. We say with Augustine, that some that were killed of old, are to be Excommunicated now, Augustine speaketh not of all, and what is that against us?

Ans. Beza expoundeth the one place by the other, but he saith not these persons, things and office are in both places. 2. Erastus only contradicteth Beza, and saith Moses speaketh of the Magistrates, Deut. 17. But he is refuted by the Spirit of God, 2 Chron. 19. 8, 9. who repeating the very words of Deut. 17. saith the Judges here were Priests, Levites, and heads of Families, whom all men deny to be Magistrates.

Ans. 1. Beza said well the fact, and the putting of the man to death, which is the assumption and conclusion belonged to the civil judge, not to the Priests; But the questio juris, the question of Law belonged to the Ecclesiastical judicature of Priests, Levites and Elders; and it is evident, that it was a case of conscience, concerning a matter, or an admirable cause that cannot be determined by the judges in the city, they not being so well versed in the Law as the Priests, whose lips should preserve knowledge, Mal. 2. 7. Therefore it is not a fact, that may be cleared by Witnesses, there is not such difficulty in facts, except in adultery, or secret Murthers, the word cometh from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to admire, or to be separated from sense and reason, Lament. 1. 9. Gen. 18. 14. Is there anything hard to, or • id from Jehovah? 2. They are called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 causes or matters of contention, Vatablus causa insolita & difficilior: Our translation hath it, matters of controversy. 3. It is said, thou shalt come and inquire or diligently search out. 4. The Priests and Levites shall show thee the sentence of judgment, so it is evident that the Priests and Levites did not so much judge, as declare and resolve the law-part of which the inferior judges did doubt, for the difficulty of the question, as Saul came to Samuel the Seer, to ask concerning his fathers asses, and it is true bloods and strokes came under the cognizance of the Priests, but as bloods comes before Lawyers, and those that are expert in the civil Law, in the Parliament of England and Scotland, the Lawyers as Judges put no man to death, the King could say, fall upon such an evil doer, and kill him, and the judges and Princes might put to death. But you never read that the Priests, yea or the High Priest said, fall upon such an ill doer and kill him, nor was this any Law of God, that the Ecclesiastic Sanhedrin, should put to death and politically condemn any man to die, or command any man's blood to be shed, they but declared and resolved a case of conscience to the judges, and a plea, and said, This is a matter of blood, and deserveth death by the Law of God, and he that hath done such a fact in point of Law, ought to die. But there were two things left to the civil • Judges. 1. Whether this man hath done such a fact. 2. A sitting in the Tribunal, and saying, I or we command and decree such a man who hath shed such blood, hath inflicted such a stroke on this woman who is with child of living birth, to be stoned to death, to be hanged. Erastus hath not proved, nor never shall prove that the High Priests, Priests or Levites, by God's Law did thus judge any: That Ananias commanded Paul to be beaten, and the lictors of the High Priest smote Christ on the face at the command of the Priests, was against Law, they had no power so to do by Law, yea, and our Presbyteries that judge of sorceries, witchcrafts, incests, adulteries, and other capital crimes, and of bloods in point of God's Law, what is witchcraft, what is incest, that the husband that striketh his wife being with quick▪child, and killeth the birth is a Murderer; but that they judicially say, such a woman is a Witch, and so ordain her to be hanged and burnt, and such a husband is a Murderer, and discern him to die, is utterly unlawful, therefore this is an ignorant speech of Erastus: This synedrie of Priests and Levites, whether in point of Law, or in point of • act, did give out sentences of death, therefore they were politick judges, it followeth not; and that the Priests said, this man deserveth to die, and therefore they gave out, as civil judges, sentences of death, (for the civil judge draweth not the sword with his own hand,) is a foul consequence; for lawyers do say such a man is worthy to die, but it followeth not that Lawyers are civil judges to condemn a man to die; for the Priests said, this man deserveth to die in point of Law, not absolutely, as this man, but upon supposition that he hath committed the fact, deserveth to die, and their meaning is, any man whosoever he be, though they never hear, nor see the man who hath committed such a fact, ought to die. Now God's Law never appointed any judge to condemn a man to die, whom the judge never did accuse, hear, or see, this were extreme unjustice: Now this supposition is, and was to be proved and judged by the civil Judge; and whereas Erastus saith, the judge draweth the sword with his own hand against no man; 1. It is not to purpose, for the hangman is in Law the hand and instrument of the judge, but he is neither hand nor instrument of the Lawyer, of the Priests and Levites, who in matters criminal of life and death, judge of the Major proposition, and of the Law, except Erastus would have a Major proposition to prove an Assumption, which were to shame all Logic: For the Priest never commanded this or this man, because he had done this fault, to be stoned by such & such executioners. 2. It is doubtful whether the judge did never with his own hand, cast a stone at any stoned to death. Lastly, there was no provocation from the great Sanhedrin at Jerusalem, true, in matter of Law, what then? Ergo, they were politick judges? it followeth as the like consequences of Erastus doth follow. Yea, for the fact and the judicial condemning of the man, they were neither the highest judicature, nor any judicature at all, the civil Judges of the high Sanhedrin did that only. It is true, he was to die who would not stand to the sentence of the judge or Priest in the matter of Law, the man being judged to be guilty of the fact by the civil judge, but this shall never prove that the Priests were civil judges.

Ans. It is like enough, the Jews referred such as these to the Sanhedrin, but we contend for two Sanedrims, one civil, and another of Priests, Levites and Elders, who judged of matters only of Ecclesiastical cognizance, and of bloods, and punishing Idolaters and false Prophets with death, only in a spiritual way, in point of Law; and I judge the holy Ghost Deut. 17. hath so framed the words that it is evident, as I have proved that capital crimes belonged to them in point of Law; for he saith not, he that refuseth to die when the Priests and Levites condemn him to die, he shall surely die, and have the benefit of appeal to no higher judicature, Now this he should have said by Erastus his way; but he that will not stand to the sentence of the Priest or judge shall die. Hence it is clear, he speaketh of things in matters of Law, in which the guilty might dis-assent, and allege the Priests had not judged according to Law. But how was it the mind of the holy Ghost that any could refuse the Sentence of death given out by the Priests? for the meaning must be by Erastus his way, he that refuseth to die, when the Priest condemneth him to die, he shall surely die. 2. He saith not that the Priests and Levites shall give out sentences of death and blood against any man, but they shall show and teach thee when thou shalt inquire, the sentences of judgment, even of Idolaters, blasphemers, of Murthers, and blood, according to the Law of God, the knowledge of which the Priests lips should preserve.

Ans. Both the Major & the Minor is false, the Major is from some particular places,