The Divine Right of Church Government and Excommunication, Religious polemic · Chapter 22
CHAP. XXII.
Queſt. 18.
Of excluſion from the Sacrament, of profeſſion of repententance, the judiciall Law bindeth not Chriſtians. The ſword not a mean, of converſion, Of Idolaters and Apoſtates in the judgement of Eraſtus.
IN this Chapter Eraſtus diſputeth againſt a Treatiſe written inEraſtus l. 6. c. 2. p. 331. 332. the German Tongue, in which he acknowledgeth, there is more learning and truth then in the other writtings. All the opinions that Eraſtus aſcribeth to this Author, (juſtly or unjuſtly, I know not, but Erastus his faith may be juſtly ſuſpected) I cannot defend.
Erastus. Touching thoſe to be admitted to the Sacrament, we ſpeak alwayes, de illis ſolis, &c. of thoſe only who rightly underſtand the Doctrine of the Goſpel, and do approve and imbrace the ſame, and who deſire with others to uſe the Sacraments aright, in regard of the externals, of which only the Church can judge, for the heart is rightly knowne to God only; ſo the Author and we agree.
Anſ. The agreement is but poore by your owne relation: But 1. Let Eraſtus anſwer, what if the Chriſtian Magiſtrate as Achab be a dog, and ſell himſelfe to do wickedly: What if he underſtand not the Doctrine of the Goſpel? Magiſtrates as Magiſtrates by vertue of the throne, or place, are not priviledged to be Orthodox and holy. Let one Iulian once a Chriſtian, yet turning a ſow, an enemy to the Goſpel be witneſſe, if we deſcend to the Iuſtices, and to Maſter Conſtables; it may be we finde even of thoſe dogs and ſwine in their converſation, though their place be a power, lawfull, and ordained of God; We thinke (ſaith Eraſtus) the cuſtome of the Church ſhould be obſerved: What? by the cuſtome of the Church onelyonly, by no precept or command of Chriſt ſhould the holy things of God, the pearls of the Goſpel be denied to dogs and ſwine contrary to Chriſts command, Mat. 7? 2. Erastus muſt exclude the Magiſtrate out of the liſts of his diſputation in ſix books, and ſay, If the Chriſtian Magiſtrate be ignorant and ſcandalous, and yet deſire to uſe the Sacraments right, and profeſſe he will learne to know God, and to beleeve ſoundly, and walke holily, Yet the Sacraments are not to be denied to him. Tell Eraſtus, in ſincerity who ſhould debarre the Magiſtrate? For in all your ſix books, you by theſe words, de illis ſolis, &c. profeſſe that you plead not that he ſhould be admitted toMagiſtrates if ſcandalous are to be debarred from the Sacrament. the Sacraments; who ſhall exclude him? not he himſelfe; for his credites ſake he ſhall deſire to come to the Sacraments, as many for gaine and loaves follow Chriſt, Ioh. 6. will they not follow him alſo to be ſeen of men, as the Phariſees prayed in the ſtreets? 2. Let Eraſtus ſay, when our Saviour ſaid, Give not holy things to dogs? Did he mean to accept the perſons of Kings and Iudges, and profeſſe, though Kings and Iudges be dogs and ſwine▪ yet deny not holy things to them? 3. Hath Chriſt appointed no way in the New Teſtament, as he did in the Old, to debarre unclean men from our Paſſeover? Or ſhall there be no Government, no charge in the Miniſters of the New Teſtament to keep the holy things of God from pollution? If Maſter Iuſtice be an inceſtnous man, a drunkard, a dog, ſhall he not be caſt out of the midſt of the Church? Ʋzziah though a King, yet for bodily leproſie was ſeparated from the people of God, and men of high places, though doggs and ſwine ſhall be admitted to all the holy things of God under the New Teſtament?
2. Eraſtus will have all admitted who deſire to uſe the Sacraments right; As touching all externalls, of which onelyonly the Church doth judge: But, 1. Where did we aſſert that the Church judgeth of internalls? and that they may debarre men from the Sacraments, for only heart-unbeleefe knowne to God only? This muſt lye on Erastus, as a calumnie, while he make it good from our writings and Doctrine, that we thus teach, exclude thoſe that are viſibly ſcandalous and prophane, and we are ſatisfied. 2. He that brings his offering to the Altar, and hath done a knowne offence to his brother, (for it is a ſinfull and viſible ſcandall, which ſcandalizeth one brother) He uſeth not the holy things of God right, even as touching externals; He that comes to the Lords ſupper deſiring, and aſking the ordinance of righteouſneſſe (as Iſaiah ſpeaketh) and promiſeth amendment; and yet is openly ignorant and not ſound in the faith, he uſeth not aright the Sacraments even in externals, of which only the Church judgeth rightly: as he that in the ſame day commeth to the temple to worſhip (now the very perſonall preſence of a Iew in the Temple which was a Type of Ieſus Chriſt, was a worſhip and a holy thing of God, whereas our preſence in the place of meeting for worſhip is no ſuch thing) when he hath killed his ſonne to Moloch, prophaned the Temple, and the name of God, even in externals; for the Prieſts of old who were to put differences between the clean and the unclean, no more were to judge the inward thoughts and heart-diſpoſitions of men knowne to God only, then we can now judge them in the New Teſtament, 1 Chro. 29. 17. 1 King. 8. 39. 1 Chro. 28. 9. Prov. 15. 11. Hence, that is an ignorant ſpeach of Eraſtus, Quiſtatuit malus eſſe, non prodibit in eccleſiae faciem, ut ſe poenuere prioris vite teſtetur, ac meliorem promittat. P. 331. 332That man ſhall never come before the face of the Church, to teſtifie that he repenteth of his former wicked life, and promiſe amendment, who purpoſeth to be wicked: Will not men purpoſe not to be reconciled to their brethren, and ſuffer many ſuns to go downe in their wrath and malice, who come and bring their offring to the Altar; why did then Chriſt forbid offring at the Altar, without being reconciled to an offended brother? Mat. 5. might not the offending brother offer his gift? and were not the Prieſts to except his offring? He could ſay all that Erastus requireth: I acknowledge I have offended my brother, I promiſe to crave him pardon, and I deſire to offer according to the Law. Then the Prieſt was obliged to beleeve he dealt ſincerely, and lay his gift upon the Altar, though he ſhould not obey the command of Chriſt, and go and leave his gift at the Altar, and not offer while he were firſt reconciled to his brother; and the like I ſay of one that hath killed his brother, and cometh with hot blood to the Table of the Lord, and goeth not to the Widdow and Orphanes, whoſe Husband and Father he had killed▪ to be reconciled: Surely the man that ſhould thus offer, ſhould not come to offer, nor to eat at the Lords table rightly; even in regard of externals, which the Church may judge: for he ſhould omit this externall, Be firſt reconciled to the Widdow, and then offer, and eat as Chriſt commanded. 3. It is againſt Scripture and experience, that a man that hath a purpoſe to kill his Father, and in the higheſt point of treaſon to invade King Davids throne, as Abſolon did, to ſay he will not profeſſe to pay his vows at Hebron. And might not Judas by his very eating the Paſſeover, profeſſe he beleeved in the Lambe of God that taketh away the ſins of the world, and that he would ſerve Chriſt, and yet purpoſe in his heart to ſell his Maſter Chriſt for 30▪ peeces of ſilver; They ſeeme to be little acquainted with the myſterie of the hypocriſie naturally in men, who put in print ſuch a poſition: The Author againſt whom Eraſtus writeth ſaith, We have reaſon to rejoyce, if we finde any ſuch, who will not profeſſe faith and repentance, though they be Hypocrites; and therefore there is need of Excommunication, and his meaning is, that there is need of Excommunication alwayes, and therefore there will be many who profeſſe Repentance in words, whoſe life and converſation belie their Repentance; and Eraſtus cannot deny this, if he know what it is …o have a forme of godlineſſe, and deny the power, which forme many have who are to be debarred from the Sacraments, and to be Excommunicated, in regard they are lovers of their owne ſelves, covetous, boaſters, proud, blaſphemers, diſobedient to parents, unthankefull, without naturall affection, truce breakers, falſe accuſers, incontinent, fierce, deſpiſers of thoſe that are good, traitors, headie, high minded, &c. 2 Tim. 3. 1, 2, &c. and ſuch they are in the eies of men, otherwiſe Paul would not forbid to withdraw from ſuch.
Erastus. The Author I thinke would yeeld that the SacramentsPage 332. ſhould not be denyed to thoſe who ſeeke them, and deſire to uſe them aright, and are not excommunicated, for the writeth that the deniall of the Sacraments, is onelyonly a Teſtimony of excommunication; So when we give not a Teſtimony of a thing for example of learning, to any to whom the thing it ſelfe, to wit, learning doth not agree, we cannot deny the Sacraments to thoſe who are not Excommunicated, for hee ſhould not be blotted with a Teſtimony of a baniſhed man, who is not declared to be baniſhed.
Anſ. 1. The Author I thinke would never yeeld, but the Sacraments ought to be denied to thoſe who aske for them, and deſire to uſe them aright, if they be otherwiſe Truce-breakers, falſe accuſers, incontinent, traitors, for thoſe have, and may have a forme of godlines, and aske the Sacraments and deſire to uſe them aright; I meane they may ſay they deſire to uſe them aright, for of their inward deſire, God onelyonly can judge, who knoweth the heart; yet the Author cannot, he will not ſay, that ſuch are to be admitted to the Lords Supper, all tha… Eraſtus goeth on i…, That the Church is obliged to beleeve that thoſe doe repent, and uſe the Sacraments aright, who ſay in word of mouth, they doe ſo, and therefore are to be admitted to the Sacraments, though they come but an houre before out of the Bordell houſe, and have hands and ſword hot and ſmoking with innocent blood. Now Dogs, and Swine, C…in; Iudas, known to be ſcandalous, may give faire words, and cry, Lord, Lord, and profeſſe all this, as is cleare, Iſa. 58. 2. Mat. 7. 21, 22. Rom. 16. 18: Mat. 23. 13▪ 14, 23, &c. 2. Excluſion from the Sacraments is a Teſtimony of Excommunication, but not teſtimonium proprium quarto modo, for ſome that are not excommunicated, are to be debarred from the Sacraments as the thing it ſelfe will force us to acknowledge; ſhould any come with his ſword hot in blood, from killing his father and Paſtor to the Lords Table, I hope the Church knowing this would not admit him to the Sacrament, and yet he is not yet excommunicated, and I hope they would not preſently in the ſame moment that they debarred him from the Lords Supper, excommunicate him. There muſt be ſome time required to pray for him, to rebuke, convince, and lay open his ſinne before he be excommunicated, which moved me to thinke that there was neceſſity of expreſſe Scripture to prove Excommunication; but that abſtention (as Divines calleth it) or ſuſpenſion from the Lords Supper, may well be ſufficiently proved by Analogie, by conſequent and by the nature of the holy things of God, and Pearles that are not to be given to the prophane. 3. A viſible ſcandall is a ſufficient ground of the leſſer excommunication, or debarring from the Lords Supper, and ſo we put a Teſtimony of one baniſhed from the holy things of God on him who hath committed a ſcandalous offence, which is a ſufficient ground thereof, though the offender be not formally excommunicated. This Author ſaith, without the conſent of the Church, no man, though contumacious, ſhould be excommunicated; What this is againſt us, or for Eraſtus, I ſee not, we ſay the ſame.
He ſaith, The Magiſtrate may chuſe ſome of the congregation to Excommunicate; which if he ſay, I conſent not to him, and ſee no warrant for it in Scripture: But I rather believe his ſenſe to be, That the godly Magiſtrate may command the Church to Excommunicate and puniſh them, if they be negligent in this. But hence it followeth not, that the Magiſtrate may Excommunicate them, as Eraſtus inferreth, no more then of old; it followeth, King Vzziah might command the Prieſts to burn incenſe to the Lord, and puniſh them; if in this they ſhould neglect their duty: Ergo, King Vzziah might lawfully in his own perſon burn incenſe to the Lord: Eraſtus himſelf will deny this conſequence.
Eraſtus ſaith, It is evident this Author meaneth, That God commanded Page 334.not a Presbytery to be, but that it is neceſſary for orders cauſe. But I had rather that he had proved it from the Authors words: And ſo I deny it, while Eraſtus bring his own words to prove it: I believe he fancies many things of this worthy Author, as that he ſubjects not the Magiſtrate to the Presbytery: And why? Becauſe he ſaith, None ought to be Excommunicated without the conſent of the Magiſtrate. Truly it is a weak reaſon; for if the Magiſtrate be a godly man, and a Member of the Church, it is neceſſary that his poſitive conſent be had, that he may in light and faith uſe the ſword againſt him, as againſt other evil doers. But I give him no negative voyce, nor any authoritative or Eccleſiaſtically judiciall voyce in Excommunication, which can be due to him as a Magiſtrate: So the Author doth not at all diſagree from us; Eraſtus is miſtaſten.
Erastus. God hath Excommunicated Drunkards, HypocritesPage 335. from the Sacraments except they repent: But where hath God commanded ſuch, being Circumciſed and Baptized to be excluded from the Sacraments? eſpecially if they profeſſe that they repent of their former wayes: for it is one thing to be excluded of God, another thing to be cast out of the viſible ſociety of the godly.
Anſ. God hath Excommunicated Drunkards and Hypocrites, who are not known openly to be ſuch to the Church, and therefore the Church cannot debar ſuch from the Sacraments, and ſo we grant all, That it is one thing to be Excommunicated of the Church, and another to be Excommunicated of God. 2. He asketh, where hath God commanded to debar ſuch from the Sacraments being circumciſed and baptized? I Anſwer then, If they be uncircumciſed and unbaptiſed, God will have the Church to debar them. But let Erastus ſhew any Scripture for their excluſion, but ſuch as warranteth us to exclude the openly ſcandalous, though circumciſed and baptized. 3. What warrant hath the Church or Magiſtrate, if Eraſtus ſo will, to debar all the uncircumciſed and …nbaptiſed from the Sacraments; Job, the Eunuch, are not Excommunicated of God▪ Ergo, if the Lords non-Excommunication be our rule, we cannot Excommunicate all the uncircumciſed and baptized as ſuch. 4. Erastus addeth, They cannot be excluded from the Sacraments, Preſertim ſ… p…nitentiam vitae anteactae prae ſe …erant, eſpecially if they profeſſe repentance. But this preſertim▪ eſpecially, ſeemeth to infer, though they profeſſe no repentance, but be dogs and ſwine, they ought not to be debarred from the Seale▪ Is this piety, or rather prophanity? But only he would ſay, they are far leſſe to be debarred if they profeſſe repentance. But we know, to profeſſe repentance in Eraſtus hisEvery profeſſion maketh not men capable of the holy things of God. way, is to ſay by word of mouth, they repent: Now this ſaying ſo, may conſiſt with being openly dogs and ſwine. Hence we ſee the contradicent of Eraſtus his ſaying, to wit, that the moſt openly ſcandalous are not to be excluded from the Sacraments, eſpecially if they ſay they repent, that is, eſpecially if they lye and diſſemble before the Sun, yea, though they mock God and repent no…. I ſhould think their ſaying they repent, when their flagitious and impure converſation doth belye their profeſſion, maketh them ſo much rather worthy to be debarred, being both dogs and Hypocrites▪ So far I am from Eraſtus his preſertim, eſpecially if they profeſſe that they repent.
Erastus. I grant it …ighteth with Gods will, that pardonPage 335. 336. ſhould be denied to any by the Word, and yet pardon▪ ſealed to thoſe ſame men in the Sacrament: But when the Word denyeth remiſsion of ſins abſolutely to thoſe, the Sacraments are not due to them; but the Word denieth not remiſsion to them upon condition they repent, and ſo neither ſhould the Sacraments be denied to them.
Anſ. But the word denyeth abſolutely remiſſion of ſins to dogs and ſwine, ſo long as they repent not; and that ſo much the more, that they ſay they repent, and their life belies their words, and teſtifies to their face, and before the Sun, that they are pla…ſtered Hypocrites, Ergo, the Sacraments ſhould be denyed to them.
Erastus. But it followeth not that the Sacraments belongeth not toPage 336. him who is not a member of the inviſible Church, ſo he be a member of the viſible Church; but as he partaketh only of the externall Communion, ſo he receiveth but the externall elements, from an externall Miniſter.
Anſ. But if he be viſibly no Member of the inviſible Church, but in the eyes of the Church viſibly a dog or a ſwine, neither ought the externall ſymbols, that are even externally the holy things of God to be given to him: for otherwiſe, this Argument ſhall conclude, if one be baptiſed, and a member of the Church, though a dog, yet the pearls of the Goſpel are to be caſt to ſuch a dog, which Eraſtus himſelf denieth: And ſo this Argument hurteth Eraſtus as much as us.
That this Author ſaith, God commanded thoſe that tranſgreſſed his Page 336. 337.holy Law with an high hand, and preſumptuouſly to be killed, leſt they ſhould live and prophane his holy things; I defend not: But ſure Eraſtus erreth, who will have all ſuch to be killed by the Magiſtrate under the New Teſtament, becauſe they were killed in the Old: Then are we to ſtone the men that gathereth ſticks on the Lords day; the childe that is ſtubborn to his Parents, the Virgins, daughters of Miniſters that committeth fornication are to be put to death. Why, but then the whole judiciall Law of God ſhall oblige us Chriſtians as Caroloſladius and others teach? I humbly concieve that the putting of ſome to death in the Old Teſtament, as it was a puniſhment to them, ſo was it a myſterious teaching of us, how God hated ſuch and ſuch ſins, and myſteries of that kinde are gone with other ſhadows. But we read not (ſaith Eraſtus) where Chriſt hath changed thoſe Laws in the New Teſtament. It is true, Chriſt hath not ſaid in particular, I aboliſh the debarring of the leper ſeven dayes, and he that is thus and thus unclean ſhall be ſeparated till the evening; nor hath he ſaid particularly of every carnall Ordinance and judiciall Law, it is aboliſhed. But we conceive, the whole bulk of the judiciall Law, as judiciall, and as it concerned the Republick of the Iews only, is aboliſhed, though the morall equity of all thoſe be not aboliſhed; alſo ſome puniſhments were meetly Symbolicall, to teach the deteſtation of ſuch a vice, as the boaring with an A…le the ear of him that loved his Maſter, and deſired ſtill to ſerve him, and the making of him his perpetuall ſervant. I ſhould think the puniſhing with death the man that gathered ſticks on the Sabbath was ſuch; and in all theſe, the puniſhing of a ſin againſt the Morall Law by the Magiſtrate, is Morall and perpetuall; but the puniſhing of every ſin againſt the Morall Law, tali modo, ſo and ſo, with death, with ſpitting on the face: I much doubt if theſe puniſhments in particular, and in their poſitive determination to the people of the Iews, be morall and perpetuall: As he that would marry a captive woman of another Religion, is to cauſe her firſt pare her nailes, and waſh her ſelf, and give her a monethmonth, or leſſe time to lament the death of her Parents, which was a Iudiciall, not a Ceremoniall Law; that this ſhould be perpetuall, becauſe Chriſt in particular hath not aboliſhed it, to me ſeems moſt unjuſt; for as Paul ſaith, He that is Circumciſed becomes debter to the whole Law, ſure to all the Ceremonies of Moſes his Law: So I Argue, à pari, from the like, He that will keep one judciciall Law, becauſe judiciall and given by Moſes, becometh debter to keep the whole judiciall Law, under pain of Gods eternall wrath.
We do not teach that men are to be Excommunicated, for whatever ſcandalous ſins deſerve death at the hand of the Magiſtrate, whether they openly repent or not; if any give evident ſignification of their repentance for murther, they are not to be Excommunicated, for the end of Excommunication, being once obtained, which is the viſible and known repentance, and ſaving of the offenders ſoul, the mean is not to be uſed, which is Excommunication. But if any commit murther, whether he repent or repent not, the Lord hath made no exception of regenerate or not regenerate, of men repenting or not repenting, he ſhould die by the ſword of the Magiſtrate, Gen. 9. 9. It is true, ſome are to be Excommunicated for the very atrocity of the ſin, it being parricide; but that is, becauſe he giveth no poſitive ſignes of repentance to the Church, which is contumacy added to his parricide.
Eraſtus would prove, That God would not have men dedebarred… 340. from the Sacraments, becauſe they commit haynous ſins to be puniſhed with death by the Judge: 1. Facinora ſaepe ſunt occulta, ſuch crimes are often unknown to the world.
Anſ. That which is denied, is not concluded a fault in Logick; for only ſcandals as ſcandals to the Church, and ſo known to the Church are to be cenſured with Excommunication.
Erastus. He thus would prove the ſame, often theſe crimes cannot be puniſhed, as David durſt not puniſh the murther of Ioab, 2 Sam. 3. Often for other cauſes they are neglected by the Magiſtrate, as David neglected to puniſh the inceſt and murther of Abſolon, but ſhall we think ſuch were not to come to the Temple and Sacraments? ſo Pſal. 14. David ſaith, There was not one that doth good, thoſe were not all puniſhed by the Magiſtrate; yet were they not removed from the Sacraments.
Anſ. Let Eraſtus argue here, and we ſhall ſee his logick; Thoſe that commit parricides, ſorceries, and do trample the holy things of God under feet, whom yet the Magiſtrate dare not puniſh, becauſe of their power and greatneſſe▪ thoſe are not to be debarred from the Sacraments. But there be many ſcandalous perſons in the Church, ſuch as Ioab, whom the Magiſtrate dare not puniſh, for their greatneſſe; Ergo,
Anſ. The Major is manifeſtly falſe, and a begging of the queſtion: For Eraſtus ſaith, pag. 207. He thinketh ſuch ought not to be admitted to the Sacraments who will trample on the Sacraments and prophane them. For though the Magiſtrate dare not puniſh them, which is his ſinfull neglect, if they be dogs and ſwine (as often they are) and bloody men, ſuch as Ioab, they ought not; yea, they never were by any Law of God, admitted to the Temple and Sacraments, what they did, de facto, or the Prieſts permitted, is not the queſtion. It was Davids ſinne that he took not away the head of bloody Ioab when he killed Abner and Amaſa. 2. How doth Eraſtus prove that David neglected to puniſh the inceſt of Abſolon (his ſinfull neglect in not puniſhing his murther I yield) for Abſolon was never in Davids power to puniſh after he committed that inceſt; poſſibly he neglected to puniſh his owne Concubines, that is but a conjecture. It is as like Abſolon forced the Concubines to that inceſt as any other thing. 3. For that Pſal. 14. There is none that doth good; it is ſpoken of the naturall corruption of all mankind, who therefore cannot be juſtified by the works of the Law, as Paul expoundeth it, Rom. 3. 9, 10, 11, 19, 20, 21. and not of ſcandals puniſhable by the Magiſtrates; and where this corruption did break out, in bloods within the Church, it ought to have been puniſhed, both by the Magiſtrate and Church: ſo it is an argument yet, a facto ad jus, and a great inconſequence. 4. I aske for what cauſe doth the Spirit of God rebuke killing of the Children to Molech, and coming that ſame day to the Temple? Becauſe it was a ſinne and particularly a prophaning of the Sanctuary, which was one ſpeciall holy thing to God, Ezek. 23. 38, 39. Ier. 7. 8▪ 9, 10, 11. It was no ſin to come to the Temple: Sure it was commanded of God in his Law, as Eraſtus yieldeth. What was the ſin then? to come with their hands full of blood, and of the unnaturall blood of their owne Children was the ſinne; and yet if they had repented, to come after they had killed their Children, was no ſinne, nor any prophaning of the Sanctuary of God. Then all their ſinne was, that being Morally unclean, they came to the Sanctuary; Ergo, God forbade ſuch bloody men to come to his Sanctuary; becauſe God forbiddeth all ſinne in his perfect Law; Ergo, thoſe that deſerved to dye by the hand of the Magiſtrate for open murther, deſerved for that open murther to be debarred from the holy things of God, what ever Eraſtus ſay on the contrary.
Erastus. The adverſaries contend, that ſome are to be excommunicatedPage 341. who deſerve not to dye; as if any to a light injury, adde contumacy; But they ſhould have a warrant for this, for this is a contradiction. (Every one who is clean according to the Law, ſhould keep the Paſſeover) and this (ſome who is clean according to the Law, (to wit, who liveth wickedly and ſcandalouſly, and yet is Ceremonially clean) ſhould not keep the Paſſeover.)
Anſ. We finde no diſtinction made by Chriſt, Matth. 18▪ and therefore we make none; He that offendeth his brother, (Chriſt maketh no exceptions of light or ſmall offences) if he cannot be gained by admonitions, and be contumacious againſt the Church, he is reputed as a heathen and a publican; and this is our warrant. 2. Let Eraſtus anſwer this contradiction according to his owne way. Every one who is Ceremonially clean ſhould come to the Temple. Some who are Ceremonially clean, (to wit, who the ſame day have ſlaine their ſons to Molech) ſhould not come into the Temple. The affirmative is holden as a truth by Eraſtus. The negative is the word of the Lord, Ezech. 23. 38, 39. 3. It is no contradiction which Eraſtus propoſeth: For every one who is Ceremonially clean, ſhould not keep the Paſſeover, except alſo he be Morally clean: For he that diſcerneth not the Lords body, ſhould not eat; and the Lambe was no leſſe Sacramentally the Lords body, then the Bread and Wine is his body, ſo the former is falſe, in rei veritate. The latter, to wit, Every one Ceremonially cleane ſhould not keepe the Paſſeover, to Eraſtus is falſe: Now of two propoſitions contradicent, both cannot be falſe, Eraſtus may know this is bad Logick.
Erastus. The Prophets rebuked the abuſe and prophaningEraſt. l. 6. c. 2. p. 341. of the Sacraments, but they interdicted none circumciſed of the uſe of the Sacraments, they ſaid the ſacrifices of the wicked were no more welcome to God, then if they offered things forbidden (dogs and ſwines blood) to God, but they never ſay the Prieſts are to be accuſed for admitting ſuch into the Sacraments. They accuſe and rebuke the Prieſts that they tranſgreſſed, and taught not the people aright, but never that they admitted ſuch into the holy things of God: The Prophets ſay alwayes thoſe things are wicked before God, but not in the face of the Church.
Anſ. If the Prophets rebuked the prophaning of the Sacraments, then they alſo forbade prophane men to uſe the Sacraments, could the Prophets rebuke any thing but ſin? Ergo, they forbade the ſinne which they rebuked: Ergo, they forbade the man that had murthered his ſonne to Molech, to come to the Sanctuary while he repented, for they could not rebuke but what they forbad. 2. If the bloody mans comming to the Sanctuary in that caſe, was nothing more acceptable to God, then the offering of a dog to God; then as the offering of a dog to God, was both forbidden to the people and to the Prieſt, ſo was the people and Prieſt both accuſed for the bloody mans comming into the Temple, the one ſhould ſin in comming, the other in admitting him to come. 3. The Prieſts are expreſly accuſed for this, Ezek. 22, 25, 26. and 44. 23, 24. Hag. 2. 11, 12, 13. 4. Thoſe were not onelyonly ſinnes in foro Dei, before God, for ſo when they were ſecret, they were ſinnes before God, but when openly knowen, as Jer. 7. 9, 10, &c. Ezek. 23. 38, 39. they were the Prieſts ſins: The bloody are forbidden to come to the Sanctuary; what then? were not the Porters whoſe calling it was to hold out the uncleane, to debar all whom the Lord forbade to come? Certainly, they excluded to their knowledge all whom God excluded, elſe how had they the charge to keepe the doores of the Lords Houſe? and the Prieſts are not onelyonly rebuked for not inſtructing the people, but for erring in governing, Ier. 5. 31. they are not Prophets, but Prieſts and Governours both Eccleſiaſticall and civill, that the Prophet complaineth of, who did rule with rigour & cruelty over the people, beſide that they feed not the flocke but themſelves, Ezek. 34. 1, 2, 3, &c. Ier. 23. 1, 2, 3, 4. and 10. 21. and 22. 22. and 50. 6. Micah 2. 11. Hoſ. 4. 18. Micah 7. 3.
Erastus. Though ill doers be not killed by the Magiſtrate,Page 341. yet it followeth not that God for any ſuch cauſe (deſerving death) would have them debarred à recto uſu, from the right uſe of holy things by ſome that are not Magiſtrates, nor are manifeſt Idolaters, Apoſtates, and Hereticks, though they be not put to death by the Magiſtrate, to be debarred by theſe fancied or imaginary Presbyters.
Anſ. 1. Erastus taketh ever for confeſſed, without any probation, that it is rectus uſus, the right uſe of the holy things of God, that men with bloodie hands uſe them, which is foreign: a moſt falſe principle, for he that killeth his children to Molech, and that ſame day cometh into the Sanctuary of God, is ſo farre from the right uſing of the holy things of God, that the Lord ſaith expreſly, his comming in in that condition to the Sanctuary is, (ſaith the Lord,) the prophaning of my Sanctuary, Ezek. 23. 39. is this rectus uſus Ceremoniarum? the right uſe of the holy things of God? It is not: 1. It is a forbidden uſe of holy things, Iſa. 1. 13. Mat. 7. 6. Mat. 5. 23. 2. It is a rebuked uſe of holy things,Eraſtus 341 ſequitur (ſi faci…oroſi ſint arcendi … Sacrament is) eligendos eſſe qui malis interdieant oratione, lectione, Elcemoſynarum diſtributione, &c. Ier. 7. 9, 10, 11. Iſa. 66. 3. 3. It is a prophaning of holy things, Ezek. 23. 38, 39. 4. It is ſuch a uſe as bringeth damnation to the party that uſeth it, 1 Cor. 11. 27, 29. and it is all theſe quoad externa, in externall things. 2. Eraſtus could yeeld they be debarred, but by the Magiſtrate, not by Imaginary Presbyters. But all his Arguments, (as I ſhew before) doe prove they ſhould be debarred, à recto uſu, from the right uſe of holy things by no man, no more then they ſhould be debarred from giving of almes, or reading the word, this is Eraſtus his owne Argument; I pray you may the Magiſtrate, or any on earth by any authority inhibite a Malefactor, or a Murtherer, who ought to die by the Magiſtrate, to read the Word, to give almes, to pray for mercy to God, becauſe he hath killed a man? 3. If hereticks, apoſtates, open idolaters are to be debarred, by whom ſhall they be debarred: Eraſtus, pag. 207. thinketh they oughtThe Magiſtrate cannot admit, to, and debar from the Sacrament. not to be admitted to the Sacraments, who ſhall debar them? The Magiſtrate, (ſaith he) But the Magiſtrate himſelfe is the apoſtate, the heretick, the idolater. 2. He that may debarre from the ſeals, may admit to the ſeals; he that may do both, Ex Officio, is the formall diſpenſer of the ſeals by office, that the Magiſtrate is not: He that may put out, or take in into the houſe by ſupream power, is the Lord of the houſe: He who by office may admit ſome to the Table, and debarre other ſome, is the Steward. But the Magiſtrate is neither the lord of the Church, nor the ſteward of the houſe, by office. We do not hold this conſequence; the Lord commanded ill doers to be killed; Ergo, He ordained in that ſame commandement, that they be Excommunicated? Nor do we ſay all thoſe who were to be Excommunicated, were to be killed, as Eraſtus ſaith: Nor that Excommunication in the New Teſtament ſucceedeth in place of killing in the Old Teſtament; we ſee no light of Scripture going before us in theſe.
Erastus. It is a wonder that you ſay, that the godly MagiſtratePage 346. doth procure the externall Peace of the Common-wealth, but not the ſalvation of the ſubjects, that the Presbyters do only care for.
Anſ. The Sword is no intrinſecall mean of the ſaving of anyThe ſword no intrinſecall mean of gaining ſouls. mans ſoul: It is true, the godly Magiſtrate may procure a godly life; but as a cauſe removens impedimentum, removing idolatry, hereſie, wolves and falſe teachers from the flock, and commanding under the paine of the Sword, that Paſtors do their duty. But Chriſt aſcending on high, gave Paſtors and Teachers to gather a Church; but not Magiſtrates armed with the Sword.
Erastus. The Magiſtrates Sword is a most efficacious mean to bringPage 347. men to the knowledge of God, nothing more effectuall then affliction, and the croſſe, when right teaching is joyned therewith; examples teach us that in danger of death, men have ſeriouſly turned to God, who before could be moved by no exhortations. But you ſay all die not in the Lord, nor repent; nor (ſay I) do they all die in the Lord, who are taken away by diſeaſes, or are excommunicated; yea, Excommunication maketh many hypocrites.
Anſ. 1. Eraſtus here extolleth the Sword of the Magiſtrate, as a more effectuall mean to ſalvation, then exhortations or the Goſpel: But I read that Paſtors are the Miniſters by whom we beleeve, and that they are workers with God, and fellow-builders; and Fathers to convert, edifie to ſalvation, and beget men over again to Chriſt, 1 Cor. 3. 5, 9. 1 Cor. 2. 4, 15. Ambaſſadors of God, 2 Cor. 5. 20. Friends of the Bridgroome, 2 Cor. 11. 2. Ioh. 3. 29. Angels, Rev. 2. 1. But I never read any ſuch thing of the Magiſtrate, and that the Goſpel is the power of God to ſalvation, Rom. 1. 16. The arme of the Lord, Eſay 53. 1. Sharper then a two edged ſword, lively and mighty in operation, Heb. 4. 12. You never read any ſuch thing of the Sword of the Magiſtrate, the reſt are before anſwered.
Erastus. Some may be changed in a moment, as the publican, Luke Page 348. 349.18. Z…cheus, The repenting woman▪ Luke 7. If therefore they profeſſe repentance, they are not to be debarred from the Lords ſupper.
Anſ. Put it in forme thus; Thoſe who may be changed and tranſlated from darkneſſe to light in a moment, and ſay, that they repent, are to be admitted to the Lords ſupper: I aſſume, But doggs and ſwine, and doggiſh and furious perſecutors▪ who are to be debarred from the Sacraments: As Eraſtus ſaith, pag. 207. may be changed in a moment, and ſay they repent; Ergo, thoſe are to be admitted to the Sacraments, who are not to be admitted to the Sacraments▪ let Eraſtus prove the Major propoſition. 2. We finde no ſuch ſudden change in the Publican, Zacheus, or the repenting woman, as Eraſtus ſeemeth to inſinuate. 3. Chriſt who knoweth the heart, and can change men in a moment, can at firſt welcome perſons ſuddenly converted; Ergo, Muſt the ſtewards and diſpenſers of the myſteries upon a (may be) or a (may not be) reach the pearls of the Goſpel to doggs and ſwine, whom they ſee to be ſuch? It is a wide conſequence, He that bringeth his gift to the Alter, may in a moment be changed; Ergo, He ſhould not leave his gift at the Altar, and go and firſt be reconciled to his brother; He is preſently without more adoe to offer his gift, his heart is ſtraighted in a moment, if we beleeve Eraſtus. But the rather of this; that the man is in a moment changed: He is to be debarred, leaſt his ſcandalous approaching to uſe the holy things of God, make the work of converſion ſuſpitious to others. 4. This argument preſuppoſeth that unviſible converſion, giveth a man right in foro Eccleſi… in the Churches court, to the ſeals of the Covenant, and ſo there ſhould be no need of externall profeſſion at all, which is abſurd.
Erastus. Shall not then idolaters and apoſtates be debarred? as w… (ſaith he) deny an idolater▪ and an apoſtate to be a Member of th… Church of Chriſt; ſo we thinke the man that defendeth his wickedneſſe, is not to be reckoned amongſt the Members of the Church; An… as we think the former are to be baniſhed out of the ſociety of Chriſtians, ſo we think the latter are not to be ſuffered in that ſociety.
Anſ. The Idolater that maketh defection, and the apoſtate were once Members of the Church; what hath made them now no Members? Who ſhould judge them, and caſt them out? the Magiſtrate? I anſwer, there is no Chriſtian Magiſtrate: If the Church muſt do it, here truly, is all granted by Erastus, that he hath diſputed againſt in ſix books, even this very Excommunication. But if there be a Chriſtian Magiſtrate; what Scripture is there to warrant that he ſhould caſt out a Member out of Chriſts body? Here is an Excommunication without precept, promiſe, or practiſe in the word; we read that the Church of Corinth congregated together, hath a command to judge, and caſt out a ſcandalous Member, 1 Cor. 5. 4, 5, 11, 12, 13. out from amongſt the midſt of them: Let Eraſtus ſay as much from the New Teſtament, for his Magiſtraticall caſting ou…. 2. What reaſon is there by Eraſtus his way, for caſting out an idolater, and a man that defendeth his owne wickedneſſe? 1. May not God convert thoſe ſuddenly; as he did the thiefe on the croſſe, and Saul? Ergo, They ſhould not be caſt out. 2. The Magiſtrate cannot more cut off thoſe from being Members of Chriſts body; then he can remove their faith and internall communion with Chriſt. Now for this cauſe Eraſtus ſaith, the Church cannot Excommunicate, pag. 1. 2 Theſſ. 3. and 4. 3. Chriſt and the Apoſtles did neither caſt out Iudas, nor Scribes, Phariſees, or Publicans out of the Church, though they were worſe then idolaters. 4. No helps of ſalvation are to be denied even to idolaters, and to men that defend their owne wickedneſſe, but their remaining in the Church amongſt the godly, is a helpe of their ſalvation; and God inviteth them to repentance, and the ſtaying in the Church; And the Sacraments are to Eraſtus means of repentance, and this caſting out muſt be to ſave them: for no power is given of God to the Magiſtrate or Church for deſtruction, but for edification▪ Now to put them out of the Church, that they may be ſaved, is as Erastus conceiteth, to caſt a laſcivious Virgin out of the company of chaſte Matr…ns, to the end ſhe may preſerve her chaſtity: I ſpeak here all in the language of Eraſtus, who uſeth all thoſe againſt caſting any out of the Church, by Presbyters; but they ſtand with equall ſtrength, againſt his caſting out of idolaters and apoſtates out of the Church, and ſo do the reſt of his Arguments: Therefore this concluſion of Eraſtus is a granting us the whole cauſe; after in ſix books, he hath pleaded none ſhould be Excommunicated, he falleth on Bellarmines Tutiſſimum igitur, &c. when he had written ſix books againſt juſtification by faith▪
Laſtly, why ſhould idolaters, apoſtates, and obſtinately wicked men be excluded from the diſpute of Excommunication and ſuſpenſion from the Sacraments: for he knoweth that Beza, and Proteſtant Divines do make theſe the ſpeciall, though not the whole ſubject of the diſpute: Now Eraſtus concluding his ſix books, doth hereby profeſſe he hath never faithfully ſtated the queſtion, when he excludes thoſe from the ſubjectum queſtionis, who eſpecially heareth not the Church, and ought to be Excommunicated. Thus have I given an account, as I could, of the wit of Eraſtus, againſt the freedome of the Kingdome of the Lord Ieſus.