The Divine Right of Church Government and Excommunication

Quest. 12.

BEfore I proceed further, it is needful to examine Erastus his doctrine of the civil Magistrate.

Ans. 1. Because a man consisteth of a spiritual part, a conscience and soul, and of an external visible part; in which he exerciseth visible and external acts of worship; yet spiritual, another, as he is a civil Agent, therefore there is a necessity there be no supreme external Governors under the one supreme Lord of Heaven and earth; one that teacheth and informeth the mind, and ruleth by the sword whole man, as he is a part of a civil society, in all his civil actions, and this is the Magistrate; another that governeth him, as he is a member of a spiritual and supernatural society, and exerciseth external spiritual actions, in reference to God & in the subjection of his conscience to him, and this is either a Priest, Levite or Prophet in the Old Testament, or Pastor, Teacher or Elder in the New Testament: and it is absurd, that there should not be two Governors; one over man in relation to his conscience and walking with God, and his brethren as Members of a spiritual society, called a Pastor or Teacher; another in relation to his civil actions of Peace and justice to his brother, as he is a Member of a civil society, called a Magistrate.

2. It is an absurd thing, for Erastus to fancy God, and the Magistrate, two supreme Governors, when the Magistrate is not supreme, but a mere Minister and vassal subordinate to God, the only most high. 3. It is as absurd to imagine God hath given no Rulers, Teachers, and guides to govern a man as he is a spiritual Agent obliged to worship God, and to be edified in the faith, but only the civil Magistrate; then hath Christ left no shepherd to his redeemed flock but the Civil Magistrate, and ascending on high he hath left no gifts, no Pastors and Teachers, for the gathering of the Saints to the end of the world, when we shall meet all in the unity of the Faith; but only the Magistrate contrary to Christ's end, in ascending to heaven, Eph. 4. 11. Act. 20. 28. 1 Pet. 5. 1, 2. and contrary to Christ's compassion to souls, who is moved, that his sheep want shepherds; for there souls, rather then Magistrates, Matth. 9. 36, 37, 38. therefore the opinion of Erastus is like the Divinity of Epicures or unchristian Moralists, who appoint Magistrates to Governe the external man, but no Teachers to take care of their souls, or to lead them to heaven.

Ans. This man speaketh rather like a Moral, or a natural Physician, then a Divine; the argument were good, if men had no souls, for then they should not need any to watch for their souls, as the spirit of God saith they do, Heb. 13. 17. and he with one stroke, taketh away Pastors and Teachers, and maketh the King the only Pastor and Teacher in all his Kingdoms. 2. We know similitudes, especially not warranted with Scripture, proveth nothing, and this may well conclude there should be no ruler at all, nor any Lawgiver on earth, but God only, and let every man do what seems good in his own eyes, for God's will is the only measure and rule of all things. And 3. If all men were to be ruled the same way, it might have color. But it is known, that all Churches, as members of a Common-wealth, are ruled one way, in giving to every man his own, & in not doing violence one to another; But in keeping peace and policy, as all men do in all societies on earth, and so they have need of Magistrates. 2. Another way they are considered as Members of a society, called from the state of sin, to Grace and Glory, and so they have no less need of teachers for the guiding of their souls, Mat. 9. 36, 37, 38. Eph. 4. 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16. Act. 8. 31. Heb. 13. 17. 1 Thes. 5. 12, 13. 1 Tim. 5. 17. Act. 20. 28, 29. Math. 28. 19, 20. Phil. 1. 1. and by name of the Elders of the Church, Act. 4. 5. 23. and 11. 3. and 14. 23. and 15. 2, 4, 6, 22, 23. and 16. 4. and 20. 28. and 21. 18. and 22. 5. Tit. 1. 5. and that the Magistrate should rule the house of God, is against the word.

Ans. 1. This argument destro • eth all Aristocracy, Parliaments, and Senates, where many good men have equal power, and so the Common-wealth may not have 70. Heads and Rulers of equal power, which is against the Scripture, which commandeth subjection to every Civil ordinance of man, as lawful, Rom. 13. 1, 2, 3. Tit. 3. 1, 2, 3. 1 Pet. 2. 13, 14. Deut. 1. 16. It maketh no Government lawful, but Popedom and Monarchy in both Church and state. 2. It is to beg the question, that there cannot be two supreme powers, both supreme in their own kind, for they are both supreme in their own sphere: as Pastors dispense Sacraments and Word, without subjection to the Magistrate as they are Pastors, and Magistrates use the Sword without dependence on Pastors, and yet is there mutual and reciprocal subjection of each to other in divers considerations: Pastors as subjects in a Civil relation, are subject to the Magistrate, as every soul on earth is, and Magistrates as they have souls and stand in need to be led to heaven, are under Pastors and Elders. For if they hear not the Church, and if they commit incest, they are to be cast out of the Church, Mat. 18. 1 Cor. 5. Rom. 16. 17. 1 Thes. 3. 14. 15. If they walk inordinately, we are to eschew their company, if they despise the Ministers of Christ, they despise him who sent them, Math. 10. 40. Luk. 10. 16. God respecteth not the persons of Kings, and we finding them not excepted, if the preachers of the Gospel be to all believers 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 over them in the Lord, 1 Thess. 5. 12. 1 Tim. 5. 17. call it authority, or no Authority, they have some oversight over the Christian Magistrate; and here be two supreams, two highest powers, one Ecclesiastical, another Civil; nor should any deny Moses to be above Aaron, as the supreme judge; Aaron not having the power of the sword, as Moses had, and Aaron must be above Moses, in sacrificing, in burning incens • ▪, in judging between the clean and the unclean, which Moses could not do. 2. The excellency of the Civil power in regard of earthly honor and eminency in the fifth Commandment, above the servants of God in the Ministry of Christ's spiritual Kingdom, which is not of this world, we heartily acknowledge. 3. That the King Preacheth and dispenseth the Sacraments by Pastors, as by his servants, is wild Divinty: Pastors then must have Magistratical Authority and power of the sword committed to them, as the Deputies and inferior judges of the Lord's of the Gentiles, which Christ forbade his Disciples, Luk. 22. 25, 26, 27. For the servant must have some power committed to him from the principal cause in that wherein he is a servant. 4. What reason is there, that where the Magistrate is a Heathen, two Governments, and so two heads in one body should be? for then there is and must be a Church-Government, where the Magistrate is a Heathen, and that in the hands of the Church: if then the Magistrate turn Christian, must he spoil the Church of what was her due before?

Ans. Yea, but Erastus saith, the Magistrate may dispense word and Sacraments in the New Testament, if he had leisure: Why might he not sacrifice in the Old Testament also? 2. Pastors do by their Doctrine and Discipline, order and regulate all callings in their Moralls of right and wrong, of just and unjust; yet is not the Pastor the only Governor in all externals. 3. If Christ changed nothing of the Jewish Government, we have all their exclusion of men out of the Campe, their separating of the unclean, and their politick and Ceremonial Laws, which is unsound Divinity.

Ans. Moses was once a Prophet and Judge both; Ergo, so it may be now, it followeth not, except Moses as a Magistrate did reveal what was the Priesthood: What Aaron and Eleazar his sons might do, by as good reason Moses, David, Solomon, Joshua, as Magistrates wrote Canonic Scripture and prophesied. Then may Magistrates as Magistrates build new Temples typical to God, give new Laws, write Canonic Scripture, as these men did by the Spirit of prophecy no doubt, not as Magistrates; for why, but they might sacrifice as Magistrates, and why should Moses rather have committed the Priesthood, and the service of the Tabernacle due to him as a Magistrate, so to Aaron and his sons, as it should be unlawful to him as a King, and unlawful to Uzziah to burn incense, and to sacrifice, and to do the office of the Priest? If the Magistrate as the Magistrate do all that the Priests are to do as Priests, and that by a supreme principle, and radical power in him, he ought not to cast off that which is proper to him as a Magistrate, to take that which is less proper, he casteth the care and ruling of souls on the Priests, and reserveth the lesser part to himself, to rule the bodies of men with the Sword, all these are sufficiently answered before.

Ans. I show before that there is for • eiting, and separation from the Congregation, Ezra 10. 8. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 he shall be separated from the Church. 2. If the King of Persia appointed men to judge and teach the people, why should he deny any judicature at all? 3. Where ever Josephus speaketh of the judging of the Priests, as he doth antiq. l. 11. c. 7. ant. l. 11. c. 8. l. 12. c. 9. he hinteth at this.

Ans. Let Erastus be mindful of this himself, who yet saith, that the Magistrate may both judge, also (if he have time) dispence the Word and Sacraments; if then the Magistrate by his office may preach and dispense the Sacraments, who made him a judge and a Ruler? Will this sati • fie men's conscience; The Magistrate as the Magistrate may play the Minister; but the Minister may not play the Magistrate: Now as Erastus saith, the Minister in holy things, is his servant called by him; may not the Minister be called by him to the Bench also? Erastus; Eli and Samuel, were both Priests and Judges, and so to Erastus they are not inconsistent. 2. Ministers ought not to usurp the civil sword; Ergo, they have no power of governing by the sword of the Spirit, it followeth not, the contrary is evident, 1 Thes. 5. 12. 1. Tim. 5. 17. 1 Cor. 12. 28. Rom. 12. 7, 8.

Ans. Pet. Martyr 1 Cor. 5. expressly asserteth Excommunication, and acknowledgeth a Presbyterie of Pastors and Seniors, or Elders, Peter Martyr condemneth the use of both swords in the Pope, and saith it is sufficient that the Magistrate have the Sword.

Ans. Christ denieth only that his Kingdom is of this World, in regard it is not holden up by the civil sword of men, or Magistrates, as Erastus doth dream, who maketh the Magistrate with his club to be the only Catholic and principal Ruler in all Christ's courts; which Christ refuteth, when he saith, If my Kingdom were of this world, mine own would fight for me. Now Erastus will have no weapon, but the Magistrates sword to hold out, and cast out all offenders out of Christ's Kingdom; but it is false, that Christ's Kingdom is not political, external and visible; this is to deny that Christ hath a visible Church: Sure exhorting, rebuking, censuring, withdrawing from the scandalous, excommunication, are visible externally, and in a politick spiritual way exercised by Christ in his Ambassadors: for external and spiritual are not opposed, nor are political and spiritual opposed, as Erastus dreameth, and therefore this is a non sequitur of Erastus: His Kingdom is not of this world; Ergo, it is not external.

Ans. Will then Erastus have Christ, Mat. 18. to restore the power of the Sanhedrin, in gaining a lost brother; that is to cite him before the Roman Judges: But 1. the Romans made high Priests from year to year, did Christ acknowledge the Sanhedrin to be a restored Judicature in this? 2. Say that the Sanhedrin in sacris, in in the holy things of God, had its full power, the Romans not impeding them; hath any man a face to deny, but Pharisees corrupted both Law, Gospel, Sanhedrin and all, and doth Christ establish their most corrupt government; especially when they set themselves against the Messiah? Caesar or Pompeius could give the Sanhedrin no more then it had before they were subdued; but before they were subdued, the Sanhedrin was changed and corrupted. 3. This is to beg the question, to say they kept the power of the Sword: For 1. We utterly deny that by God's Law they ever had any such power, and forsooth, because the High-Priests servant smote our Savior on the face, and they scourged and imprisoned the Apostles; What then? therefore the Sanhedrin had the Law of God for it, and Aaron and his sons might beat, scourge, imprison, and kill, as they killed Steven, without Law or warrant, (except the Law that they had from the Roman Emperors, for which cause I judge their Sanhedrin was then a mixed Judicature,) surely this is a vain consequence. 4. It is like enough Claudius and Tiberius both, gave them liberty of their own Religion, Ceremonies and customs at their pleasure, and that is much for us, the adversary so do reason from a corrupt, unjust and wicked practice to infer a Law.

Ans. Let another man praise thee, solidity of the probation to most of Protestant Divines, is plain emptiness. 2. That the Magistrate took advice of Divines and learned men skilled in the Law, is not like the first pattern of Moses, David, Solomon, who as Magistrates (saith Erastus) did rule all in the Church, gave the Law to Aaron his sons, directed and commanded the Prophets from the Lord, as nearest to him, what they should do, what Laws they should teach the people: Shew us one precept, practice, or promise in the word, where Moses, David, Solomon asked Counsel at Aaron, the Priests, Gad, Nathan, or the Prophets; saying, O sons of Aaron, O Prophets advise us Magistrates, what Laws we should command you, touching your office, your holy garments, your washing, your beasts clean and unclean, your l • per, your putting men out of the Camp, touching the form, dimensions, structure, materials of the Ark, Tabernacle, Temple, &c. that we may know what to command you from the Lord; for we are nearer to the Lord, and have a more eminent place, as Church-Officers, then you who are but our Vicars, Deputies, and servants to be directed by us.

Now 1. Moses received all Laws immediately from God, and never consulted with any man, either Aaron, Priest, or Prophet; David and Solomon had the form of the Temple, given to them by the Lord in writing, and advised with none at all; & therefore received from God, and delivered to the Church, what they received of the Lord.

2. What warrant the Magistrates should advise with Ministers; what they should command-Ministers, to preach and do in their Ministry, if by virtue of their Office they command Ministers.

3. So like as Christ referreth men to the Civil sword on their bodies to gain their souls, which is the scope of Christ, Matth. 18.

Quest. 13.

Ans. Certainly, Ier. 26. 10. the Princes sat down in judgment, but that the Priests sat with them, we have not one word, only the Priests accused him as worthy to die in the question of Law, and so the people, ver. 8. Now the people undeniably cannot have been Judges. 2. Nor do we say, the Priests were both judges Civil to condemn Jeremiah to die, and accusers: that doth not hinder, but they in an Ecclesiastical way were Judges, touching the question of Law, whether he had spoken blasphemy or not, and also Accusers before the Civil Judges. 3. It is to beg the question to say, that all power even of Church-censuring was in the hand of the King. 1. The King might exclude none of the Lepers out of the Camp, the Priests only could by the Law of God do this, and excluded Uzziah the King, as a Leper out of the Congregation: The King could not judge who were clean, who unclean. 2. That all power was in the hand of the Kings, as if the Kings of I • dah were by God's Law absolute, can never be proved, but the contrary is evident, Deut. 17. And that inferior Judges were essentially Judges, and the Lord's immediate Deputies, is clear by Scripture, Deut. 1. 16. 2 Chron. 19. 5, 6, 7. Exod. 18. 21, &c. Numb. 11. • 6, 17, 18. Psal. 82. 6, 7. Rom. 13. 1, 2.

Ans. A permissive power from God, can prove no Law-power. 2. Persians and Romans could not give to Priests and Levites the power of the sword, to do what the Law of God had exempted them from doing, they were not so much as numbered for the war, but set apart for the service of God's house, Num. 1. 3. 45, &c. they might in some extraordinary cases judge in civil business with the Civil Judges in the same Judicature, but this was no standing Law, 2. Erastus seeketh we would prove that the practice of bloody Pharisees was not against Law: He knoweth, it is his own Argument, Affirmanti incumbit Probatio. 3. Christ and the Apostles rebuked not particularly many other sins. Pilate might have accused them for binding one of Caesars Subjects, of whom he had said, he found no fault in him. 4. That Joseph was a Priest, or a Levite, I read not, he was an Honorable Counselor, some think of Pilate's Council. 5. That they had any Law of God to apprehend Jesus, or that Joseph had any hand in either condemning, or doing anything in the Sanhedrin, but showing his judgment, as a Judge in the question of Law, what was blasphemy, we must deny, let Erastus prove it, if so be Erastus make him either Priest or Levite? John. 18. 31. The Jews expressly deny the power that Erastus giveth them: Pilate therefore said unto them, take him and judge him according to your Law, which was a salt mocking of them. I know, if you had power, you should not have brought him to me; therefore if ye have power, use it: The Jews therefore said unto him, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death, and the Evangelist addeth, ver. 32. That the saying of Jesus might be fulfilled, which he spake, signifying what death he should die, that is, God had taken power of life and death from the Jews, in his admirable providence, that Jesus might die a Roman death, due for treason, that is, that he might be crucified; Ergo, the Jews had no power to put him to death. It is weak and empty that Erastus saith, They had not power to put him to death, for saying he was King, because that was a civil crime: But they had power to put him to death, and to stone him for blasphemy; for the Jews say universally without distinction of causes, with two negations, which in the Greek Language is a strong and universal negation, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , We have not power to kill any man, Ergo, the place will never prove that the Church men might not kill him, because the Jews might kill no man: you will say, How had they power with swords and staves to take the Kings free subject and bind him, which yet they did? I answer, it was an usurped power, for by Erastus his doctrine, they had no more power to take him and bind him for Treason, which was a civil crime, then they had to kill him for Treason, both was alike unlawful by the Roman Law, and Pilate being a man willing to please the people, as the event of the business showeth, did not in a legal way challenge them for binding him; but he durst not be answerable to his Prince Caesar, if he had past by such a high point, as their putting Christ to death: But we desire any Law of God (for practices especially of wicked men are no binding rule) that Priests or Levites, in the Old-Testament, might either bind a Jew or put him to death, and when Pilate did stand so much to put Christ to death, they would have used their own power, malice so necessitating them, if they had had any, and might well have said to Pilate, It is lawful for us to put him to death for blasphemy, but we will not use our power, we so love to be loyal to Caesar; but they say the contrary, We have no power to put any man to death. They say indeed, that by their law he ought to die. But that they had no power to put him to death, for the Common people said, that, as may appear, if we compare, John. 19. ver. 5. with ver. 12. with Matth. 27. 25. and with Act. 2. 36. Act. 3. 12. &c. and yet Erastus will not say that the common people were Members of the Sanhedrin, or had power of life and death, as the Civil Magistrate had.

Ans. Beza meant, that Steven was stoned by tumult, that is, without any Law-power, except usurped, when the Jews were now riper for destruction, and had taken on them the blood of the Lord of glory, and so growing more daring and insolent against the Roman power, to their own just desolation, that came on them under Vespasian. That they used witnesses, will not prove they had Law to stone Steven, for Timothy had no power of life and death over Elders, one brother hath no power of life and death over another, as Erastus will grant, yet with both there is use of witnesses, 1 Tim. 5. 19. Matth. 18. 16. This I hope concludeth but weakly, any lawful civil power, so all this is from a naked practice of those that always resisted the holy Ghost: And the like I say of Paul, who saith Act. 26. 10. of himself, Many of the Saints did I shut up in prison, having received authority from the high Priests, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; suppose it were true that Saul had Law and Authority from the high Priests to imprison the Saints, and to murder the Saints, no high Priest can make over a Lawpower to another, which he hath not himself; now certain this Law-power of the Pharisees and High Priests by God's Law, is the question. Let us see Law or institution, where the High Priests (for of these only the Text speaketh) did imprison and put to death, either blasphemer or false Prophet, or, if by Moses his Law, which must be a rule to all the High Priests in the time of persecuting Saul, it was either Law or practice, that the High Priest had power to imprison, or scourge, or put to death any man, and this was most proper to the King, and the Civil judge, and the Elders and Judges in every City, 2 Sam. 1. 14. 15, 16. 1 Kin. 2. 9. & 2. 6, 7. Isa. 1. 23. Ier. 22. 1, &c. Ier. 22. 27. Numb. 35. 12. 24. Deut. 22. 18. & 7. 5. & 19. 12. 13. ver. 18, 19, 20, 21. & 21. 19. 1 Kin. 21. 11. Hos. 6. 8. Zeph. 3. 1, 2, 3. Rom. 13. 4. We know undoubtedly the King, the Civil Judge, had power of all bodily punishments, as of scourging, death, stoning, strangling, crucifying, hanging; But show meany Vestigium, or the least consequence where the Priests or High Priests had such power, or did execute such power in any one man: it is true, Deut. 17. the Priests might determine in Law what was blasphemy, and so what deserved the punishment of blasphemy, which is death: But so the written Law of God, the very letter of it could in many cases clearly resolve the Civil judge, even though there had been no controversy about the fact, whether it was condemned in the Law of God, or not: we know Samuel not being judge, but Saul being King & supreme Magistrate, & not executing judgment on the Amalekites, he killed Agag, certainly, all Divines, even Popish not excepted, say, Saul the Civil Magistrate ought to have killed Agag, & that Samuel not by virtue of his place, as a prophet, or as a Priest or a Member of the Sanhedrin (as Erastus would say) but excited by an extraordinary motion of God's spirit, killed him, as Phineas the son of Aaron slew, Num. 25. Zimri and Cozbi, 7, 8. And Elijah slew Baals Priests, 1 Kin. 18. 40. 2 Kin. 1. 10. If Phineas by office, and Elias by office killed those ill doers, as Erastus would dream, The Prophets and Priests by their office were Civil Judges, and had power to put to death evil doers. Now Erastus denieth, and with good reason, that the Lord's disciples should bear civil dominion over men, as the Lord's of the Gentiles, Luk. 22. 24, 25, 26. and that Christ though both a Prophet and a Priest could not take on him, to be a Judge and a Ruler, Luk. 12. yet here Erastus will have the High Priest, by a Law-power, to imprison and put to death. 2. Erastus may with as good reason say, that the high Priests had a Law-power by God's institution to punish and to compel Christians to blaspheme God, and to persecute them to strange Cities, and to murder the Saints that believed in the Lord Jesus; for he went to Damascus for this effect, Act. 26. 12. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , with power and Commission from the chief Priests, This was not a Law-power in general, to punish such as the Law of Moses discerned to be blasphemers, but a limited particular Commission to murder the Saints, who should hear and obey the Prophet, like unto Moses, whom the Lord should raise up, Deut. 18. What Law had the High Priests for this? Had they not a Law on the contrary? Deut. 18.

Ans. It is true, the Romans heard that the Sanhedrin exercised Civil jurisdiction, and inflicted bodily punishment. But for false Doctrine, the Romans I conceive took as little care as Gallio did of any of God's matters, and whether the Sanhedrin kept the rule of the Lord's first institution, Deut. 17. yea, they looked not much whether the Priests might put to death false Prophets, or if the Civil judges only might do it; and Erastus said before, that the Romans gave the Jews liberty of all their own laws and customs in matters of Religion. 2. What care would the Romans take, whether the Jews killed and oppressed Jews, for questions of their own Religion, so they remained loyal and true to Caesar? 3. We know Herod, Felix, Festus, Agrippa, being willing to pleasure the Jews, did oversee many breaches of Law in them, especially in matters of the Gospel, Act. 12. 3. and 24. 27. and 16. 36, 37, 38, 39 40. John. 19. 15 16, 17. 4. How doth he prove that the Romans did not take this for a breach of their Laws? Because they accuse not the Sanhedrin for this? surely it followeth not: We read not that the Romans challenged them for a manifest breach of Law, when they scourged and cast in prison Paul and Silas, who were Romans and had not condemned them, Act. 16. 38, 39. 5. We deny not a lawful judicature of the Sanhedrin, Act. 5. But that they had any Law of God, to scourge, and imprison, and put to death the Apostles, is the question; we say, they neither had God's law, nor durst be answerable to the Romans Laws, for that fact, and so this is a fact brought to prove a Law.

Ans. 1. That it is expedient, that the Christian Magistrate should be acquainted with the Excommunication of any under his jurisdiction, that he may satisfy his own Conscience in punishing him civilly, it is like some of our Divines do teach: But that the Magistrate have a negative voice in Excommunication, none of ours teach. 2. We make no such division as that of the Civil and the Ecclesiastical Government of the Church. Erastus may dream of such a distinction: We know, all Government of the Church, as the Church, to us is Ecclesiastical: There is a Government of men of the Church that is Civil; but we dreamed never of a Civil Government of the Church: All the Government of the Church, as the Church, though external, is Spiritual, Heavenly, and subordinate to Jesus Christ as Lord and King of his own house, as the Government of a house, a Kingdom, an Army, a City is subordinate to the Lord of the house, to the King, General Commander, and Lord Mayor, and it is no more a Civil Government subordinate to the Magistrate and his Sword, then Christ's Kingdom visible and external, or invisible and internal is of this world.

When therefore Erastus denieth that there is any Church-Government, he meaneth there is no Spiritual Church Government in the hands of Presbyters; but because we know no Government of the Church as the Church, but it is Spiritual, and the Government of the Church by the Christian Magistrate, is a Civil Government of men as men, and that by the power of the Sword, and so it is no Church-Government at all; and therefore we justly say, that Erastus denieth all Church-Government.

Ans. Ananias was to judge him only in an Ecclesiastical way; and when Paul saw that they went beyond their line, to take his life, he appealed from their inferior judicature to Caesar, who only had power of his life. 2. Lysias had Law to vindicate an innocent man accused on his life, before a most uncompetent judicature. Tertullus knew the Jews had favor and connivence in many Lawlesse Facts.

Quest. 14.

BEza saith, there was need of same select men in the Apostles time to lay hands on Ministers, to appoint Deacons, for there was no Jewish Synedrie, no Magistrate to do it; and when Paul forbiddeth Christians for things of this life to implead other before the heathen Magistrate, would he send them in spiritual business to such? or must that, Tell the Church, have no use for a hundredth years after Christ? So Beza; yea if the Lord ascending to heaven left Officers for the building and Governing his Church, Eph. 4. 11. and some to be over the people in the Lord, 1 Thes. 5. 12. 13. some to watch for their souls, whom they were to obey, some to feed the flock, and to drive away the wolves, Act. 20. 28, 29, 30. some to Govern the house of God, no less then their own house, 1 Tim. 3. 4. a Presbytery in general Erastus cannot deny, only he denieth such a Presbytery, and saith, that it is like this, such a one is a living creature; Ergo, such an one is a dog. But if I can demonstrate, there is a Presbytery and they were not all Bishops, as is clear, Rom. 12. 89. 1 Cor. 12. 28, 29. 1 Tim. 5. 17. and if, Tell the Church, by no Grammar, can be, Tell the Bishop, except you make the Queen the Bride, and the servant or friend of the Bridegroom all one; It must follow there is both a Presbytery, and such a Presbytery in the Church, nor do we argue from a general to specials.

Ans. To pray that God would destroy him, whom we are to admonish as a brother, is a strange discipline; Erastus will never make good from Scripture, that God hath appointed praying for the destruction of men to be a saving ordinance, appointed of Christ for gaining of souls, (such as we take rebuking, admonishing, excommunication, eschewing the company of scandalous brethren, which have for their intrinsical end, the repentance of a brother under these censures) and therefore this of Erastus his killing of men, is a new forged censure.

Ans. The antecedent is false; 1 Tim. 5. 17. as I have demonstrate in another place, I repeat it not here, let any disciple of Erastus answer if he can. 2. The consequence is vain, for if in every place of the New Testament, where mention is made of an Elder, the Holy Ghost mean only a Preaching Elder, it followeth only that any other officers, as Deacons, and those that labor not in the Word, & yet Govern well, are not called with the name of Presbyters: And so the Argument is against the name, not against the office and thing. What if the Presbytery be named from the most principal part, as is ordinary in Scripture, doth it follow that there be none members of the Presbytery, but only Preachers of the Word? In no sort. Paul saith of the visible Church of Corinth, Ye are bought with a price, ye are justified, ye are sanctified; Ergo, none were members of the visible Church, but those that are redeemed, justified, and sanctified, it is like the consequence of Erastus. 3. I retort this vain argument thus; none in Scripture have the name of Apostles, But the Eleven, and Mathias, none are called the witnesses of the Lord but they, 1 John. 1. 1, 2. Ergo, there be no preaching Ministers, neither Timothy, Titus, Epaphroditus that are to be called witnesses of the Lord, but the twelve Apostles; so where doth Erastus find that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a deaconrie or office of labor in the Ministry is given to any, but to those that labor in the word? Rom. 11. 13. Ergo, must there be no deaconry, but laboring in the word, the plain contrary is Act. 6.

Ans. Erastus fancies a conclusion of an Argument that Beza saith not; for he saith; Ergo, beside Ministers there must be some chief men, which we call ruling Elders, to represent the people, that there may be (as all our Divines and Scripture teach) a threefold government in the Church: A Monarchy, in regard of Jesus Christ the only head and King of the Church, as the Jewish Church had their High Priest a Type of him; and Aristocracy, in Pastors and Teachers, as the Jews had their Priests and Levites; and a Democracy in the ruling Elders, as the Jews had their Zekenim, and their Heads of families and Elders in the Ecclesiastical Sanhedrin, and we in the Presbytery to represent the people: and of these three the Jewish Ecclesiastic Sanhedrin is made up 2 Chron. 19. 8. of the Levites and the priests 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of the heads of Fathers, or Masters of families. Now Erastus yieldeth that good Jehoshaphat departed not from God's institution in his reformation, all this Erastus passeth over in silence, being ignorant of the Jewish Church government, and not able to answer, and he addeth something of Doctors not to a purpose, and saith there be no Doctors but Pastors only in the Word; contrary to Rom. 12, 7, 8. Ephes. 4. 11. where they are clearly distinguished.

Ans. Beza hath not any such argument, he contendeth for Ruling Elders, not for Prophets and Doctors to represent the people. 2. Where doth the Scripture speak of such an office as a Bishop having Majority of power above Presbyters? (for since Erastus denieth all Ecclesiastical Government in Teachers, he must deny all Majority of Ecclesiastical Governement also, he that denieth the positive, denieth also the comparative degree) now this is a Bishop that neither Scripture, nay nor popish Antiquity dreamed of. 3. In what is a Bishop the representative Church? The like is Erastus his third Argument.

Ans. Governements to us are but a part of the Presbyterie. 2. There be many kinds of Governors, but he durst not venture to show what is signified by governments, lest he should say, his Magistrate must be the only Church Governor, but he knoweth that a Magistrate as a Magistrate is no member nor part of the Church, but as he is a Christian; for then Caesar, Herod, Pontius Pilate, as Magistrates must be set in the body of Christ, as Apostles, and Teachers and Prophets, which all the World will cry shame on. 3. Beza said never that Teachers and prophets are cast to Ministers to make a Presbyterie, for by Teachers he meaneth Pastors. 4. Because Paul setteth down Governments different from Apostles, Prophets, and Teachers, they must be some Officers different from them, we can find none else, but such as rule well, and yet labor not in the Word, 1 Tim. 5. 17. let Erastus show us what they are, he dares not open his mind: for he meaneth a Justice of Peace, or a King, or a heathen judge must be in the womb of this, 1 Cor. 12. 28. let himself be mid-wife.

Ans. I cannot particularly discuss this place, I have done it else where fully 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 with two Articles noteth two species of Elders, as Tit. 1. 11. 1 Tim. 5. 8. Gal. 6. 10. Phil. 4. 22. 2. This is a Tautologie, I love all well governing and faithful Elders, especially those that labor in the word; they may be well and painful feeding Pastors, who are not painful in preaching the Word, and this is Tautologie; I love all that are studious, and study excellently, and especially those that study night and day, as Erastus must say if he make the phrase agree to the purpose, to feed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 well in a feeding Pastor includeth laboring in the Word, since Erastus expoundeth the place, 1 Tim. 5. 17. of Church officers, he cannot deny but the place holdeth forth a Government, and a 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of Church Officers, for beside laboring in the Word and doctrine, which is preaching, here is well governing, it is a shame then to Erastus to expound this place so, and yet deny all Church Government, except in the hands of the Magistrate.

Ans. I have made the contrary appear in the place cited; I will not weary the Reader with reasons set down at full in another place.

Ans. Mat. 18. Mat. 16. John. 20. Mat. 28. 19, 20. Eph. 20. 28. 1 Cor. 5. 1, 2▪ &c. Rev. 2. 1, 2. and 20. 21. Ministers are no less separated under the New Testament to all ministerial acts of feeding, by the word and rod of Discipline, then Priests were of Old.

Ans. Nathan had assurance from God that his sin was pardoned; 2. That the Sanhedrin did not cast David out is a fact, and proveth not they had no power; for 80. Priests cast Uzziah out of the house of God for a less fault, that carried in its face less scandal.

Ans. The contrary is evident, Ier. 5. 31. Ezek. 22. 25, 26. and 44. 8, 9, 10. contrary to their Office, Deut. 17. 11, 12. Levite. 10. 10.

Ans. Not except withal he had offered a contrite heart to God.

Ans. Where saith Paul that he his alone did use the rod? doth he not ascribe judging and casting out to the Corinthians? 1 Cor. 5. 12. &c, and forgiving of the incestuous man 2 Cor. 2. to them Beza saith, this power is necessary to purge the Church, lest it be infected; even to the end of the world, and therefore must be left with the Church.

Ans. Paul doth construe the words v. 4. in the Name of Christ with the Participle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ye being convened, and the words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , are separated from the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ( I have judged ) by the interposition of these words, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 so Erastus his grammar will be a little confused. 2. What needed the Corinthians be gathered together with the Spirit of Paul, and the power of the Lord Jesus to pray that the man might be miraculously killed? for when they were not gathered together in a Church meeting, but were all separatim in their own houses and closets, they had power to judge the man, that is, to pray that he might be miraculously killed, else Erastus cannot make Paul, in any reasonable manner to rebuke them because they prayed not that he might be killed, for Erastus must suppose the power of praying; for this, in faith, was tied to this public convention of the Church, and Erastus saith, in no place he biddeth them be gathered together as here. This Spirit of Paul and power of the Lord Jesus that was in them, was not given to elevate them to any higher or more supernatural acts of miraculous co-operating with Paul, then their naked act of consenting that the man should be cut off, and this act of consenting, they could not want, in their private praying at home, that the man be miraculously killed, and so this spirit of Paul, and the power of the Lord Jesus shall be brought so low, as I know not what to make of it.

Ans. But it is evident he rebuketh them not only, for not mourning for the man's fall, and not praying that he might be punished; but for that they convened not, and did not judge, and put away the man; Ergo, they had always an ordinary power to judge and cast out scandalous persons, and Paul rebuketh them for not improving this power; then it was not any miraculous power not ordinarily in their hand, as powers of that kind are supposed to be.

Ans. This is thrown Grammar, which the Greek doth not bear without violence, for Paul saith, If he obey not our doctrine, written by Epistle, mark such a one, and he commandeth them to inflict a censure on him, by eschewing his company.

Quest. 15.

Ans. All this may be said of the Gospel and of Christ, that he is appointed for the fall and ruin of many, and that he came not to give Peace, but the Sword, 1 Pet. 2. 8. Luke 2. 34. Mat. 10. 34, 35. But the cause is not in the Gospel, or in Christ, but in men's corrupt nature: Excommunication is the Rod of the King out of Zion, and we know how impatient men are of the yoke of Christ; Excommunication abused by the Pope doth all this.

Ans. So public rebuking of those that sin publicly, 1 Tim. 5. 20. being abused doth beget Hypocrites, Esa. 57. 1, 2, 3. Ezek. 31, 32, 33. 1 King. 21. 27. 28, 29. so doth the Rod, the Word, the giving of alms, praying, being abused to wicked ends, make hypocrites, Mat. 23. 14, 25. Mat. 6. 1, 2, 3, 4. Psal. 78. v. 34, 35, 36. Hos. 7. 14. Excommunication is innocent of all these.

Ans. Erastus is willing there be a Presbytery: 1. Of mixed men, prudent men, and godly Pastors. 2. Chosen by the Magistrate. 3. That they judge and rebuke Murderers, Extortioners, Oppressors, Thieves, &c. But 1. he should give us Scripture for this his new Presbytery. He condemneth ours, because it wanteth (as he saith) the Authority; and the like of his Presbytery in the Old or New Testament you find not. 2. That Ministers should judge of bloods, thefts, treasons, paricides (for all these are loose livers) and of goods and inheritances, and give an account to the Civil Magistrate, is all one as if the Ministers of the Gospel should be Judges as the Lord's of the Gentiles, such as Pilate, Felix and the rest, so they do it at the Command of the Supreme Magistrate; then the King may warrant Ministers to go against the Command and practice of Christ, Luk. 22. 24, 25, 26. and 12, 13, &c. 2 Tim. 2. 4. For this is a Civil Judicature. 3. Then the Ministers rebuking in the name of the Civil Magistrate, may make him to Preach & exhort in the name of the Civil Magistrate. So Ministers, are they to hear the word at the Magistrates mouth? I thought Ministers had been the Ambassadors of an higher King, Ezech. 2. 7, 8. and 3. 3. Speak with my words to them, Rom. 1. 1. 2 Cor. 5. 20. 4. If the Ministers rebuke as Ambassadors of Christ: Those to whom they Preach the word of reconciliation, those they are to rebuke with Authority, and all hearers are subject to them: Magistrates or others, high or low: This is clear by 2 Cor. 5. 19. 20, &c. 2 Tim. 4. 1, 2. For rebuking in way of Preaching, or in way of censure, is a part of the Gospel. But Pastors are to Preach the Gospel to all, to great and small who stand in need of Reconciliation, 2 Cor. 5. 20, Act. 9. 15. He is a chosen vessel to me, to bear my name before Gentiles and Kings, and the Children of Israel.

Ans. We deny not, but the Sword is sufficient to punish offenders, in its own kind, in order to the peace of the Common-wealth. to remove evil; to cause others fear, to pacify God's wrath, as the Scriptures speak: so David and good Kings purged the city of God, but Erastus cannot deny but God ordained spiritual means of rebukings, putting out of the Camp, eschewing the company of offenders, that they may be ashamed, and those spiritual means have a spiritual influence on the soul to remove offenses, to gain the offenders, Matth. 18. 15. Psal. 110▪ 2. Isa, 11. 4. Psal. 141. 5. 2 Thess. 3. 14, 15.

2. The word maketh the Priests separated from Civil Judges, Zach. 3. 7. The Angel of the Lord protested unto Joshua the high Priest, if thou wilt walk in my ways, and keep my charge, then thou shalt also judge my house, and thou shalt keep my courts. The Civil Magistrate judged not the house of God, the way that the High Priest did. The Divines that noteth on the place, say, The chief part in Ecclesiastical affairs was upon the High Priest, Deu • . 17. 12. 2 Chron. 19. 11. The word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that is given to the Priest is to judge, to give out sentence in judgment, the very word that is given to King Josiah; He judged the cause of the poor and needy, and Ier. 5. 28. They judge not the cause, the cause of the fatherless, and Ier. 21. 12. O house of David execute judgment in the morning, and the sons of Aaron the Priests, 1 Chron. 24. 5. are made some of them Governors of the sanctuary, and Governors of the house of God: It is the word that signifies Princes, 2 Kin. 9. 5. A word to thee O Prince 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 1 Sam. 22. 2. 1 Chro. 11. 6. Ier. 17. 25, Num. 23. 3. 10. All the princes of Moab, Isa. 30. 4. Isa. 10. 8. Are not my princes Kings? and Lev. 4. 5, 6. chapters, judicial acts are given to the Priest that are proper to him as Priest, which none do but he, nor have the Civil ludges any part in it, more then they can offer sacrifices which none do but the priests, for he was to judge of the quality of the sins, and might not offer any sacrifice for every sin, nor dip his finger in the blood of the bullock seven times, for every sin, this spiritual judicature was the Priests. And neither Moses the Prince nor any Civil Judge on earth could share with the Priests in judging this: all the world will say the judge may use the sword against the Murderer, and Elders or Pastors have not to do with the sword at all: and the Pastors are to convince, rebuke and work upon the conscience of the Murderer to gain him to repentance, and no civil judge as a civil judge hath to share with him in this: here be distinct punishments, one corporal and civil, another spiritual, why then must they not flow from two distinct Jurisdictions? or if it displease any man, that we call Churchcensures with the name of punishment, we can forbear the name, for rebukes, suspension from the Sacraments, Excommunication, because they are intrinsically, and of their own nature such as tend not to the hurt, but to the gaining and saving of the souls of the persons censured; they are improperly punishments, as the power and court they come from is improperly a rod a Judicature, a Court, and those that inflict the censures improperly Judges, yet can it not be denied to be spiritual Government, and that there is a spiritual sword, the word of God, and a spiritual coaction, flowing from Heralds, or servants in the name of the King of Kings and Head of the Church, who reigneth in his own Ordinances, and Ministers.

Ans. The Priests were a College of Elders, who not only judicially condemned the Kings fact as against the Law of God, but 2 Chron. 26. Azariah and eighty priests with him withstood him, and resisted him, yea, they gave out sentence against him, ver. 18. It pertaineth not unto thee, Uzziah, to burn incense to the Lord, but to the Priests the sons of Aaron, that are consecrated to burn incense; go out of the sanctuary, for thou hast trespassed, they give out the sentence of the Law of God, Numb. 16. 40, Nor might any come in to the Holy place, but the Priests and Levites, Num. 18. 6, 7. here is a sentence judicial by the voices of 80. Priests in an external court, given out against the supreme Magistrate: for they gave not out this sentence as private men, but as Priests, judging according to the Law, and in this the King was subject to Ecclesiastical jurisdiction.

Ans. Erastus scorneth this distinction, to say, the Magistrate not as a Magistrate, but as a scandalous man is Excommunicated: Yet we can make him receive the distinction whether he will or not: For Erastus saith, that Pastors may rebuke, convince, and threaten the Magistrate? Good man, may Pastors threaten and rebuke the Magistrate as the Magistrate? or may they only threaten, and rebuke him as an offending man? Erastus dare not say the first, for so he were a gross Kata-baptist, for then Pastors were to rebuke the very office, and to condemn it; if he say the latter, as he doth in express words, then he acknowledgeth that Pastors may bind the sins of wicked Magistrates in heaven, is this, good Thoma, no Ecclesiastical coaction, no jurisdiction? and this is to receive the distinction whether you will or not. 2. The rejecting of this distinction is a tenet of Royalists, for certainly we use no defensive arms against the King as King, but as he is a misled man; and I think the King will say, he useth not offensive arms against the Parliament as the Parliament, but under another very undeserved notion, as Rebels. 3. It is less that we may not rail on rulers, which is a sin, (for to rail upon any cursing-wise is unlawful) then that we cannot punish the ruler, which is more? To punish the ruler as a sinful and wicked man, is a work of justice, and so less unlawful then sin. Erastus taketh for confessed (as his custom is) that which we deny, that to punish rulers with an Ecclesiastic censure is a sin, as to rail on them, and curse them is a greater sin. But to bind the rulers sins in heaven, is a punishment, and this the Elders may lawfully do, and to eschew the company of a ruler, if he be a fornicator, an extortioner, and idolater, is either to punish him, or put shame upon him, 2 Thes. 3. 14. But one private Christian, far more a Church may do that, Rom. 16. 17. 1 Cor. 5. 9, 10. 2 Thes. 3. 14. except Erastus except the Magistrate from being under a Divine and Apostolic command; this he must say, and so we have the Apostles meaning; withdraw from those that cause divisions, and walk unordinately, and are fornicators, covetous, extortioners, least they infect you, and that they may be ashamed, and repent, except they be Magistrates, though in the lowest rank; if they be Magistrates, they are gods, and you their subjects, and you may in no sort shame them. I should think God both accepted persons, and would not have us to endeavor the repentance and gaining of the souls of Magistrates, because they are above Gospel-rules by this way of Erastus; and because the Presbytery may not rail on Magistrates, for that is sin, it followeth not, the Presbytery may inflict no Ecclesiastical censure on them; Yea, let me retort this, The Magistrate may not rail on, or curse and revile the Priests; So Paul expoundeth it, Act. 23. 5. against reviling of Priests, nor may the Magistrate revile or curse any subject, for I conceive reviling to be sin, Mat. 5. 11. and 27. 39. Joh. 9. 28. 1 Cor. 4. 12. 1 Pet. 2. 23. 1 Cor. 6. 10. Isai. 51. 7. Zepha. 2. 8. 1 Pet. 3. 9. Jude 9. and the Magistrate is under the Moral Law. Hence I infer by Erastus his reasoning, that the Magistrate may not punish, Priests, Prophets, Pastors, or any subject, though they most heinously trespass against all Laws, which is absurd. 3. That the Magistrate is made a servant, not a Magistrate, if the Elders may use the rod of Christ against him is a vain consequence; Paul preached himself a servant, in a spiritual Ministry, to all the Christians in Corinth, 2 Cor. 4. 5. and all Elders are thus servants to Magistrates and flock; Yet Erastus knoweth that Paul had a rod of miraculous killing the disobedient, as Erastus expoundeth, 1 Cor. 5. & 1 Cor. 4. 21. What will ye? shall I come unto you with a rod, or in love? Suppose there had been a Christian Magistrate at Corinth that should fall in incest, as one did, 1 Cor. 5. 1. Paul could not come to him with the rod; or suppose the Roman Emperor had been a Christian and within the Church, and should have his Fathers wife; Paul could use no rod against him, and should he not have in readiness revenge against all disobedience? 2 Cor. 10▪ 6. and authority, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , given him by the Lord for edification, v. 8. against all offenders within the Christian Church? in regard that Christ is head and King of the Church; but he should have neither rod nor revenge in readiness against the disobedience of the Emperor? why, is not the rod of Paul the rod of Christ? 2 Cor. 10. 8. yea certainly, is not then the Christian Emperor the subject of Christ's Kingdom? and subject to the King Christ, and his rod? No but (saith Erastus) Paul, Is the Emperor subject to thee? and if Paul should have a rod to punish the Emperor, then the Apostle could not be the Emperors subject, nor obey him as a God on earth: for (saith Erastus, ) no subject may punish the Magistrate. This is down right to make God an accepter of persons, nor can Erastus deny but sharp rebuking was a punishment, Tit. 1. Rebuke them sharply that they may be sound in the • aith; And this the Apostle urgeth all Ministers and watchmen to do, not being afraid of the faces of Kings, Jer. 1. 17, 18. Joh. 2. 1, 2, 3▪ 4. 2 Tim. 4. 1, 2, 3. Erastus teacheth Magistrates to break Christ's bounds, and to say, we will not have this man to reign over us, he needed not employ a wicked pen for this, they need no teacher, vitia discuntur sine Magistro.

Ans. 1. We all think the Cumulative consent of the godly Magistrate, is necessary to Excommunication: Because he is obliged to join his sanction and authority to all Christ's Ordinances, but we think not the privative, or negative consent is required; so as no man's sins should be bound in heaven, except the Magistrate say Amen. 2. Put Erastus his Arguments in form, and you shall see their weakness as thus: He whose consent is required to Excommunication, cannot be punished with Excommunication himself, because no man will consent, not Theodosius, nor the godliest man, that he be punished himself: But the Magistrates consent (say the Presbyterians) is to be had to Excommunication; Ergo, the Magistrate cannot be punished with Excommunication himself.

Ans. I retort it, he whose consent is required for threatening wrath • o, and rebuking of offenders and scandalous men, he is not to be threatened with wrath, and rebuked for his own offenses and scandals; because no man, no Theodosius, no godly Magistrate, when he seeth the present danger, will consent, that he be threatened with the wrath of God and rebuked himself; We know Nathan was afraid to rebuke a Magistrate according to God's heart, but in the third Person. But Erastians teach that the Magistrate, when he scandalously offends, should be threatened and rebuked; Ergo, the Magistrates consent is not requisite to threatenings and rebukings of Pastors. But the conclusion is against Erastus, for the Pastors preach, and rebuke, and threaten as the deputies and servants of the Magistrate, and as sent by him; and the Magistrate preacheth, rebuketh, threateneth all offenders, and himself also in and through Pastors as his servants, as Erastus teacheth; then he must consent, that they threaten and rebuke himself. 2. The proposition is false, it is presumed, all the subjects do consent to lawful penal Laws against sorcery, murder, incest in the general, and virtually, that they shall be put in execution against themselves: yet the Sorcerer will never formally consent, that he himself be put to death, though he once, as a subject, consented to the Law, that all Sorcerers be put to death: For when the penal Law against sorcery was enacted, he consented to this. 3. He whose consent accumulative is requisite, that scandalous offenders in general be Excommunicated, but not that this or this man, possibly the Magistrate himself, he is not to be Excommunicated, is most false; he whose consent negative, is requisite for Excommunication, he is not to be Excommunicated himself, the proposition is true; But I assume, the Magistrates consent negative, is requisite to Excommunication, there is nothing more false: For shall that which the Church bindeth on earth, not be bound in heaven, except the King, the Justice, or Master Constable say Amen to it on earth? We say not that the Magistrates consent as a Magistrate, is requisite, for the Excommunicating of himself. For though as a Magistrate he ought to give his consent to Excommucate all offenders, and add his civil sanction, as one of the seven wise men of Greece said, Patere legem, quam ipse tuleris. Yet he is not Excommunicated as a Magistrate (except with Kata-baptists, you condemn the Office of Magistracy as an unlawful Ordinance) but as a scandalous man. 3. The old penances, as they do us that service to make good that Excommunication was in the ancient Church, and that Erastus wanteth the authority of the Fathers, and upon his ingenuity should have been ashamed to cite them for his way, so we condemn them as introductory to Popery; but let Erastus form an Argument from this, and logic shall his • e at it. That which bringeth in old satisfactions and penance, is not to be holden. But Excommunication, or the Excommunicating of Magistrates doth this; Ergo, The assumption must be proved.

Ans. I would Erastus had drawn up an Argument, which seldom he doth, for this it must be:

Ans. Neither Major nor Minor proposition hath any truth at all. 1. Though the Magistrates sword were a better mean to gain souls, it followeth not that Excommunication is no mean. The Law is less powerful for gaining souls, The Gospel more powerful. But the Law is not for that no Ordinance of God. 2. Erastus his reason to prove, that the Magistrates punishing cureth the conscience, as a saving Ordinance, no less then Excommunication, must be this; That, by which God calleth, and draweth many to himself, is a saving mean, to cure the conscience; but by the Magistrates punishing of scandalous men, God doth this as by other tribulations. The proposition must be, a propositio per se; That by the Magistrates heading, and hanging, scourging, and imprisoning of themselves, as kindly and intrinsically saving means, such as rebukes, promises, commands, excommunication are, the Lord calleth men, and converteth them, that is false, God no more useth the Sword of the Magistrate, as a kindly mean of gaining souls, then the sword of an oppressing Tyrant; so Nebuchadnezzar's oppressing of the Church of God, and the Assyrians unjust wasting of the people of Israel, shall be kindly means of gaining of souls; because God blessed the rod to many to humble their uncircumcised heart; but this is accidental to, and beside the nature of the rod: but it is not accidental to rebuking, threatening, promises to the preaching of the Gospel, nor to Excommunication to save souls and gain them to Christ. The Gospel, and all the parts of it, are kindly, and of themselves the power of God to salvation: The Magistrates sword to Erastus must be the power of God to salvation, and Christ, Matth. 18. in his order of gaining an offending brothers soul, by this reason must descend, not ascend, contrary to the order of Christ, for Christ maketh the rebuking between brother and brother, to be the first step of gaining an offender to Christ. 2. The rebuking before two or three. 3. Before the Church. 4. Excommunication: Now all these are spiritual means and more efficacious, the second then the first, the third then the second, the fourth then any of them. But Erastus maketh Christ in the fourth step, to descend from three spiritual steps of gaining the man's soul, to a fourth, which is carnal, to wit, let him be as a heathen, &c. this is Caesar's sword, which certainly is a carnal weapon, proper to the Kingdoms of this world, John. 18. 36. whereas rebuking, exhorting, promises, and Excommunication, are the spiritual weapons of the warfare of the Ministers of Christ, 2 Cor. 10. 4, 8, 9. Rev. 1. 16. Isaiah 11. 4. Psal. 45. 4. Rom. 1. 16. The exercise of the sword is a mean of edifying consequenter by removing false teachers, that hindereth edification; but no man can say it is a mean of itself, and kindly in regard of the man against whom the sword is used; Farther, that which is a common mean of conserving peace in all societies and corporations, even without the Church, where the Gospel was never heard, cannot be a kindly mean of gaining men's souls that are within the visible Church.

Ans. 1. If Erastus had come to Logic, he refuteth here but a Law by a fact of Ambrose. 2. What if Ambrose debarred Theodosius from hearing the word; Ergo, there is no Excommunication, it followeth not. 3. That he debarred Theodosius from the Sacrament, after he gave evidences of his repentance to the Church, is an untruth. 4. That after such a cruel fact of murthering so many innocent persons of Thessalonica, Theodosius should have been admitted to the Sacrament, or remained a Member of the Church, to eat and drink his own damnation, and not be cast out, as 1 Cor. 5. no man but Erastus could say: so it is clear, that Ambrose did no more then a faithful Pastor, and Amariah and the 80. valiant Priests did, in not suffering the holy things of God to be polluted; Lipsius, no religious man, saith, l. 2. c. 24. de Constantia, quo facto nihil magis impium omnis ve • us impietas habuit. Beza, Bucer, P. Martyr, Melanchthon, Calvin, Anto. Waleus, Gomaras, commend Ambrose. And truly to kill seven thousand Citizens of Thessalonica, of which the most part were innocent, deserved more then Excommunication, if more could be inflicted by the Church. See Ambrose, Epist. 5. 28, 29. Erastus had no reason to compare so laudable a fact to the proud fact of an abominable Pope trampling on the Emperors neck, and abusing the word of God, Psal. 91. to defend his devilish pride.

Quest. 16.

Ans. In the following books, Erastus refuteth some Treatises of Authors without names, the books I cannot have, and if he do them right in repeating their mind faithfully, I know not; but I know in many things, and in this very argument Erastus fancied arguments on Beza, which he would reject as none of his. 1. Sacrificing seemeth to be a confirming ordinance, as eating the Passover, and the Communion of the Lord's body and blood; and as there was some examination of the persons for whom sacrifices were offered required in the Priests, as I said before, from Mat. 8. 4. Levite. 14. 3, 4. 9, 10, 11, 12. So there is Moral cleanness required in all that are to partake of the Sacraments, that presupposeth conversion; and I grant the first and native consequence of these is, that it was the sin and hypocrisy of the persons themselves who sacrificed first and principally. But that it was not the sins of the Priests who admitted those that were no better then Sodom and Gomorrah Esa. 1. 10. and had hands full of blood, ver. 15. is now the question; I conceive that it is a taxing of the Priests and Church Rulers, that is, Esa. 1. 10. no less then of civil judges and the people, yea, that he rather taxeth the Priests called Rulers, v. 10. and that that is not as Socinians say, a new commandment of Christ, but an old, Mat. 5. 23. Therefore if thou bring thy gift unto the Altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee? What if the Priest should know that he had killed an innocent man, and beside the guilt of innocent blood, that the sad hearted widow, and the weeping Orphans had any blood to charge him withal, was the Priest either to offer or sacrifice for him, while he were reconciled to the widow and fatherless? Christ addeth v. 24. Leave there thy gift before the Altar, and go thy way, first 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 be reconciled to thy Brother, and then come and offer thy gift: I offer it to the consideration of the Reader, if as the offerer of the gift was to leave his offering, knowing himself to be under blood, and to have offended his brother, he was to leave his offering at the Altar, so if the Priest who offered the same should also know that the same day he had offered his child to Molech or the Devil; if the Priest in this case should offer for him, and if the Priest should not eat this man's sin, and communicate with the bloody impenitent man in offering with him, and for him the sacrifice of fools; if he should not leave offering for him till he went and was reconciled with his brother, for the Priest by office was to forbid such a bloody man to offer; Ergo, he could not by office, also offer for him. Here an order prescribed that is moral, perpetual, and common both to the ordinances of the Old and New Testament, for Christ doth here expound the Law, which was corrupted by the Pharisees. 2. He doth not set down a rule concerning the Ceremonial Law, which was shortly to be abrogated, but sure he hath an eye to the worship of the New Testament. What if he that is come to the Table to eat and drink with Christ, and both his own conscience and the Elders remember the widow & orphane have a just accusation against this man of late, yesterday, he killed their husband and father, should either this man eat and drink at this time with Jesus Christ? or should the Elders give these holy things to him? I think no • . And to come to the argument, it is true, Isa. 1. sacrificing is not condemned, but sacrificing by such Princes of Sodom and tali modo, by men of bloody hands; Ergo, they were not to abstain from sacrificing, but at that time and in that condition; nor do we forbid either coming to, or debarring from the Lord's Table by the Elders, but only haec vice, and only while 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 first he be reconciled to his brethren, and testify that he repenteth, we never heighten Excommunication to such an extremity, as it doth totally unchurch the man, and exclude him from the Seals simpliciter and absolutely, but according to Christ's 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and his order, and therefore the Elders are to exclude for a time just as this, God will have mercy and not sacrifice, that is, rather mercy, first mercy, and first faith and repentance; then sacrifice, that is, then afterward external worship, afterward receiving of the Passover, the Lord's Supper, and offering of gifts at the Altar: And secondarily even in the second place, in regard of time, he will have all these externals, whence the man is to debar himself, and by the same reason the Elders as the 80. Priests did to a King, 2 Chron. 26. are to debar the man while he repent: And 2. This also; I will have mercy, and not Sacrifice, or, I will have mercy rather then Sacrifice, doth imply that both mercy and Sacrifice are lawful, and acceptable to God in their own order and way. But where saith God, I will have sacrificing rather then sacrificing with bloody hands, so as both sacrificing, and sacrificing with bloody hands, shall be lawful and acceptable to God in their own order? for Sacrificing with bloody hands was never lawful, never acceptable to God in any order. Nor said God ever he would choose the coming of those to his Sanctuary, who the same day they came in had slaughtered their sons to Molech: God always hated it, and never chose it, if at the same time both mercy and sacrifice cannot be, as David starving cannot both abstain from eating shewbread, as the Law in its letter required, and show mercy to his life; and the life of his followers, and eat, yea, he is to eat, and the Priests knowing his case, do give him the Shewbread to eat, & forbid abstinence, as they would forbid self-murthering, and selfstarving, so here, where at one time eating at the Lord's Table, and reconciliation with the widow and fatherless, cannot be co-existent together at one time and place, an exigence of divine providence forbidding both, the bloody man is to debar himself from the Lord's Supper, it being as sacrificing and less necessary if we speak comparatively; and the Elders are not to give those holy things to the bloody man, while 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , first he be reconciled to the widow and Orphan, which now comparing the one with the other is mercy, whereas eating and drinking at the Lord's Supper is but Sacrifice, but it should be as sacrificing with bloody hands, which God condemneth and forbiddeth, and the Priests and Elders knowing it to be such a sin, ought to forbid and to hinder it: Hence as this, I will have mercy and not sacrifice, hath this sense, I will have you to omit Sacrifice, when it cannot be done without neglect of mercy, which is more acceptable to me then all Sacrifices; so I will have reconciliation to the offended widow and Orphans, and not coming to the Lord's Supper without the former; for the former is more acceptable to me, and should be to you and the Elders in your practice, then the latter; and therefore the comparison of eating, and eating undecently halteth; for eating undecently before another, which would procure deadly sickness to your brother, ought to be forbidden by the Ruler, it being known to be so, and ought to be abstained from hic & nunc, as a sin, and a hurting of your brothers health, and yet the Ruler cannot forbid total abstinence from meat to him that eateth undecently, as the Elders cannot command total abstinence from the Sacraments 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 always and in all cases. 2. We draw no conclusion of erecting a Presbytery from those places, but those two we draw; Ergo, 1. It is a sin to the people themselves to sacrifice with bloody hands, because God condemneth such a manner of sacrificing. 2. Ergo, they are to be debarred by some who hath the charge of the holy things of God, but from the Antecedent, we neither infer; Ergo, Presbyters, nor, Ergo, the people, nor, Ergo, the Prince should debar them. 3. Calling on God is not to be forbidden, nor giving of alms, because they are abused, but the manner of the abusing those ordinances are forbidden by God, and may be hindered by the Church, and forbidden under the pain of Excommunication. The Church cannot forbid men of total abstinence from the Lord's Supper, but they can command him that is not reconciled to his brother, and visibly under the guilt of blood, to leave the Table, as Christ Mat. 5. 23. commandeth the unreconciled man to leave his gift at the Altar, and go first be reconciled with his brother, and then at the next occasion, come to the Lord's Supper; so the Church of the Jews could not forbid the Pharisees to pray, but they could pass such an act, as is, Act. 15. 22. We forbid Pharisees or any other to bring their private prayers to the Markets and streets, and when they are to give alms, we forbid them with sound of Trumpet to make proclamation to all men that they are the only holy and charitable men in the earth. Nor do we think that the Church can debar men from the Sacraments for inward and and invisible unworthiness; but only for visible and professed uncleanness; and Levite. 9. 13. it is clear, the man that is unclean is forbidden to keep the Passover. Will Erastus say, O he is not forbidden to eat the Passover, but only he is forbidden to eat it tali modo being unclean? and therefore it is not the Priests sin if he should give the Passover to the unclean man, and forbid him to eat tali modo, in his uncleanness? see Erastus himself against this, lib. 1. c. 3. page 103. 104. where he confesseth that the unclean are debarred, and yet uncleanness in the eaters of the Passover, was an abuse only, and made not eating of the Passover unlawful in itself.

So the Lord complaineth, Ezek. 23. 38. Moreover this they have done unto me, they have defiled my Sanctuary in the same day, and have profaned my Sabbaths. 39. For when they had slain their children to their Idols, then they came 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the same very day into my Sanctuary to profane it; and loe this they have done in the midst of my house. Will Erastus now say, It was Ceremonial uncleanness, not Moral, to kill their seed to Molech; and that Moral uncleanness and bloody murthering of their seed in the same day when a person is to come to the Lord's supper, known to be such a Murderer to the Elders who have power to judge the scandalous and to cast him out, 1 Cor. 5. did not sin, if they should be instrumental to lead Murderers into the Temple? and say to them, Take ye, eat ye, this is the body of the Lord that is broken for you?

Ans. The Lord doth not particularly reprove the Priests by name in every place, in which he reproveth the people: But expressly for this same very sin, the Lord reproveth the Priests, Ezek. 44. 7. Let it suffice you, that ye have brought into my sanctuary strangers uncircumcised in heart, and uncircumcised in flesh, to be in my sanctuary to pollute it - 8▪ And ye have not kept the charge of my holy things; but ye have set keepers of my charge, in my sanctuary, for yourselves. 24. And in controversy they shall stand in judgment (he had spoken of their teaching the people to discern between the clean and the unclean, v. 23.) and they shall judge it according to my judgments, and they shall keep my Laws and my Statutes in all mine assemblies, and hallow my Sabbaths, so 2 Chron. 23. 19. And Jehoiada set the porters at the Gates of the house of the Lord, that none which was unclean in anything should enter in. And shall we concelve that porters, that is, Levites, would hold out those that were only ceremonially unclean, and receive in murderers who had killed there Children to Molech that same day? there was not to enter in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the unclean in any matter; the text is general, excludes idolaters and murders, and such as should refuse to enter in Covenant with the Lord, of which the Text speaketh. As for Erastus his consequence, which he unjustly imputeth to us, to wit, Israel sinned in coming to the Lord's temple to profane it, in the very day that they slew their Children to Molech; Ergo, there ought to have been Priests, and now there must be Presbyters and selected overseers in a Church judicature to debar murderers, and the like scandalous persons from the Sacraments. 1. This is not our consequence. But this we say, if the Priests knew that same day, that they came to the Temple, they slew their Children to Molech, the Priests should have debarred them from coming to the Temple, and from eating the Passover, as their office and duty was by the Law of God, Num. 9. v. 6, 7. Num. 19. 11, 12. Lev. 22. 6. The soul that hath touched any such (unclean) shall be unclean till even, and shall not eat of the holy things, unless he wash his flesh with water, 7. and when the Sun is down, he shall be clean, and shall afterward eat of the holy things, because it is his food: Now it was the Priests office, Lev. 10. 10. that he put a difference between holy and unholy, and between clean and unclean; so if Eli knew that his sons made themselves vile before the people, and committed furnication with the women at the door of the Tabernacle of the Congregation; Ergo, Eli should as a judge have restrained them, 1 Sam. 3. 13. But from this antecedent, we draw not this consequence, Eli's sons do publicly make themselves vile; Ergo, there ought to be such an Ordinance as a judge, with Civil power to punish them, and Ergo, there ought to have been no King to punish them, but a judge like unto Eli and Samuel; this consequence followeth not from this antecedent, but only hoc posito, that Eli hath the sword, and be the Civil judge; Ergo, he ought to punish, from scandals in the Church, and profaning the holy things of God, we infer not; Ergo, there must be such a judicature erected, as if the antecedent were the cause of the consequent. But this only followeth; Ergo, supposing there be a Church and Presbytery invested with this power, they ought not to admit murderers, or any unclean persons to come and partake of the Sacraments, and so defile the holy things of God: as for the place Ezek. 33. I undertake not from thence to conclude debarring of any from the holy things of God by the Priests, what may follow by consequent is another thing.

Ans. If the hire received for a whores selling of her body to uncleanness, must not be applied to the service of God, far more cannot a whore as a whore be admitted to partake of the holy things of God, for the price or money is called abomination to God, Deut. 23. for the whore, not the whore for the money; and so we may well argue from the things to the persons. 2. It is false that God forbiddeth the price of a whore only in vows, and not in sacrifices; he forbiddeth it because as Moses saith, Deut. 23. 18. it is an abomination to the Lord, and as Erastus saith, it is money unjustly purchased; Yea, David's practice teacheth, that what we bestow on sacrifices, as well as in vows, it must be our own proper goods, and not so much as gifted to us, 2 Sam. 24. 24. Neither will I offer burnt offerings unto the Lord my God of that which cost me nothing; far less would he offer the price of a whore in sacrifices; and the Divines of England say on the place, hereby is forbidden that any gain of evil things should be applied to the service of God, Mich. 7. 1. Vatablus saith the like. 2. For the Lord's forbidding to offer in a vow, Bullock or Lamb, or anything that is superfluous, or lacking in his parts, and permitting it in a freewill offering, by a free will offering, is meant that which is given to the Priest for food, of a free gift; but otherwise, what is offered to the Lord in a vow, or a free will offering must be perfect: for the blind, broken, maimed, having a wenne, scurvy, or scab, can in no sort be offered to the Lord, Lev. 22. 20, 21, 22, 23. There is no word of the Lord in the free will gift that Erastus speaketh of, but only the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is liberal, free, from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to give freely to God or man. 3. A whore repenting or professing repentance, was not debarred from sacrifices; but that is without the bounds of the question, an heathen could say, Quem penitet facti is pene innocens est. Senec. in Traged, We debar none that profess repentance from the seals of the Covenant. 4. When a whore as a whore did offer her first borne being a bastard in the Temple, I conceive neither she nor her child were accepted, Deut. 23. 2. Abastard shall not enter into the Congregation of the Lord: if the child was born of Married Parents, the woman repenting, the question now must be far altered. 5. For a lame man to be a Priest, we can say something, but that all the lame in Israel were debarred from the Temple, and the holy things of God, we dare not say; and a difference of things and men we acknowledge, but that is nothing to weaken the argument. 6. How proveth Erastus the tares are not to be plucked up by men? Mat. 13. will bear no such thing: ill men are to be cast out of the Church before the day of judgment, both by the Magistrate and miraculously by the Apostles, and by Excommunication say we, Mat. 18. 1 Cor. 5.

Ans. This is to beg the question, the whore who sold her body for a price was unclean, and more unclean then the innocent money, and so in that case excluded from the holy things of God. 2. They admitted doves, oxen, and money changers into the Temple and profaned it, and why should they cast Judas out of the Temple? will their practices prove anything, they used all divine ceremonies and Laws of God to their own carnal ends.

Ans. I say nothing to the cursing and blessing Deut. 27. Nor do I own that Argument; it is not ours. 2. Those which are (so our argument runneth) as Heathens and Publicans, as Pagans, Amorites, whereas they were sometimes Brethren and Members of the Church, are not to be admitted to the Sacraments, nor to be acknowledged as members of the Church more then Heathen, Amorites, Pagans are to be be admitted to the Sacraments and Members of the Church. But wicked men amongst the Jews, and amongst us Christians, who will not hear the Church and are fornicators, idolaters, railers, drunkards, and extortioners, and walk inordinately, and cause divisions contrary to the Gospel of our Lord Jesus, are to be esteemed as Heathens, Pagans, Amorites, and worse then Infidels; therefore such amongst the Jews were not admitted to the Temple and holy things of God, and amongst us not to be admitted to the Sacraments, nor to be acknowledged as members of the Church. Erastus answereth not to this Argument, either Major or Assumption, but propoundeth an Argument of a nameless Author, as he knoweth best to answer and remove himself. 2. Many things (saith he) agree to Pagans and Turks which agree not to scandalous Christians. True, scandalous Christians are not Amorites and Pagans simpliciter, they differ in profession, the one being baptized, not the other; and once being baptized, they can never be unbaptized; but that is not our Argument, but they agree in this, that they are no more really Christians, being fornicators, railers, drunkards, extortioners, &c. then Pagans, but have the only name and title of such, and are to be esteemed so by us, and are to us quoad hoc, in regard of Church privileges, as heathens and publicans, and so the Lord of old termed his Apostate people Sodom and Gomorrah, Esa. 1. 10. and as the children of the Ethiopians and Philistines, Amos 9. 7. and as unclean and uncapable in a Church way of the Passover, and now of the Lord's Supper to us, as Ethiopians, Sodomites of old, and this day Turks and Pagans are to us. 3. That the wicked that were circumcised might go into the Temple amongst the Jews, de facto, they might, but de jure, by Law, they might not, Ier. 7. 9. Ezek. 23. 39. Esa. 66. 3. no more then by Law they might profane the holy Name of God, or kill a man, or sacrifice a dog to God, or offer swine's blood, or bless an Idol, The argument from sanctifying the Sabbath I pass, it hath no sense nor reason as Erastus propoundeth it.

Ans. Surely this is to me convincing, if I be discharged by the Holy Ghost to meddle with the holy things of God, or offering a gift, to God at his Altar, while I first be reconciled to my brother; then those who have by office power to steward those holy things, in wisdom, and fidelity, putting a difference between the precious and the vile, knowing that I am at wrath wi • h my brother, and having convinced me before two or three Witnesses that I have highly trespassed against my brother, are to deny to Steward or dispense any such holy thing to me, while I be first reconciled to my brother; and the like I say of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper. 2. To Erastus his Argument, I answer, it is not alike here as in praying, for praying is so absolutely necessary, that it obligeth by a command of God, even a Simon Magus to pray, while he is in the gall of bitterness, that the thoughts of his heart may be forgive • , Act. 8. 22. But Erastus, as if he had set himself to contradict Christ, would insinuate as much, as Christ were not to be obeyed, for his Exposition holdeth forth this sense, When thou bringest thy gift unto the Altar, and rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee, leave not thy gift, depart not, go not about to be reconciled to thy Brother, but first offer thy gift; But Simon Magus, though he should remember that he was in the gall of bitterness, should not delay to pray till he were first delivered from the gall of bitterness, and then pray: Sure if Peter had said to Simon Magus, First labor to be freed of the gall of bitterness, and to have thy thoughts pardoned, and then pray that the thoughts of thy heart may be pardoned, as Christ saith, First be reconciled to thy brother, and then offer; and (as Paul saith) First, Let a man try and examine himself, and so let him eat and drink, the reply of Erastus should have nerves. 2. It is true, Christ speaketh not of the external government of the Church; but it is as false that he speaketh of the internal acts of the mind; but he speaketh of the right ordering of the external acts of divine worship, which are regulable, though not quatenus, as regulable by the Church, and draweth an argument from the words by necessary consequence, which consequence Erastus cannot elude. 3. But how doth Erastus prove this consequence, if our Exposition stand, and if we were to do nothing in offering gifts at the Altar, except we be first reconciled to our brother, and if God approve nothing which we do, which deviates from this perfection, we should do nothing that is good and right, and so all must be excommunicated. 1. Is Christ here enjoining a work of perfection, and of supererogation? Is Erastus popish in this? 2. As it is impossible not to offer gifts aright, so is it not to eat and drink worthily, while first we be reconciled to our brother: Erastus was so surfetred with charity, as we heard before, that if any but desire the Sacrament and profess repentance, he thinketh he is obliged to believe he is fit for the Lord's Supper; and here, if Christ require, but that the party be reconciled to his brother, ere he offer his gift and come to the Sacrament, this is too great strictness, it should excommunicate us all, and we shall so never do anything that is right and good. 4. It is false that Christ speaketh here of internal acts only, and of that which our mind enjoineth, for the Lord speaketh of three external visible acts; 1. Of offering a gift at the Altar. 2. Of delaying and suspending of the offering. 3. Of a previous visible reconciliation to an offended brother. 5. He saith not, if the Presbyters bid you, (saith he) leave your offering; true, he saith not that in words; but supposing this, that the Presbyters know that the same very day that he bringeth his offering, he had been killing his own son to Molech, as Ezek. 23. 38. 39. Whether were the Presbyters to forbid him to come and offer, while he should testify his repentance; and finding him impenitent; whether should they not judge him both to be debarred from the holy things of God, and to be cast out of the Church, as 1 Cor. 5. Certain this is Christ's order, Be first reconciled to thy Brother, and then offer; try thyself first, and then eat; and if the Church see this order neglected, whether are they to suffer clean and unclean to come and eat, and holy things to be profaned?

Ans. There be many untruths here, 1. If this distinction of internal and external governing of the Church, remove most of the doubts here, he that eats and drinks unworthily, which is an act of external worship, which may be regulated and ordered by the Church, (for the Church may not administer the Sacraments to Pagans without the Church) is no sin to the unworthy eater, because God commanded that external act expressly, as Erastus saith, and so it is a good action, quoad nos, even to the unworthy eater, for he knoweth not his own thoughts, nor can he judge them without error, especially being unregenerated. 2. If Erastus himself acknowledge this his own dis • inction, he must acknowledge an external Church-government, and who then are the Governors, especially in the Apostolic-Church, where heathen Magistrates are? Pastors and Teachers no doubt, what meaneth this then? my Brother trespasseth against me and will not be gained? I tell the Church; ( Erastus saith) I tell the Christian Magistrate, but there is no Christian Magistrate, then there was no external Government in the Church the first hundredth, nay, nor three hundred years in the Church, or then it must follow, that the Apostles and Pastors were the deputies of heathen Magistrates: Ergo, the heathen Magistrates should with imposition of hands have been ordained the officers, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , in every Church. And that they were not; it was their own fault; for the principal officer must be more principally called to office by Christ, and given by him as a gift, when he ascended on high, to edify the body of the Church, Eph. 4. 11. 3. Erastus will have men debarred from judging the inward actions, because God only can judge them, sine error, without error: But so God only should judge all things internal and external, and there should be no Magistrates, because men may err in judging the external actions of men, and will not this gratify the Papists, who say in this; Tell the Church, that is, the Pope who cannot err. Then the Synod cannot err, Protestants deny the consequence; Synods may judge, as Act. 15. and yet Synods may err. 4. Erastus will have us liable to infinite errors in external actions: therefore (saith he) we should do nothing in externals, but what is expressly commanded; but first may we not infinite falli, infinitely err in internal actions and thought, and acts of believing? are we more infallible in internal, then in external actions? New Theology: and are we not as well tied to what is expressly commanded in internal, as in external actions? I think the word is as strict a rule, and the Law of the Lord as perfect in the one as in the other. 5. The great error is here, that Erastus being sleeping when he wrote, thinketh that to eat and drink unworthily, to offer a gift at the Altar, the offerer being unreconciled to his brother, is an action internal and known to God; and that can no more be known to man, then the thoughts of the heart: A palpable untruth! is not worshipping of Baalim, murthering, stealing, whoring, killing the Children to Mol • ch, and coming to stand in the Temple of the Lord, which are called a profaning of God's holy name, Ier. 7. 9, 10, 11. Ezek. 23. 38, 39. are not these actions visible, external, and as feazable to be judged by man, as murder may be judged by a Magistrate? Yea, by this, let a Pagan come to the table of the Lord, we are not to hinder him, why? it is an internal action known, citra errorem, to God only, and we cannot then judge whither he have examined himself or not; if he be not against us here, he is with us saith Erastus, Quod deus facere jussit, ab eo revocari aut retrahi nullus ab hominibus debet: si modo externe sic fiat, ut precepit deus; Yea, so the Magistrate cannot hinder either Pagan or the open enemy, and persecutor, who will trample upon the Sacrament, from the Sacraments; the contrary whereof Erastus said, pag. 207. hunc ego minime admittendum censeo, and let Erastus give us Scripture, either express, or by consequence, where a Pagan or a persecutor may be impeded by Church or Magistrate from external receiving of the seals, except that we are not to give pearls to swine? But was it not as hard to judge whether Saul persecuting the Church out of blind zeal, was a swine, or a dog, as to judge whether he that killeth his son to Molech out of blind devotion, and cometh the same day to the Temple of the Lord, doth profane the Name of the Lord? 6. If we must do nothing in externals without the express commandment of God, nor may we without God's command, either express, or a necessary consequence, admit dogs and swine to the Lord's table. 7. Paul indeed rejoiced that Christ was preached, though out of envy, Phil. 1. but by men called and gifted of God to preach, and therefore ought not to be forbidden to preach, while the Church, for their scandalous life do cast them out; say they are called Ministers once, the Church is not to cast them out, for this or that particular sin, if they be not contumatious, and Paul, saith he, Rejoiceth that Christ was preached; but he saith not, he rejoiced that they preached Christ, tali modo, out of contention, thinking to add affliction to his bonds. Yet God forbiddeth the external act of preaching in those that hateth to be reformed, Psal. 50. 16, 17. and forbiddeth the Church to lay hands on, or to call to the Ministry, wicked men that hateth to be reformed, or to keep them in the Ministry; and this hindereth not, but Paul might rejoice at the consequent of their Ministry, to wit, at the preaching of the Gospel, so long as they remained in the Ministry: as we may rejoice in that Christ was crucified for sinners, and not allow that Herod and Pilate did with wicked hands crucify the Lord of Glory, nor yet are we to rejoice in their sin. But all this hindereth not, but he that is at wrath with his brother, and known to be so by the Priests, should be hindered to offer his gift while he be reconciled to him. 8. We are not to hinder acts of external worship, as praying, praising, preaching; nor can the Church forbid them, except where God by his Commandment require that we do them wi • h a special visible qualification and order: As first, be reconciled to your brother, first examine yourself, and then of • er your gift, and come and eat and drink at the Lord's table: and in Negatives, Come to my Temple, but come not that very day you killed your sons to Molech, while ye repent and be humbled for that sin.

Ans. Here is one palpable error, that all external scandals are punished, either by the Magistrate as the Magistrate, so he must be understood, else he saith nothing, or by God only, contrary to 1 Cor. 5. 11. Rom. 16. 17. 2 Thes. 3. 14, 15. For we give a third, they are punished by the Church, but only in a Ministerial way. It is false that the godly Kings could compel the unclean Jews, though circumcised to come to the Temple, or the murderers of their Children that same day, to come with bloody hands to the Temple: Yet the very local and personal presence of a Jew in the Temple, and the very posture of his body in looking with his face toward the Temple while he prayed, was an external lawful Ordinance of God: They could not then lawfully compel the Jews to these rites, except with such and such previous qualifications; they could not compel the Priests unwashed, and having drunk wine to go to the Sanctuary, 2 Chro. 15. It is not said, they were to be put to death that should omit any Ceremony, (though every Religious observance be a seeking of God) but they that would not seek God by entering in Covenant to renounce idols, and serve the Lord, or should prove apostates from the sworn Covenant, were to be put to death. 3. If that be a punishment (we contend for things, not for names) which is a privation of good inflicted for a sin: then let Erastus s • e, if the Priests punish not, who debarred men from the holy things of God (by Erastus his grant) for Ceremonial omissions against a Law of God, And if the Priests should not suffer an unreconciled man to offer gifts, and if the Church should deny pearls to apostates, if this be not punishment? and if the Magistrate be to cast out, or inflict Ecclesiastical censures, shall he not punish in so doing?

Ans. That the Synod might have divers significations, I deny not, but that to be cast out of the Synagogue had divers significations, we deny; Yea, it signified no other thing but to be cast out of the Church, and the Lord Jesus speaketh of it, and the Evangelists as of a standing censure in the Jewish Church, which the spirit of God condemneth nowhere, except when it was abused, John. 9. 22. John. 12. 42. John. 16. 2. Luk. 6. 22. John. 9. 35. so is the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Nadah, to Excommunicate as an unclean thing, Isaiah 66. 5. Your Brethren that cast you out. Pagnin and Mercer expound it of casting out of the Synagogue, and they cite John. 9. and 12. and 16. to make it signify Excommunication. 2. That a circumcised Jew could by no Law be cast out of Judea, seemeth to say, that banishment was not a lawful punishment: Surely David against all Law then did banish Absalom, 2 Sam. 14. 13. and when the King of Persia, Ezra. 7. 25, 26. commandeth Ezra to restore judicatures, as at the beginning; It would seem that banishment was an ancient punishment amongst the Jews: Therefore Erastus craftily saith, that no born Jews were so cast out of Judea, that they were compelled to say they were not Jews. Surely we never dreamed of such an Excommunication, that the excommunicated should be compelled to lie, and say that though they were Jews and Christians, yet they should say they were not Jews or Christians. 2. When the people was in Egypt, 2 Mac. they were killed who denied themselves to be Jews, and deservedly, for they denied their Religion and their God. What is this against Excommunication? We plead not for such an Excommunication, as was a local extrusion of a person out of the land of Judea, nor for such a one wherey they denied their Nation, that was a sinful lying. But such, whereby Church privileges were denied to some for scandals. 3. Nor do we expound casting out of the Synagogue literally, as Erastus doth, to be a casting out of the Synagogue or from the Ordinances there, and from hearing the word or the Law of Moses: for the Synagogue is the Church, and it was to be debarred from the Temple, Passover, and other Holy things, though these should be tied to one certain place, to wit, to the Temple; and I doubt, if the excommunicated be to be debarred from hearing the word; 1. Because the excommunicated is to be admonished as a brother, 2 Thes. 3. 15. and the word preached is a mean simply necessary for the man's gaining. 2. Because heathens were not excluded from hearing the word, 1 Chron. 14 23. Act. 17. 16. 17, 18, 19, 20. &c. Act. 14. v. 15, 16, 17. But from the Temple and Sacraments they were excluded: We have often answered, that all the Morally unclean, though they were ceremonially clean, are not only not commanded to go up to Jerusalem, that is, to the Temple and holy things, that they are rebuked, and accused, because they stood in the Lord's Temple with their bloods and idolatries, and other abominations in their skirts, Jeremiah 7. verse 9. 10. Ezekiel 23. 38, 39. Isaiah 1. verse 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16.

Ans. All these are poor conjectures, for Erastus granteth there was such a censure as casting out of the Synagogue, But he showeth not what it is. But I retort this argument; if Christ had been cast out of the Synagogue, those that called him a Samaritan, and cast out of their Synagogues, such as confessed him, would have sometime said, ( it is not lawful to thee to go into the Synagogues and teach, for thou art cast out of the Synagogue. ) But by the contrary, Christ till the day of his death, openly taught in the Synagogues, John. 18. 20. I spake openly to the world, I ever taught in the Synagogue and in the Temple, whither the Jews always resort, Luke 4. 15. he taught in their Synagogues, Luke 4. 16. as his custom was, he went into the Synagogues▪ Mat. 4. 23. Mark 1. 39. Mark 3. 1. Luk. 6. 6. Mat. 9. 35. Luke 13. 10. and therefore it is a demonstration to me, that they never cast Christ out of the Synagogue; what hindered them, saith Erastus? I answer. Let him show me what hindered them to stone him, John. 10. and not to put him to death till his hour came. Erastus speaketh not like a divine, who scoffeth at the secret Counsel of God: For God had the sufferings of his own son Christ, in a special manner, determined and weighed, in number, weight, and measure. And therefore though they made a Law, that all that confesseth Christ should be cast out of the Synagogue, and though those that sinned against the Holy Ghost, Matt. 12. called him a Samaritan, and out of a sudden passion, those that wondered at the gracious words that proceeded out of his mouth, would cast him over the brow of a Mountain; Yet I hold, they never made any Law, no • did execute any Law, nor did cast out of their Sgnagogue, or excommunicate the Lord Jesus. I leave Erastus to his conjectures.

Ans. If Erastus would argue logically (as to me in my humble apprehension, he is still weak in all his book in this) we should find frothy grounds: as thus, If those who were scourged and cast out of the Synagogue (to wit, unjustly and against all Law of God for preaching Christ Jesus) were never accused for going into the Temple and using the Sacraments, and say, truly they did nothing against the Law, then the cast out of the Synagogue might lawfully go to the Temple and partake of the Sacraments; the proposition is the greatest untruth that can be. 1. Erastus must prove that the Jews accused the Apostles of all and everything, which they conceived to be against the Law. I conceive this is a conjecture, and false. 2. The other part of the proposition is as false as to say, light is darkness; if Paul cast out of the Synagogue, and excommunicated against all Law of God and Moses, yet go to the Temple and sacrifice, and partake of Sacraments, say he doth nothing against the Law; then casting out of the Synagogue and Excommunication doth not exclude any from the Temple, sacrifices and Sacraments: this is as much as Paul should say, unjust Excommunication against all Law of God and of Moses for righteousness sake, doth exclude no man from the Temple and the sacrifices and Sacraments; Ergo, casting out of the Synagogue and Excommunication rightly administered, doth exclude none from the Temple, sacrifices and Sacraments: Surely 〈◊〉 is abominable to ascribe as much to unjustly administered ordinances, as to the j • st ordinances of Christ. Erastus must lay down the Popish ground of Navar and Gregory, that Excommunication sive de justa, sive de i • justa causa, either for a just or an unjust cause is to be feared, and hath force. Might not Paul though he had been unjustly excommunicated, go to the Temple and Sacraments, and yet say he had done nothing against the Law? might not the man whom Jesus found after he was unjustly cast out of Temple and Synagogue, John. 9. 39. say, I have done nothing against the Law, nor do against it, though I go to the Temple? 3. How will Erastus prove that the Apostles, Act. 4. and 5. or Paul were c • st out of the Synagogue or excommunicated? I never could read it: They commanded them neither to preach in Temple or Synagogue anymore in the name of Jesus; But that they cast them out of the Synagogue, or cast Paul out of the Synagogue, where is it to be read? let Erastus teach us.

Ans. 1. If it be hard to determine what it is to be cast out of the Synagogue, it is hard to deny it to be Excommunication; for to be a Member of the Synagogue, as an Elder or a Ruler of the Synagogue, was to be a Member of the Church, and a Church privilege; Ergo, to be cast out of the Synagogue must be to be unchurched, and made no Member of the Church, and this is very like Excommunication: however, Erastus cannot deny it to be some Church censure like to Excommunication as anything can be. 2. That it was a civil banishing out of a Town, or that Christ was banished by the Nazarites out of Nazareth leaneth upon Erastus his ita videtur, so it seemeth; To which I crave leave to say, non ita videtur, it appeareth to be no such thing, Christ came again to Nazareth, and till his death was never banished from Synagogue or Temple, John 18. 20. They should rather have been said to cast Christ out of the Temple and banish him from Jerusalem, for John. 10. 22, 23, 31. They took up stones to stone him, v. 39. then to banish him out of Nazareth, or cast him out of the Synagogue. 3. Prosylites had all the right that Jews had by God's Law, what men denied them, is not the question. Erastus spake nothing from Scripture or God's Law, that was one and the same to the born Jew, and the stranger that came in and was circumcised, and gave his name to the Israel of God. 4. To be deprived of the privilege of a city is a civil punishment; Ergo, to be cast out of the Congregation or Synagogue, which was a spiritual and Church punishment was no such thing. 5. The separating from the Congregation, Ezra 10. 8. was Excommunication; the Annotation of the English Divines say it was Excommunication, such as casting out of the Synagogue, John. 9. 22. 6. If it agree with Deut. 23. 8. To enter in the Congregation of the Lord, is to be a Member of the Church of God, and therefore the Hebrew readeth it, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 into the Church of God. The Chaldee Paraphrast 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 erint mundi ut ingrediantur Ecclesiam Domini, They shall be clean that they may enter into the Church of God. Sure this was not Physical or civil cleanness, but cleanness spiritual according to the Law of God: so the seventy translate it, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Hieronym. intrabunt in Ecclesiam Domini. Vatablus in Not. erint de consortio populi Sancti. The English Annotators cite for this Nehe. 13. 1, 2. the Law is, that the Moabite and the Ammonite should not enter into the Congregation of the Lord forever, It is said v. 3. They separated from Israel all the mixed multitude, so that clear it is, to enter into the Congregation is to become a Member of the Church; then to be separated from the Congregation, must be to be cast out of the Church, and deprived of the holy things of God, as heathens and strangers were, according to that Levite. 22. 10. There shall no stranger eat of the holy thing: What is this but Excommunication? call it with another name▪ we care not, it is really to be separated from the Church. 7. It is admirable to me to hear Erastus say, It cannot be that God who is no accepter of of persons, will not receive into his Kingdom a Bastard, an Ammonite, a Moabite? Is not this to reason against the Law of God, and the wisdom of God? Deut. 23. 1. 2, 3. who saith, that he will not receive such into his Church, which is his Kingdom, and a company of Kings and Priests unto God, which he hath freely loved, Exod. 19. 5, 6. Psal. 149. 1. Deut. 7. 7. Deut. 26. 16, 17, 18. as • o • the rejecting of men from his heavenly Kingdom according to God's decree of eternal Reprobation, I deny Excommunication to be any such rejection of men; it being only a casting them out from the visible Church, and the special Church privileges, that their Spirits may be saved in the day of the Lord; and what can be more contrary to the Word, then that Erastus should say God declared not, that it was his will that Moabites, Ammonites should not be circumcised, an • admitted to the Sacraments. Why then did he not choose Moabites and Ammonites for his people, and make a covenant with them, and give Circumcision a Seal of the Covenant, as he dealt with the Jews? if he mean God will not exclude Moabites and Ammonites from the Sacraments, so they repent and turn to him: but now Erastus fights with his owneshaddow. Who denieth but Jews and Gentiles, so they call on him, are welcome to all the holy things of God, and not to be cast out of either Church or Synagogue. 8. To say, to cast out of the Synagogue, is a meeker word then to Excommunicate, is but to beg the question. Yea, but saith Erastus it is less and a milder thing then to destroy, and pro deplorato habere, to esteem a person lost, we say Excommunication is not to destroy or to give for lost, but though it be the most violent, yet it is a saving remedy that the man may be ashamed, humbled, and his Spirit saved. 9. We reason not from the fact of Pharisees, if they cast any out of the Synagogue for a just cause, they ought also by God's Law to debar them from Temple and Sacraments, and therefore if they did not debar, it was their sin, not our Rule.

Quest. 17.

Ans. Erastus is mistaken, and formeth the Argument as he pleaseth. The Church pardoneth as a Church, and receiveth into her body believers to participate of Church-privileges and Sacraments in a Church Communion; Ergo, the Church hath power to bind and cast out from this same Church-Communion, those that leaveneth the whole lump; as a City may admit a stranger to all the City privileges; Ergo, the same City may for offenses against the City, cast out and deprive of City privileges offenders: is this a Genere ad speciem affirmative? If the Church have a power to cast out 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 from amongst them a Member, we shall not contend for the name of Excommunication.

Ans. The Author doth not except Ministers from civil subjection to Magistrates: But only he saith, In Ecclesiastical censures, the Magistrate is not to judge the Ministers; because a Ministry being an Ecclesiastical office, as such, it is not liable to the civil power, only the Ministers as they err and sin in their persons, are liable to civil punishment, but not to Ecclesiastical, to be inflicted by the Magistrate. 2. Through the corruption of men's nature, everyone may wink at another's faults: It is true, But consider if this slow from the nature of God's Ordinance, to wit, that the Citizen obey the Laws of the City whereof he is a member. This is an Argument against any Senate, Parliament, Counsel of State, or War, or Aristocracy on earth: if of an hundredth Lord's of the States General, one or ten play the Traitor to the State, who shall take order with them? Their Collegues and fellow-Senators. Partiall judging falls out here through men's corruption: spare thou the nails, and I will spare the teeth: and from Erastus his way, (if you Argue from men's corruption) the same will follow: May not the Magistrate say to the Minister, Honor me before the people, and Preach not against the sins of King and Court, and I will oversee and wink at thy Pluralities, non-residencies, soul-murders? And may not the Minister say to the Magistrate, Let me be above all Civil Laws, and be Lord Prelat, and sit on the necks of my Brethren, and defraud, oppress, and I shall be silent and preach nothing against the idolatry, oppressions, Sodomy, uncleanness of Magistrate and court.

Ans. All Types or comparisons hold only in that for which the spirit of God doth bring them: Now the Ceremonially unclean were debarred from holy things, to signify how much God detests filthiness. 2. Filthiness, polluting and leavening others: Now the less will in any sin, the less sin, and so the less contagion to others, and therefore, where there is much infirmity, less will, and no contumacy, it rather followeth, Ergo, there should be no casting out, no Excommunication.

Ans. This is Answered fully: The Excommunicated, because Excommunicated, are to us in a way to be saved under Medicine, and not given for lost, no more then those to whom the Pastors do threaten eternal wrath, or those with whom we will not eat, because of their inordinate walking are given for lost, though conditionally they are in danger of damnation if they repent no • . 2. It is denied that the Ceremonially unclean were admitted to the Sacraments. Philo Judaeus, no less well versed in Jewish Antiquities then Josephus, Tract. de sacerdotum honoribus, saith, Nulli homicidae licebat introire Templum: and Josephus, l. 19. c. 7. saith, Herod Agrippa who beheaded James the brother of Christ▪ accused one Simon, who being a wicked man, went into the Temple, Q • ia Templum non nisi puris & dignis pateret: he witnesseth the same, De Bel. Jadaic. l. 4. c. 13.

Ans. When the comparison is made between a Ceremonial breach, which is punished with a punishment Ceremonially, or mystically significant; the comparison to a moral sin punished with punishment real, signified by that Ceremonial punishment, is inconsequent: But when both sins have the same punishment in the general, in genere, it followeth not, that both should have the same, in spe • i • , in nature, as a drunkard ought to be punished with stripes; Ergo, parricide ought rather to be punished with death; but not Ergo, a parricide ought rather to be punished with stripes only: And so the consequence is naught, the leper was punished with being put out of the Camp seven days. It followeth not, Ergo, he that is defiled with the soul-leprosy of murder, sorcery, should far rather be punished only with being put out of the camp seven days: Because there is a higher punishment ordained for moral, then for a Ceremonial transgression, Ceteris paribus.

Ans. We say not that Peter Excommunicated Ananias, but that his killing of him pointed at the punishment of wicked men in the bosom of the Church. 2. God's punishing of sinners both in the time when, and in the manner, with what kind of punishment, is no rule to the Churches or Magistrates punishing. If God spare Joab all David's time, it followeth not, Ergo, David the Magistrate ought also to spare him. If God command to kill the man that gathereth sticks on the Sabbath: it followeth not, Ergo, the Church or Magistrate may do the like now, if any should gather sticks on the Sabbath.

Ans. Erastus mistaketh close the Authors meaning, which is to speak of the private and personal self-examination that every Communicant is to enter in before he eat, not of the public trying, 1 Cor. 5. men are to make a secret trial even of public sins; so though the sins were public, yet was the trial secret and personal, but did not exclude a public examination by the Church, if need were.

Ans. The man that was unreconciled to his brother might say all that at the Altar to the Priest. Yet Christ seeketh some more of him, he will not have him admitted to offer his gift, but he must leave it there, and give more then words to both God and the Priest; he must go and humble himself to his offended Brother, and be reconciled to him: And so the Prophet, Isa. 1. seeketh more of them, ere he will have them to Sacrifice: Wash you, make you clean, put away the evil of your doings, cease to do evil, learn to do well: All this is not done in a moment at the Altar.

Ans. 1. Erastus doth suppose, (which is most false, as I have Answered before) that Christ speaketh to Paul from heaven and Ananias also, of bearing the Name of Christ to the Gentiles: and Paul neither knew Name nor thing, Act. 26. 15, 16, &c. and 9. 15, 16, &c. He speaketh to his Disciples of the promise of the Father, and of the Testimony of the Gospel they were to Preach, Luk. 24. 46, 47. &c. which they knew not till afterwards. And what was the use of the holy Ghost to be poured on them? Was not this one of the chief? Joh. 14, 26. He shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you: Then Christ spake many things to them that they bothforgot, & knew not till the holy Ghost came upon them. And their not asking Question, will not prove they understood all he spake, sometimes they were afraid to ask him. 2. The Jewish and Christian Church have not such essential differences, but they knew by the ordinary notion of the word Church, a Convention that professed the Doctrine of the Prophets, and of the Law and Gospel. And what such great difference is there between a brother, and a brother Jew and a Brother Gentile, as they behooved to understand the one, and be utterly ignorant of the other? And what necessity to restrict it to Jews only? Christ had often spoken to them of the incoming of the Gentiles, as Matth. 8. 11. Joh. 10. 16. Matth. 10. 18. Did the Disciples know the Kings, Councils, Indicatures of the Gentiles, that Christ said they should be convented before? Matth. 10. 17, 18, 19 And because Erastus is so confident that the word Church here is the Civil Magistrate: Let any Erastian teach me, what is meant by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Church, Matth. 16. 19. Is it the Civil Magistrate? Is the Civil Magistrate built on a Rock? Shall the Ports of Hell never prevail against the Civil Magistrate? Can no Magistrate make defection from the truth? And doth Erastus or his believe in their conscience, that the Disciples understood Christ, Matth. 16. (for he spake of both to the Disciples) to speak of the stability and strength, and perseverance of the Christian Magistrate: And that the Ports of Hell should never prevail against the Jewish Sanhedrin and Church, which crucified the Lord of glory, and persecuted his Apostles, and all professing the Name of Jesus to the death? 3. Heathen and Publican in general, were names as opposite to Christian Brethren as to Jewish Brethren, as I have proved before.

Ans. The word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is Num. 35. 12. But in all that Chapter 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is not, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : Now how this signifieth one Magistrate, which ever signifieth a collection or multitude of rulers, I leave to the learned: so Erast. faileth yet in his probation. 2. Suppose the word Church signify the heads of the people, how shall Erastus prove that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifieth the senate of Civil Magistrates, for in this Congregation were the Priests and Levites, especially, that judge between blood and blood, voluntary or involuntary homicide, Deut. 17. • 2, 13, 14. 2 Chr. 19. 8, 9. It is true also that the man that killed another unwittingly, was to be protected in the City of refuge, while he should stand before the faces 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of the Congregation, But let Erastus, and all who will have the Bishop or the Pope the representative Church, know that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Congregation, ever, and always be a collective word, as populus the people, signifieth a multitude, & never by Grammar, one single man, hoc nomen (saith Pagnine) certum conventum▪ sive cetum significat, certum Collegium, it always signifieth a soc • e • ie: as the Princes of the Congregation Num. 16. 2. all the Princes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the Congregation, Exo. 34. 31. here is a number and a society, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 saith Aristotle can be atributed to no fewer then to three at least. Speak to all the Congregation of Israel 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Exodus 12. 3. and the Congregations of people's 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 shall compass thee about, Psal. 7. 8. Nor shall sinners stand