The Divine Right of Church Government and Excommunication, Religious polemic · Chapter 6

The Divine Right of Church Government and Excommunication · Religious polemic · Chapter 6

p. 257CHAP. VI.

Queſt. 2.

Some ſpeciall Reaſons of Thomas Eraſtus againſt Excommunication, examined.

THomas Eraſtus a Phyſitian, who medled not much with Divinity, ſave in this, in which he was unſound, in his reply to Beza laboureth to make Excommunication a dreame, and nothing but a device of Paſtors affecting domination.Confirmati… Thoſium Eraſt. Conſ…. theſ. l. 1. c. 1. p. 72.

1. Object. OnelyOnly Pet…r killed Ananias; onelyonly Paul excommunicated Alexander and Hymeneus, onelyonly Paul ſaid he would come to the Corinthians with the rod, and for a long time onelyonly Biſhops excommunicated, Presbyters gave adviſe onelyonly. Ergo▪ This power is not in the Church.

p. 258Anſ.▪ The conſequence is naught, Chriſt ſaid only to his Diſciples in perſon, Go teach and Baptize, Is it a good conſequence therefore, that none hath power to teach and Baptize, but only the Apoſtles? Only Paul exhorted the Corinthians, to mourn for the inceſtuou… mans fall, therefore no Paſtors have power to exhort in the like kinde. 2. We grant the Apoſtles did many things out of their Apoſtolick power, which in a conſtitute Church, the Church onelyonly may doe, as Paul his alone diſputed againſt Circumciſion of the Gentiles, Act. 15. 2. What? Ergo, Paul in a Synod, and a Synod hath not power to diſpute and determine the ſame, the contrary is evident, Act. 15. 12, 22, 23. 3. It is falſe that the Authority and rod, with which Paul ſaid he would come to the Coriuthians, 2 Cor. 10. 8. was proper only to Paul an Apoſtle, the ſame he giveth to Timothy, and to all the Elders. 3. If Biſhops exerciſed the ſame power for many ages, Eraſtus muſt ſhew us Biſhops who could kill miraculouſly, ſuch as Ananias and Elimas, and work miracles; now beſide that, Eraſtus muſt with his new opinion, hold up a new creature called a Prelate, unknown to the Apoſtles or Ierome and the Fathers, he muſt parallel Biſhops for working of miracles to Paul and the Apoſtles.Eraſt. will have no man excluded from the Sacraments pag. 86. Si per ſubductionem pabuli intelligis verbi aut ſacramentorum negationem, de tu… hoc dicis, non l…queris cum ſcripturis, quae nuſquam jubent pabula haec ſubducere.

Obj. 2. The Apoſtles declared many to be excluded out of the kingdom of heaven, and ſo bound in heaven whom they did not excommunicate from the Sacraments, ſo alſo do the Miniſters daily, and yet Chriſt in his word commanded not thoſe to be debarred from the Lords Supper.

Anſ. It is very true, the Apoſtles and Paſtors of Chriſt that now are, denounce eternall wrath, and that authoritatively againſt thoſe that are inviſibly to men heart-hypocrites, who yet before the Church (who know not the heart) go for Saints, and are neither excluded from Sacraments, nor ſo much as rebuked. But it is a vain collection, that therefore externally ſcandalous are not to be debarred from the Supper, and Excommunicated: The Prophets, 1 Cor. 14. did preach that Heathens remaining Heathens were excluded out of the Kingdom of God; yet Heathens cannot be Excommunicated; and yet (I hope) Eraſtus dare not deny, but Chriſt hath forbidden, that Heathen remaining Heathen be admitted to the Sacraments: Though I dare provoke any Eraſtian, and atteſt them by their new Doctrine, to ſhew me a warrant from Chriſts Teſtament, why the Church ſhould refuſe the Seals to a Turke; they p. 259will ſay, A Turk is not willing to receive, and therefore the Seals According to Eraſtus his way we cannot deny the ſeals to a Turk.may be denied to him, and yet cannot be denied to a member of the Church though ſcandalous, if he deſire it, and profeſſe repentance.

But I anſwer, Though a Turk be unwilling to receive the Seals; What if he ſhould be willing, and require to be Baptized, yet remaining ignorant of Chriſt and the Goſpel we ſhould not Baptize him: Now by the Doctrine of Erastus, we have no more re warrant to deny the ſeals to him, then to deny them to Judas; we deſire a Scripture from the adverſary, which will not conclude with equall ſtrength of reaſon againſt the giving of the ſeals to any ſcandalous member of the Church; it is true, a Turk ignorant of Chriſt, though he ſhould deſire the ſeals is uncapable, and he is unwilling vertually, in regard he as yet refuſeth the knowledge of the Goſpel, and ſo is the ſcandalous profeſſor no leſſe uncapable (though we may grant degrees of incapacity) for he is vertually unwilling to receive Chriſt in regard he is unwilling to part with his idol-ſins: 2. Though a Turk ſhould be unwilling (as its like enough he will be) yet we deſire a Scripture, why we cannot make offer of the Sacraments to a Turk, and yet we may Preach the Goſpel and make offer of Chriſt in the word to him, 1 Cor. 14. 23. And this Scripture ſhall alſo conclude, we are not to admit ſcandalous perſons to the Sacraments, being both uncapable of them, as alſo becauſe they can but trample on theſe pearls,, no leſſe then the Turk ſhould do; the Argument then is juſt nothing: We exclude many from the Kingdom of Heaven, whom we do not excommunicate on earth; But he ſhould ſay, we Excommunicate many, whom we do not exclude out of Heaven.

Eraſtus. Theſe two are not one, to declare a perſon hatefull inP. 75, 76. Heaven to God, and to be caſt out of the viſible Church; for if they be both one, then one private Paſtor may Excommunicate, for he may declare from Gods word, that an offender is excluded out of Heaven: hath not the word of God in the mouth of one as much authority and power as out of the mouth of many? the authority of the word dependeth not on a multitude, alſo why ſhould this be as good a conſequence (God judgeth not this man worthy of the Kingdom of God; Ergo, he is to be caſt out of the viſible Church) as this (God judgeth not this man worthy of life eternall: Ergo, God will not have him to live in this temporall life) Are we ignorant that God eſteemeth many not p. 260worthy of life eternall, to whom he hath given power to caſt out devilsToexclude men from the Kingdom of Heaven not one with Excommunication in his name? Matth. 7.

Anſ. All this is but with carnall reaſon to ſpeak againſt the wayes of God; for 1. Not every denouncing of a ſinner unworthy of Heaven is Excommunication: So Iudas might have Excommunicated himſelf, and when one Paſtor declareth an offender unworthy of Heaven; he is not formally excommunicated out of the viſible Church; he is caſt out of the inviſible Church: But that is not Excommunication, except it be done for a publick ſcandall that offendeth the Church: 2. Except it be done by the viſible Church. 3. According to the rule of Chriſt, Matth. 18. 4. That he may be aſhamed, and repent and be ſaved: Gods binding of the offender in Heaven, is a part of Excommunication, but not all, nor the very ſame with Excommunication. 2. The Churches caſting out for Chriſts inſtitutions cauſe, is of more Authority then the Conſcionall caſting out performed by one Paſtor, and yet the Conſcional caſting out by one, inſuo genere is as valid as the other, ſubordinata non pugnant. 3. We are not to take our compaſſe and rule of Gods waies by his outward diſpenſation, but the revealed will of Chriſt is our Rule, God thinketh thoſe who walketh inordinately, and cauſeth diviſions, not worthie of the Chriſtian ſociety of the Saints; and muſt binde them in heaven to that cenſure, in regard he expreſly ſo commandeth in his Word, Rom. 16, 17. 18. 2 Theſ. 3. 14, 15. 1 Cor. 5. 11. Yet he thinketh them worthy of Salvation, and may give repentance and Ieſus Chriſt to many of theſe; he may deny ſalvation to the wicked, and upon that feed them to the day of ſlaughter, dare fleſh and blood quarrell this conſequence? God hath appointed the wicked for the day of wrath. Ergo, he giveth them more of this life then heart can wiſh. This conſequence dependeth on the meer diſpenſation of God, nor is this our Conſequence. God judgeth ſuch unworthy of heaven; Ergo, they muſt be caſt out of the viſible Church, we never made Excōmunication a neceſſary conſequent of the Lords judging men unworthy of Heaven, for then all theſe that God judgeth unworthy of life eternall ſhould be excommunicated, and only theſe, which is falſe; for God may judge ſome worthy of life eternall in Chriſt, and yet they are to be excommunicated, if they refuſe to hear the Church, as many regenerate may go that ſar in ſcandalous obſtinacy, and many whom God judges p. 261unworthy of life eternall, may ſo belie a Profeſſion, as they deſerve not to be excommunicated, and both theſe may fall out, and do fall out according to the revealed will of Chriſt.

Eraſtus 4. objecteth. Excommunication muſt exclude men fromPag. 78. only the externall ſociety of the Church, for he only can joyne us to Chriſt, or ſeparate us from internall and spirituall ſociety of Chriſt, who can beget lively faith in us, and extinguiſh lively faith when it is begotten, for by faith only we are made living members of Chriſts body, and by only infidelity we leave off to be members of his bodie: But no Church, no creatures can either beget lively faith in us, or extinguiſh it in us: or thus, men can neither give to us, nor take from us ſalvation, therefore Excommunication ſhould not be defined by cutting men off from ſalvation.

Anſ. This is the only Argument of Eraſtus, that ſeemeth toExcommunication is no reall ſeparation of one from Chriſts inviſible body. bear weight; But it is falſe and groundleſſe, it ſuppoſeth the falſe principle that Erastus goeth on, that Excommunication is a reall ſeparation of a member from Chriſts Inviſible and Myſticall body, and that the Excommunicated perſon who may be an Inviſible member of Chriſt, and regenerated, may be an Apoſtate, and fall from Chriſt, and leave off to be a member. The contrary of which all our Proteſtant Divines teach againſt Papiſts; whereas, Excommunication is only a Declarative; but withall, an Authoritative Act or Sentence of the Church, and no reall cutting off of a believer from Chriſt: But you will ſay, It preſuppoſeth a cutting off in heaven from Chriſt; and therefore the Excommunicated perſon is declared to be cut off. Let me Anſwer, I conceive Excommunication hath neither Election nor Reprobation, Regeneration or non-Regeneration, for its object, or terminus, but only it cutteth a contumacious perſon off from the Viſible Church on earth, and from the head Christ in heaven, not in regard of his ſtate of Regeneration, as if Chriſt ratifying the Sentence in heaven, did cut him off ſo much as conditionally from being a member of his body: No, but in regard of the ſecond Acts of the life of God, and the ſweet efficacy and operation of the ſpirit, by which the Ordinances are leſſe lively, leſſe operative, and leſſe vigorous, the man being as the Learned and Reverend Mr. Cotton ſaith, As a palſie Member, in which life remaineth, but a little withered and blunted, and he in Satans power to ve… his ſpirit, and therefore I grant all, to wit, p. 262that Excommunication is not a reall ſeparating of a member from Chriſts body, only unbelief doth that; but it followeth not, Ergo, it is a ſeparation only from the externall ſociety of the Church: For 1. This externall cutting off, is ratified in heaven: And 2. Chriſt hath ratified it by a real internal ſuſpenſion of the influence of his ſpirit in heaven: But I deny that this univerſall doth follow from Chriſts binding in heaven, That whomever God judgeth unworthy of heaven, all theſe are to be caſt out of the Church; he cannot prove this conſequence from our grounds.

Eraſtus Argueth thus: If God dam any as a ſinner in heaven, hePag. 79. will have the Elders to caſt him out of the Church Viſible in earth, ſo they know him to be ſuch; yet this is not ſure.

Anſ. It is moſt ſure, ſo all the Church know him (Elders only Iudicially Excommunicate, the people alſo by conſent, and by Execution of the Sentence, and avoiding the offender) and if it be Iudicially proved, the Church is to Excommunicate. But 1. he muſt not be without the Church, 1 Cor. 5. 12. Though the Church know Turks and Pagans, and thoſe who live without Chriſt, to be damned in heaven; yet they Excommunicate them not, for they are without the Church, 1 Cor. 5. 12. and yet damned, Act. 4. 12. 2. They may know many unregenerated, Ioh. 15. 18. Yet they cannot Excommunicate them for non-regeneration, or non▪ election to glory, which they cannot know judicially, except they be externally ſcandalous, Matth. 18. 17. 1 Cor. 5. 1. 2.

Eraſtus, By Preaching, Drunkards are excluded out of Heaven,P. 81, 82. and God declareth by the Preaching of the word, that they are not of the faithfull on earth; but you cannot prove theſe four from Scripture. 1. That God hath Commanded to caſt them out of the Church, whom he hath judged unworthy of life Eternall. 2. That they ſhould not be admitted to the Sacrament, who have polluted themſelves with ſome ſin, though they ſay they repent, except it pleaſe the Elders. 3. That it is Gods will that they …e debarred from the Sacrament, by the voyces of a Court of Elders. 4. That God hath Commanded ſuch a Court of Elders under a Chriſtian Magiſtrate, who ſhould have a power of juriſdiction, different from the power of the Magiſtrate.

Anſ. 1. Declaring by Preaching, that a Drunkard is not of the number of the faithfull in the Viſible Church, is materially Excommunication: This Erastus ſaith, We want only a Court of p. 263Elders: But how proveth he that one Paſtor ſhould caſt out of the Church by Preaching, all thoſe that God judgeth unworthy of life eternall. Eraſtus ſaith, A Presbytery cannot do this: 1. Becauſe the heart is known to God only, pag. 83. And doth one ſingle Paſtor know the heart, and a Senate of Paſtors knoweth it not? 2. Muſt Paſtors know the heart, which God only knoweth, 2 Chron. 29, 30. Ier. 17. 10. Otherwiſe they cannot judicially Excommunicate, and one Paſtor may by way of Preaching, Excommunicate, and yet he knoweth not the heart. 3. For the firſt of his four, we need not prove it, we aſſert it not. 4. Though a Turk or an Apoſtate ſhould ſay that he repents, yet he lyes; and Eraſtus ſaith, l. 3. cap. 3. pag. 207. Hunc ego minime admittendum cenſeo. I think ſuch a one is not to be admitted to the Sacrament. 5. What Chriſt ſaith, Matth. 18. we take to be Gods will. 6. If there were no Chriſtian Magiſtrate, belike a Church-Court might excommunicate; and ſhall the Magiſtrate, becauſe Chriſtian, ſpoil the Church of the power ſhe had while ſhe wanted a Magiſtrate? 7. The power of Excommunicating, and binding and looſing in earth and heaven, muſt then be principally in the Magiſtrate: And who gave the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven to the Magiſtrate?

Eraſtus. If Excommunication be a cutting off from Salvation: then all who are Excommunicated muſt periſh; But many Excommunicated perſons are ſaved, many relaxed are Condemned.

Anſ. We define not ſo Excommunication: Nor did Beza put mens Salvation in hazard, becauſe they are Excommunicated ſo they repent, if their ſins be retained in Heaven, and they never repent. Let Eraſtus ſee how they ſhall be ſaved. 2. Thoſe againſt whom one Paſtor denounceth the juſt deſerved wrath of God, are Conſcionally cut off from Salvation: But many of thoſe are ſaved. Let Eraſtus Anſwer this himſelf.

Eraſtus. He only can caſt out of the Church who ſeeth the heart;Pag. 83. But men, or the Church, ſeeth not the heart; Ergo, men can do no more but debar from the Sacraments: It is not enough to ſay, that whom they caſt out, as the Ambaſſadors of God in the name of Chriſt, declaring thoſe to be bound on earth, whom Chriſt hath bound in heaven are excommunicated: for the Argument is not, whether Paſtors may pro…ounce on earth, that which God hath ratified in Heav…n; but whether they may ſo caſt out of the Church, as they may cut men off from Salvation; and whether one Paſtor may not do this, no leſſe then a Presbytery.

p. 164An…. So I may Argue a Prophet cannot warn a wicked man, that he ſhall dye eternally▪ becauſe a Prophet in ordinary, knoweth not the heart more then a Senate of prophets, yet are all prophets to exclude from Salvation, wicked and impenitent men, but conditionally, ſo they repent not, in which God goeth before them, Ezech. 3. 18, 19, 20. Cap. 33. 6, 7. Act. 20. 20. Nor are we to doubt, but all Prophets to the end of the world muſt do the ſame. 2. If men debar from the Sacraments, as having warrant from Chriſt, they do alſo exclude men from Chriſt and Salvation offered in the Word; and is there not need that Paſtors ſee the heart, if they exclude men from Chriſt and Salvation in the Word and Seals, as from Salvation ſimply? And how can men know binding in Heaven, more then the hearts of men on earth? The one is as far from our intuitive knowledge, as the other, except that we know both by fruits and effects; otherwiſe, this is but a Popiſh Argument, if the Church do binde on earth, as God bindeth in Heaven, ſay Stapleton, Becanus, Suarez, and other Papiſts; then muſt the Church be infallible in judgement: But we deny the Conſequence in the one, as in the other. 2. It is that which offendeth Eraſtus, 1. That a Senate, not one man doth this. 2. That the Chriſtian Magiſtrate doth it not: But I pray you, doth one Paſtor, or the Chriſtian Magiſtrate know the heart; but a Presbytery cannot do it, becauſe a Presbytery knoweth not the heart: Is not this too partiall Logick?

Eraſtus. Many Excommunicated perſons have repented in the endPag. 86. of their life, and dyed devoutly; then he who is caſt out of the Viſible Society of the Church, is not caſt out of the internall and spirituall Society of Chriſt.

Anſ. This is as much againſt Chriſts words, as againſt us; may not many whoſe ſins are bound in heaven, and againſt whom the Paſtors denounce excluſion out of heaven, repent in the end of their life, and die devoutly? Ergo, The very threatnings of the Goſpel muſt be wind▪ and by theſe, none are excluded from Heaven. 2. Excommunication is but a conditionall excluding out of Heaven▪ if men repent, the condition not being placed, Nihil ponitur in eſſe, they are ſaved; though it may fall out that they want the externall relaxation of the Church, not through their own fault, but by ſome externall providence inſuperable to them.

p. 265But it is to beg the Queſtion, to ſay, Thoſe that are juſtly Excommuniated, and ſeek not to be reconciled to the Church, do repent and die devoutly. Beza ſaith, Paſtors ſhould give food to the hungry ſheep, though they know not the moment when they do repent. Eraſtus Replyeth, Then give Word and Sacraments to thoſe who ſeek them.

Anſ. This is more Charity then the Scripture knoweth, belike Eraſtus will have all thoſe that ſeek God daily, and delight to know his wayes, and ask for the Ordinances of Iuſtice, and take delight in approaching to God, to be all hungry ſouls, hungring for Righteouſneſſe, and ſo bleſſed, Matth. 5. 6. Luk. 1. 52. Iſa. 55. 1. Whereas Iſaiah ſaith, They may do all that, and be but plaiſtred Hypocrites, Iſa. 58. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.

Eraſtus. But if the Excommunicated man repent, whether ſoon or late, he was never cut off from inward communion with Chriſt, for then the elect might periſh; if David and Manaſſeh had been excommunicate, and died, they had been ſaved, except we deny the perſeverance of the Saints.

Anſ. Eraſtus evidenceth, he hath little skill in Divinity, he thinks a regenerate man not capable of Excommunication, why? and the ſad falls of David, Peter and others prove, they may fall in as great ſins, as not hearing of the Church 2. If one repent in his death, as the repenting Theef, will that infer he was never all his life ſeparated from Chriſt? The contrary is true and cleare in the Epheſ. 2. 1…, 12, 13. Tit. 3. 3. … Tim. 1. 13, 14, 15. 3. This is as ſtrong (as it is weake as water) againſt all the threatnings denounced againſt ſuch ſinners as the Lord giſteth with Repentance, for Excommunication to the regenerated is a ſort of Evangelick conditionall threatning.

Eraſtus. To give internall communion with Chriſt is a ſpirituallPag. 88. 8… thing, Ergo, The Church cannot take it from any, and that ſame power that giveth, taketh away, then the Presbytery cannot by looſing, give ſalvation, nor by binding, take it away. Excommunication on earth is nothing, except God binde firſt in heaven, then it is but a declaration of what God doth, to ſhew the ſentence that another judge hath given out, is not to judge; there is a difference between thoſe that by authority give out a ſentence, and thoſe who as ſervants doth promulgate the ſentence. So Luther tom. German. 1. fol. 239. Excommunicare non eſt, ut quidam opinantur, animam Satanae tradere, & precum p. 266fructu à piis factarum ſpoliare. Nam ubi vera fides & charîtas in corde remanent, etiam vera communio Dei, & precum Chriſtianitatis fructus permanent, poſtquam aliud eſt excommunicatio, nec fieri aliud poteſt, quam privatio externi Sacramenti, ac commercii cum hominibus ac ſi in cuſtodiam traditus externâ amicorum conſuetudine priver, amore & favore eorum interea non ſpolier.

Anſ. This is but the old argument of Eraſtus, repeated almoſt a hundred times to pleaſe the people. We never taught that either Presbytery or Miniſter can give, or take away inward Communion with God. But hence it will not follow, that Excommunication is an empty thing, for all we doe is but, a Miniſtery, Chriſt doth make the whole Goſpel, promiſes, threatning, Sacraments, effectuall, elſe, What is Paul? What is Apollo? but the Miniſters by whom ye beleeve? And what is the planting of Paul, or the watering of Apollo, except God give the increaſe? If this anull Excommunication, becauſe Excommunicators are not properly judges, but onelyonly Servants and Heralds to declare what Chriſt doth in Heaven, then may Eraſtus prove that the Word, Promiſes, threatnings of the Goſpel; The Apoſtles, Evangeliſts, Paſtors, Teachers are nothing, for all of themſelves are meere declarations of Gods will. 2. Thoſe who Excommunicate becauſe they judge not,Though Excommunication be onelyonly declarative, yet it is not empty. but declare the will of Chriſt, they are not for that void of all authority, for their declaration is authoritative. What did Ieremiah but declare Gods will, yet it is ſuch a propheticall and authoritative declaration, as I conceive Baruch or any other not ſent as a Prophet of God, could not beare that which God putteth on Ieremiah, c. 1. 10. See, I have this day ſet thee over the Nations, and over the Kingdomes to root out, and to pull downe, to deſtroy, and to pull downe, to build and to plant: Hath Ieremiah no Propheticall authority over the Nations and Kingdomes to whom he propheſieth in the Name of the Lord, to build and deſtroy, to root out, and to plant, becauſe he declareth and propheſieth, that ſuch Nations ſhall be deſtroyed and rooted out for their wickednes, and ſuch ſhall be builded and planted? Then meer declaration ſaith nothing againſt Excommunication; Paul, ſaith he, and the reſt of the Apoſtles were nothing but Miniſters, 1 Cor. 3. 5. and yet authoritie they had, elſe he could not ſay, 2 Cor. …0. 6. We have in readineſſe vengeance againſt all diſobedience, Verſe 8. For though p. 267I ſhould boaſt ſomewhat more of our Authority, &c. I ſhould not be aſhamed, and 2 Cor. 5. 20. Now then we are Ambaſſadors for Chriſt, but I pray you 1 Cor. 12. 29. Are all Apoſtles? Are all Prophets? Are all Teachers?

3. What Luther ſaith is true, Excommunication can put none out of the ſtate of ſaving Faith and inward Communion with God, nor doth deprive men of the fruit of the Prayers of the godly, for the godly pray that Excommunication may be medicine effectually bleſſed of God, for the ſaving of the mans ſoul, yea, Gods not hearing of the prayers of the godly, praying in a Church way, that he may be humbled, is a mean to humble the caſt out man, nor is the man delivered to Satan morally to be hardned; but judicially and withall medicinally to be ſoftned, that his ſpirit may be ſaved. Nor is the Church to hate him, but to admoniſh him as a brother, 2 Theſ. 3. 15. And he is ſo deprived of the externall ſociety and meanes, as the operation of the ordinances is ſuſpended.

Eraſtus. If any ſhould die in their typicall uncleanneſſe, were theyCap. 2. l. 1. p. 93. ſo Excommunicated, that their ſalvation was in hazard?

Anſ. Not, ſo they repented: What then? Ergo, Excommunication was not ratified in Heaven, it followeth not.

Eraſtus. Beza ſaith, Thoſe that were morally polluted with hainous ſins, were more unclean then thoſe who were typically only unclean: Ergo, They ſhould be far rather excluded from the holy things of God.

Eraſtus anſwers, If God had commanded them to be puniſhed with the ſame puniſhment, and not with diverſe; it would follow, that thoſe that are morally impure, ſhould rather be debarred then the other.

Anſ. But the Ceremoniall uncleanneſſe was puniſhed ſo to ſignifie Gods deteſtation of morall uncleanneſſe, and how hatefull they were, who would multiply ſacrifices, and yet had hands full of blood, Eſa. 1. And who would ſteal, murther, whore, and yet come and ſtand before God in his houſe, and cry, The Temple of the Lord are theſe, Ier. 7. 49. And that God puniſhed the one with heavier plagues then the other, is much for us, that adulterers far more and the uncircumciſed in heart were to be holden out of the Sanctuary, as the Lord ſaith, Ezech. 44. 7, 8, 9. then thoſe who were only uncircumciſed in fleſh.

Eraſtus. Thoſe that morally ſinned, were not debarred from the holie p. 268things, becauſe they were invited to come and offer ſacrifice for their ſins.

Anſ. And becauſe they might not enter into the Temple, while the Prieſts offered a ſacrifice for them, they were no leſſe excluded from the holy things of God, then an Excommunicated perſon is, while the Church ſee him ſwallowed up of grief, and do relaxe and forgive, 2 Cor. 2. 6, 7, 8, 9. Is this a good Argument? The Excommunicate perſon is invited to come again, that the Church may pardon, then it will follow he was caſt out.

Eraſtus. Paul forbiddeth to eat with fornicators, 1 Cor. 5. It ſhall never follow that they are worthie of holy convention that are worthy of a common Table, and that they are unvvorthy of the Supper, who are unworthie of a common Table, they vvere debarred from a familiar Communion with the godlie: 1. That they might be aſhamed: 2. Leaſt they ſhould infect them; Paul ſaith, be not mixed vvith them foreign but he ſaith not, exclude them from the Lords Table, and other holy things: In the Sacrament I muſt try my ſelf, not others; in my familiar Tabling with others, I am to try them, that I may gain them; yea, 2 Theſ. 3. Though we are to eſchew familiar converſing with thoſe that walk unorderly, yet are we to keep communion in holy things with them, and to admoniſh them as brethren.

Anſ. Eraſtus propounds an Argument of his own, 1 Cor. 5. in place of ours; we ſaid never that they that are unworthy of the holy Supper, are unworthy to be Tabled with in common familiarity, as brethren, though that be moſt true: But we reaſon thus, Thoſe that are to be delivered to Satan, and caſt out, as, 1 Cor. 5. 5, 13. of the Church, and judged, ver. 12. and with whom we may not eat, ver. 11. Theſe are not to be admitted to the Lords Supper, which is the proper feaſt of the Church: But ſuch are all inceſtuous and ſcandalous perſons, and therefore Paul doth indeed command them to be excluded from the holy feaſt. 2. To ſay the Church and her Officers muſt try themſelves, not others, ere they come to the Lords Supper, is to beg the queſtion, for ere they be admitted into the Sanctuary, they are to be tried, whither they be uncircumciſed in heart and fleſh, or not, Ezek. 44. 7, 8, 9. Ezek. 22. 26. As we have proved. 3. Paul not only uſeth a paſſive verb, be not mixed with them, but 1 Cor. 5. 5. he uſeth four active words, v. 5. foreign, 2. v. 7. foreign purge him out. 3. v. 12. He willeth them foreign to judge him▪ 4. He ſaith, foreign, put away that evil one.

p. 269Hence I argue, The men whom they convened together werePutting out 1 Cor. 5. Excommunicating.1 Cor 5 to judge, to deliver to Satan, to purge out, to put away foreign out of the midſt of them, ver. 2. or from amongſt them, v. 13. This man they did Authoritatively either put from amongſt them, as they were Chriſtians, from their common Table, or out of their fellowſhip, as they were men, to kill him, Or 3. out of their Church-Communion, that they ſhould not keep the feaſt of the Lords Supper with them: Let Eraſtus give a fourth: now we cannot dream of the firſt two: for 1. Would the Apoſtle command a Church-meeting, to interdict a man of Tabling with them in common eating and drinking? What needeth a Church-court, for they were foreign, when they did this? And what needed a judging Court for this? for, not to eat with him, was no cenſure of the Church, as Eraſtus ſaith. 2. It is no Grammar, nor can it bear ſenſe, that the Corinthians could ſay, we Corinthians gathered together in the name and power of the Lord Ieſus, do caſt out ſuch a one out of the midſt of us, that is, from our common-Table, this would ſay, they had all one common Table; and that all the Church of Corinth met at this time to ſome Feaſt, to caſt him out of their love-Feaſts; a dream no man ever conceived.

3. The Text ſpeaketh of eating in their houſes: could they caſt the man out of his own houſe, and from his own Table? they had no power ſo to do. But ye will ſay, they might forbid any brother to go into this mans houſe to his Table: True, but this was not to put the man out of the midſt of them, as Paul ſaith. Nor fourthly, was Pauls ſpirit, and the name and power of the Lord Ieſus required for eſchewing of a common Table with this man.

Eraſtus ſaith, Paul commanded this, Rom. 16. 17. 2 Theſ. 3. 14, 15. To all and every beleever at Rome, and Theſſalonica by themſelves. Nor 2. were they to kill him: Never did a Church conveen to kill a man. This is ſo inſolent that Eraſtus muſt give precept for it, or a practiſe beſide the preſent caſe: therefore here muſt be ſome Church out-caſting.

4. Though Paul will have us admoniſh a caſt out man as a brother, 2 Theſ. 3. Its private admonition that I owe to all men, Lev. 19. 17. And that one woman is to performe to another, Col. 3. 15. But not any of the holy things of the Sanctuary.

Eraſtus. The Iews accuſed Paul of nothing, but that they lied that p. 270he brought Greeks into the Temple. The Law bad all the clean eat the Paſſeover, and excepteth none for their wickedneſſe, Chriſt admitted Iudas to the Paſſeover, and ſaid, Drink ye all of this. Paul reciteth a Catologue of wicked men in Corinth, 1 Cor. 5. With whom we are not to have private dealing, but he commandeth never to exclude any who are willing to come, from the Lords Supper: We are to trie our ſelves, not one another, nor is it a ſin to eat at the Lords Table with wicked men.

Anſ. Belike it was a crime then to bring the Greeks into the Temple: 2. It is a begging of the queſtion to ſay, all were admitted to the Paſſeover: See how this is before anſwered. 3. Chriſt admitted Iudas into the Paſſeover; What then? may Timothie lay hands ſuddenly on all he knows to be Iudaſes, that they come in and lap the blood of ſouls? contrary to 1 Tim. 3. Chriſt is above the Law, and if his practiſe in this were the rule, becauſe Chriſt admitted Iudas whom he knew to be a Traitor, and did eat ordinarily at Table with him, and committed the flock to ſuch a known wolfe. We are alſo to eat with covetous extortioners, which Paul forbiddeth, 1 Cor. 5. 11. And we are to commit the flock of God to known Wolves, where we have a precept on the contrary, 2 Tim. 2. 2. Chriſt would rather teach that we are to admit to the ſeals all not ignorant and ſcandalous, and not be too curious in ſtriking up a window in the conſcience of others: 4. Pauls practiſe at Corinth is but a negative ex particulari, and not concludent: The heathen came to hear the word at Corinth, 1 Cor. 14. 23. And Paul doth no where command the Heathen ſhould be excluded from the Sacraments: Will Eraſtus then have them admitted? 5. When Paul ſaith, that unworthy Communicants were guilty of the Lords body and blood, and required fidelity in the Stewards, 1 Cor. 4. He taketh for confeſſed, ſcandalous perſons ſhould not be admitted by the Church; its true, the ſin of others who communicate unworthily, is not the ſin of another fellow-communicant, who hath not authority to debar his fellow-communicant.

Eraſtus. The Scripture debarred no Iews of old, neither from ſacrifices,Lib. …. c. 2. pag. 103. nor other ſacraments, but commandeth that all the male children, Iews or Strangers, that were not legally unclean, nor from their homes, ſhould thrice a year appear before the Lord in Ieruſalem, for to partake of the holy things of God; Ergo, None were Excommunicated p. 271from the holy things of God, for morall wickedneſſe.

Anſ. Eraſtus counteth this an Argument that cannot be Anſwered; but it Anſwers it ſelf to me: And Eraſtus propoſeth aWhether Eraſtus doth prove that none were excluded amongſt the Iewes from the Sacraments for Morall uncleanneſſe. Law that is Catholick to all the males; yet he maketh it not Catholick himſelf, but propoundeth a number of males that are excepted, as he excepteth thoſe that were legally unclean, thoſe that are from home: and yet, Deut. 16. 16. Exod. 23. 17. Exod. 34. 23. in the Letter of the Law, there is no ſuch exception as Eraſtus maketh: I hope if he make an exception, ſo may we, according to the word of God.

Though we ſhould give, but not grant, that there was no Excommunica…ion amongſt the Iews, but only for Ceremoniall uncleanneſſe; yet it proveth not, there is no Excommunication in the Chriſtian Church, but the contrary; for if for touching the dead by Gods Law, men were ſeparated from the holy things; in that Church, far more, for Morall uncleanneſſe, are men to be ſeparated from the holy things of God under the New Teſtament, for undeniably Ceremoniall ſeparation ſignified and typed out Morall ſeparation, Col. 2. 21. 2. What ground Eraſtus hath to except thoſe that were Ceremonially unclean, and ſo as uncircumciſed in fleſh, that they were not to appeare before the Lord, (let him ſhew the Letter of Scripture for it,) the ſame ground have we to ſhew that the uncircumciſed in heart are not to appeare before the Lord, Ezek. 44. 7, 8, 9. Ezek. 22. 26. Nor ſhall I thinke God would both command all the male without exception, to compeare before him thrice a yeare, whether they were Adulterers, Theeves, Murtherers, Idolaters, or not ſuch: but truly ſanctified and holy; and that he would expreſly rebuke the Males that were Adulterers, Theeves, Murtherers, Idolaters, becauſe they compeared for him in his Houſe, Ier. 7. 8, 9, 10. So then as he commandeth the the Males to compeare, except they be legally uncleane, or Lepers, and would rebuke them, if they ſhould appeare before him being Ceremonially unclean; and therefore in that caſe God would have them not to come. So alſo, if they ſhould be Morally unclean, he would have them not to come, that is, it is not their ſin, that they appeare before the Lord, quoad ſubſtantiam actus, but their obedience, but it is their ſinne that they appeare …ali m…do, in their unrepented guiltineſſe, yet is it the ſinne of the Prieſts in not differencing p. 272betweene the cleane and the uncleane, that they ſuffer them to come tali modo, that as Swine they pollute the holy things of God, to the Male it is their ſinne, that they come ſo, and ſo guilty; and that they come not, it is their ſinne, but to the Prieſts it is their ſinne, that they admit the uncleane, and caſt Pearles to Dogs. But as God would not rebuke unworthy Eaters at the Lords Table, 1 Cor. 11. if they might eate unworthily by Gods Law, ſo neither would he rebuke Theeves and Murtherers for appearing before him in his Temple, if they ought not, by Law, not to appeare in that ſtate. No doubt (ſaith Eraſtus) pag. 106. there were many wicked perſons in the time of Ioſhua, Iudges, and the Kings, in ſuch a multitude, yet they were bidden all to compeare before the Lord, and none are excepted for their wickedneſſe, and it is certaine God would not both bid them compeare and not compeare.

Anſ. All that ſinned in Iſrael were bidden offer Sacrifice, yet thoſe who are wicked, as Sodom, are expreſly debarred from Sacrifices, except they were morally clean, Eſai. 1. 13. Bring me no more vaine oblation, incenſe is an abomination unto me,—16 Waſh you, make you cleane. So ſay I here, God ſaid expreſly, Ier. 7. 9, 10. Except you be waſhed from your lying, ſtealing, come not before me to ſtand in my houſe, to prophane my holy Name. Ergo, the Morally unclean are excommunicated from thoſe holy things, ſo all the wicked by the ſame reaſon were forbidden, they remaining in their wickednes, without Repentance, to eate the Paſſeover, yea, to take the Name of God in their mouth, Pſal. 50. 16, 17. to Sacrifice, Eſai. 66. 3. to touch the Altar of God, except their hands were waſhed in innocency, Pſal. 26. 6. And the Prieſts had the charge of the houſe of God, to put difference betweene the cleane, and the uncleane, and the Prieſts are ſaid to violate the holy things of God, if the wicked as well as the Ceremonially unclean were not debarred, Hag. 2. 11, 12. Ezek. 22. 25, 26. Ezek. 44. 7, 8, 9. and certainly, the Males that were Leapers were expreſly excepted, and forbidden to come in the Congregation of Gods people, as is before proved.

Eraſtus. The Phariſees and Sadduces debarred none from the Sacraments for their wicked life.

Anſ. What? will Eraſtus make the Phariſees practiſe our Rule, they killed the Lord of Glory, and then eat the Paſſeover with p. 273bloody hearts and hands: Is ſuch a Practiſe our Rule?

Eraſtus. Iohn Baptiſt refuſed Baptiſme to none willing to bee baptized, and referred the inward Baptiſme, by the Spirit and fire to Ieſus Chriſt.

Anſ. Iohn baptized thoſe who confeſſed their ſinnes, and profeſſed their Repentance; and the like we crave of thoſe that are admitted to the other Sacrament. And the inſtance of Iohn or an Apoſtles baptizing, cannot warrant the Baptizing of all Murtherers, Idolatrous perſons, or the wickedſt living, as Eraſtus ſaith, and the vildeſt on earth, if they ſhould but deſire Baptiſme, and give no confeſſion of their Faith, nor profeſſion of their Repentance.

Eraſtus. Chriſt who rebuked many abuſes, and caſt the buyers and ſellers out of the Temple, would have rebuked the pollution of the Sacraments alſo; but that he never did: and Chriſt ſaid that Peter ſhould forgive his offending Brother often in one day, if he but ſay, It repenteth me: and he ſaith, This tranſaction ſhall be ratified in heaven. Will you be more cruell then God? Do not we often lie to God in our Confeſſion to God? He meaneth well, who deſires to come to the Supper: Be not Iudges of mens Conſcience.

Anſ. Chriſt Commanding not to caſt Pearls to Swine, and ſcourging out thoſe that polluted that Temple that was a type of his body, doth Argue clearly, that the holy things of God ſhould not be prophaned: But that Chriſt rebuked all abuſes in the worſhipA twofold forgiveneſſe. of God, in particular, Eraſtus cannot ſay. 2. It is one thing to forgive our brother, by putting away private grudge, and a church-pardoning in the name of Chriſt is another; in the former ſenſe we are to forgive our enemy, though he repent not, Mat. 6. 12. 14, 15. Rom. 12. 19, 20. Luk. 23. 34. But this forgiveneſſe, Luk. 17. is not ſaid to be ratified in heaven; for God doth not alway forgive when we forgive, God doth forgive when the ſinner repenteth. Eraſtus will have a lying confeſſion ratified in Heaven. 3. When the Church in Chriſts Name forgiveth not upon words and lies; but upon Viſible Teſtimonies of repentance, they are no more Iudges of the heart, then Iſaiah when he ſaid, Except ye believe, ye ſhall not be eſtabliſhed: and Paul when he ſaid to the Jaylor▪ Believe and thou ſhalt be ſaved: for without more then lying words of mouth, yea, without true lively faith; neither could the one be eſtabliſhed, nor the other ſaved.

p. 274Eraſtus. When Paul dehorteth the Corinthians to eat things SacrificedPag. 117. to Idols, in the Idols Temple, becauſe they could not be partakers of the Table of the Lord, and of the Table of Devils; he bids them not forſake the Supper of the Lord, but only not to go to the Feaſt of Idols; becauſe the Supper, and theſe Tables of Devils are inconſiſtant; therefore he ſaith, I will not have you to have fellowſhip with Devils; but he ſaith not, I will not have you to come to the Supper of the Lord; nor deth he bid them approve their repentance …re they come to ſome (I know not what) Presbyters. And in this place he speaketh of an externall Communion, as the purpoſe and words prove; becauſe he speaketh of Iſrael according to the fleſh. 3. Becauſe thoſe that eat things Sacrificed to Idols, were perſwaded there was no difference between thoſe meats, and other meats.

Anſ. Eraſtus his Argument is this, being reduced to form; is, if Paul ſay not, 1 Cor. 10. I will not have you come to the Lords Supper; but only, I will not have you to have fellowſhip with the Devil in his Table; then he will have none debarred by the Elders from the Lords Supper: But the latter is true. I deny the Propoſition, it is a connexion, that one who taketh on him to refute ſuch a precious and eminent divine as Theod. Beza, may be aſhamed of; and yet his book from head to foot ſtandeth moſt upon a negative Argument from ſome particular place of Scripture; for he ſpeaketh nothing of the power of Elders, to keep the holy things of God pure.

What if he ſhould ſay, Moſes in the firſt of Geneſis ſaith not, I will not have you not to come to the Lords Supper; Ergo, there is no authoritative debarring of men from the Lords Supper: Such ſandy conſequences no learned Divines would ever dream of: 2. Beza, nor any of our Divines never dreamed that God in the Old or New Teſtament ſaid, Nolo vos ad menſam domini (ad ſacramenta) venire, which are the words of Erastus; ſo his concluſion comethAll are invited to the Sacramēts, but not that they come any way they pleaſe. not near the controverſie▪ Iews and Gentiles are invited, and commanded to come to Chriſt, and ſo to all the Ordinances and Sacraments, but I hope this will not infer that all ſhould come to the Sacraments hand over head, and whether they be clean or unclean, circumciſed or Baptized, or not circumciſed, not Baptized. God commanded Aarons ſons to ſerve in the ſanctuary, and appear before him in their charge: What, Ergo, it is not Gods will, that p. 275they come not to the Sanctuary, and before him unwaſhed; and with ſtrange fire, and without their holy garments▪ this is the very conſequence of Eraſtus: Our queſtion I conceive is, whither allThe queſtion whether all ſhould be admitted to the Lords Supper perverted by Erastus. Cap. 3. l. 1. p. 117. Lib. 3. c. 3. pag. 207. Et ſi quis talis (qui caleabit ſacramenta) reperiatur hunc ego numinè admittendum cenſeo. muſt be admitted promiſcuouſly, and whether even thoſe that come immediatly from the Devils Table, without any preparation known to the Church, ſhould be ſet at Chriſts elbow to eat the Lords body and blood? Eraſtus ſaith, Paul never ſaid, Nolo vos ad menſam domini venire; then becauſe two negatives make one affirmative, Paul muſt ſay, I will that all that are partakers of the table of the Devil, come and be partakers of the Lords body: But the concluſion is contradicent to Eraſtus himſelf, who faith right down: I judge, that he, vvho vvill but trample the Sacraments, ſhould not be admitted unto them, and to Paul, 1 Cor. 11. 27, &c. 3. Eraſtus confoundeth two Queſtions; one is, whither all ſhould be admitted to the Lords Supper: (Eraſtus ſaith, every where in his book none are to be debarred;) & another by whom are they to be admitted or debarred? By the civill Magiſtrates, ſaith Eraſtus; by the Stew…rds and Officers of the houſe of God, the reſt of the Church conſenting, ſay we. 4. The Argument will conclude, that not onelyonly the Church or Magiſtrate ought to admit thoſe that have fellowſhip with the Devil to the Table of Chriſt, but they ought to command them to come, it being Chriſts will they ſhould be admitted, and that they themſelves who are Communicants are obliged, though keeping fellowſhip with the Devil, to come, and eat their own damnation: for Paul ſaith, by this reaſon in the place, 1 Cor. 10. No more (I will not have the partakers of the Devils table, to come to the Lords table) nor he ſaith, (I will not have the Elders to debar them) if Eraſtus ſay, they ſhould try and examine themſelves and come: He flees from the controverſie, which is not, whether the worthy, but whether the ſcandalous and unworthy ſhould come; Eraſtus ſaith, all ſhould come. 5. Whereas Eraſtus will have the Apoſtle to ſpeak of the externall Communion of the Elements onelyonly: 1. It is falſe. 2. Nothing to the purpoſe, it is falſe, 1. ver. 16. It is called the Communion of the body and blood of Chriſt, and that muſt be more then externall Communion. 2. ver. 17. We many are one body; this is not an externall body only, for it is the unity of the body of Chriſt ſignified by one bread. 3. It is not externall only, but internall and ſpiritual fellowſhip with Devils that is condemned, ver. 20. 21. Ergo, p. 276It muſt be internall Communion with Chriſt in his death that is ſealed and commanded. 4. This is meer Socinianiſme, to have the Sacraments only memorative ſignes, as is clear. 2. It is not to a purpoſe, for if the Church debar only from externall ſociety, from the Church and externall Seals; this debarring being ratified in Heaven, Matth. 18. It is ſufficient for our concluſion. 5. Paul his condemning of eating at the Idols Table, as inconſiſtent with eating and drinking of the Lords body, he muſt expreſly forbid thoſe who eateth in the Idoll-Temple, to come to the Lords Table, except they repent, and try themſelves: Hence it muſt follow, that if Chriſt have commanded his Stewards, to diſpenſe the word of promiſe and threatnings, and comforts, according to the temper of the flock, ſo muſt they diſpenſe the Seals, and ſo by good conſequence Paul ſaid (I will not have the Lord and Satan mingled, nor a partaker of Satans Table admitted to the Lords Table) foreign;

Eraſtus his Arg. 13. 1 Cor. 10. God ſpared not idolaters and murmurers;Pag. 118. yet they eat, we, and they of the ſame ſpirituall meat, and drinke the ſame ſpirituall drinke, and ſo had the ſame Sacraments (otherwiſe the Argument of the Apoſtle were nothing; if ours and their Sacraments were not all one) if then, thoſe that were idolators, fornicators, were admitted to their Sacraments; then alſo to ou… under the New Teſtament.

Anſ. Beza anſwereth well to that. Manna and the water ouf of the Rock, as they had a ſpirituall Relation to Chriſt, were holy things and types of Chriſt, juſt as our Sacraments are ſignes of Chriſt already come in the fleſh, and ſo agreed in the kinde of holy ſignes with our Sacraments: yet Manna, and the water out of the Rock, were alſo ordained to be bodily food, for the famiſhing and thirſty people, good or bad, holy or unholy, theſe two, Manna and water out of the Rock were given by the Commandment of God and the Prieſts, to the people, both as Gods people in Covenant with God, and to them, as men ſtarving in the wilderneſſe, and dying for thirſt; for they had not plowing, earing, harveſt, bread, vineyards, wine, fountains in the wilderneſſe, and therefore no marvell then ſuch holy things being; alſo beſide that they were holy things, ſuch as were neceſſary to keep them from ſtarving and bodily death, as the ſhewbread, which was alſo a type of the word of life▪ revealed to the Miniſters of God, was p. 277given to keep David and his men from ſtarving: No marvell (I ſay) then theſe bodily helps (though in another higher ſignification they were Sacramentalls) were by Gods command beſtowed on many wicked men, who often partake both of outward Ordinances and temporall deliverance from death and famiſhing, becauſe they are mixt with the people of God. But Eraſtus, if he would prove any thing againſt us, ſhould have proved that circumciſion, the Paſſeover, and other holy things of God, ordained for the viſible Saints to ſhew forth our ſpirituall Communion with Chriſt, and which were never ordained for neceſſiry helps to ſuſtain the naturall life, were to be adminiſtred to thoſe that were openly prophane and wicked; and therefore we deny this connexion: Manna ſignified the very ſame thing; to wit, Chriſt our food of life, which bread and wine ſignifies; Ergo, As Manna was given both as a holy ſigne to figure out Chriſt our life, and to feed the bodies of openly holy, or openly prophane, to ſuſtain their bodily life, ſo alſo baptiſme and the Lords Supper, which ſerve for no bodily uſe, ſhould be adminiſtred to thoſe that are openly prophane.

Erastus is put to a poor ſhift with this ſolid Anſwer of that Reverend,Two ſorts of ſignes, ſome purely holy ſome partly holy, partly neceſſary for the bodily life. Learned, and holy Divine, Theod. Bez…, he ſaith, Vis dicam quod ſentio? Tui ubique ſimiliſes: The ſea and the cloud, ſaith he, were not neceſſary to feed the body.

It is true, Eraſtus the Phyſician would think the cloud and pillar of fire can neither be Phyſick for the ſick, nor food for the whole, yet Phyſitians ſay, Manna is apt for both; not is the dvided Red-Sea, food or Phyſick: But good man, he knowes the cloud was their guide and convey by night and day through the wilderneſſe, and appointed by God to convey the Leapers, the unclean, and all thoſe who were Excommunicated from the holy things, and the Idolators and openly wicked, as well as the clean and the holy, and he knew the ſ…me that the people had no food but Manna a holy ſigne, that thoſe who were unclean ſeven dayes, and often many times longer, were not to ſtarve for hunger, but muſt eat Manna though a holy, yet their only neceſſary food then, without which they could not live.

But I hope Eraſtus cannot prove, while they were unclean, or put out of the Camp, or yet extreamly wicked, that they might eat the Paſſeover which was a meer holy Sacrament, not ordained p. 278for the feeding of the body, as Manna and water out of the Rock were.

Eraſtus may know the dividing of the Sea, was neceſſary to preſerve the life of the moſt wicked and unclean (God being pleaſed for his Churches cauſe, to beſtow Temporall deliverances on wicked men, mingled with the godly) from being drowned with the Egyptians, and that God, who will have mercy, and not ſacrifice, may well by a poſitive Law appoint that holy and unholy, clean and unclean, ſhall have the uſe of ſuch holy things, as are not meerly holy, but mixt, being both means of Divine inſtitution, and alſo neceſſary Subſidies for mans life, but it followeth not therefore holy things, that are purely holy, ſhould be proſtitute to holy and unholy, the clean and unclean.

Eraſtus. God in the Church of the Jews puniſhed wicked men withPag. 120. bodily puniſhments, not with Excluſion from the Sacraments, and Paul threatneth death and ſickneſſe, not Excommunication to thoſe that did eat and drink unworthily.

Anſ. Then putting out of the Campe was no Excluſion from the holy things of God, all the world not onelyonly will cry ſhame on this Divinity: But they will ſay, Eraſtus, his Logick is bad. God puniſheth ſome wicked men with death, and the ſword of the Magiſtrate, and ſtoning; Ergo, he appointed no Eccleſiaſticall debarring of the unclean from Circumciſion: 2. It is falſe that Paul threatneth death to unworthy Communicants; only he ſaith, God …lew many of them for that ſin; and hence it follows well, the Officers ſhould▪ hinder the ſcandalous to ruſh into ſuch a ſin, as is the not diſcerning the Lords body, which bringeth death and diſeaſes on the actors: What conſequence is this? God puniſheth wicked men; Ergo, the Officers ſhould not rebuke them for thoſe ſins, nor the Magiſtrate or Church puniſh wicked men: God puniſheth …ubborn Rebels to parents; Ergo, the judge ſhould not ſtone them, the contrary Logick is the arguing of the Spirit of God.

Eraſtus. Every one is to try himſelf, therefore there is no need ofP. 120, 121. any other to try him, for Paul ſpeaketh of that which is proper to every mans conſcience.

Anſ. It is an unlearned and vain conſequence: It is commanded, that every one try if he be in the Faith or no; for the peace of his conſcience, and this is ſo proper to a man himſelf, and ſo perſonall▪ p. 279that no man can try, or know certainly, whether be in the ſtate of grace, but he himſelf, 2 Cor. 13. 5. Rev. 2. 17. None can joyn with him in this, as none can joyn with a man to try if he have faith to diſcern the Lords body, and eat worthily, but will it follow therefore the Paſtor ſhould not watch over him to try in another way in a Paſtorall way, by his walking, profeſſion, and practicall knowledge, whether he be in Chriſt or no.

The contrary is Heb. 13. 17. They watch for the ſouls of the people, as they that muſt give an accompt. And they are ſo far to try that are Shepherds, that they are obliged in a Paſtorall way, to know thoſe of the flock that are diſeaſed, Ezech. 34. 4. Sick, broken, driven away, and loſt. And to what end ſhould they try themſelves, leaſt they eat damnation to themſelves? Ergo, the Stewards ſhould try the ſtomacks, that they eat not poyſon: If then, the Lords Law bid men beware they be not tempted to Sorcery, Sodomy, Murthers; and if every man ought to have perſonall watchfulneſſe over his own conſcience, that he be not inſnared to thoſe ſins; and Achan was to try if his heart was ingaged to the wedge of Gold, and to be wary to meddle with it, but it doth not follow that Magiſtrates, as Joſhua ſhould not try out Sorcerers, Sodomites, and other Achans to puniſh them.

Eraſtus, 2 Cor. 13. is againſt this; a perſon is to try himſelfe: Will it follow when he hath tryed himſelfe, that he cannot come to the Lords Supper, except he ſeem meet to the Elders. And this not our conſequence, let Eraſtus owne it, we care not▪ In a conſtitute Church he ſhould, elſe Eraſtus provides no way againſt a Pagan, who hath heard the Word, as he may doe, 1 Cor. 14. 23. may without the Elders and Church ſit downe at the Lords Supper, for Eraſtus provides no ſtop for him, but only his own pagan Conſcience, and ſo may one by that rule but trample on the Sacrament, his owne Conſcience is all his rule, contrary to what he ſaith himſelfe, lib. 3. c. …. p. 207.

Eraſtus 1 Cor. 11. Paul forbiddeth none to come to the Supper, but upon ſuppoſition that they come as the manner is, he biddeth them come worthily, as all are bidden hear the Word, though they …e forbidden to he are it, as if it were ſome prophane Hiſtory; nor doth the Lord command ſinfull coming, for no act commanded of God is evill.

p. 280Anſ. 1. Paul then forbiddeth not Pagans, more to come to theAll are commanded to hear the Word, but not to come to the Supper. Supper, and Children, then he forbiddeth them to heare the Word, which is abſurd; he commandeth all to heare, but he commandeth not all to come to the Supper, but thoſe onelyonly that can diſcerne the Lords body, for to heare the Word, though I be not prepared, is ſimply neceſſary, if I would be ſaved; and to ſacrifice, if I would be reconciled; and to pray, if I would obtaine any bleſſing: though the manner of doing all theſe be commanded, that I heare, ſacrifice, and pray in faith. But to come to the Supper is not commanded to all, not to Pagans, not to children, not to the unregenerated; but onelyonly to the regenerated, and to thoſe who diſcerne the Lords body: and for a child to come to the Lords Supper, or an unrenewed man, is forbidden, not commanded, and no ill act is commanded, and it is a ſinne that they come at all: But Eraſtus will have it lawfull as it is to heare the Word, then doth Chriſt command Turks and children to come to the Supper, for he commandeth them to heare the Word, and Peter bade Simon Magus pray, Act. 8. 22. but he neither bids give the Supper to him, nor bids he him receive it, but by the contrary, forbids pearles to be caſt unto Swine.

Eraſtus Arg. 16. God will not have fewer Chriſtians to be membersArg. 16. Page 124. of the Church now, then of Iewes to be members of the Iewiſh Church. But God would have all circumciſed, even the moſt flagitious, that were puniſhed by the Magiſtrate, to be members of the Iewes Church, Ergo, God will have all the baptized to be Members of the Church.

Anſ. This will prove, that all baptized, even children, ſhould come to the Supper. 2. I deny the Minor, to wit, that all the moſt wicked remained Members of the viſible Iewiſh Church, jure before God, the wicked Iewes to God, were as Sodom and Gomorrah, Eſa. 1. 10. Yea he ſaith, Amos 9. 7. Are ye not unto me as children of Ethiopians, O children of Iſrael, ſaith the Lord? What they were de facto, and not caſt out, was the fault of the Prieſts, and that the Church does tollerate Iezabels, Wolves, Lions in the flock, and admitteth them to holy things, is their ſin.

Eraſtus. But Repentance was not alwaies commanded to thoſePage 124. Iewes eſpecially who were unclean, by touching an unclean thing againſt their will and ignorantly, and the purging of them depended on p. 281their owne will, ſo they obſerved the Ceremonies of Moſes.

Anſ. That is much for us, if thoſe who were uncleane, againſt their will, and caſt out of the campe, it being a trying Type, that far more thoſe that are wickedly ſcandalous are to be caſt out of the Church.

Eraſtus. The Church is a draw-…et, a field, a marriage Supper, there be good and ill in it, and it was not the ſinne of the inviters, who are bidden invite all good and bad, Mat. 22. But the man that came himſelfe, without the wedding garment, he is caſt into utter darkeneſſe: Ergo, The Officers are to invite all, and forbid none.

Anſ. They are to invite all, to all Ordinances, and Seals, even Dogs and Swine, that is falſe: They are to invite all to ſome Ordinances; to heare the Law and Goſpel preached, but not the Seales, that were to caſt Pearles to Swine. 2. The way of Eraſtus is, that none are to be debarred, nor to debarre themſelves from the Seales, more then from the Word.

The Lords forbidding Adam to touch the tree of Life, and his caſting of him out of Paradiſe, and Cains being caſt out from the preſence of the Lord, to me are rather Types preſignifying Excommunication, and that God will have wicked men debarred from holy things, then patternes of Excommunications, and ſo are they alledged by Beza and our Divines.