The divine right of church-government and excommunication: or a peacable dispute for the perfection of the holy scripture in point of ceremonies and church government; in which the removal of the Service-book is justifi'd, the six books of Tho: Erastus against excommunication are briefly examin'd; with a vindication of that eminent divine Theod: Beza against the aspersions of Erastus, the arguments of Mr. William Pryn, Rich: Hooker, Dr. Morton, Dr. Jackson, Dr. John Forbes, and the doctors of Aberdeen; touching will-worship, ceremonies, imagery, idolatry, things indifferent, an ambulatory government; the due and just powers of the magistrate in matters of religion, and the arguments of Mr. Pryn, in so far as they side with Erastus, are modestly discussed. To which is added, a brief tractate of scandal ... / By Samuel Rutherfurd, Professor of Divinity in the University of St. Andrews in Scotland. Published by authority.

CHAP. IX.

Quest. 5.* 1.1

The place 1 Cor. 5. for Excommunication, vindicated from the Objections of Erastus.

Erastus. Paul did nothing contrary to the Command of Christ: But Christ excluded no man from the Passeover, not Iudas; Er∣go,

Neither minded ••e to exclude the incestuous man; he saith not, 1 Cor. 5. Why debarred you him not from the Sacrament? But why did you not obtain by your tears and prayers, as Augustine expoundeth it, that the man might be cut off by death?

Ans. Christ would not take the part of a visible Church on him, to teachus that none should be cast out of the Church for secret and latent crimes: 2. Paul did nothing without the Command of Christ: But Christ neither in the Old, or New Testament, com∣manded his Church to pray for the miraculous cutting off of a scan∣dalous person; give an instance in all Scripture, except you make this one which is contraverted, your instance.

Erastus. Paul 2 Cor. 2. absolveth the man from all punishment,* 1.2 and nameth onely 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 rebuking; Ergo, He was not excluded from the Sacrament.

Ans. Exclusion from the Sacrament, is but one of the fruits of Excom∣munication; not formally Excommunication; yet he harpeth on this alway, that to be excommunicated, or to be delivered to Satan, is but to be debarred from the Sacrament. 2. The answer presupposeth he was Ex∣communicated, we urge the place for a precept only of Excommuni∣cation, if he repented to the satisfying of the Church, there was no need of Excommunication. 3. If the man 2 Cor. 2. was deli∣vered from rebuke onely, and if that was all his punishment; Ergo, he was not miraculously cut off, for then he must have been miraculously cut off, and raised from death to life againe, unlesse miraculous cutting off had been no punishment: But if he was not miraculously cut off, because he prevented it, then with what faith could the whole Church pray for the miraculous killing of a brother, and not rather that he might repent and live? 4. In all the Word of God, the intrinsecall end of putting to death a Malefactor, is to avenge Gods quarrell, Rom. 13. 4. That all Is∣rael may hear and feare, and doe no more any such wickednes, Deut. 13. 11. To put away the guilt of sinne off the Land, Numb. 34. 33, 34. that the Lords anger may be turned away, and a common plague on the Church stayed, when justice is executed on the ill do∣er, Psal. 106. 28, 29, 30, 31. And it concerneth the Church and Common-wealth, more then the soule of the Malefactor, and there is nothing of such an end here. But the intrinsecall end here, is, that the mans Spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord

Jesus, and this delivering to Satan is in the Name and autho∣rity, and by the power of the Lord Iesus, 1 Cor. 5. 4. 5. Now the* 1.3 Sonne of man came to save soules, not to destroy bodies, and burne cities; and though by the power of Christ, Peter miracu∣lously killed Ananias and Saphira, and Paul stroke Elimas the Socererer blinde, yet these being Miracles, we heare not that this was done by any interveening act of the Church conveened, or by their prayers to bring vengeance, by a miracle, on the ill do••r. Peter and Paul doe both these not asking any consent, or inter∣vention of the peoples prayers, but by immediate power in them∣selves from the Lord Jesus. 2. If any such power were given to the Church, by their Prayers to obtain from God a miraculous killing of all scandalous persons, who infecteth the Church, in case the ci∣vill Magistrate were an Heathen, and an enemy to Christian Reli∣gion and refused to purge the Church; Christ, who provideth stan∣ding remedies for standing diseases must have left this miraculous power to all the christian Churches in the earth that are under Heathen Magistrates, or some power by way of Analogie like to this, to remove the scandalous person, but we finde not any such power in the Churches under Heathen Magistrates, except power of refusing to the offender the Communion, and rejecting him as an Heathen and Publican that he may be ashamed and repent. 3. The whole faithfull at Corinth, men, women and children and all the Saints (for to those all, i•• this power given, as Erastus saith) must* 1.4 have had a word of promise (if they ought to have prayed in faith as the Prophets and Apostles prayed in faith, that they might work miracles) that Paul was miraculously to kill the incestuous man▪ But that all and every one who were puffed up, and mourned not at this mans fall, had any such word of promise I conceive not imaginable by the Scriptures, for the Proposition I take it as unde∣niable; if Paul rebuked the Corinthians all and every one, because they prayed not, and mourned not to God, that Paul wrought not this miracle in killing the incestuous man, they behoved to have a word of God, for their warrant, commanding them to pray: O Lord give power to Paul, to kill such▪ an incestuous man miracu∣lously: For such Faith of miracles had Christ, and all the Pro∣phets and Apostles, Joh. 11. 41. So did Sampson pray in faith, Judg. 16. 28. and Elias 1 Kings 18. 36, 37, 38. and so did the Apostles

pray, Act. 4. 24, 29, 30. and with them the Church of believers, for working of miracles in generall; for the Apostles had a word of promise in the generall for working of miracles, Mar. 16. 17, 18. But that the Apostles had before hand revealed to them all the mi∣racles they were to work: I cannot believe by any Scripture, But that it was revealed to them upon occasion only, by an occasi∣onall immediate Revelation, Do this particular miracle, Hic & nunc: And this I am confirmed to believe: Because Elisha, 2 Kin. 4. was mistaken in sending his servant with his staffe to raise the dead son of the Shunamite (a Pastor with nothing but a club and naked words cannot give life to the dead) ver. 31. and therefore the working of a miracle in particular Hic & nunc was not al∣wayes revealed to the most eminent Prophets, such as Elisha was; and so I beleeve, as working of miracles on this; and this man, came not from an habit in the Prophets and Apostles, far lesse from a habit subject to their free will, but God reserved that liberty to himself, to act his servants immediatly, both to pray by the faith of this miracle, Hic & nunc, and to work this miracle, Hic & nunc. Now to the Assumption: How can Erastus or any of his follow∣ers assure our conscience that God had given the Faith of miracles to all the sanctified in Christ Jesus at Corinth, whom Paul so sharp∣ly rebuketh, 1 Cor. 5. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. That this being revealed to them by God, and they having the faith, that it was the will of Iesus Christ, that Paul should kill, or (as some say) deliver to Satan this incestuous man to be miracuously tormented in the body or flesh, as Iob was, that he might repent; is it like Christ would reveal more of his will, touching every particular miracle to be done by Paul, to all and every secure one in the Church of Corinth that were puffed up, and mourned not for this mans fall, then he revealed to the A∣postles themselves? But I have proved that the Apostles and Pro∣phets knew not, nor had they the particular Faith of this, and this miracle, how then had all and every one of the Church of Corinth this Faith? Now they behoved to have this light of Faith of this miracle revealed to them, that this was Christs will, that Paul should work a miracle for the destruction of the man; else the Corinthians could no more be justly rebuked, because they prayed not to God, that Paul might work this miraculous destruction of the man (which yet he never wrought, as its clear, 2. Cor. 2. he

was not killed, but repented, and was pardoned) then because they prayed not, that he miraculously might cure the criple man at Ly∣stra, Act. 14. or that he might work any other miracle. Now how was this revealed to all of the Church of Corinth that this was Christs will? If it be said, they were to pray conditionally that God would either by a miracle take him away, or then in mercy* 1.5 give him repentance to prevent destruction: 1. We have no surer ground for a conditionall and dis-junctive Faith of miracles in the Corinthians, then for an absolute Faith: 2. If it was the will of Christ, that the man should by himself be miraculously killed, why did not the Apostle immediatly by himself kill him? Why? It was the Apostles fault as well as the sin of the Corinthians, that the man remained as a leaven to sowre and infect the Church; yea, it was more the Apostles fault then theirs, for he had only the imme∣diate power miraculously to purge the Church; some may say, as the Lord Iesus was hindred some time to work miracles, because of the peoples unbelief, Matth. 13. 58. So here Paul was hindred to work this miracle on the scandalous man, because of their un∣beliefe.

Ans. Paul could not professe this; for he had not assayed to work any miracle of this kinde, as Christ had done, Matth. 13. But only sheweth them of a report came to him of the fact, and of their security, and not mourning: 2. Paul should then ra∣ther have rebuked their unbelief, and not praying that God would miraculously destroy the man; but this Paul doth not. 3. Paul re∣buketh them, for not judging him, not putting him out of the midst of them: Must that be Pauls meaning; pray to God that I may have grace and strength immediatly from God, to kill him miraculously, and to judge him. Now they knew the Apostle miraculously thus judged those that are without, as he stroke with blindnesse; Ely∣mas who was without the visible Church: I conceive the whole Churches were to pray, as the Apostles do with the Saints, Act. 4. 29. 30. That miracles may be wrought both on those that are with∣out and within: But of this judging he saith, ver. 12. What have I to do to judge them also that are without? Do not ye judge them that are within? 4. It is directly contrary to Christs direction, Matth. 18. Which is, that by rebukes we gaine the offending brothers soul: Now Erastus will have him gained to Christ,

by removing his soule from his body, and by killing him. Yea, the Apostle writing of the censuring of those in Thessalonica, who walked unorderly, and obeyed not the Apostles Word, which doth include such as breake out in Incest, Adulteries, Murthers, is so farre from giving direction to kill them miracu∣lously, that he biddeth onely keep no Church company, nor Christi∣an fellowship with them, but yet they are to be admonished as bre∣thren; Ergo, they were not to be miraculously killed, for then they should be capable of no admonition at all being killed; And could there be worse men then was amongst the Phillipians, Enemies of the crosse of Christ, whose end is destruction, whose God was their belly? Yet there was no blood in the Apostles pen, he chides not the Phillipians, nor the Galathians who had amongst them men of the same mettall, Gal. 5. 7, 8, 9, 10. Ver. 19. 20, 21. Nor the Ti∣mothies who would have to doe with farre worse men, 2 Tim, 3. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Nor Titus who had to doe with wicked Cretians, Tit. 1. because they cryed not to God, for Pauls bloodie sword of vengeance, that these wicked men might be cut off by Sa∣tan, nor doth the Apostle to the Hebrewes draw this Sword a∣gainst those who sinned against the Holy Ghost, c. 10. c. 6. Nor Iames against bloody warriours, Murtherers, Adulterers, Oppres∣sors, c. 4. c. 5. Nor doth Peter and Iude use this sword, or com∣mand the Churches to use such carnall weapons against the wic∣kedest of men, but recommended long-suffering, rebuking, the rod of Church-discipline, to reject Hereticks after admonitions. Hence I argue negatively; in all the Scripture, never did the Lord com∣mand that they should pray to God and mourne, that he would inflict bodily vengeance and death, or yet sicknesse on any scan∣dalous professor, nor is there promise, precept, or practise in any Scripture of this Church censure. 5. Erastus doth thinke a court of the Church, that hath power to lead Witnesses, judge and cen∣sure offenders an extream wronging of the Magistrate, and an incroaching on his Liberties, but here is a more bloody Court, for if the whole faithfull are to pray for bodily death by the Ministery of the Devill, upon one of their own brethren, because he hath lyen with his fathers wife, or fallen in Adultery, or Murther, as David did: Surely they must pray in faith, and upon certaine knowledge that he is guilty; the Law of God and Nature must

then have warranted the whole Saints, Women and Children, to meet in a grand Jurie and Inquest, either to have the fact proved by Witnesses, or to heare his owne confession; else how could they pray in faith, if it was not sure to their conscience that the man had done this deed? Here is a Jury of men and wo∣men, I am sure unknowne to the Apostolique Church. 2. A grea∣ter abridging of the Magistrates power then we teach: The Church shall take away the life of a Subject & never aske the Ma∣gistrates leave. 6. It is against Christs minde, Mat. 18. ••s Erastus expoundeth it, that Christians should go any further against an offending brother, then implead him before an Heathen, though he adde injurie to injurie: But this wa•• maketh the Holy Ghost sharply to rebuke all the Saints when they are off••••ded, before the barre of Heaven, by crying miraculous blood••e vengeance upon the Offender. 7. It is evident this man repen••ed, and that the Corinthians confirmed their love to him, and did forgive him, 2 Cor. 2. 7. 10. Ergo, He was not miraculously killed. But we ne∣ver read, where it was Gods will and Law that an ••ll doers life should be spared, though he should repent, because his taking a∣way is for example that others may feare. 2. That evill, and as it is here, leaven may be taken away; if then it had been bodi∣ly death, I see not how Paul and the Corinthians could have dis∣pensed with it. 8. Erastus doth not, nor can he confirme his un∣known Exposition by any parallel Scripture of the Old and New Testament, which I objected to him in his Exposition of Matth. 18. Let the Reader therefore observe how weak Erastus is, in arguing against pregnant Scriptures, for Excommunication.

Erastus. You must prove, that to mourn, because the man is not ta∣ken* 1.6 away, is all one, as to mourn that he is not debarred from the Sa∣craments by the Ministers and Elders.

Ans. That is denyed; to be debarred from the Sacraments, is but a consequent of Excommunication: 2. It is a putting of the man from amongst them, not by death, that we have refuted; not from eating and drinking with him onely, that I improved be∣fore: Ergo, it must be a Church ou••-casting.

Erastus. Paul might deliver the man to Satan, though he did Re∣pent;* 1.7 as the Magistrate did punish Malefactors, whether they Re∣pented or no••.

An. Ergo, he repen: ed, and was pardoned by the Corinthians, 2 Cor. 2. 10. after he had been killed, which is absurd.

Erastus. If to deliver to Satan, were nothing but to debar the man from the Sacraments, ever while he should repent; Why should Paul with a great deal of pains and many words, have excused himself to the Corinthians, 2 Cor. 2. and cap. 7. and as it were deprecate the offending of them; for they should know, that this manner of coercing and punishing, was, and ought to be exercised in the Church; if it was but a saving remedy and invitation to repentance, Why were they sad? They should rather have rejoyced, as the Angels of Heaven doth at the Conversion of a sinner, then Paul must have intended ano∣ther thing.

Ans. This is a meer conjecture as Erastus granteth most he* 1.8 saith against the place is; for he saith, Aliam conjecturam etiam addidi, such a violent remedy of repentance, as is the cutting off of a member from Christs body, being the most dreadfull sentence of the King of the Church, nearest to the last sentence, was to Paul, and ought to be a matter of sorrow to all the Servants of God, as the foretelling of sad Iudgements, moved Christ to tears, Matth. 23. 37▪ Luke 19. 41, 42. And moved Ieremiah to sorrow, cap. 9. 1. And yet Christ was glad at the home-coming of sinners, Luke 15. 6, 7, &c. These two are not contrary as Erastus dreameth, but subordinate; to wit, (That Christ should inflict the extreamest vengeance of Ex∣communication, which also being blessed of God, is a saving, though a violent remedy of repentance,) and (To rejoyce at the blessed fruit of Excommunication, which is the mans repentance:) And the Apostle 2 Cor. 7. professeth his sorrow, That he made them sad, ver. 8. and also rejoyceth at their gracious disposition who were made sorry: He is far from excusing himself, as if he had done any thing in weak∣nesse; this were enough, and it is an Argument of our Protestant Divines, to prove that the Books of the Macabees, are not Dited by the Holy Ghost, as Canonick Scripture is; because the Author 2 Macab. 15. 38. excuseth himself in that History, as if he might have erred, which no Pen-man of holy Scripture can do: And E∣rastus layeth the like blame on Paul, as if he had repented that he made them sorry, by chiding them, for not praying for a miraculous killing of a Brother: This is enough to make the Epistles of Paul to be suspected as not Canonick Scripture; yea, Paul saith the

contrary, 2 Cor. 7. 9. Now I reioyce, not that yee were made sorry, but that yee sorrowed to repentance, for yee were made sorry after a godly manner, that ye might receive dammage by us in nothing, and 2 Cor. 2. 8, 9. he exhorteth them to rejoycing, at the mans Repentance, and to confirme their love to him, (which demonstrates that he was now a living man, and not miraculous∣ly killed,) and commendeth their obedience, v. 9. in sorrowing, as he did chide them that they sorrowed not, 1 Cor. 5. 2. So that Paul is so farre from accusing himselfe for making them sad, that by the contrary, he commends himselfe for that, and rejoy∣ceth thereat. And if the matter had been Excommunication, while the man should repent, (saith Erastus) they knowing this ought to be in the Church, they should rather have reioyced, then bin sorry. And I answer, if the matter had been a miraculous killing of him, that his Spirit might be saved in the day of the Lord: should they not reioyce at his saving in the day of the Lord, whether this saving be wrought by bodily killing, or by Excommunication? And so this conjecture may well be retorted. 2. They were not to bee sorry at the mans repentance, but to rejoyce; yet were they to be sorry at the violent mean of cutting him off from Christs body, as a father may be glad at the life and health of his childe, and and yet be sorry that by no other mean his health can be pro∣cured, but by cutting off a finger, or a hand of his childe. 3. They knew that miraculous killing (as Erastus dreameth) was also a saving ordinance (the remaining in the Church, or not remaining is all one) because Paul chideth them, (as he dreameth,) that the man might be miraculously killed.

Erastus. What need was there that the Corinthians with such* 1.9 diligence should intercede for the man, if they knew when he repen∣ted, he was to be received againe into the Church? Now that they interceded for him is clear, for Paul saith, 2 Cor. 2. 10. To whom yee forgive any thing, I forgive also.

Ans. Because there is a great hazard in Excommunication, of an higher degree of obduration and condemnation; if the party be not gained. 2. I see no ground for this conjecture, that the Corinthians interceded for him at Pauls hand, for if he ought to have been miraculously killed, then whether he repented or re∣pented not, both Paul and the interceders sinned; Paul in being

broken, they in requesting for a dispensation of a Law, in which God would not dispense, as he that would request to spare the life of* 1.10 a repenting Murtherer against Gods expresse Law, should sinne; and Paul should sinne in pardoning upon request, where God would not pardon.

Erastus. How excuseth Paul himselfe that he would try their obe∣dience, that c. 7. he would have their care for him made manifest, if he had not commanded a greater thing, then to debarre a wicked man from the Sacraments?

Ans. This is but a shadow of a reason against the Word of God, for to be cast out of Christs body, and not acknowledged for an Isra∣elite of God, and that in heaven and earth: and so to be debarred from the Seals, is a higher thing then bodily killing, as to be re∣ceived as a Member againe, and to be written amongst the living in Ierusalem, is like the rising from the dead, as may be gathe∣red from Rom. 11. 15. and is farre more then deliverance from miraculous killing.

Erastus. These words, ye was made sorry according to God, that* 1.11 ye might receive dammage of us in nothing, cannot agree with the purpose, they should have suffered no losse by obtaining pardon to a miserable man excluded from the Sacraments, while he should re∣pent; but if he was to be killed, they should have lost a brother, and so suffered dammage.

Ans. The hazard of losing his soule, repentance not being so easie, as Erastus imagineth, had been a greater losse, then the losse of a temporall life, the soule being to be saved in the day of the Lord.

Erastus. Paul requireth his Spirit, and the power of the Lord Ie∣sus* 1.12 to this worke; Ergo, It was more then to debarre from the Sa∣craments.

Ans. Erastus should prove; Ergo, It was more then to Ex∣communicate. 2. Ergo, It was rather more then bodily death. His seventh reason I hope after to examine.

Erastus. Paul saith, he decreed to doe this, and does not command* 1.13 the Church to doe it, or that the Church alone should doe it: We never read that Paul, whether alive or dead, did write to one, or many, to deliver any to Satan, for the destruction of the flesh, that was proper to the Apostles onely, as the gift of healing was, Act. 5. and c. 13.

and he writeth, he will come himselfe with the rod, and he himself 1 Tim. 1. delivered Hymeneus and Alexander to Satan.

Ans. This is much for us, you never read that Paul did write* 1.14 to one or many, and did chide them, because they prayed not that he might worke this and this particular miracle; or that without er∣ror he might write this or that Canonick Scripture, and there∣fore because this delivering to Satan, was commanded to the con∣veened together Church, with his Apostolique spirit, and warrant to deliver such a one to Satan, and to judge him. v. 12. And to purge him out, and cast him out, therefore am I perswaded it was no mi∣racle proper to Paul onely. 2. How prove you that Paul, his a∣lone without the Church Excommunicated Hymeneus? Paul saith that Timothy received the gift of God, by his laying on him hands, 2 Tim. 1. 6. Ergo, By the laying on of his hands onely, and not of the whole Presbytery? It followeth not, the contrary is, 1 Tim. 4. 14. 3. Delivering to Satan, v. 5. is all one with purging out, v. 7. as is cleare by the Illation. I have decreed, though absent, to deliver such a one to Satan. Hence his consequence, v. 7. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Purge out therefore. 2. To deliver to Satan, is either all one with judgeing those that are within, v. 12. And so with judging this man, and with putting of him out, v. 13. or it is not all one; if these be all one, then hath the Church a hand in this delivering to Satan, and so it is not a miraculous killing. Erastus granteth the conse∣quence, if these be not all one, this is two judgings of the man, one of Pauls v. 5. by miraculous killing, and another of Pauls and the Church, v. 12. This latter must be some Church judge∣ing of those that are within the Church, common to Paul and the Corinthians, as the words cleare, and which is opposed to Gods judging of those that are without; and this is so like Excommu∣nication, that Erastus must make some other thing of it. Now we cannot say that there was any miraculous judging of this man, common to Paul as an Apostle, and to the Corinthians, the ordi∣nary beleevers and Saints, as Erastus yeeldeth. 3. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to put* 1.15 away the man, which is expresly commanded to the Church of Corinth, v. 13. must be the same 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and putting away, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in the same word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is, v. 2. But that taking out of the midst of them is a miraculous killing of the man, as Erastus saith, now this cannot be, for then the people must be joyned in the

same work of miraculous killing with the Apostle Paul; now both we and Erastus must disclaim this; Ergo, there must be some com∣mon Church casting out, common to both.

Erastus. To put away out of the midst of them, is not to debar from the Sacraments, but to kill; if it were but to extrude the man out of the society of the faithfull, what need was there of publick mourning? and if he had been to be cast out amongst the heathen, how could the spirit be saved? as is said, for without the Church there is no sal∣vation.

Ans. To put away out of the midst of them, is to put the man out of the Congregation, as the word Careh is expounded before, and is not to kill: were Hymeneus and Alexander delivered to Sa∣tan, that they might learn not to blaspheme? what learning or Discipline can dead men be capable of? 2. There's need of mour∣ning when any is cut off from Christs body, it being the highest judgement of God on earth. 3. Without the visible Church alto∣gether as Heathens are, there is no salvation; But to be so with∣out the Church, as the casting out is a medicinall punishment, That the soul may be saved in the day of the Lord, is a mean to bring the soul in, to both the invisible and visible Church, and putteth none in that state, that they cannot be saved, but by the contrary in a way to be saved; so the man periret, nisi periret.

Erastus. It would seem, it may be proved from the Text, that the* 1.16 man persevered not in that wickednesse, for the Text saith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: He that hath done, and that hath wrought this deed, not he that doth this deed; and therefore it seems Paul would inflict punishment as a good Magistrate useth to do (even though the man repent) and he saith, that his spirit may be saved, then the man repented.

Ans. 1. Reconcile these two (Paul was as a good Magistrate to kill the man, though he should repent) and (yet at their intercession (saith Erastus) he did forgive him;) durst Paul at the request of men, pardon a Malefactor contrary to the duty of a good Magi∣strate? 2. Can Paul intend, in miraculous killing, only the saving of the mans soul, and knowing that he was saved, and having ob∣tained his end, yet he will use the mean, that is, he will kill him? or if he intended another end also, that others might fear, how could he not kill for this end? A good Magistrates zeal should

not be softned and blunted, for the request of men.

Erastus he saith, He decreed to deliver the man to Satan, for the destruction of the flesh, that the soul may be saved; now 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is to give over, to permit; here a person given, a person to whom, a person giving, to wit, Paul, and the end; wherefore, that the spirit may be saved; it is, as if I would give my son to a Master, either to be instructed, or chastised, so 1 Tim. 1. Act. 27. 28. Matth. 5. 18. Matth. 24. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Mar. 15. The brother shall deliver the brother to death, and the Lord saith to Satan, behold 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, I give him to thee, this is to deliver one afflicted, killed, condemned.

Ans. All this is needlesse; to be delivered over, is to be recom∣mended and taken in a good sense also, Act. 14. 26. Commended to the grace of God, Act. 15. 40. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and we* 1.17 deny not but to be delivered to Satan, is to be delivered to be af∣flicted, but the question is, what affliction is meant here; the af∣fliction of the flesh say we, or of the unrenewed part, opposed to a saved spirit.

Erastus. It is unpossible that the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 destruction, can be* 1.18 shown to signifie the destruction of the desires of sinfull flesh in all the New-Testament, it alwayes signifieth killing, death, destruction; nor doth the thing it self compell us to take it other wayes here, nor for killing and death, as 1 Thes. 5. It is true 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Rom. 8. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to kill, destroy, crucifie, are so taken, but never 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in either sacred or prophane Authors.

Ans. I conceive Chrysostom knew Greek better then Erastus,* 1.19 the man was delivered to Satan, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. That he might scourge him (as he did Job) with a hurtfull boyle or some other sicknesse. Hence as that learned and judicious Divine, who hath deserved excellently of the Protestant Chur∣ches,* 1.20 Petrus Molineus saith on the place, Chrysostom, Homo Grece eloquentiae R••rum exemplum, A rare example of Grecian eloquence, doth think per 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by the word destruction, not death, but some heavy torment to be meant; And I am sure Hieronymus, a man in the tongues incomparably skilled said, by destruction here, was meant jejunia & egrotationes, fasting and diseases: 2. Nor need we contend for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which in all Authors of the world, signifieth destruction, for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is to destroy; the question will rather be,

what is meant by the flesh, but certainly it is in prophane Greek Authors as unusuall (I except sacred Greek Authors, such as Basil, Chrysostom, who knew what mortification meant) to speak as Paul doth, Rom. 8. 13. If ye mortifie the deeds of the flesh, ye shall live: Let Erastus finde me a parallel to that in the New Testament, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 I think Erastus may not deny that this is to mortifie the sinfull works of the body of sin, yet A∣ristotle, Plato, Lucian, Plutarch, H••siod, Homer, nor any prophane Greek Author ever spake so: We shall therefore deny that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifieth never to Greek Authors any thing but bodily death: for* 1.21 2 Thess. 1. 9. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 everlasting destruction, is some more then bodily destruction. 3. We say it is unpossible that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 can be showen to signifie in either Old or New Testament, a miraculous destroying of the body by Satan, we retort this reason back upon Erastus, his Exposition is not tollerable, because it wanteth a pa∣rallel place, it is his own reason.

Erastus. The destruction of the flesh must be the destruction of the body, not of concupiscence, because he addeth that the spirit 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 may be saved, here the soul is opposed to the body.

Ans. Though we should grant, that by the flesh is meant the bo∣dy, yet it followeth not, it is the miraculous killing of the man, as I observed before. 2. It maketh nothing against Excommunication; for many learned Protestants teach, that though to deliver to Satan were a bodily punishment or conjoyned therewith, as the Learned Anto. Waleus doth observe; yet the Apostle is clear for Excommuni∣cation in this chapter; & the learned Molineus denyeth delivering to Satan to be expounded of Excommunication, and will have the de∣struction of the flesh to be some bodily tormenting of his body by Satan, & so doth sundry of the Fathers, especially Ambrose, Hyeroni∣mus, Augustinus, and Chrysostom; though Augustine be doubtful: Yet Molineus saith, Certum est paulum velle hunc incestum moveri com∣munione Ecclesia: sed id vult fieri ab ipsa Ecclesia Cor••nthiacâ, di∣cens, ver. 13. Tollite istum sceleratum è medio vèstrúm: And that grave and judicious Divine Piscator saith, on the place; That the forme of Excommunication is this delivering to Satan: but the de∣struction of the flesh, he thinketh to be the exhausting of the na∣turall strength of the body with sorrow for his sin, according to that Prov. 17. 22. A broken heart dryeth the bones: And therefore

it is to be observed that ••rastily, Erastus insisteth most on those points and syllables of a Text, whereon all Divines, Ancient and Modern do place least strength for Excommunication; I might therefore passe all Erastus his force against Excommunication in these, and he shall be not a whit nearer his point. 2. But I shall follow him; when 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the flesh, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the spirit are put to∣gether, I see no reason that the one should signifie the body, the other the soul: I know the contrary to be, Rom. 8. 1. Those that walketh 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 after the inordinate affections, and lusts of the flesh, are opposed to those that walk, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 after the spirit, and Gal. 5. 17. the flesh, (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) lusteth against the spirit, and the spirit (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) against the flesh, Joh. 3. 6. That which is born of the flesh, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is flesh, it is not that which is born of the body as body, and that which is born 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of the spirit is spirit, so Rom. 8. 9. 13, 14. Erastus should have shewed us such places wherein 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the flesh and the spirit signifieth the bo∣dy and the soul, when the matter of salvation is spoken of as here, That the spirit may be saved, ver. 5. then 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the flesh is for the most part, if not alwayes, taken in an evil part, for the corrup∣tion of mans nature.

Erastus. How could they desire the Apostle not to deliver him to Sa∣tan, that he might (as Beza expoundeth it) destroy his flesh, that is, bring him to repentance? How could Paul assent to such a Petition? How could the Apostle write that he did forgive him? Did Paul by forgiving him, permit him not to mortifie and destroy his flesh, and sin∣full lusts?

Ans. Let Erastus answer, How could the Corinthians beseech Paul not to kill him, that his soul may be saved in the day of the Lord? How could Paul grant such a Petition, as that the man should not be saved in the day of the Lord? How could Paul by pardoning the man, permit, that he should not be saved in the day of the Lord? for the saving of the mans soul, is no lesse a fruit of this delivering to Satan, then is the destroying of the lusts of the flesh. 2. They might well desire that upon the mans repentance Paul would take a milder way and course to effectuate these two desirable ends, the mortification of his lust, and the saving of his soul, then the last and most dreadfull remedy, which is the censure of Excommuni∣cation. 3. The destruction of the lusts of the flesh is a Scripturall

remedy for saving of the soul in the day of Christ, at is clear, Rom. 7. 7, 8, 9, 10. Gal. 5. 24, 25. But whether miraculous killing be such a mean ordained of God is the question, and ought to be proved by some word of God, beside this place in controversie.

Erastus. These words, that the soul may be saved in the day of* 1.22 the Lord, do hold forth, that the miserable man was presently to die.

Ans. That they hold forth no such thing, is evidently proved, for how were they to cast him out and judge him? And how was Paul to pardon him, and they and Paul to confirme their love? 2. When Peter saith, 1 Pet. 1. 7. That your faith may be found unto praise, honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ? were all these presently? Because Paul and the faithfull Phi∣lippians were waiting for their Saviours second coming, who should change their vilde bodies, were they to die presently? When Paul prayeth, that Onesiphorus may finde mercy in that day, 2 Tim. 1. 18. I pray you, will it follow that Onesiphorus was presently to die?

Erastus. The word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 rebuke, doth not signifie rejecting from the Sacraments, 1. Rejecting from the Sacraments is never put for punish∣ment* 1.23 in Scripture. 2. It is but a rebuke inflicted by many; and Paul, 2 Cor. 2. absolveth him from this as a sufficient punishment, a re∣buke is no punishment.

Ans. 1. To be debarred from the society of the faithfull, as Ha∣gar was, as Cain was; as David was, Cast out of the Lords inhe∣ritance by Saul; yea, to be rebuked, Ezech. 3. 25, 26. are evils, but they are not evils of sin; Ergo, He speaks not like a Divine, who will not have them punishments; if to injoy the Sanctuary, Church, holy things of God, and the society of the Saints be a rich, blessing of God, as the Scripture saith it is, Psal. 42. 4. Psal. 27. 4. Psal. 84. 10. Psal, 110. 3. Psal. 63. 1, 2, 3. Cant. 1. 7. 8. Cant. 2. 16. 17. Cant. 5. 1. Cant. 6. 1, 2, 3. Rev. 2, 1. and to deny this be a symtome of prophanity, then to be separated from these as a Heathen, must be to the children of God, the greatest evil of punishment and mat∣ter of sorrow on earth, it smelleth not of piety to deny this.

Erastus. If the man was only rebuked; How was he to be delive∣red* 1.24 to Satan to be tormented and killed? Some Ancients answer, he was but delivered to Satan to be afflicted in his body with sicknesse, and at length delivered by Paul, others say more congruously to the minde of Paul; that Paul purposed not by himself to deliver the man to Satan, but to do it, with the Church congregated together, and

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

when the Church saw him swallowed up with griefe, they deferred while they tryed Pauls minde, and obtained pardon to him, and in the means time threatned him, if he should not repent; and obtained at length, that Paul should pardon him.

Ans. Many learned Divines hold the former, yet so as they conclude Excommunication out of this Chapter; of this I say no more. But Erastus hath a way of his own. To which I say, 1. There is no Scripture, but this controverted one to warrant that the Apostles who had the gift of Miracles, 1. Suspended the working of Miracles, either on the prayers, or free consent of the whole multitude of beleevers. 2. That the ex∣ecution of a miraculous work, was committed to Deputies and substitutes under Paul, who had it in their power miraculously to kill him, or in their free will and Christian compassion, to sus∣pend the miracle, and not kill. 3. That the Apostles in acts of miraculous justice, sought advise of any, or might be broken by requests, to desist from miracles as they saw the party repent, or not repent, or friends intercede, or not intercede. 4. So many circumstances of the Text, laying a command on the Church of Corinth, to put him out and judge him, and yet the matter re∣maine a miracle. These to me are riddles, if God had told us such a History, I could have beleeved it; but to gather these by uncer∣taine conjectures. without any ground of other Scriptures, is a thing I can hardly beleeve. But since Excommunication is an ordinary censure, the Church might well, as they see the man pe∣nitent, or contumacious, cast him out, or not, pardon, or not par∣don.

Erastus. Paul delivered to Satan Hymeneus and Alexander, that they might learne not to blaspheme, not that the dead are capable to learne, or to be blasphemed; but this be saith as a Magistrate, when he saith he will give an ill doer to the hangman, that he may learn to steale no more, and to rob no more.

Ans. 1 Tim. 1. 20. I delivered them to Satan. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.* 1.25 It is like to edifying discipline, and agreeable to Pauls use of the rod of discipline, 2 Cor. 10. 8. Though I should boast somewhat more of our authoritie, which the Lord hath given us for e∣dification, and not for destruction. Now it were safer to give a sense congruous to the intrinsecall end of discipline, which was not for destruction of the body, but for the edifying of souls. 2. Yea,

so Paul had no lesse the Sword, then the rod of the Word, Nero had not so heavy a sword, as miraculous killing: Should not Paul speake rather as a Pastor of Christ, then as a bloody Ma∣gistrate?

Erastus. If to deliver to Satan, be all one with debarring from* 1.26 the Supper onely, yet it is not all one, with being cast out of the Church, without which there is no salvation, but the Supper is not absolutely necessary to Salvation.

Ans. Nor doe we put that necessity on the Sacraments, but where the man is excluded from the Sacraments, for such a sinne as if he repent not, he is excluded from Salvation; it concerneth him much to thinke it a weighty judgement to be excluded from the Seales.

Erastus. These two are inconsistent which you teach, to wit, that* 1.27 he is not debarred from the Sacraments, who desireth them, and that his desire whether it be a right, or a wrong and unlawfull de∣sire, shall depend on the judgement of others, to wit, the Presbytery.

Ans. Erastus should have made others see how these two fights together, I see no inconsistencie, no more then to say a childe that desireth food is not debarred from food, and yet his desire of food may be subject to wise Stewards, whether every desire of food be right or no, as whether he should be answered by the Stewards, when he desireth poyson or bread, not to ea••e, but to cast to dogs; and this will fight against preaching of the Word, the Professor that longeth for the comforts of the promises of the Gospel is not debarred from them, yet are preachers to try whe∣ther threatnings be not fitter for him in his security, then the comforts of the promises.

Erastus. Paul, 2 Cor. 12. and 13. threatneth not exclusion from* 1.28 the Lords Supper, to those who had not repented of their schisme, drunkennesse, denying of the resurrection, but he saith he would severely punish them according to the authority and power given him of God, and he did this frequently, but we read not exclusion from the sacra∣ments.

Answ. 1. It is true, he threatneth those who had not repented of their uncleannesse, and fornication, and lascivionsnesse, 2. Cor. 12. 20, 21. and c. 13. v. 2. threatneth that he will not spare, but use his authority, but doth Erastus read that he either threatneth, or doth

actually, miraculously kill any of the beleevers at Corinth? and let him answer why the Apostle did not write to the Church▪ that they would conveene, and take course with them, as he did with the incestuous man, 1 Cor. 5. 2. when he saith, He will not spare when he comes, he must be expounded according to Erastus, to come as a miraculous Magistrate to kill them. 3. He saith not they were impenitent, but he feareth it should be so. 4. We hold if any should be contumacious, he would not onely deny pearls to such Swine, as his Master commanded, Mat. 7. But also fol∣low that rule, Mat. 18. 4. Erastus himselfe granteth, if there shall be found a man that tramples upon the Pearles and holy things of God, as there must be some one or other, which is such as deser∣veth to be miraculously killed: By this Argument he granteth (I say) that such a one should not be admitted. Hunc ego minimè admitten∣dum censeo, but how shall he be not admitted by this Argument?* 1.29

Erastus. There were many amongst the Ancients who deferred their Baptisme to the end of their life, when therefore it is not written, that these are damned, who are excluded from the Supper, against their will, and not those who willingly exclude themselves from Baptisme, why should the one more then the other be delive∣red to Satan? for he is in a better condition, who is excluded by the Presbyters against his will from the Supper, then he who doth of his owne free will exclude him selfe from Baptisme.

Ans. That the Ancients in the Apostolique Church, which is our rule, did deferre baptisme till they died, Erastus cannot prove, the Ancients after them is not our rule. 2. That these were ad∣mitted to the Supper, a Sacrament of the nourishment of these in whom Christ liveth, before they were baptized, which is the Sa∣crament of Regeneration, and our first birth, cannot be defen∣ded by Erastus, and so he argues from an unlawfull practise. 3. We reach not that any is damned, because he is excluded from the Supper, that Exclusion is a punishment; men are damned for sins, not for meer punishments, but his sin is bound in heaven, because of a great scandall; such as incest, and that, if he repent not, is the cause of damnation: and therefore Erastus should have compared sinne with sinne, the scandall with sinfull refu∣sing of Baptisme, and not have made a halting and lame com∣parilon, an argument that concludeth nothing. 4. Though those

who deferred baptisme till death, should not have been delivered to Satan, yet will Erastus say, they should not have been other∣wise censured? for these behooved with Socinians to hold Bap∣tisme but an indifferent rite, and by this many lived in the contempt of a necessary ordinance, (though not simply necessary) and so died with the sinfull want of Baptisme many times.

Erastus.The exclusion of men from the Sacraments did creep into the Church when men did ascribe salvation to the Sacraments, therefore the Supper was given to dying men, though excommunicate; as the deniall of the Supper damneth, Ergo, the receiving of it saveth. And so of Baptisme they reasoned.

Answ. Erastus nameth this his own probable conjecture. But it is to beg the question, he may know how singular Augustine was for the necessity of Baptisme, and how many of the Ancients were a∣gainst him in it. 2. He may know this consequence to be a conje∣cture, and that it is not stronger, because it is his owne. 3. He granteth that exclusion of the unworthy from the Sacraments is ancient, so much gain we by his conjectures.

Erastus. When the Church wanted a Magistrate and the sword▪* 1.30 Paul commanded that the Corinthians might obtain by their prayers, that the incestuous man might be put from amongst them, that is, that he might be killed; if he command not that the man be killed, but cast out of the Church only, he should say as much as if one should bid preserve the chastity of a Virgin by casting her out of the society of chaste matrons, into a bordell-house; and Paul biddeth not the Corinthians deliver the man to Sathan; but only that they would con∣vene, that he might, as present▪ in Spirit, deliver him to Sathan; and that they would deliver him to Sathan, and put him out of the midst of them, by prayers and mourning: for in my corrected Thesis, I said, that this, put away evill out of the midst of you, Deut. 13. was in sillabs Deut. 17. & 19 & 21. 22. ••er. &c. 24. once, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is in them all.

Answ. 1. That the Church wanted the sword is no wonder; the Church as the Church, hath no such carnall weapons as the Sword, and that Peter in killing Ananias and Saphira, and Paul in striking Elymas with blindnesse, did supply the place of a Christian Magistrate which the Church then wanted, so as it was the Christian Magistrate his place, if there had been any to strike Ananias and Saphyra with sudden death▪ I doe not beleeve upon

Erastus his word, because I finde Nadab and Abihu killed imme∣diately by the Lord from heaven with fire, Lev. 10. 1. and at that time when there was Moses and ordinary Magistrates to have kil∣led them, and God immediately caused the earth to open her mouth and swallow up quick Cor••h and his company, and yet there was a Magistrate to doe justice on them, for their ••reasonable conspi∣racie; and I see not how this may not warrant Ministers, when ei∣ther heathen or Tyrannous Magistrates refuse to use the sword, to fall to as Pastors, and in an extraordinary manner use the sword a∣gainst murtherers in the visible Church. It is true, Peters miraculous killing of Ananias, may possibly hold forth the duty analogically* 1.31 of punishing ill doers in a Magistrate, where he is a Christian mem∣ber of the Church. But it is a conjecture without Scripture, that here Paul doth call the Corinthians in to come and be co∣actors with him by their prayers in a particular miracle which was never wrought, for Erastus granteth he was never killed. 1. Paul reprehendeth their not mourning, v. 2. And you are puf∣fed up, and have not rather 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 mourned. This was an ordinary, Christian, not a miraculous duty, which they should have performed as a Church, though he should not have written to them. Let Erastus cleare how Paul chideth them, for want of an habituall Faith of Miracles, and of a sorrow proportioned thereunto. 2. That Gal. 5. 12. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 would God they were cut off that trouble you; if this was in Pauls power, by a miracle to cut off the false Apostles, how could Paul wish to doe a Mira∣cle and did it not? 2. If he wished these should be cut off by the Galathians, then as Beza de Presbyt. page 82. saith, It was in the Galathians power so to doe; and why should not they have prayed miraculously for the destruction of such? 3. In all the word, to deliver to Satan, is never to kill by Satan; as Beza saith, and Erastus can answer nothing to it. 4. That Paul here tooke the Magistrates Sword, because the Magistrate was a Heathen. 5. That the Church, when a Magistrate doth not his duty, is to pray, that God would by some miraculous and imme∣diate providence, supply the Magistrates place. 6. That Paul doth rebuke the Corinthians, not for the omission of an ordi∣nary duty, and the want of an ordinary faith, but because of the want of extraordinary sorrow, and of the faith of Miracles, in

old and young, and women who could pray for the miraculous kil∣ling of this man, all these look beside the Text, for ver. 2. he saith such a hainous sin is committed, and ye are puffed up, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 blowen up, and have not rather 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 mourned: this is the de∣fect of an ordinary grace, and hardnesse and security that Paul re∣buketh in them, as the first word signifieth, 1 Cor. 8. 1. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 knowledge puffeth up, 1 Cor. 13. 4. Love 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is not blown up, 1 Cor. 4. 6. 1 Cor. 4. 18. Col. 2. 18. and the other word signifieth ordi∣nary sorrow, Mat. 5. 4 Blessed are they that mourn, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Luk. 6. 25. 2 Cor. 12. 21. Iam. 4. 9. Mat. 9. 15. There is not one word of praying by the faith of miracles in the Text (for such a faith is re∣quired to such a prayer) that God would miraculously destroy the man, or that Paul rebuked them for not praying in this miraculous faith: it is the way of Erastus to obtrude Expositions on the Scripture, so unknown and violent, as they are darker and harder to be beleeved then the Text. 5. The Apostle commandeth them to* 1.32 put out the man 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is, to kill him: What killing is this? to pray to God that Paul miraculously may put him out, and kill him, give us any word of God, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the Old or New Testa∣ment signifieth any such thing, there is not one word of Prayer in the Text: 6. They were to conveen, not simply, as Christians, to pray, but with the vertue of his spirit, as present in minde, but ab∣sent in body; this must put some more in them then a mourning spirit, for the want of which he rebuked them; it is as much as he and they together were to joyn in putting out the man and judging him, as he speaketh, ver. 12. 7. Nor is this all one, as to put a woman out of the company of chaste Matrons to the bordel house to keep her chastity, no more then the wisdom of God in Paul doth, Rom. 16. 17. 2 Thess. 3. 14. 15. put unordinate walkers out of the society of those who walk according to the truth of the Gospel, that they may preserve their sound walking, especially when exclusion from the godly causeth shame, and so humiliation, and this reason is against Gods wisdom, as much as against us: 8. That to put away evil, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Deut. 17. and 19. and 21. and 22. is to kill, is not denied, and that in divers places, but not to pray that evil may be miracu∣lously put away, as Erastus saith: But we are to see, whether 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the Hebrew (of which Language Erastus professeth his ignorance) signifie that alwayes: The contrary I have already

shown, the learned Pagnine and Mercer say the contrary, that it signifieth, to cur, devide, or strike a Covenant, Gen. 15. 18. Deut. 19. 5. Jer. 34. 8. Esa. 55. 3. and Master Leigh in his late Critica Sa∣cra* 1.33 on the Old Testament, saith, it signifieth to stay, to cut off by death, by banishment, or any other way, whereby a thing in use before, afterward ceaseth, Joel. 1. 8. Amos 1. 5. Yea, to cut off by divorce, as I noted before, and Exod. 12. 15. To cut off from Israel, is ex∣pounded, ver. 19. to cut off from the Church of Israel: Yea, the Law forbiddeth that not only in the time of the Passeover, they should not eat leaven, but it should not be in their houses; Now must they be killed, if it was found in their houses, beside their know∣ledge? see Deut. 16. 3. Exod. 13. 7. What Erastus saith to the end of the Chapter; is but repeated reasons before answered.

Notes

• * 1.1

  The 1 Cor. 5. vindica∣ted from Erastus his glosse. Lib. 3. c. 4. pag. 211, 212.
• * 1.2

  Pag. 214.
• * 1.3

  The pray¦ers of the Church in∣terveen not for this particular miracle.
• * 1.4

  Faith of miracles to pray for this mi∣racle not in all the faithfull at▪ Corinth.
• * 1.5

  Delivering to Satan not mira∣culous.
• * 1.6

  Lib. 3. c. 4. p. 213.
• * 1.7

  Page 215.
• * 1.8

  Thes. 58. p. 44. p. 225.
• * 1.9

  Page 45.
• * 1.10

  Num. 34. 31. 32.
• * 1.11

  2 Cor. 7. 45.
• * 1.12

  Page 45.
• * 1.13

  Page 45. 46.
• * 1.14

  The Church, not Paul alone had hand in delivering the man to Satan.
• * 1.15

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, ••st intersiccre. p. 47.
• * 1.16

  In Thes. 48.
• * 1.17

  To be de∣livered to Satan.
• * 1.18

  Pag. 218. The de∣struction of the flesh.
• * 1.19

  Chrysostom. Homil. 15. in 1 Cor.
• * 1.20

  Pet. Moli∣neus In suo vate opus∣cule erudi∣tissimo. lib. 2. cap. 11. pag. 108. Hyeronymus in cap. 5. ad Galat.
• * 1.21

  Walens do. discr. Ma∣gist. pol. to. 2. Arg. 6. fol. 10. In vate. l. 2. cap. 11. p. 111, 112. Ambrosius lib. 1. de penitentia. Hyeronymus in c. 5. ad Galar. Augusti. l. 6. de serm. domi in Mont. cap. 38. Chry∣sostom hom. 15. in 1 Cor. Molineus loc cit. Piscator 1 Cor. 5. Zanchius com. in 2 Thess. 3. citeth these words, 1 Cor. 5. 3. 4, 5. for Ex∣communi∣cation.
• * 1.22

  Thes. 59. pag. 49.
• * 1.23

  Thes. 59. 49.
• * 1.24

  Thes. 60. Page 50.
• * 1.25

  Page 221. Hymeneus and Alex∣ander not killed by Satan.
• * 1.26

  Page 223.
• * 1.27

  Page 223.
• * 1.28

  Page 224.
• * 1.29

  Page 207. Page 223. 124.
• * 1.30

  Page 227. 228. 229.
• * 1.31

  Delivering to Satan not mira∣culous.
• * 1.32

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to put away not always to kill.
• * 1.33

  Leigh in Critica Sacra, pag. 245.