The Divine Right of Church Government and Excommunication, Religious polemic · Chapter 20

The Divine Right of Church Government and Excommunication · Religious polemic · Chapter 20

p. 447CHAP. XX.

Queſt. 16.

A vindication of other Arguments for Excommunication, as from ſacrificing, offering of gifts, &c. with bloody hands.

Erastus. Eſay 1. c. 52. c. 66. Ier. 6. 7. Ezech. 23. and 33.Page 303. 304. Pſa. 50. are alledged for Excommunication, to which I anſwer, 1. The Lord doth not condemne ſacrificing, for he commanded it, but the abuſe thereof, as he that commendeth modesty to one that eateth undecently, doeth condemne unmannerly eating; but commandeth not abſtinence from eating; ſo Chriſt Mat. 6. removeth not fasting and praying, but the abuſe of p. 448them. When the Hebrews propound two juſt and right things, of which they approve the one, and deny the other, there is only a compariſon underſtood, as Hoſ. 6. I will have mercy, and not ſacrifice, that is, rather mercy then ſacrifice, Prov. 8. Receive my instruction, and not ſilver, that is▪ receive rather my inſtruction then ſilver: ſo this is no good conſequence. God hateth the ſacrifice of the wicked; Ergo, Preſbyters are to be choſen, who ſhould hinder wicked men to ſacrifice: it followeth not, for then this ſhould be as good a conſequence; God hateth the prayers of the wicked; Ergo, Presbyters are to be choſen, who ſhould hinder men to call upon God, to praiſe God, to reſt on the Sabbath, to give almes, except theſe Presbyters judge them worthy.

Anſ. In the following books, Eraſtus refuteth ſome Treatiſes of Authors without names, the books I cannot have, and if he doe them right in repeating their minde faithfully, I know not; but I know in many things, and in this very argument Eraſtus fancied arguments on Beza, which he would reject as none of his. 1. Sacrificing ſeemeth to be a confirming ordinance, as eating the Paſſeover, and the Communion of the Lords bodie and blood; and as there was ſome examination of the perſons for whom ſacrifices were offered required in the Prieſts, as I ſaid before, from Mat. 8. 4. Levit. 14. 3, 4. 9, 10, 11, 12. So there is Morall cleanneſſe required in all that are to partake of the Sacraments, that preſuppoſeth converſion; and I grant the firſt and native conſequence of theſe is, that it was the ſin and hypocriſie of the perſons themſelves who ſacrificed firſt and principally. But that it was not the ſins of the Prieſts who admitted thoſe that were no better then Sodom and Gomorrah Eſa. 1. 10. and had hands full of blood, ver. 15. is now the queſtion; I conceive that it is a taxing of the Prieſts and Church Rulers, that is, Eſa. 1. 10. no leſſe then of civill judges and the people, yea, that he rather taxeth the Prieſts called Rulers, v. 10. and that that is not as Socinians ſay, a new commandement of Chriſt, but an old, Mat. 5. 23. Therefore if thou bring thy gift unto the Altar, and there remembreſt that thy brother hath ought againſt thee? What if the Prieſt ſhould know that he had p. 449killed an innocent man, and beſide the guilt of innocent blood, that the ſad hearted widow, and the weeping Orphanes had any blood to charge him withall, was the Prieſt either to offer or ſacrifice for him, while he were reconciled to the widdow and fatherleſſe? Chriſt addeth v. 24. Leave there thy gift before the Altar, and goe thy way, firſt foreign be reconciled to thy Brother, and then come and offer thy gift: I offer it to the conſideration of the Reader, if as the offerer of the gift was to leave his offering, knowing himſelf to be under blood, and to have offended his brother, he was to leave his offering at the Altar, ſo if the Prieſt who offered the ſame ſhould alſo know that the ſame day he had offered his childe to Molech or the Devill; if the Prieſt in this caſe ſhould offer for him, and if the Prieſt ſhould not eat this mans ſin, and communicate with the bloody impenitent man in offering with him, and for him the ſacrifice of fools; if he ſhould not leave offering for him till he went and was reconciled with his brother, for the Prieſt by office was to forbid ſuch a bloodie man to offer; Ergo, he could not by office, alſo offer for him. Here an order preſcribed that is morall, perpetuall, and common both to the ordinances of the Old and New Teſtament, for Chriſt doth here expound the Law, which was corrupted by the Phariſees. 2. He doth not ſet down a rule concerning the Ceremoniall Law, which was ſhortly to be abrogated, but ſure he hath an eye to the worſhip of the New Teſtament. What if he that is come to the Table to eat and drinke with Chriſt, and both his owne conſcience and the Elders remember the widdow & orphane have a juſt accuſation againſt this man of late, yeſterday, he killed their husband and father, ſhould either this man eat and drinke at this time with Ieſus Chriſt? or ſhould the Elders give theſe holy things to him? I thinke no…. And to come to the argument, it is true, Iſa. 1. ſacrificing is not condemned, but ſacrificing by ſuch Princes of Sodom and tali modo, by men of bloodie hands; Ergo, they were not to abſtaine from ſacrificing, but at that time and in that condition; nor doe we forbid either coming to, or debarring from the Lords Table by the Elders, but onelyonly haec vice, and onelyonly while foreign firſt he be reconciled to his brethren, and teſtifie that he repenteth, we never heighten Excommunication to ſuch an extremity, as it doth totally unchurch the man, and exclude him from the Seals ſimpliciter and abſolutely, p. 450but according to Chriſts foreign and his order, and therefore the Elders are to exclude for a time juſt as this, God will have mercy and not ſacrifice, that is, rather mercy, firſt mercy, and firſt faith and repentance; then ſacrifice, that is, then afterward externall worſhip, afterward receiving of the Paſſeover, the Lords Supper, and offering of gifts at the Altar: And ſecondarily even in the ſecond place, in regard of time, he will have all theſe externalls, whence the man is to debarre himſelfe, and by the ſame reaſon the Elders as the 80. Prieſts did to a King, 2 Chron. 26. are to debarre the man while he repent: And 2. This alſo; I will have mercy, and not Sacrifice, or, I will have mercy rather then Sacrifice, doth imply that both mercy and Sacrifice are lawfull, and acceptable to God in their owne order and way. But where ſaith God, I will have ſacrificing rather then ſacrificing with bloody hands, ſo as both ſacrificing, and ſacrificing with bloody hands, ſhall be lawfull and acceptable to God in their owne order? for Sacrificing with bloodie hands was never lawfull, never acceptable to God in any order. Nor ſaid God ever he would chuſe the coming of thoſe to his Sanctuary, who the ſame day they came in had ſlaughtered their ſonnes to Molech: God alwaies hated it, and never choſe it, if at the ſame time both mercy and ſacrifice cannot be, as David ſtarving cannot both abſtaine from eating ſhewbread, as the Law in its letter required, and ſhew merciemercy to his life; and the life of his followers, and eate, yea, he is to eate, and the Prieſts knowing his caſe, doe give him the Shewbread to eat, & forbid abſtinence, as they would forbid ſelfe-murthering, and ſelfſtarving, ſo here, where at one time eating at the Lords Table, and reconciliation with the widow and fatherleſſe, cannot be co-exiſtent together at one time and place, an exigence of divine providence forbidding both, the bloodie man is to debarre himſelfe from the Lords Supper, it being as ſacrificing and leſſe neceſſary if we ſpeake comparatively; and the Elders are not to give thoſe holy things to the bloodie man, while foreign, firſt he be reconciled to the widow and Orphane, which now comparing the one with the other is mercy, whereas eating and drinking at the Lords Supper is but Sacrifice, but it ſhould be as ſacrificing with bloodie hands, which God condemneth and forbiddeth, and the Prieſts and Elders knowing it to be ſuch a ſinne, ought to forbid and to p. 451hinder it: Hence as this, I will have mercy and not ſacrifice, hath this ſenſe, I will have you to omit Sacrifice, when it cannot be done without neglect of merciemercy, vvhichwhich is more acceptable to me then all Sacrifices; ſo I vvill have reconciliation to the offended widdow and Orphanes, and not coming to the Lords Supper vvithout the former; for the former is more acceptable to me, and ſhould be to you and the Elders in your practice, then the latter; and therefore the compariſon of eating, and eating undecently halteth; for eating undecently before another, which would procure deadly ſickneſſe to your brother, ought to be forbidden by the Ruler, it being known to be ſo, and ought to be abſtained from hic & nunc, as a ſinne, and a hurting of your brothers health, and yet the Ruler cannot forbid totall abſtinence from meat to him that eateth undecently, as the Elders cannot command totall abſtinence from the Sacraments foreign alwayes and in all caſes. 2. We draw no concluſion of erecting a Presbytery from thoſe places, but thoſe two we draw; Ergo, 1. It is a ſin to the people themſelves to ſacrifice with bloodie hands, becauſe God condemneth ſuch a manner of ſacrificing. 2. Ergo, they are to be debarred by ſome who hath the charge of the holy things of God, but from the Antecedent, we neither inferre; Ergo, Presbyters, nor, Ergo, the people, nor, Ergo, the Prince ſhould debarre them. 3. Calling on God is not to be forbidden, nor giving of almes, becauſe they are abuſed, but the manner of the abuſing thoſe ordinances are forbidden by God, and may be hindred by the Church, and forbidden under the pain of Excommunication. The Church cannot forbid men of totall abſtinence from the Lords Supper, but they can command him that is not reconciled to his brother, and viſibly under the guilt of blood, to leave the Table, as Chriſt Mat. 5. 23. commandeth the unreconciled man to leave his gift at the Altar, and goe firſt be reconciled with his brother, and then at the next occaſion, come to the Lords Supper; ſo the Church of the Iewes could not forbid the Phariſees to pray, but they could paſſe ſuch an act, as is, Act. 15. 22. We forbid Phariſees or any other to bring their private prayers to the Markets and ſtreets, and when they are to give almes, we forbid them with ſound of Trumpet to make proclamation to all men that they are the onelyonly holy and charitable men in the earth. Nor doe we thinke that the Church can debarre men from the Sacraments p. 452for inward and and inviſible unworthineſſe; but onelyonly for viſible and profeſſed uncleanneſſe; and Levit. 9. 13. it is clear, the man that is uncleane is forbidden to keepe the Paſſeover. Will Eraſtus ſay, O he is not forbidden to eate the Paſſeover, but onelyonly he is forbidden to eat it tali modo being unclean? and therefore it is not the Prieſts ſinne if he ſhould give the Paſſeover to the uncleane man, and forbid him to eate tali modo, in his uncleanneſſe? ſee Eraſtus himſelfe againſt this, lib. 1. c. 3. page 103. 104. where he confeſſeth that the unclean are debarred, and yet uncleannes in the eaters of the Paſſeover, was an abuſe onelyonly, and made not eating of the Paſſeover unlawfull in it ſelf.

So the Lord complaineth, Ezek. 23. 38. Moreover this they have done unto me, they have defiled my Sanctuary in the ſame day, and have prophaned my Sabbaths. 39. For when they had ſlaine their children to their Idols, then they came foreign in the ſame very day into my Sanctuary to prophane it; and loe this they have done in the midſt of my houſe. Will Eraſtus now ſay, It was Ceremoniall uncleannes, not Morall, to kill their ſeed to Molech; and that Morall uncleanneſſe and bloodie murthering of their ſeed in the ſame day when a perſon is to come to the Lords ſupper, known to be ſuch a Murtherer to the Elders who have power to judge the ſcandalous and to caſt him out, 1 Cor. 5. did not ſinne, if they ſhould be inſtrumentall to lead Murtherers into the Temple? and ſay to them, Take yee, eate yee, this is the body of the Lord that is broken for you?

Eraſtus anſwereth, The Prophet Ezek. 23. accuſeth not the Prieſtspage 305. or Elders, that they debarred not thoſe Murtherers from the Temple and Sacraments, if there had been any precept for this, ſome footſtep ſhould have appeared in Gods rebuking of them.

Anſ. The Lord doth not particularly reprove the Prieſts by name in every place, in which he reproveth the people: But expreſly for this ſame very ſinne, the Lord reproveth the Prieſts,The Morally unclean debarred out of the temple. Ezek. 44. 7. Let it ſuffice you, that ye have brought into my ſanctuary strangers uncircumciſed in heart, and uncircumciſed in fleſh, to be in my ſanctuary to pollute it - 8▪ And ye have not kept the charge of my holy things; but ye have ſet keepers of my charge, in my ſanctuary, for your ſelves. 24. And in controverſie they ſhall ſtand in judgement (he had ſpoken of their teaching the people to diſcerne between p. 453the clean and the unclean, v. 23.) and they ſhall judge it according to my judgements, and they ſhall keep my Laws and my Statutes in all mine aſſemblies, and hallow my Sabbaths, ſo 2 Chron. 23. 19. And Iehojada ſet the porters at the Gates of the houſe of the Lord, that none which was uncleane in any thing ſhould enter in. And ſhall we concelve that porters, that is, Levites, would hold out thoſe that were only ceremonially unclean, and receive in murtherers who had killed there Children to Molech that ſame day? there was not to enter in foreign the unclean in any matter; the text is generall, excludes idolaters and murthers, and ſuch as ſhould refuſe to enter in Covenant with the Lord, of which the Text ſpeaketh. As for Erastus his conſequence, which he unjuſtly imputeth to us, to wit, Iſrael ſinned in coming to the Lords temple to prophane it, in the very day that they ſlew their Children to Molech; Ergo, there ought to have been Prieſts, and now there muſt be Presbyters and ſelected overſeers in a Church judicature to debarre murtherers, and the like ſcandalous perſons from the Sacraments. 1. This is not our conſequence. But this we ſay, if the Prieſts knew that ſame day, that they came to the Temple, they ſlew their Children to Molech, the Prieſts ſhould have debarred them from coming to the Temple, and from eating the Paſſeover, as their office and duty was by the Law of God, Num. 9. v. 6, 7. Num. 19. 11, 12. Lev. 22. 6. The ſoul that hath touched any ſuch (unclean) ſhalbe unclean till even, and ſhall not eat of the holy things, unleſſe he waſh his fleſh with water, 7. and when the Sun is downe, he ſhalbe clean, and ſhall afterward eat of the holy things, becauſe it is his food: Now it was the Prieſts office, Lev. 10. 10. that he put a difference between holy and unholy, and between clean and unclean; ſo if Eli knew that his ſonnes made themſelves vile before the people, and committed furnication with the women at the doore of the Tabernacle of the Congregation; Ergo, Eli ſhould as a judge have reſtrained them, 1 Sam. 3. 13. But from this antecedent, we draw not this conſequence, Elies ſonnes do publikely make themſelves vile; Ergo, there ought to be ſuch an Ordinance as a judge, with Civill power to puniſh them, and Ergo, there ought to have been no King to puniſh them, but a judge like unto Eli and Samuel; this conſequence followeth not from this antecedent, but only hoc poſito, that Eli hath the ſword, and be the Civill judge; Ergo, he ought to puniſh, from ſcandals in the Church, and prophaning p. 454the holy things of God, we inferre not; Ergo, there muſt be ſuch a judicature erected, as if the antecedent were the cauſe of the conſequent. But this only followeth; Ergo, ſuppoſing there be a Church and Presbytery inveſted with this power, they ought not to admit murtherers, or any unclean perſons to come and partake of the Sacraments, and ſo defile the holy things of God: as for the place Ezek. 33. I undertake not from thence to conclude debarring of any from the holy things of God by the Prieſts, what may follow by conſequent is another thing.

Erastus. Whereas it is ſaid, Deut. 23. the Lord would notPage 305. have the price of a whore offered to him; Ergo, far leſſe would he have a whore admitted to the ſacrifice: it followeth not, but a penitent, or a whore, profeſſing repentance, may be admitted to the ſacrifices. 2. He forbiddeth only the price of a whore to be offered to him as a vow, or a thing vowed, it may be that agree not to all ſacrifices: For God forbiddeth a living creature, that is unperfect, in a vow; But Lev. 22. he forbiddeth not ſuch imperfect living creatures to be offered to him, in a free will ſacrifice, ſo God forbiddeth honey to be offered in an offering by fire, but not in all other oblations. But will not the Lord have a whore to offer to God that which is lawfully purchaſed, or which is her patrimony? or may not a whore offer her firſt borne to the Lord, or circumciſe him? We find not that forbidden. From things to perſons we cannot argue; we may not offer a lame beaſt to God; Ergo, doth the Lord ſo abhor a lame man, that he may not come to the Temple? God alloweth not tares amongſt the wheat, yet he will not have the externall Miniſters to pluck up the tares while harveſt.

Anſ. If the hire received for a whores ſelling of her body toNo price of a whore to be offered to God; what it meant. uncleanneſſe, muſt not be applyed to the ſervice of God, farre more cannot a whore as a whore be admitted to partake of the holy things of God, for the price or money is called abomination to God, Deut. 23. for the whore, not the whore for the money; and ſo we may well argue from the things to the perſons. 2. It is falſe that God forbiddeth the price of a whore onelyonly in vows, and p. 455not in ſacrifices; he forbiddeth it becauſe as Moſes ſaith, Deut. 23. 18. it is an abomination to the Lord, and as Eraſtus ſaith, it is money unjuſtly purchaſed; Yea, Davids practiſe teacheth, that what we beſtow on ſacrifices, as well as in vows, it muſt be our own proper goods, and not ſo much as gifted to us, 2 Sam. 24. 24. Neither will I offer burnt offerings unto the Lord my God of that which coſt me nothing; farre leſſe would he offer the price of a whore in ſacrifices; and the Divines of England ſay on the place, hereby is forbidden that any gaine of evill things ſhould be applied to the ſervice Annot. an. 1645. an. ou Deut. 23. 18. Vata. in loc. que injuſtè parta ſunt, nullo modo offerri debent Deo.Deut 23:18of God, Mich. 7. 1. Vatablus ſaith the like. 2. For the Lords forbidding to offer in a vow, Bullock or Lambe, or any thing that is ſuperfluous, or lacking in his parts, and permitting it in a freewill offering, by a free will offering, is meant that which is given to the Prieſt for food, of a free gift; but otherwiſe, what is offered to the Lord in a vow, or a free will offering muſt be perfect: for the blind, broken, maimed, having a wenne, ſcurvy, or ſcab, can in no ſort be offered to the Lord, Lev. 22. 20, 21, 22, 23. There is no word of the Lord in the free will gift that Eraſtus ſpeaketh of, but only the word foreign is liberall, free, from foreign to give freely to God or man. 3. A whore repenting or profeſſing repentance, was not debarred from ſacrifices; but that is without the bounds of the queſtion, an heathen could ſay, Quem penitet facti is pene innocens eſt. Senec. in Traged, We debarre none that profeſſe repentance from the ſeals of the Covenant. 4. When a whore as a whore did offer her firſt borne being a baſtard in the Temple, I conceive neither ſhe nor her childe were accepted, Deut. 23. 2. Abaſtard ſhall not enter into the Congregation of the Lord: if the childe was born of Married Parents, the woman repenting, the queſtion now muſt be far altered. 5. For a lame man to be a Prieſt, we can ſay ſomething, but that all the lame in Iſrael were debarred from the Temple, and the holy things of God, we dare not ſay; and a difference of things and men we acknowledge, but that is nothing to weaken the argument. 6. How proveth Eraſtus the tares are not to be plucked up by men? Mat. 13. will bear no ſuch thing: ill men are to be caſt out of the Church before the day of judgement, both by the Magiſtrate and miraculouſly by the Apoſtles, and by Excommunication ſay we, Mat. 18. 1 Cor. 5.

Erastus. He that poſſeſſeth the price of the whore, is not to be p. 456debarred out of the Temple, though the money could not be offered to God. The Phariſees would not have the price of blood caſt in the treaſure of the Temple; yet they caſt not Judas out of the Temple, which theſe patrons of Ceremonies would have done, if there had been any Law for it.

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

Erastus. Heathens vvere not admitted into the Temple,Page 307. But a ſcandalous man is a heathen, Ezech. 16. Your Father was an Ammorite; alſo, if thou be a tranſgreſſour of the Law, thy circumciſion is become uncircumciſion, Rom. 2. he is vvorſe then an Infidell, 1 Tim. 5. Eraſtus anſvvereth, but if vve look to Gods eſtimation, vvicked brethren are vvorſe then pagans. But if vve conſider the externall face of the Church, there be many things in vvicked men that agreeth not to heathen, vvicked circumciſed men might go in to the Temple. Gentiles might not; ſo the aſſumption is moſt falſe. 2. A circumciſed man and a Baptiſedman, can never turn non-circumciſed, or non baptiſed.

Anſ. I ſay nothing to the curſing and bleſſing Deut. 27. Nor do I owne that Argument; it is not ours. 2. Thoſe which are (ſo our argument runneth) as Heathens and Publicans, as Pagans, Ammorites, whereas they were ſometimes Brethren and MembersOur chiefe argument for excommunication not anſwered. of the Church, are not to be admitted to the Sacraments, nor to be acknowledged as members of the Church more then Heathen, Ammorites, Pagans are to be be admitted to the Sacraments and Members of the Church. But wicked men amongſt the Iewes, and amongſt us Chriſtians, who will not hear the Church and are fornicators, idolaters, railers, drunkards, and extortioners, and walke inordinately, and cauſe diviſions contrary to the p. 457Goſpell of our Lord Ieſus, are to be eſteemed as Heathens, Pagans, Amorites, and worſe then Infidels; therefore ſuch amongſt the Iewes were not admitted to the Temple and holy things of God, and amongſt us not to be admitted to the Sacraments, nor to be acknowledged as members of the Church. Eraſtus anſwereth not to this Argument, either Major or Aſſumption, but propoundeth an Argument of a nameleſſe Author, as he knoweth beſt to anſwer and remove himſelf. 2. Many things (ſaith he) agree to Pagans and Turks which agree not to ſcandalous Chriſtians. True, ſcandalous Chriſtians are not Amorites and Pagans ſimpliciter, they differ in profeſſion, the one being baptized, not the other; and once being baptized, they can never be unbaptized; but that is not our Argument, but they agree in this, that they are no more really Chriſtians, being fornicators, railers, drunkards, extortioners, &c. then Pagans, but have the onelyonly name and title of ſuch, and are to be eſteemed ſo by us, and are to us quoad hoc, in regard of Church priviledges, as heathens and publicans, and ſo the Lord of old termed his Apoſtate people Sodom and Gomorrah, Eſa. 1. 10. and as the children of the Ethiopians and Philiſtines, Amos 9. 7. and as uncleane and uncapable in a Church way of the Paſſeover, and now of the Lords Supper to us, as Ethiopians, Sodomites of old, and this day Turks and Pagans are to us. 3. That the wicked that were circumciſed might go into the Temple amongſt the Iews, de facto, they might, but de jure, by Law, they might not, Ier. 7. 9. Ezek. 23. 39. Eſa. 66. 3. no more then by Law they might prophane the holy Name of God, or kill a man, or ſacrifice a dog to God, or offer ſwines blood, or bleſſe an Idoll, The argument from ſanctifying the Sabbath I paſſe, it hath no ſenſe nor reaſon as Erastus propoundeth it.

Erastus. Chriſt Mat. 5. commandeth him who is to offer aPage 308. 309. The place Matth 5. When thou bringeſt thy gift, &c. diſcuſſed.Matt 5 gift, to leave his gift at the Altar, and firſt to be reconciled to his brother; Ergo, he will have us not to uſe the Sacraments while we be firſt reconciled to our Brother. But ſo (ſaith Eraſtus) we ſhould not pray to God, nor ſeeke forgiveneſſe of ſinnes, while we firſt forgive thoſe that have wronged us; Chriſt doth not here ſpeake of the externall governing of his p. 458Church, but of the perfection of a Chriſtian man, elſe wee could doe nothing that is good and juſt, and we were all to be Excommunicated, he ſaith not, if the Presbyters ſhall command; leave thy gift, but if thou ſhalt call to minde thy ſelfe; he ſpeaketh not of a prohibition of others diſcharging an inſtituted vvorſhip, but of that which a mans owne minde doth enjoyne him, you may as eaſily prove the Papiſts Maſſe from this, as Excommunication.

Anſ. Surely this is to me convincing, if I be diſcharged by the Holy Ghoſt to meddle with the holy things of God, or offering a gift, to God at his Altar, while I firſt be reconciled to my brother; then thoſe who have by office power to ſteward thoſe holy things, in wiſedome, and fidelity, putting a difference betweene the precious and the vile, knowing that I am at wrath wi…h my brother, and having convinced me before two or three Witneſſes that I have highly treſpaſſed againſt my brother, are to deny to Steward or diſpenſe any ſuch holy thing to me, while I be firſt reconciled to my brother; and the like I ſay of the Sacrament of the Lords Supper. 2. To Eraſtus his Argument, I anſwer, it is not alike here as in praying, for praying is ſo abſolutely neceſſary, that it obligeth by a command of God, even a Simon Magus to pray, while he is in the gall of bitterneſſe, that the thoughts of his heart may be forgive…, Act. 8. 22. But Eraſtus, as if he had ſet himſelfe to contradict Chriſt, would inſinuate as much, as Chriſt were not to be obeyed, for his Expoſition holdeth forth this ſenſe, When thou bringeſt thy gift unto the Altar, and remembreſt that thy brother hath ought againſt thee, leave not thy gift, depart not, goe not about to be reconciled to thy Brother, but firſt offer thy gift; But Simon Magus, though he ſhould remember that he was in the gall of bitterneſſe, ſhould not delay to pray till he were firſt delivered from the gall of bitterneſſe, and then pray: Sure if Peter had ſaid to Simon Magus, Firſt labour to be freed of the gall of bitterneſſe, and to have thy thoughts pardoned, and then pray that the thoughts of thy heart may be pardoned, as Chriſt ſaith, Firſt bee reconciled to thy brother, and then offer; and (as Paul ſaith) Firſt, Let a man try and examine himſelfe, and ſo let him eate and drinke, the reply of Eraſtus p. 459ſhould have nerves. 2. It is true, Chriſt ſpeaketh not of the externall government of the Church; but it is as falſe that he ſpeaketh of the internall acts of the minde; but he ſpeaketh of the right ordering of the externall acts of divine worſhip, which are regulable, though not quatenus, as regulable by the Church, and draweth an argument from the words by neceſſary conſequence, which conſequence Eraſtus cannot elude. 3. But how doth Eraſtus prove this conſequence, if our Expoſition ſtand, and if we were to doe nothing in offering gifts at the Altar, except we bee firſt reconciled to our brother, and if God approve nothing which we doe, which deviates from this perfection, we ſhould doe nothing that is good and right, and ſo all muſt be excommunicated. 1. Is Chriſt here injoyning a work of perfection, and of ſupererogation? Is Eraſtus popiſh in this? 2. As it is impoſſible not to offer gifts aright, ſo is it not to eate and drinke worthily, while firſt we be reconciled to our brother: Eraſtus was ſo ſurfetred with charity, as we heard before, that if any but deſire the Sacrament and profeſſe repentance, he thinketh he is obliged to beleeve he is fit for the Lords Supper; and here, if Chriſt require, but that the partie be reconciled to his brother, ere he offer his gift and come to the Sacrament, this is too great ſtrictneſſe, it ſhould excommunicate us all, and we ſhall ſo never doe any thing that is right and good. 4. It is falſe that Chriſt ſpeaketh here of internall acts onelyonly, and of that which our minde injoyneth, for the Lord ſpeaketh of three externall viſible acts; 1. Of offering a gift at the Altar. 2. Of delaying and ſuſpending of the offering. 3. Of a previous viſible reconciliation to an offended brother. 5. He ſaith not, if the Presbyters bid you, (ſaith he) leave your offering; true, he ſaith not that in words; but ſuppoſing this, that the Presbyters know that the ſame very day that he bringeth his offering, he had beene killing his owne ſonne to Molech, as Ezek. 23. 38. 39. Whether were the Presbyters to forbid him to come and offer, while he ſhould teſtifie his repentance; and finding him impenitent; whether ſhould they not judge him both to be debarred from the holy things of God, and to be caſt out of the Church, as 1 Cor. 5. Certaine this is Chriſts order, Be firſt reconciled to thy Brother, and then offer; try thy ſelfe firſt, and then eate; and if the Church ſee this order neglected, whether are they to ſuffer p. 460clean and unclean to come and eat, and holy things to be prophaned?

Erastus. He ſhall expede himſelfe out of this doubt eaſily,Page 309. 310. who can diſtinguiſh the internall governing of the Church, which is proper to God onelyonly who knoweth the thoughts and can judge them without error, from the externall governing of the Church, in qua falli infinitè omnes poſſumus in the which we may all infinitely erre, and in which we can doe nothing, niſi quod mandatum expeſſè nobis legimus, How men doe judge of inward actions.except what vve read to be expreſly commanded, for here he vvho is not againſt us is vvith us, Marke 9. and no man ought to forbid thoſe which God hath commanded, ſo they bee externally done, all externall actions quoad nos, to us are good vvhichwhich are done according to the preſcript of Gods Word, though to God vvho judgeth the heart they be not good every vvay; many to day, the Phariſees of old; many in Pauls time preach for gaine, many are ambitious, and ſome out of envy preach; Chriſt never for bad them to teach, nor Paul but rejoyced, Phil. 1. that Chriſt was preached; hovvever ſince no man can underſtand the internall actions or thoughts, and without error judge them▪ there is no puniſhment by mans Law for them; onelyonly God, vvithout error, judgeth and puniſheth them.

Anſ. There be many untruths here, 1. If this diſtinction of internall and externall governing of the Church, remove moſt of the doubts here, he that eates and drinkes unworthily, which is an act of externall worſhip, which may be regulated and ordered by the Church, (for the Church may not adminiſter the Sacraments to Pagans without the Church) is no ſinne to the unworthy eater, becauſe God commanded that externall act expreſly, as Eraſtus ſaith, and ſo it is a good action, quoad nos, even to the unworthy eater, for he knoweth not his owne thoughts, nor can he judge them without error, eſpecially being unregenerated. 2. If Eraſtus himſelfe acknowledge this his owne diſ…inction, he muſt acknowledge an externall Church-government, and who then are the Governours, eſpecially in the Apoſtolick-Church, p. 461where heathen Magiſtrates are? Paſtors and Teachers no doubt, what meaneth this then? my Brother treſpaſſeth againſt me and will not be gained? I tell the Church; (Eraſtus ſaith) I tell the Chriſtian Magiſtrate, but there is no Chriſtian Magiſtrate, then there was no externall Government in the Church the firſt hundreth, nay, nor three hundred yeers in the Church, or then it muſt follow, that the Apoſtles and Paſtors were the deputies of heathen Magiſtrates: Ergo, the heathen Magiſtrates ſhould with impoſition of hands have been ordained the officers, foreign, in every Church. And that they were not; it was their owne fault; for the principall officer muſt be more principally called to office by Chriſt, and given by him as a gift, when he aſcended on high, to edifie the body of the Church, Eph. 4. 11. 3. Eraſtus will have men debarred from judging the inward actions, becauſe God only can judge them, ſine errore, without error: But ſo God only ſhould judge all things internall and externall, and there ſhould be no Magiſtrates, becauſe men may erre in judging the externall actions of men, andPage 310. Solus deus ut ſine errore cogitationes judicat, ita eaſdem quoque pu. nit. Ib. in rectione e…terna eccleſ…e infinite falli omnes poſſumu…, quamobr…n ſ…ccr… bio nihil debemus, quam mandatum expreſſe nobi… l…gimus. will not this gratifie the Papiſts, who ſay in this; Tell the Church, that is, the Pope who cannot erre. Then the Synod cannot erre, Proteſtants deny the conſequence; Synods may judge, as Act. 15. and yet Synods may erre. 4. Eraſtus will have us lyable to infinite errors in externall actions: therefore (ſaith he) we ſhould do nothing in externalls, but what is expreſly commanded; but firſt may we not infinite falli, infinitely erre in internall actions and thought, and acts of beleeving? are we more infallible in internall, then in externall actions? New Theologie: and are we not as well tyed to what is expreſly commanded in internall, as in externall actions? I think the word is as ſtrict a rule, and the Law of the Lord as perfect in the one as in the other. 5. The great error is here, that Eraſtus being ſleeping when he wrote, thinketh that to eat and drinke unworthily, to offer a gift at the Altar, the offerer being unreconciled to his brother, is an action internall and known to God; and that can no more be known to man, then the thoughts of the heart: A palpable untruth! is not worſhipping of Baalim, murthering, ſtealing, whoring, killing the Children to Mol…ch, and coming to ſtand in the Temple of the Lord, which are called a prophaning of Gods holy name, Ier. 7. 9, 10, 11. Ezek. 23. 38, 39. are not theſe actions viſible, externall, and as feazable to be judged by p. 462man, as murther may be judged by a Magiſtrate? Yea, by this, let a Pagan come to the table of the Lord, we are not to hinder him, why? it is an internall action knowne, citra errorem, to God only, and we cannot then judge whither he have examined himſelf or not; if he be not againſt us here, he is with us ſaith Eraſtus, Quod deus Page 309. Lib. 3. c. 3. A contradiction in Eraſtus frequent.facere juſſit, ab eo revocari aut retrahi nullus ab hominibus debet: ſi modo externe ſic fiat, ut precepit deus; Yea, ſo the Magiſtrate cannot hinder either Pagan or the open enemy, and perſecutor, who will trample upon the Sacrament, from the Sacraments; the contrary whereof Eraſtus ſaid, pag. 207. hunc ego minime admittendum cenſeo, and let Eraſtus give us Scripture, either expreſſe, or by conſequence, where a Pagan or a perſecutor may be impeded by Church or Magiſtrate from externall receiving of the ſeals, except that we are not to give pearls to ſwine? But was it not as hard to judge whether Saul perſecuting the Church out of blind zeal, was a ſwine, or a dogge, as to judge whether he that killeth his ſonne to Molech out of blind devotion, and cometh the ſame day to the Temple of the Lord, doth prophane the Name of the Lord? 6. If we muſt do nothing in externalls without the expreſſe commandement of God, nor may we without Gods command, either expreſſe, or a neceſſary conſequence, admit dogs and ſwine to the Lords table. 7. Paul indeed rejoyced that Chriſt was preached, though out of envy, Phil. 1. but by men called and gifted of God to preach, and therefore ought not to be forbidden to preach, while the Church, for their ſcandalous life do caſt them out; ſay they are called Miniſters once, the Church is not to caſt them out, for this or that particular ſinne, if they be not contumatious, and Paul, ſaith he, Rejoyceth that Chriſt was preached; but he ſaith not, he rejoyced that they preached Chriſt, tali modo, out of contention, thinking to add affliction to his bonds. Yet God forbiddeth the externall act of preaching in thoſe that hateth to be reformed, Pſal. 50. 16, 17. and forbiddeth the Church to lay hands on, or to call to the Miniſtery, wicked men that hateth to be reformed, or to keep them in the Miniſtery; and this hindreth not, but Paul might rejoyce at the conſequent of their Miniſtery, to wit, at the preaching of the Goſpel, ſo long as they remained in the Miniſtery: as we may rejoyce in that Chriſt was crucified for ſinners, and not allow that Herod and Pilate did with wicked hands crucifie the Lord of Glory, nor yet p. 463are we to rejoyce in their ſinne. But all this hindreth not, but he that is at wrath with his brother, and knowne to be ſo by the Prieſts, ſhould be hindred to offer his gift while he be reconciled to him. 8. We are not to hinder acts of externall worſhip, as praying, praiſing, preaching; nor can the Church forbid them, except where God by his Commandement require that we do them wi…h a ſpeciall viſible qualification and order: As firſt, be reconciled to your brother, firſt examine your ſelfe, and then of…er your gift, and come and eat and drinke at the Lords table: and in Negatives, Come to my Temple, but come not that very day you killed your ſonnes to Molech, while ye repent and be humbled for that ſinne.

Erastus. The godly Kings compelled the people to obſerve the ritesPage 311. ordained of God, at least externally, and 2 Chron. 15. killed thoſe that ſought not the Lord, then they ſinne who puniſh ſinnes by debarring men from the Sacrament: for beſide that, they forbid a thing commanded of God, and as it falleth under mens judgement, that is, as it is externall and good, ſo they cast their ſickle in another mans field, becauſe the correcting of ſinnes in ſo farre as they are externall belongeth to the Magiſtrate, and in ſo farre as they come from a depraved will, they belong to God onelyonly.

Anſ. Here is one palpable error, that all externall ſcandals are puniſhed, either by the Magiſtrate as the Magiſtrate, ſo he muſt be underſtood, elſe he ſaith nothing, or by God onelyonly, contrary to 1 Cor. 5. 11. Rom. 16. 17. 2 Theſ. 3. 14, 15. For we give a third, they are puniſhed by the Church, but only in a Miniſteriall way. It is falſe that the godly Kings could compell the unclean Jewes, though circumciſed to come to the Temple, or the murtherers of their Children that ſame day, to come with bloody hands to the Temple: Yet the very locall and perſonall preſence of a Iew in the Temple, and the very poſture of his body in looking with his face toward the Temple while he prayed, was an externall lawfull Ordinance of God: They could not then lawfully compell the Iews to theſe rites, except with ſuch and ſuch previous qualifications; they could not compell the Prieſts unwaſhed, and having drunk wine to go to the Sanctuary, 2 Chro. 15. It is not ſaid, they were to be put to death that ſhould omit any Ceremony, (though every Religious obſervance be a ſeeking of God) but they that would not ſeek God by entring in Covenant to renounce idols, and ſerve the Lord, p. 464or ſhould prove apoſtates from the ſworne Covenant, were to be put to death. 3. If that be a puniſhment (we contend for things, not for names) which is a privation of good inflicted for a ſinne: then let Eraſtus ſ…e, if the Prieſts puniſh not, who debarred men from the holy things of God (by Eraſtus his grant) for Ceremoniall omiſſions againſt a Law of God, And if the Prieſts ſhould not ſuffer an unreconciled man to offer gifts, and if the Church ſhould deny pearls to apoſtates, if this be not puniſhment? and if the Magiſtrate be to caſt out, or inflict Eccleſiaſticall cenſures, ſhall he not puniſh in ſo doing?

Erastus. To be caſt out of the Synogogue is not to be Excommunicated:Page 311. 312. 313. What it was to be caſt out of the ſynagogue. For the Synagogue ſignified ſometime all Iudea, ſometime a particular Congregation, or the place of meeting, or the ſermon. By no Law could a circumciſed Iew be caſt out of all Iudea, and ſent to the Gentitles, or be compelled to ſay they were not Iews; Yea, they were killed who denyed Iudaiſme. 2 Maccabees ſo the caſt out of the Synagogue, were not debarred from the Temple. The Church of the Iews was tyed to one certaine place, but every particular Church hath alike power: To be caſt out of the Synagogue then with the Iews, must be another thing, then to be Excommunicated now, for he that is cast out of one particular Church, is caſt out of the whole Catholick Church. But it was not ſo in Iudea, for Sacrifices and Sacraments (except circumciſion and expiation) were only at Ieruſalem, not in Synagogues: how then could they deny Sacraments, which they wanted themſelves? they could not deny what was not in their power to give: Moſes was read in their Synagogues every Sabbath, No man could be forbidden to heare the word read, this had been againſt a manifeſt precept: It is like they admitted heathens to the Synagogue, Act. 13. 14. c. 12. c. 18. But it was not lawfull for heathen to enter into the Temple: And when Moſes commanded all the clean to go to Ieruſalem, no Synagogue could forbid them to go.

Anſ. That the Synod might have divers ſignifications, I deny not, but that to be caſt out of the Synagogue had divers ſignifications, we deny; Yea, it ſignified no other thing but to be caſt out of the Church, and the Lord Ieſus ſpeaketh of it, and the Evangeliſts as of a ſtanding cenſure in the Jewiſh Church, which the ſpirit of God condemneth no where, except when it was abuſed, Ioh. 9. 22. Ioh. 12. 42. Ioh. 16. 2. Luk. 6. 22. Ioh. 9. 35. ſo is the word foreign Nadah, p. 465to Excommunicate as an unclean thing, Eſay 66. 5. Your Brethren that caſt you out. Pagnin and Mercer expound it of caſting out of the Synagogue, and they cite Ioh. 9. and 12. and 16. to make it ſignifie Excommunication. 2. That a circumciſed Iew could by no Law be caſt out of Iudea, ſeemeth to ſay, that baniſhment was not a lawfull puniſhment: Surely David againſt all Law then did baniſh Abſolon, 2 Sam. 14. 13. and when the King of Perſia, Ezra. 7. 25, 26. commandeth Ezra to reſtore judicatures, as at the beginning; It would ſeem that baniſhment was an ancient puniſhment amongſt the Iews: Therefore Eraſtus craftily ſaith, that no born Iews were ſo cast out of Iudea, that they were compelled to ſay they were not Iews. Surely we never dreamed of ſuch an Excommunication, that the excommunicated ſhould be compelled to lie, and ſay that though they were Iews and Chriſtians, yet they ſhould ſay they were not Iews or Chriſtians. 2. When the people was in Egypt, 2 Mac. they were killed who denyed themſelves to be Iews, and deſervedly, for they denied their Religion and their God. What is this againſt Excommunication? We plead not for ſuch an Excommunication, as was a locall extruſion of a perſon out of the land of Iudea, nor for ſuch a one wherey they denyed their Nation, that was a ſinfull lying. But ſuch, whereby Church priviledges were denyed to ſome for ſcandals. 3. Nor do we expound caſting out of the Synagogue literally, as Eraſtus doth, to be a caſting out of the Synagogue or from the Ordinances there, and from hearing the word or the Law of Moſes: for the Synagogue is the Church, and it was to be debarred from the Temple, Paſſeover, and other Holy things, though theſe ſhould be tyed to one certaine place, to wit, to the Temple; and I doubt, if the excommunicated be to be debarred from hearing the word; 1. Becauſe the excommunicated is to be admoniſhed as a brother, 2 Theſ. 3. 15. and the word preached is a mean ſimply neceſſary for the mans gaining. 2. Becauſe heathens were not excluded from hearing the word, 1 Chron. 14 23. Act. 17. 16. 17, 18, 19, 20. &c. Act. 14. v. 15, 16, 17. But from the Temple and Sacraments they were excluded: We have often anſwered, that all the Morally unclean, though they were ceremonially clean, are not only not commanded to go up to Ieruſalem, that is, to the Temple and holy things, that they are rebuked, and accuſed, becauſe they ſtood in the Lords Temple with their bloods and idolatries, and p. 466other abominations in their skirts, Ieremiah 7. verſe 9. 10. Ezekiel 23. 38, 39. Eſay 1. verſe 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16.

Erastus. They call Chriſt a Samaritan, Ioh. 8. Thoſe ofPage 313. 314. Nazareth not onelyonly caſt him out of the Synagogue, but out of the town, and ſtrove to throw him over the brow of a mountain: Who d…ubts then but they caſt Chriſt out of the Synagogue, when they made a Law, that if any ſhould confeſſe him, he ſhould be caſt out of the Synagogue: Yet never man objected to Chriſt, (It is not lawfull to thee to go into the Temple, for thou art caſt out of the Synagogue.) Ergo, to be caſt out of the Synagogue was not to be excommunicated.

Anſ. All theſe are poor conjectures, for Eraſtus granteth there was ſuch a cenſure as caſting out of the Synagogue, But he ſheweth not what it is. But I retort this argument; if Chriſt had been caſt out of the Synagogue, thoſe that called him a Samaritane, and caſt out of their Synagogues, ſuch as confeſſed him, would have ſometime ſaid, (it is not lawfull to thee to go into the Synagogues and teach, for thou art caſt out of the Synagogue.) But by the contrary, Chriſt till the day of his death, openly taught in the Synagogues, Ioh. 18. 20. I ſpake openly to the world, I ever taught in the Synagogue and in the Temple, whither the Iews alwayes reſort, Luke 4. 15. he taught in their Synagogues, Luke 4. 16. as his cuſtome was, he went into the Synagogues▪ Mat. 4. 23. Mark 1. 39. Mark 3. 1. Luk. 6. 6. Mat. 9. 35. Luke 13. 10. and therefore it is a demonſtration to me, that they never caſt Chriſt out of the Synagogue; what hindred them, ſaith Eraſtus? I anſwer. Let him ſhew me what hindred them to ſtone him, Ioh. 10. and not to put him to death till his houre came. Eraſtus ſpeaketh not like a divine, who ſcoffeth at the ſecret Counſell of God: For God had the ſufferings of his owne ſonne Chriſt, in a ſpeciall manner, determined and weighed, in number, weight, and meaſure. And therefore though they made a Law, that all that confeſſeth Chriſt ſhould be caſt out of the Synagogue, and though thoſe that ſinned againſt the Holy Ghoſt, Matt. 12. called him a Samaritane, and out of a ſudden paſſion, thoſe that wondred at the gracious words that proceeded out of his mouth, would caſt him over the brow of a Mountaine; Yet I hold, they never made any Law, no… p. 467did execute any Law, nor did caſt out of their Sgnagogue, or excommunicate the Lord Ieſus. I leave Eraſtus to his conjectures.

Eraſtus. Act. 4. and 5. The Apoſtles were ſcourged andpage 31…. caſt out by the high Synagogue ſumma Synagoga, yet preſently they teach in the Temple, and uſe the Sacramen…s, Act. 21. When Paul Act. 21. was to go to the Temple to ſacrifice, the Apoſtles who counſelled him ſo to do, do not object, that he was excommunicated, and ſo could not by Law do ſo; His adverſaries accuſe him that he taught againſt the Law, and that he profaned the Temple, by bringing in the Gentiles, he openly ſaith, he had done nothing againſt the Law. Then to be caſt out of the Synagogue is not to be excommunicated, for one caſt out of the Synagogue, could not but do againſt the Law, if he ſhould go to the Temple and ſacrifice.

Anſ. If Eraſtus would argue logically (as to me in my humble apprehenſion, he is ſtill weak in all his book in this) we ſhould find frothy grounds: as thus, If thoſe who were ſcourged and caſt out of the Synagogue (to wit, unjuſtly and againſt all Law of God for preaching Chriſt Ieſus) were never accuſed for going into the Temple and uſing the Sacraments, and ſay, truly they did nothing againſtThe Apoſtles not caſt out of thy Synagogue, that we can read. the Law, then the caſt out of the Synagogue might lawfully go to the Temple and partake of the Sacraments; the propoſition is the greateſt untruth that can be. 1. Eraſtus muſt prove that the Iews accuſed the Apoſtles of all and every thing, which they conceived to be againſt the Law. I conceive this is a conjecture, and falſe. 2. The other part of the propoſition is as falſe as to ſay, light is darkneſſe; if Paul caſt out of the Synagogue, and excommunicated againſt all Law of God and Moſes, yet go to the Temple and ſacrifice, and partake of Sacraments, ſay he doth nothing againſt the Law; then caſting out of the Synagogue and Excommunication doth not exclude any from the Temple, ſacrifices and Sacraments: this is as much as Paul ſhould ſay, unjuſt Excommunication againſt all Law of God and of Moſes for righteouſneſſe ſake, doth exclude no man from the Temple and the ſacrifices and Sacraments; Ergo, caſting out of the Synagogue and Excommunication rightly adminiſtred, doth exclude none from the Temple, ſacrifices and Sacraments: p. 468Surely … is abominable to aſcribe as much to unjuſtly adminiſtred ordinances, as to the j…ſt ordinances of Chriſt. Eraſtus muſt lay downe the Popiſh ground of Navar and Gregory, that ExcommunicationNavar. in Ench…rid. c. 27. 11. n. 13. Greg. q. 3. c. 1. ſive de juſta, ſive de i…justa cauſa, either for a juſt or an unjuſt cauſe is to be feared, and hath force. Might not Paul though he had been unjuſtly excommunicated, go to the Temple and Sacraments, and yet ſay he had done nothing againſt the Law? might not the man whom Ieſus found after he was unjuſtly caſt out of Temple and Synagogue, Ioh. 9. 39. ſay, I have done nothing againſt the Law, nor do againſt it, though I go to the Temple? 3. How will Eraſtus prove that the Apoſtles, Act. 4. and 5. or Paul were c…ſt out of the Synagogue or excommunicated? I never could read it: They commanded them neither to preach in Temple or Synagogue any more in the name of Ieſus; But that they caſt them out of the Synagogue, or caſt Paul out of the Synagogue, where is it to be read? let Eraſtus teach us.

Erastus. It is hard to ſay, what it is to be caſt out of the Synagogue,Page 315. it was not Excommunication, it ſeemeth to be ſome note of infamy, Ioh. 12. or a particular baniſhing them out of a towne, and Ieſus ſeemeth, Luk. 4. to be baniſhed by the Nazarites, and it ſeemeth to be a denying of right of the City; ſo as the caſt out of the Synagogue ſhalbe no more eſteemed for a true Iew, but as a proſylite; Proſylites dwelt amongst the Iews, and had right to thoſe ſame holy things with them, yet were they diſtinguiſhed from the Iews: ſo it ſeemeth to be that which is Ezra 10. to be ſeparated from the Crongregation of thoſe that had been carried away captive. It agreeth with that Deuteronomy 23. where the Children of Edom were admitted … enter into the CongregationPage 316. of the Lord in their third generation. Its abſurd to think… that God who is no accepter of Perſons, will not have one cut off, a Baſtard, an Ammonite, a Moabite received into his Kingdome: So the Lord refuſed not that they ſhould be circumciſed and admitted to the Sacraments; but he would not have them counted for true Iews; He would have Egyptians and Edomites received in their third generation: ſo their Father, Grand-father, and great Grandfather had been circumciſed, otherwiſe to the thouſand generation they were …ot received, and foreign, and foreign to caſt out, or to be caſt out of the Synagogue are meeker words then to condemne, caſt out, excommunicate; and though the Phariſees ſhould debarre p. 469from the Sacraments thoſe that are caſt out of the Synagogue, we are not to imitate the examples of ill men.

Anſ. 1. If it be hard to determine what it is to be caſt out of the Synagogue, it is hard to deny it to be Excommunication; for to be a Member of the Synagogue, as an Elder or a Ruler of the Synagogue, was to be a Member of the Church, and a Church priviledge; Ergo, to be caſt out of the Synagogue muſt be to be unchurched, and made no Member of the Church, and this is very like Excommunication: however, Erastus cannot deny it to bee ſome Church cenſure like to Excommunication as any thing can be. 2. That it was a civill baniſhing out of a Towne, or that Chriſt was baniſhed by the Nazarites out of Nazareth leaneth upon Eraſtus his ita videtur, ſo it ſeemeth; To which I crave leave to ſay, non ita videtur, it appeareth to be no ſuch thing, Chriſt came againe to Nazareth, and till his death was never baniſhed from Synagogue or Temple, Iohn 18. 20. They ſhould rather have been ſaid to caſt Chriſt out of the Temple and baniſh him from Ieruſalem, for Ioh. 10. 22, 23, 31. They took up ſtones to ſtone him, v. 39. then to baniſh him out of Nazareth, or caſt him out of the Synagogue. 3. Proſylites had all the right that Iews had by Gods Law, what men denyed them, is not the queſtion. Eraſtus ſpake nothing from Scripture or Gods Law, that was one and the ſame to the born Iew, and the ſtranger that came in and was circumciſed, and gave his name to the Iſrael of God. 4. To be deprived of the priviledge of a city is a civill puniſhment; Ergo, to be caſt out of the Congregation or Synagogue, which was a ſpirituall and Church puniſhment was no ſuch thing. 5. The ſeparating from the Congregation, Ezra 10. 8. was Excommunication; the Annotation of the Engliſh Divines ſay it was Excommunication, ſuch as caſting out of the Synagogue, Ioh. 9.Annot. an. 1645. on Ezra 10. 8.Ezra 10:8 22. 6. If it agree with Deut. 23. 8. To enter in the Congregation of the Lord, is to be a Member of the Church of God, and therefore the Hebrew readeth it, foreign into the Church of God. The Chalde Paraphraſt foreign erint mundi ut ingrediantur Eccleſiam Domini, They ſhall be cleane that they may enter into the Church of God. Sure this was not Phyſicall or civill cleanneſſe, but cleanneſſe ſpirituall according to the Law of God: ſo the ſeventy tranſlate it, foreign Hieronym. intrabunt in Eccleſiam Domini. Vatablus in Not. erint de conſortio p. 470populi Sancti. The Engliſh Annotators cite for this Nehe. 13.Annot. an. 1645. on Deut. 23. 1.Deut 23:1 1, 2. the Law is, that the Moabite and the Ammonite ſhould not enter into the Congregation of the Lord for ever, It is ſaid v. 3. They ſeparated from Iſrael all the mixed multitude, ſo that cleare it is, to enter into the Congregation is to become a Member of the Church; then to be ſeparated from the Congregation, muſt be to be caſt out of the Church, and deprived of the holy things of God, as heathens and ſtrangers were, according to that Levit. 22. 10. There ſhall no ſtranger eate of the holy thing: What is this but Excommunication? call it with another name▪ we care not, it is really to be ſeparated from the Church. 7. It is admirable to me to heare Eraſtus ſay, It cannot be that God who is no accepter of of perſons, will not receive into his Kingdome a Baſtard, an Ammonite, a Moabite? Is not this to reaſon againſt the Law of God, and the wiſedome of God? Deut. 23. 1. 2, 3. who ſaith, that he will not receive ſuch into his Church, which is his Kingdome, and a company of Kings and Prieſts unto God, which he hath freely loved, Exod. 19. 5, 6. Pſal. 149. 1. Deut. 7. 7. Deut. 26. 16, 17,Eraſtus ib. 315. Non igitur noluit Deus hoſc… circumcidi, & in Templum atque ad Sacramenta admitti, ſed noluit proveris Judaeis …os haberi. 18. as …o… the rejecting of men from his heavenly Kingdome according to Gods decree of eternall Reprobation, I deny Excommunication to be any ſuch rejection of men; it being onelyonly a caſting them out from the viſible Church, and the ſpeciall Church priviledges, that their Spirits may be ſaved in the day of the Lord; and what can be more contrary to the Word, then that Eraſtus ſhould ſay God declared not, that it was his will that Moabites, Ammonites ſhould not be circumciſed, an… admitted to the Sacraments. Why then did hee not chuſe Moabites and Ammonites for his people, and make a covenant with them, and give Circumciſion a Seale of the Covenant, as he dealt with the Iewes? if he mean God will not exclude Moabites and Ammonites from the Sacraments, ſo they repent and turne to him: but now Eraſtus fights with his owneſhaddow. Who denieth but Iewes and Gentiles, ſo they call on him, are welcome to all the holy things of God, and not to be caſt out of either Church or Synagogue. 8. To ſay, to caſt out of the Synagogue, is a meeker word then to Excommunicate, is but to beg the queſtion. Yea, but ſaith Eraſtus it is leſſe and a milder thing then to deſtroy, and pro deplorato habere, to eſteeme a perſon loſt, we ſay Excommunication is not to deſtroy p. 471or to give for loſt, but though it be the moſt violent, yet it is a ſaving remedy that the man may be aſhamed, humbled, and his Spirit ſaved. 9. We reaſon not from the fact of Phariſees, if they caſt any out of the Synagogue for a juſt cauſe, they ought alſo by Gods Law to debarre them from Temple and Sacraments, and therefore if they did not debarre, it was their ſinne, not our Rule.