The Divine Right of Church Government and Excommunication, Religious polemic · Chapter 10
CHAP. X.
Queſt. 6.
Arguments for Excommunication, from 1 Corinthians 5. vindicated.
REverend Beza ſaid, The world is the Kingdom of Satan, and he that is delivered to Satan, is caſt out of Chriſts Kingdom to Satans Kingdom.
Eraſtus ſaith, Is it not eaſier to heal them by remaining in theLib. 3. cap. 5. p. 233. Church, having the Magiſtrate to compell them to their duty, then to caſt them out of the Church? The world is a kingdom of wickedneſſe and impiety, may you not more eaſily reforme a wanton and laſcivious virgin within the houſe, then by caſting her out of the houſe into a Bordel? Will not ſlaves of Satan be more eaſily healed amongſt the children of God, then amongſt wicked men?
Anſ. Whether, to be delivered to Satan, be to be put formally in his power, that he may vex the ſpirit, that the man may be humbled for ſin, or if it be to be given to Satan only, conſequenter, and caſt out of the Church, that is, Chriſts office-houſe of Grace, to live as the world, of which Satan is God and Prince, 2 Cor. 4. 4. Joh. 12. 31. Ioh. 14. 30. It is not much to be diſputed: But this reaſon is againſt the wiſdom of God, who hath appointed that the ſhame, grief and ſorrow of being put out of Chriſts family, ſhouldTo eſchew the ſcandalous a mean to ſave them. exceedingly humble the ſpirit of any in whom there is any thing of God.
And Eraſtus might as well ſay to Paul, why doſt thou command the Saints not to eat and drink with thoſe that are called brethren, and yet are fornicators, covetous, extortioners, 1 Cor. 4. 11. and ſuch as cauſe diviſions and walk inordinately, as Rom. 16. 17. 2 Theſ. 3. 14, 15. and to withdraw from their company? they muſt then converſe only with the ſlaves of Satan, and the wicked of the world, when they are deprived of the ſociety of the godly, and that is the way to looſe them; were it not better to command the juſt contrary, that the godly ſhould eat, drink and converſe with inordinate walkers? for they may turn them from their evil way; for will an unchaſte virgin be made chaſte by being caſt out of her fathers houſe into a Bordel-houſe? Will not ſlaves of Satan rather be healed amongſt the children of God, then amongſt the wicked?
But Eraſtus ſeeth not, that Gods aime in this ſeparation, is not only, that the caſt out man may be aſhamed, 2 Theſ. 3. 14, 15. and ſo humbled and brought to repentance, when he findeth he is deprived of the bleſſings of the Saints, of their ſociety, Ordinances: But alſo God hath a higher aime, to the end, the whole lump of Chriſts body, be not leavened and infected with the contagion of one man, 1 Cor. 4. 6, 7. Gal. 5. 9. 10.
Erastus. The ſimilitude of a rotten Member, proveth nothing:Lib. 3. c. 5. pag. 234. for 1. There be no ſuch ſinners deſperately uncurable, of whom there is no hope ſo long as they live, except pertinacious Hereticks erring in the foundation of ſalvation, and ſuch as ſin againſt the holy Ghoſt: 2. It is not neceſſary that men uſing reaſon and free will, be defiled and corrupted by other ſinners, as the whole Member is by the rotten Member; for as a Tree cannot but be burnt by the fire that ſeaſeth on it, ſo neither can the Members continuated by touching, eſcape corruption. 3. None can be caſt out of the Church intoThe ſimi litude of a cut off member to hold forth Excommucation vindicated. the world, as it is the kingdom of Satan, for if they keep the faith, though they were amongſt Turks, they are not in the world, that is, in the Kingdom of Satan, nor in the world: 4. Paul would not have him caſt out into the world, that his ſoul may be ſaved, for this were to make the weak diſpair, and make them hypocrites.
Anſ. This ſimilitude is the holy Ghoſts in the very ſenſe we uſe it, 2 Tim. 2. 17. Their word ſhall eat as a canker, a Metaphor (as Calvin, Piſcator, Marlorate obſerve) from a rotten member that corrupteth the whole body, and to ſay, becauſe a man hath reaſon and ſo free-will, that he will not be corrupted; whereas the whole member by neceſſity of nature cannot but be corrupted by a rotten member, is to ſpeak not like a Divine, but as Pelagius ſpeaketh; for except we uſe the remedy appointed of God, to eſchew the contagion of the wicked, and eſchew their company, as we are commanded, and as the godly have done, and the wicked have not done, and therefore have been infected with the way of other evil men, Prov. 22. 24. Prov. 5▪ 8, 9. Pſa. 26. 4, 5. Eſa. 2. 6, 7. Pſa. 119. 63. Pſa. 139. 21, 22. Rev. 18. 4. 2 Chro. 19. 2. (though we ſhould not actually be corrupted) yet we ſin and tempt the Lord, in that we ſeek a temptation to our ſelves; yea, as all the reaſons of Eraſtus are naturall and againſt the wiſdom of God in his Ordinances, ſo expreſly this; God forbiddeth his people to marry with the Canaanites, or to make Covenants with them, Exod. 34. 12, &c. Becauſe (ſaith the Lord) they will inſnare thee, and draw away thy heart after their Gods: May not Erastus ſay, But men have reaſon and free-will not to conſent to the inticing counſels of the Canaanites, though they be joyned in Covenant, and marriage with them: Preterea non eſt neceſſe ſic alios a malis contaminari. 3. It is good, that Erastus granteth, that pertinacious Hereticks, becauſe uncurable, may infect others, for ſo the word expreſly ſaith, what ſhall be done with them? Erastus granteth they be rotten members: Ergo, either they muſt, by Excommunication be ſeparated from the body, as we teach, or the body muſt ſeperate from them; if this latter be ſaid, all that Erastus inferreth againſt us, ſhall fall againſt himſelf: 1. We ſhall not need to be infected with the Hereſie of ſuch: Ʋtimur ratione, We have the Armour of reaſon and freewill, againſt this rotten and rotting member, ſaith Eraſtus: 2. We ſhall expoſe Hereticks to the Kingdom of Satan, and the world, by which they ſhall be hardned in their pernicious Hereſies: Beſide 3. We make them Hypocrites: 4. I ſee no warrant Eraſtus hath to ſay, That Hereticks erring in fundamentals are more contagious and rotten members then ſlaves of Satan, failing againſt the ſecond Table: 5. He that is caſt out of the Church, though amongst the Turkes, is in the world, but not of the world: If he keep the faith, and if he do ſo, he ſhall repent and come home to Chriſts viſible Kingdom, but becauſe he keepeth the faith, yet he is not a member of a viſible Church, except he profeſſe it, and repent; for even the ſound in faith, if obſtinate in Scandals, may deſerve Excommunication. 6. There is nothing ſaid againſt Excommunication in the two laſt Reaſons, but what ſtriketh againſt Timothy his publike rebuking, and threatning wrath againſt thoſe that ſin openly, for they may through their owne corruption, ſo farre abuſe publike threatnings, as they may be led on deſpaire and hypocriſie. Now Eraſtus as we ſhall hear, granteth thoſe are to be rebuked openly, who ſin openly. 7. We ſay not to deliver to Satan any man, is to deliver him to the World, but to caſt him out of the Church, that conſequenter he may be left to the World; but that he ſhould ſinne, and be led away with the World, is neither the intrinſecall end of Excommunication, or of the Church, but an event or end by accident▪ the intrinſecall end is the Salvation of the man.
Beza ſaith, that Paul ſpeaketh of a ſpirituall puniſhment, and not of a corporall.
Erastus ſaith. When Peter killed Ananias corporally, was not thisPage 235. corporall puniſhment? When Paul gave ſome to Satan for the deſtruction of the fleſh, and God puniſheth our ſinnes with temporall death, how ſhall you prove that God, and the Apoſtles puniſheth not ſinnes with corporall, or politicke puniſhment?
Anſ. The inſtance of Peters killing Ananias is in vain broughtNo warrant that the Apoſtles killed any by the miniſtery of Satan. in▪ Its but a begging oſ the queſtion, for it is not ſaid Peter delivered Ananias to Satan, that his Spirit might be ſaved. Who revealed this ſecret to Eraſtus, that Peter uſed the Miniſtery of Satan in killing Ananias? We have as good reaſon to ſay, Peter delivered Ananias to a good Angell to be killed, as Eraſtus hath for his dreame. 2. We deny not, but God and the Apoſtles did puniſh ſinne with corporall puniſhment, but let him ſhow without the bounds of the place in controverſie; (for we muſt expound Scripture by Scripture) where ever the Church conveened together in the Name of the Lord Jeſus, did judge and miraculouſly kill any member of the Church, that the Spirit may be ſaved in the day of God.
Beza ſaid, This killing by the people, would be ground of a great Calumnie, to make many ſay, Chriſtians did uſurpe the Sword of the Magiſtrate, and that they were not ſubject to the Magiſtrate.
Erastus. We give this power of miraculous killing onelyonly to the Apoſtles.
Anſ. Yea, But the calumny ſtandeth ſo long as Eraſtus giveth to all the people the faith of Miracles to conveene and pray that Paul might miraculouſly kill thoſe that offended the Church, and its probable when the enemies objected to Chriſtians, all they could falſely, they would not have omitted this, that the very people by their prayers meet in one Church-jury, to kill Ceſars Subjects. Beza ſaid, The Chriſtian Magiſtrate ſhould by this kill all the drunkards, fornicators, and the like with the Sword.
Eraſtus anſwereth, 1. All faults deſerve not killing, but ſomePag. 236. 237. other puniſhment of a lower degree. 2. The Lord himſelfe appointed that the Magiſtrate ſhould compell men to doe their duty, why then ſhould Beza ſpeake againſt God, and call this a compelling of men to be Hipocrites?
Anſ. If other ſins, as drunkenneſſe, fornication, extortion, doeNo miraculous faith required in the Corinthians for the killing of the man. infect the Church, and be ſcandalous to the very Gentiles, as the Apoſtle ſaith of inceſt, 1 Cor. 5. 1. 6, 7. Upon the ſame reaſon Paul ſhould have rebuked them, becauſe they did not from the faith of Miracles pray that Paul might inflict ſome miraculous judgement by the Miniſtery of Satan, though leſſe then death for other ſinnes. But I pray you, Paul had either a warrant from God to kill this man, or he had none at all: If he had a warrant, why did he not that which is the part of a miraculous Magiſtrate without the prayers of the Corinthians? Did Paul chide them, becauſe they prayed not to God that he might doe his duty? if he had no warrant at all, Why ſhould he chide the Corinthians, for that they prayed not that he might doe a duty, which was not his duty? For that is not Pauls duty, for the doing whereof he hath no warrant from God; if it was his duty onelyonly conditionally; 1. What warrant is there in Scripture, to ſay, Paul ſhould have miraculouſly killed the inceſtuous perſon, upon condition that the Corinthians had by the faith of Miracles, prayed that he might worke that miraculous ſlaughter, which becauſe they did not, Paul was either exonered of that as no duty, or then Paul chided them, becauſe they prayed not to prevene Pauls ſinfull neglect? 2. How was this revealed to the Corinthians, that they ſhould pray that God by Paul, as by his Magiſtrate might revenge this inceſt, and not revenge their fronication, coveteouſnes, extortion, Idolatry, eſpecially ſeeing he ſaith that, v. 9. He had written to them in another Epiſtle, not to ke…p company with ſuch? Whence I thinke it evident, that Paul in another Epiſtle, had ordained ſeparation of Fornicators, Coveteous perſons, and the like, from amongſt them, and ſo cenſures for all ſcandalous perſons: And how ſhal we believe he would not teach them to caſt out inceſtuous perſons, that are far more ſcandalous? And if ſo, he muſt have written in another Epiſtle of this miracle, that they were to pray he might work: Is it not evident by this, that Eraſtus his way, is full of Conjectures and groundleſſe uncertainties. 2. We deny not that the Magiſtrate may compell men to do their duty; nor doth Beza deny that: But that the Church hath or had any influence in the blood of an inceſtuous perſon, and in working of miracles for the bodily deſtruction of any, is moſt falſe, and cannot be proved by this Text: Nor do we think that the Church (the weapons of whoſe warfare are carnall) can compell any man by corporall puniſhment, to duties by the Sword; for ſo their Spirituall way, which is terminated on the Conſcience, ſhould lead men to Hypocriſie in profeſſion of the truth, for ſo reaſoneth Erastus; the Magiſtrate with the Sword rather puniſheth ſins committed in Gods Service, then forceth to duties: The fifth Argument of Beza is vindicated already.
Erastus. We ſay not that Paul was to deliver the man to Satan, thatPage 237, 238. he may be ſaved, but that Paul was to puniſh this high tranſgreſſion with the Sword, to the terror of others; but only he ſet bounds to Satan, that he ſhould only kill his body, but not meddle with his ſoul; but becauſe the man repented, Paul hoped well of his ſoul, that his ſoul ſhould be ſaved in the day of Chriſt.
Anſ. 1. Here Eraſtus doth more fully reveal the vileneſſe of his opinion, for he granteth the intrinſecall end of this miraculous killing, is not the Salvation of the mans ſoul, but the revenging of the wickedneſſe of the ſin, for the terror of others: Which is 1. Contrary to the Text, which ſaith, He was to be delivered to Satan▪ foreign, that the ſpirit may be ſaved. This noteth that the intrinſecall end of this delivering to Satan, was the Salvation of the mans ſoul: But the Text ſaith nothing of Eraſtus his end, that others may be terrified, though that may be an end. It is a wonder to me, that ſince Eraſtus granteth the man repented, even when Paul did in this Chapter chide with the Corinthians, that they delivered him not to Satan: For Eraſtus ſaith, foreign, He that hath done this deed, not he that continueth pertinaciouſly in it (ſaith he:) hence it is clear, that he repented at this time: How doth Paul chide them for not delivering a repenting man to the Devil? that his Spirit may be ſaved; if he repented, his ſpirit was ſaved; Ergo, Paul was in the fault, and chid them without reaſon; if they ſay, though he did repent, yet for example to terrifie others he ſhould have been killed, 2 Cor. 2. ſaith, He was not killed; and Eraſtus ſaith it; Ergo, yet Paul failed, and they alſo. 3. It is againſt the intrinſecall end of that power which Eraſtus ſaith is miraculous: For Paul ſaith the end of that power is for Edification, not for Deſtruction, 2 Cor. 10. 8. Now the intrinſecall end of bodily killing, is peace, and terror to others, that they may be afraid to do ſo any more▪ But the intrinſecall end, and finis operis, is not Edification, but finis operantis onelyonly, for acts of Magiſtrates are not acts of the firſt Table which kindly, and per ſe, regardeth edification, but acts of the ſecond Table, if their ſoules be ſaved who die, for their enormous crimes by the hand of the Magiſtrate: It is not from the violent death, as if it were an intrinſecall mean and ordinance appointed of God for converſion: But becauſe God giveth to thoſe who die that way, repentance. Yea, it is no more a mean of ſaving of the ſoule, then if they ſhould die in their beds by ſome diſeaſe.
To the examples of Hymeneus and Alexander, that they were not killed miraculouſly, I anſwered before. Eraſtus addeth no new reply to Beza.