The Divine Right of Church Government and Excommunication, Religious polemic · Chapter 12

The Divine Right of Church Government and Excommunication · Religious polemic · Chapter 12

p. 355CHAP. XII.

Queſt. 8.

The eſchewing of company with the ſcandalous, vindicated from Eraſtus his exceptions.

BEſides other arguments from Mat. 18. and 1 Cor. 5. for excommunication, we argue thus: Thoſe upon whom the Church p. 356is to put ſuch a publike note of ſhame or a foreign, as they are to withdraw from their company, and not to eat and drink with them, thoſe are caſt out of the Church, and ſo cut off from the body of Chriſt, and excommunicated.

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

The propoſition I prove, 1 Cor. 5. 11. he ſaith, v. 9. I wrote to you in an Epiſtle, not to keep company with fornicators, the ſame word that in the abſtract is ſpoken of the inceſtuous man, v. 1. by which it is clear Paul had forbidden any company with ſuch inceſtuous men. Now he had not forbidden them to keep company with dead men, if the man was to be miraculouſly killed, Ergo, it was his will before, that ſuch a one ſhould be judged, and put out, elſe he could not ſo ſharply rebuke them, for not caſting him out, and if now only he had firſt taught, and written to them to caſt him out: as if excommunication had been in this ſame very Chapter inſtituted by Paul, and v. 11. foreign now I have written unto you, not to keep company with one named a brother, who is a fornicator; this muſt be in the ſame Chapter, for foreign now I have written, muſt be in relation to this v. 9. I wrote unto you in a Epiſtle before: now if here at this preſent he wrote to them, not to keep company with him, it muſt be when he commandeth to caſt him out v. 13. and to judge him v. 12. ſo that not to keep company with ſuch fornicators, muſt neceſſarily preſuppoſe a caſting out, and that the fornicator, with whom we are not to keep company in a familiar manner, is a man caſt out of the Church, and ſo excommunicated. 2. Paul would never forbid brotherly familiarity with any remaining a brother, a member of the Church, and of a body with us in viſible profeſſion of the truth, as partakers of one body and blood of Chriſt, as all the members of the Church eating at one Lords table are, 1. Cor. 10. 16, 17. 3. The Apoſtle ſaith ſuch a fornicator is but foreign named▪ a brother, and ſo in the eſteem of the Church no brother, and ſo not of the viſible body of Chriſt. 4. Paul p. 357bringeth in this as a reaſon why they ſhould caſt out the inceſtucus man, v. 9. did not (ſaith he) I write to you before, and do I not now write, v. 11. even now that you are not to k…ep intimate familiarity with ſuch titular brethren, who are brethren in name only? Therefore put out from amongſt you this man, v. 13. the Apoſtles argument to infer they ought to judge, and put ſuch a man out of the Church; becauſe they are not to eat with him, were of no weight, if this …ſchewing of familiarity with one who is a brother only in name, did not infer the Churches caſting of him ou….

Erastus. it is falſe that Paul forbiddeth to eat with him who is caſtL. 3. c▪ 8. p. 247. 248▪ out, for he forbiddeth not eating with a dead man.

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

Erastus. It is falſe that Paul forbiddeth as to eat meat with ſuch;Pag 248. Yea in no place he forbiddeth to eat with heathen, but elſewhere granteth it to be lawfull, and in this Chapter he permitteth private commerce with them.

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

p. 3583. Though we may have commerce, and buy and …ell with heathens, and neglect no dutie… of humanity to them, as to receive them into our houſe, and to be hoſpitall to them, Heb. 13. 2. Iob 31. 32. Yet this will conclude intire fellowſhip with neither heathen, or ſcandalous brethren; Yea, we are not to receive a falſe teacher into our houſe, 2. Ioh. ver. 10. Yet are we not forbidden to neglect duties of common humanity to falſe Teachers, though we be forbidden intireneſſe of Brotherly fellowſhip with them.

Erastus. There is not the ſame reaſon of holy things, and of private civill things; for this, not eating, belongeth to private converſing with men, not to publike Communion with them in the holy things of God: One ſaith, It is in our liberty, Whether we converſe familiarly with wicked men, or not, But it is not in our power, Whether we come to the Lords Supper, or not; And Paul will not have us to deny any thing that belongeth to Salvation; and therefore he ſaith, 2 Theſſ. 3. Admoniſh him as a Brother; and none, I hope, can deny, but the Sacraments are helps of godlineſſe and Salvation.

Anſ. 1. It is true, that avoiding of the company of ſcandalous Brethren, hath in it ſomething civill; but it is a cenſure-ſpirituall, and a Church-cenſure, two wayes: 1. Objectively, in its tendency, Reſpectu termini ad quem. 2. Effectively, in its riſe and cauſe, Reſpectu termini à quo, it is a ſpirituall cenſure Objectively, becauſe it tendeth to make the party aſhamed, that he may repent, and become a Brother with whom we are to converſe; and therefore is deſtinated for no civill uſe, but for the good of his ſoul, that is a member of a Church, that he may return to what he was. 2. This cenſure, though one private Brother may exerciſe it upon another, yea, a woman on a man, who yet hath no Authority over the man, is notwithſtanding in its riſe and efficient cauſe, a Church-cenſure. 1. If Chriſt will not have one Brother to condemne another, while firſt he rebuke him; and if he be not convinced, while he do the ſame before two or three witneſſes; and if he yet be not gained, one private Brother may not after conviction, before two or three witneſſes repute him as a Heathen, or complain of him before an Heathen Iudge, as Eraſtus ſaith; How ſhall we imagine any one ſingle Brother may withdraw Brotherly fellowſhip from another Brother, by his own private Authority, while he firſt be ſentenced before the Church? And the Church ſhall convince him to walk p. 359diſorderly, to cauſe diviſions and offences, to be a Fornicator, a Covetous perſon, and ſo to be unworthy of the intire Brotherly fellowſhip of another? For if this order were not in the Church, every Brother might take up a prejudice at his Brother, and ſo break all bands of Religious Communion, and Brotherly fellowſhip, and diſſolve and make ruptures in the Churches: Now certain it is, Theſe Texts, Rom. 16. 17, 18. 2 Theſ. 3. 11, 12, &c▪ in the letter, intimate no ſuch order as is Matth. 18. But it is preſuppoſed, as clear by other Scriptures, we are not to withdraw from an offending Brother, but after ſuch an order: Now the places in the letter, except we expound them by other Scriptures, do not bear that we are to rebuke our Brother, before we withdraw from him, contrary to Levit. 19. 17. 2. If I am to withdraw from a Brother, all Brotherly fellowſhip by theſe places; then I am to eſteem him as a Heathen, and as a Brother in name, not in reality, 1 Cor. 5. 11. Whereas once I eſteemed him a Brother, and did keep Brotherly fellowſhip with him; now this is materially Excommunication▪ I do no more in this kinde to one who is formally Excommunicated; yea, I am not ſo ſtrange to a Heathen; Ergo, This I muſt have done upon ſome foregoing ſentence of the Church, otherwiſe, I might un-Church and un-Brother the man whom the Church neither hath, nor can, un-Church and un-Brother. 3. Eſchewing of Brotherly fellowſhip to any, is an act of Government diſtinct from the Preaching of the Word, tending to make a Brother that walketh diſorderly aſhamed, that he may repent, and of a Brother in name only, may become a Brother in reallity, 2 Theſ. 3. 14. But this act of Government belongeth not to the Chriſtian Magiſtrate; for every Brother (ſaith Eraſtus) may exerciſe it toward his Brother; Ergo, here is Church-Government that the Magiſtrate hath no hand in, contrary to the way of Eraſtus, and not in the hands of Paſtors, for it is diſtinct from Preaching; nor is it in a Colledge of Paſtors, Doctors, and Elders, for Eraſtus denyeth any ſuch Colledge; Ergo, here every one muſt govern another, the man the woman, and the woman the man; the ſon the father, if he walk unorderly, and the Father the Son; this can be nothing, but the greateſt Confuſion on Earth. 4. To put any to ſhame, eſpecially publikely, by way of puniſhment for publike ſins, muſt come from ſome Iudges, or others armed p. 360with Authority, Iudg. 18. 7. 1 Cor. 4. 14. 1 Cor. 6. 5. 1 Cor. 25. 34. Then the Apoſtles ſenſe cannot be, that every one hath power of himſelfe without the Church, or any authority there from to put his brother to ſhame; for when a brother is not to eat with a ſcandalous brother, he muſt be convinced by the Church to be ſcandalous, and ſo caſt our, 1 Cor. 5. 11, 12, 13. as we have proved before, and every man here ſhould be his owne judge, and party in his owne cauſe, except he put his brother to ſome ſhame by an higher authority then his owne. The word foreign, is to put a publike note or foreign upon the offender. So Stephanus. So Piſcator, Nota ignominioſâ excommunicationis. Pomponius laetus de Magiſtr. Rom. …. 21. Cenſores quinto… quo que anno creari ſolebant, hic prorſus cives ſic notabantur, ut qui Senator eſſet ejece…etur Senatu, qui eques Romanus equum publicum perderet, &c. Mathaeus Harniſh & Gec. Gabellus, who adde to Zanchius his Commentary in 2 Theſ. ſay, Eſt not … quâdam inſignire, et in aliquem animadvertere; ut cenſores apud Romanos notare aliquem ſolebant, they expound it the publike note of Excommunication. Beza ſaith it is not foreign to ſignifie and declare, but foreign notate, & veluti inuſtâ not â compungite. So Calvin, Marlorat.

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

And whereas Eraſtus ſaith, Paul will have us 2 Theſ. 3. 15. to admoniſh this man as a brother; Ergo, In holy things, and in the Sacraments▪ that are helpes of piety and Salvation, we are not to …aſt him off: It is true, the caſt out man is not to be reputed as an enemy, but a brother. Yet a ſicke and diſeaſed brother, under the rougheſt Medicine of the Church, to wit, the rod of Excommunication, that the Spirit may be ſaved in the day of the Lord. But withdrawing of brotherly fellowſhip, is not a meere civill unbrothering of him, for if the brotherly fellowſhip of Chriſtians muſt be ſpirituall, religious, and for the edifying of one anothers ſoules, for exhorting one another, to prevent hardning of heart, p. 361for provoking one another to love, and to good works, to teach one another, to comfort and ſupport one another, as we are expreſly commanded by the Holy Ghoſt, Heb. 3. 13. Heb. 10. 24. Col. 3. 16. 1 Theſſ. 5. 11, 14. Mal. 3. 16. Jer. 50. 5. Zach. 8. 22. Pſal. 42. 4. I wonder where Eraſtus learned this Divinity, to ſay, the denying of this edifying Communion to a ſcandalous brother, while he be aſhamed and repent, Is to deny nothing that belongeth to his ſalvation: Admonition is but one of twenty comfortable acts of Communion, which we deny not to him, leaſt the man ſhould deſpaire, and we ſhould caſt off all care, hope, or intention to ſave his ſoul, whereas the genuine and intrinſecall intention of avoiding him, and caſting him out of the Church, is, that he may be ſaved: Laſtly, we deny not admonition, and preaching of the word to the man, thus caſt out, becauſe they be converting Ordinances, ſimply neceſſary to work the mans humiliation and repentance; but the Lords Supper is a confirming Ordinance, and denied to the excommunicated while he is in that condition upon that very reaſon, that it is denied to Pagans and Heathens; and though it be an help of piety, it is no help either to a Pagan, or an excommunicate man, but damnation: But it may be, the excommunicate man hath faith. I anſwer, To us in the Court of the Church, in which the Seals are diſpenſed,Sacraments though helps of piety, yet not to be given to all. he hath no more then a Heathen hath; and therefore, in confirming Ordinances, he is looked on by the Church as an Heathen; and if the reaſon of Eraſtus be good, The Church is to deny no helps of godlineſſe and ſalvation to him, though we deny private food to his body, becauſe the Sacraments are neceſſary helps. Then 1. I much doubt, if the Church be to deny the neceſſary helps of godlineſſe and ſalvation to a Pagan living amongſt us; Ergo, ſhall we not deny the Sacraments to a Pagan? 2. We are not to avoid his company,Eraſtus p. 248. …erum ſacrament… eſſe adminicula pi…tatis & ſalutis, nullus …gat, proi…de non ſunt h…, … ganda petentibus, &c. and deny the edifying acts of Communion, which I named before, for theſe are neceſſary helps of ſalvation. 3. It is not the mans ſin by this reaſon, That he eateth and drinketh unworthily; for if it be not the Churches ſin to give him the ſeals, becauſe the Seals are adminiclees and helps of piety, and ſaving of the ſoul; by the ſame reaſon, it is not the mans ſin to receive the Lords Supper, for it muſt be equally an help of godlineſſe and ſalvation to the Communicant receiving, as to the Church giving: Now Paul ſaith, 1 Cor. 11. He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh to p. 362himſelf judgement. So Eraſtus teacheth us, that it may be a ſin to Swine publikely known to be ſuch, to receive pearles, when it is no ſin, but the Churches duty to give theſe pearls to ſuch known Swine, which is moſt abſurd and impious.

Erastus. I ſaid before, that God doth not exclude ſinners from thePag. 249. Sacraments, but gather them in to them, that they may be more and more invited to repentance, and more eaſily raiſed up again; for Sacraments, and ſo many Ceremonies alſo, were for this end ordained, that they might draw men to the love and care of true piety and holyneſſe, as Moſes ſaith, Deut. 14.

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

Thoſe whom God inviteth to repentance, thoſe he will not exclude from the Sacraments: But now under the Goſpel, he inviteth all, even many Pagans and Heathen to repentance, 1 Tim. 2. 4. God will have all, even Heathen Magiſtrates, to be ſaved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth, ſo Act. 17. 30. God now commandeth all men, every where, even the Idolators, and blinde Philoſophers at Athens, who erected an Altar to the unknown God, ver. 23. and who jeered at the Doctrine of the Reſurrection, ver. 32. even thoſe God inviteth to repentance; Ergo, God excludeth not Pagans from the Sacraments; but the concluſion is abſurd and blaſphemous; therefore ſo muſt one of the premiſes be, but the Aſſumption is Scripture; Ergo, The Major Propoſition of Eraſtus muſt be blaſphemous. God inviteth ſcorners to repentance, and rebukes are means of repentance; Ergo, we may rebuke ſcorners; Gods ſpirit ſaith, Rebuke not a ſcorner, Prov. 9. 7, 8. His Propoſition then muſt be, Thoſe whom God inviteth to repentance, thoſe God excludeth not from any mean of piety and ſanctity: It is moſt falſe, God inviteth Dogs and Swine to repentance, and commandeth them to be holy, and the pearls of the Goſpel are means of repentance, and holineſſe: Muſt we therefore, Caſt pearls to dogs and ſwine? The contrary our Saviour injoyneth, Matth. 7. 6. 2. Moſes, Deut. 14. 1. forbiddeth diverſe Ceremonies and Sacraments of the Heathen by this Argument: Ye are the children of the Lord your God; and he ſaith expreſly, that the ſtranger may eat ſome unclean thing, but the Lord ſaith to them, You ſhall not do ſo, for thou art an holy people to p. 363the Lord thy God: Whence it is evident Moſes ſaith poynt blank contrary to Eraſtus; for Moſes ſaith, that Ceremonies and Sacraments are for this end, to draw only the holy and ſanctified people of God, to a further love and ſtudy of true piety and ſanctity; was not the eating of the Paſſeover a mean of Repentance, as well as the eating of the Lords Supper? no queſtion, but God invited the uncircumciſed to repentance, but forbiddeth them to eat the Paſſeover.

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

Eraſtus ſaith, Then …e agree, for vve diſpute only of thoſe vvhoEraſtus his contradiction, in excluding both ſome and none at all from the Sacraments. acknovvledgeth their ſins, and promiſe amendment.

Anſ. We are not willing to hold up a needleſſe controverſie with Eraſtus; but Eraſtus ſaith, and his Arguments conclude in the Old Teſtament, None for Morall uncleanneſſe, and impenitency vvere debarred from the holy things of God; Ergo, We are to debarre none in the Nevv Teſtament; yea, 2. Paul did never command to debar any, nor did Chriſt debar Judas, nor the Phariſees debar the …ewdeſt Publicans, nor the Apoſtles Simon Magus from the Sacraments; Ergo, ſaith he, we are to debar none at all: nowPag. 249. Nam de illis ſolis (an arcendi ſint a Sacramentis) disputamus qui peccatum ſuum agnoſcunt, & …eliora promittunt. here Eraſtus clearly contradicteth himſelf, and ſaith, We diſpute only of ſuch as acknowledge their …ins and promiſe amendment: But let Eraſtus ſay, Did Iudas acknowledge his …in and promiſe amendment: Did all the morally unclean in Corinth, ſuch as repented not of their uncleanneſſe, and fornication, and laſciviouſneſſe which they committed, 2 Cor. 12. 21. acknowledge their ſin, and promiſe amendment? and did thoſe that were partakers of the Table of Devils acknowledge their ſin and promiſe amendment? And yet I brought the very words of Erastus, in which he ſaith right down in a Catholick aſſertion, without exception, not any of thoſe are to be debarred from the Sacraments: Why? The Sacraments (ſaith he) are Adminicula pi…tatis, et reſipiſcentiae, are helps to godlineſſe and repentance: And I aske of Eraſtus, doth the Lord invite none to repentance, but thoſe that do acknowledge their ſin and promiſe amendment? And will Eraſtus have helps of repentance denied to all thoſe who acknowledge not their ſins? then let him give us Arguments in the Old or New Teſtament, by which he can demonſtrate, that thoſe who acknowledge not their ſins, and promiſe p. 364not amendment, are debarred in the Old Teſtament, from all the holy things of God, and in the New, from the Sacraments: Let Eraſtus extricate himſelf if he can.

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

Erastus. But we impugne this which you ſay, that God hath ordainedPag. 249. Presbyters or Elders to be judges and examinators of that buſineſſe: But we ſay, that God neither commanded in the Old, or New Teſtament, that Priests or any other, ſhould examine thoſe who brought oblations for ſin, whether they did truly repent, or diſſemble only; and ye ſay there be choſen Elders who ſhould try this in the New Teſtament.

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

2. Obſerve good Reader, How craftily Eraſtus paſſeth from one queſtion to another: All his Arguments hitherto, both in his Theſis and in his Book, conclude that no man, in either Old, or New Teſtament, ever was, or ought to be debarred from the holy things of God: Becauſe there is neither precept, nor promiſe, nor practiſe in Moſes, in the Prophets, or Apoſtles for it: 2. Becauſe, The Sacraments are helps of repentance. 3. Becauſe all are invited and commanded to come. Now here Eraſtus flyeth to another Queſtion: Whether the unworthy ſhould be debarred by Prieſts in the Old, and by certain ſelect and choſen Elders in the New Teſtament? This is a far other Queſtion: for let him anſwer our Arguments, by which we prove that pearls and the holy things of God, ought to be denied to all Dogs, Swine, and prophane men, whereas Eraſtus ſaith, all p. 365thoſe are invited to come; and then we ſhall yoak with Eraſtus, or any other, by whom, or by whoſe authority theſe pearls ought to be denied: whether by the Church, that is, by the Elders of the Church, and people conſenting, or by the civill Magiſtrate. Now this latter queſtion to Eraſtus, is no queſtion at all▪ for if none ought to be debarred from the Sacraments at all; but all muſt come promiſcuouſly, as their owne good or evill ſpirit inclineth them, it is a vaine thing for Eraſtus to make any queſtion at all, by whom they ought to be debarred; for it is all one, as to aske the queſtion, by whom ſhould thoſe who are to be gradued Doctors of Phyſick, be tryed and examined, whether by the faculty, and Colledge of of Phyſitians of the place, or by none at all: If you lay downe this ground, that there neither is, nor ought to be any graduated Doctors at all in the world, the other of thoſe, who are to try thoſe who are graduated is vaine, if all be invited to a free banquet, poor, and rich, leaper, and clean: it is a vain queſtion, whether be there ſome Maſters of the houſe who ſhould try who are worthy, and to be admitted to the feaſt, and who unworthy, and to be debarred.

Erastus. It is madneſſe to ſay, that Paul by forbidding private …ating,Pag. 249. 250. doth underſtand nothing but a debarring from the Sacraments, for 1▪ Cor. 11. he debarreth none from the Sacrament.

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

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

Erastus ſaith, that to whom leſſe is denied, to him more is denied, isPag. 250. 251. true in gifts, but not in puniſhments, and in things of the ſame kind, but not in things divers, and in things free, not in things of which one is commanded by God, and another thing not commanded; it holdeth not in puniſhments, he to whom the city is denied, and who is baniſhed, his life is not denied to him, he who is puniſhed in his purſe, is not killed; for that a father denieth to his ſon an unworthy thing, yet he denieth not rayment to him.

Anſ. Eraſtus in this granteth he wrongeth Beza, as if he had p. 366ſaid, to deny a private table, and the Lords table, were one and the ſame puniſhment. Beza ſaith, the one is a leſſe, the other a greater puniſhment. 2. If it be true in gifts, that he to whom leſſe is given, more is given, then it holdeth here in our caſe; becauſe private fellowſhip with the Saints is a gift of God, and if the Lords body given for us, and to us in the Lords ſupper, be not a greater gift, it is nothing: ſo then if a leſſe gift be denied, the Lords ſupper a greater gift is denied. 2. It muſt hold in the private puniſhments, inflicted for an higher puniſhments cauſe, private communion with the Saints is denied, becauſe the man is caſt out of the Church; Ergo, farre more are the higheſt priviledges of the Church denied: as liberty is denied to a man, becauſe he is condemned to dye; Ergo, farre more is life denied to him; a mans houſe is denied to him, becauſe he is baniſhed; Ergo, farre more is his city and countrey denied to him: But a man is not puniſhed in his purſe, becauſe he is condemned to dye, it followeth no…; Ergo, he ſhould rather dye, becauſe the one puniſhment is not relative to the other. 3 Becauſe not eating with a ſcandalous man is a ſpirituall puniſhment, as I have proved: therefore it is of that ſame kind with excommunication, and therefore it holdeth here. 4. Abſtinence from the private fellowſhip of a ſcandalous brother is not free, but commanded of God, and ſo is debarring from the Lords ſupper, not free, but commanded.

Erastus. when he forbiddeth foreign, no not to eat, he forbiddeth, 1.Page 252. Neer communion of familiarity. 2. Not to eat with them, which is to forbid all ſignes of neer communion.

Anſ. It is clear he proveth they ſhould caſt him out, becauſe I wrote to you that you ſhould not keep company with ſuch, v. 9. no more to eat with ſuch; Ergo, farre leſſe (would he ſay) ſhould he be a leavening member in the lumpe and maſſe of Chriſts body.

Erastus. I wrote unto you, that ye ſhould not keep company with ſuch; then Paul ſpeaketh here of a thing, concerning which he had ſpoken before, though they underſtood him not: it is like they ſought Pauls judgement of their converſing with men: But of delivering the man to Satan, he had not ſpoken before, as is clear in the Text.

Anſ. This is a ſtrong argument for us, if Paul had never ſpoken, nor written to them of the delivering of the man to Satan, that is, of the miraculous killing of him, how could he in reaſon and p. 367conſcience chide them, becauſe they prayed not that he might be miraculo…ſly killed? foreign? it is not poſſible they could mourn for not joyning in a buſineſſe, that Paul had never revealed to them to be Gods will. Yea it is a ſtrong argument to me, that delivering to Satan was excommunication, of which he had taught them before, (elſe their mourning had been unreaſonble) and which he pointed at to them as a limbe of excommunication, to wit, their not familier converſing with the ſcandalous.

Erastus. And when he has ſhow…n how they ought to flee the companyPag. 252. of the ſcandalous, he returneth to his former purpoſe, commanding the wicked man to be killed: This then he ſaith, I commanded you to eſchew the company of wicked brethren, not of the heathen, whom the Lord ſhall judge.

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

Erastus. The end of refuſing familiar converſing with the ſcandalous,Pag. 252. 253. is, that he may be aſhamed; and you ſay, that ſame is the end of debarring from the ſupper; then it muſt follow, as private converſing can do the contrary, to wit, it can ſoment and nouriſh ſinnes, both in the brother we converſe with, and in us, ſo the frequent uſe of the Lords ſupper ſhould nouriſh vices in us, vvhichwhich vvere vvickedneſſe to think.

Anſ. This preſumeth, that to avoyd a ſcandalous brother, and to debarre him from the Sacraments, muſt be formally one, which we teach not. 2. Hence it followeth, ſince they be divers formally, they cannot have the ſame formall and intrinſecall ends. 3. The frequent eating at the Lords table, in a ſcandalous man, doth diſpoſe him more and more to ſinne, as frequently ſinning inclineth more to ſinne; but this is by the frequent abuſing of Gods ordinance, and not from the nature of the Sacrament.

Erastus. Paul forbiddeth not ill men of the company of good men,Pag 253. but he admoniſheth good men, to flee ill men, that they may be aſhamed. But vvhen you deuy the Sacraments to any, you command not the Godly not to come to the ſupper with the wicked, but you forbid the ſcandalous to come to the ſupper.

Anſ. There is no ſolidity in this conjecture, it leaneth upon the p. 368perpetuall m…ſtake of Eraſtus in all this diſpute, as if we held, That to be debabred from familiar fellowſhip with the Saints, and from the Sacrament, were one and the ſame thing: Elſe, I ſee no concluſion that Eraſtus doth, or can infer againſt us. 2. It is falſe, that wicked men are not diſcharged the company of Saints; for in ſo far as fellowſhip with the Saints, is a ſpirituall mean of the gaining of their ſouls by Teaching, Exhorting, Edifying, Comforting the wicked and ſcandalous, being Dogs and Swine are forbidden to touch ſuch a Pearl; Yea, God layeth a charge on wicked men, while they remain in that caſe, not to meddle with Confirming Ordinances (with ſome Converting Ordinances they may,) as Pſal. 50. 16. But to the wicked God ſaid, What haſt thou to do to declare my Statutes: or that thou takeſt my Convenant in thy mouth? 17. Seeing thou hateſt Inſtruction, and caſteſt my Word behinde thee. Here the wicked are forbidden to Teach or ſpeak, to the inſtructing of others, which is a ſpeciall act of Chriſtian fellowſhip between Brother and Brother, Col. 3. 16. Heb. 3. 13. Heb. 10. 24. 1 Theſ. 5. 11. 14. Becauſe they hate to be Inſtructed of others: And you know how ChriſtThe ſcandalous are forbidden to come to the Sacraments. ſpeaketh to the unworthy intruder of himſelf on the ſecrets and ſpirituall marrow and comforts of the Goſpel, Matth. 22. ver, 12. Friend, How cameſt thou here, not having thy Wedding garment? Ezra 4. 3. But Zerubbabel and Joſhua, and the reſt of the chief of the Fathers came and ſaid unto the Adverſaries of Iudah and Benjamin, You have nothing to do with us, to build an houſe unto our God; But we our ſelves together will build unto the Lord God of Iſrael: Doth not God expreſly forbid David to build an houſe to his name? 1 Chron. 22. 8. 2 Chron. 6. 9. And we know it is a typicall diſcharge layed upon men of blood, not to touch the holieſt things of God; but that men of Peace muſt meddle with them, Iſa. 1. 13. Bring no more vain Oblations, &c. All which holdeth forth, that not only thoſe who have the charge of the houſe of the Lord, to ſee that no Swine and Dogs prophane the holy things of God; but they are forbidden all private Ordinances and publike, in ſo far as they can make no other uſe of them, but to defile them.

Eraſtus ſaith, They be wickedly forbidden to come to the Lords Supper, who deſire to Celebrate the memoriall of his death.

Beza Replieth well, 1. What if he know not what he deſireth who cometh? 2. What if there be juſt ſuſpition or clear evidence that he p. 369playeth the Hypocrite? 3. What if it concern the whole Church that his deſire be ſuſpended?

Erastus. The firſt cauſe is not to purpoſe, becauſe we ſpeak of thoſeDe rect… inſtitutis ego me ſem per diſputa re proteſtatus fui. that are well inſtructed. 2. The ſecond is bred in the brain of Beza; I am compelled to think that he that publikely profeſſeth he is grieved for his ſins, and that he purpoſeth to live a holy life in time to come, that he thinketh as he ſpeaketh, if he remain not in that purpoſe: I alſo remain not alwayes in my good purpoſe; his deſire is an Argument of Piety, which ſhould not be ſmothered and oppreſſed, but excited and nouriſhed: And this opinion of Beza dependeth on the Iudgement of men; neither hath the Lord committed the Examination of ſome to Elders: And it is folly to ſay, It concerns the Church to delay, to do that which the Lord hath Commanded me to do.

Anſ. 1. Eraſtus profeſſeth he ſtandeth for their admiſſion to the Lords Supper, who are Recte inſtituti, & profitentur dolere ſe propter peccata ſua, who are inſtructed in the grounds of Chriſtian Religion, and repenteth of their ſins, or profeſſeth it: And he ſaid before, as IAn evident contradiction in Eraſtus through his whole book. Lib. 3. c. 3. p. 206. 207. obſerved it, If any ſhall be found who ſhall trample on the Sacraments, Ego hunc minime admittendum cenſeo: I judge ſuch a man ſhould not be admitted to the Sacraments: Whence it is clear, That Eraſtus profeſſeth that the ignorant and the ſcandalous ſhould be debarred from the Lords Supper: But, good Reader, Obſerve that Eraſtus contradicteth himſelf in all his Arguments; for he proveth, that not any one Chriſtian in the Viſible Church, ignorant, or not ignorant; who profeſſe their Repentance, or not profeſſe it, can be excluded from the Sacraments; but that all are commanded by Chriſt to come. But Eraſtus ſaith, Scriptura illos, de quibus nos loquimur, nec à ſacrificiis arcet, nec à ſacramentis aliis ullis: Imò ſub penâ capitis mandat, ut univerſi mares, &c. The Scripture excludeth none from Sacrifices, or any other Sacraments: But commandeth that all the Male Children, Jews and ſtrangers, who are not legally unclean, and from home, ſhould compear at Ieruſalem thrice a year before the Lord: And pag. 104. In ſacris literis non tantum non inveniri aliquos à ſacramentis propter ſolam vitae turpitudinem, ab actos eſſe, ſed Lib. 1. c. 4. pag. 112.contrarium potius probari: And Iohn Baptiſt (ſaith he) Baptized all that came to him, Phariſees and Sadduces, whom he affirmeth to be a Generation of Vipers, Ex quo intelligimus: Whence we underſtand, that Miniſters are not to deny the Sacraments to thoſe who ſeek them, p. 370and the Iudgement is to be left to God, Whether he who profeſſeth Repentance, diſſemble, or deal truly and ſincerely: Yea, when Erastus ſaith, That it is not in all the Scripture to be found, Aliquos a Sacramentis propter ſolam vitae turpitudinem abactos eſſe: That any were debarred from the Sacraments for only wickedneſſe of life; but rather the contrary may be proved, either ignorance of God, oppoſed to due inſtruction, and profeſſed impenitency, is no wickedneſſe of life, which is moſt abſurd; or then in Scripture, ſome muſt be debarredWhom Eraſtus excludeth from the Sacraments from the Sacraments for wickedneſſe of life only: But Eraſtus ſaith plainly, None in Scripture are debarred from the Sacraments, for only wickedneſſe of life: And ſo they are not debarred, becauſe they profeſſe not Repentance. And Eraſtus ſaith, Chriſt ſaid, Drink ye all of this and Iudas was not excepted: Chriſt went into the Temple Pag. 114. 115.with moſt wicked men: the Phariſees and Sadduces were Baptized with the ſame Baptiſme of Iohn vvith them: Then Eraſtus will exclude none at all, no not thoſe whom Chriſt pronounced to ſin againſt the Holy Ghoſt, and the convincing light of their own minde, Matth. 12. 31, 32. Ioh. 9. 39, 40, 41. and 15. 24. and 7. 28. Yea, pag. 117. HePage 117. will have none excluded in Corinth, not thoſe that are impenitent, and thoſe that vvere partakers of the Table of Devils. Pag. 116. When Page 116.Chriſt commandeth all to eat and all to drink, he excludeth none that profeſſeth themſelves to be Diſciples: But many profeſſe no Repentance, Who profeſſe themſelves Diſciples: See pag. 117, 118. and the following pages. 2. Eraſtus ſaith, He is compelled to think, That he that publikely profeſſeth ſorrovv for ſin, doth think as he ſpeaketh: But to whom ſhall he profeſſe it? To the Church? Then hath the Church power to accept the confeſſion of ſcandalous men, ere they be admitted to the Lords Supper: Eraſtus will ſtand at this, for it is Government in the hands of the Church; if he muſt confeſſe to the Civill Magiſtrate, who made him a Steward of the Seals, and Myſteries of the Goſpel? Nor is the Church to think, as Eraſtus is compelled to think, manifeſt Hypocrites, and thoſe that trample the Sacraments under their feet, will make profeſſion of ſorrow for ſin: and Eraſtus thinketh ſuch are not to be admitted:Page 207. Eraſtus ſaith, they may change their purpoſe of Repentance, and ſo may he doe himſelfe. Valeat totum, granting all, that is, nothing to us, for any Divinity we have proofe of in Erastus his booke▪ I ſhould humbly conceive when he ſpeaketh ſo ignorantly of the p. 371worke of Repentance, and preparations for the Lords Supper: he hath been a man non rectè inſtitutus, not well inſtructed, andSome on earth muſt try who are to be admitted to, or debarred from the Sacrament, who not. ſo without the liſts of the diſputation by his owne word, and ſo not to have beene himſelfe to be admitted to the Sacraments.

2. Nor is it in Beza his head onelyonly, that thoſe who deſire the Sacrament have true piety, for Chriſt ſaith, Wicked men are known by their works; otherwiſe if tramplers of the Sacrament, and the ignorant deſire the Sacrament, as ignorance is neighbour to arrogance and preſumption: let Eraſtus give us a rule in the Word by which they are to be debarred, all his arguments will prove that they are to be admitted: and if Eraſtus deny that the judgement of men either of Church or Magiſtrate is to be interpoſed in the excluding of thoſe who are, non rectè inſtituti, not rightly inſtructed, and doe not profeſſe ſorrovv for their ſin, he muſt ſpeake againſt ſenſe, if he grant ſome muſt judge, who are ignorant, and openly impenitent; then I ſay to Eraſtus what hee ſaith to Beza, your opinion dependeth on the opinion and judgement of men. 3. If God have not commanded either Elders, or any other (as Eraſtus ſaith,) to examine and judge, who are fit for the Lords Supper, who not: Then ſeeing Eraſtus ſaith the prophane, the ignorant, the impenitently ſcandalous, knowne to be ſuch, are to be debarred. I aske of Eraſtus, to whom Chriſt hath commanded the tryall of this, who are ignorant, and non rectè inſtituti? Men cannot debarrePag. 254. Pendet haec opinia …ua, ex opinione & judicio hominum. themſelves from the Sacraments in a judiciall way, moſt of men conceiting well of themſelves, ruſh upon the ordinances of God, not knowing that they doe evill: Workers of iniquity, who cry, Lord, Lord, Adulterers, Theeves, Idolaters, who dare come to the Temple of the Lord and cry, The temple of the Lord, The temple of the Lord are theſe, Ier. 7. 9, 10, 11. will alſo faſt and profeſſe Repentance, Eſa. 57. 3, 4, 5. even when their wickednes teſtifieth to their face againſt them in the eies of all, Ier. 2. 1, &c. Ier. 2. 34. Eſa. 1. 9. and they will deſire …o partake of the Lords Supper, as is evident, Eſa. 57. 2. Now there are none on earth, neither Elders, or any any others to debarre them; Eraſtus ſaith, Taceo jam, quod Deus Page 254.non praecepit vel Preſbyteris, vel aliis tale examen. Let Eraſtus anſwer us in this, and by what charity is Eraſtus obliged to beleeve, all that ſeeketh the Lords ſupper, do it in truth? God has given to us mens works, not their words, of which hypocrites are p. 372liberall, and ſhall we foment hypocriſie, and mens eating their owne damnation, under Eraſtus his pretence of incouraging, and not ſuffocating ſeeming godly deſires? Laſtly, Eraſtus ſaith, it doth not concern the Church, that the man deferre to do that which Chriſt commands him to do, this is to beg the queſtion. Doth Chriſt command a man to eat his owne damnation?