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.

Quest. 8.

The eschewing of company with the scandalous, vindicated from Era∣stus his exceptions.

BEsides other arguments from Mat. 18. and 1 Cor. 5. for ex∣communication, we argue thus: Those upon whom the Church

is to put such a publike note of shame or a 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as they are to withdraw from their company, and not to eat and drink with them, those are cast out of the Church, and so cut off from the body of Christ, and excommunicated.

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

The proposition I prove, 1 Cor. 5. 11. he saith, v. 9. I wrote to you in an Epistle, not to keep company with fornicators, the same word that in the abstract is spoken of the incestuous man, v. 1. by which it is clear Paul had forbidden any company with such incestuous men. Now he had not forbidden them to keep company with dead men, if the man was to be miraculously killed, Ergo, it was his will before, that such a one should be judged, and put out, else he could not so sharply rebuke them, for not casting him out, and if now on∣ly he had first taught, and written to them to cast him out: as if ex∣communication had been in this same very Chapter instituted by Paul, and v. 11. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 now I have written unto you, not to keep company with one named a brother, who is a fornicator; this must be in the same Chapter, for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 now I have written, must be in re∣lation to this v. 9. I wrote unto you in a Epistle before: now if here at this present he wrote to them, not to keep company with him, it must be when he commandeth to cast him out v. 13. and to judge him v. 12. so that not to keep company with such fornicators, must necessarily presuppose a casting out, and that the fornicator, with whom we are not to keep company in a familiar manner, is a man cast out of the Church, and so excommunicated. 2. Paul would never forbid brotherly familiarity with any remaining a brother, a member of the Church, and of a body with us in visible professi∣on of the truth, as partakers of one body and blood of Christ, as all the members of the Church eating at one Lords table are, 1. Cor. 10. 16, 17. 3. The Apostle saith such a fornicator is but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 named▪ a brother, and so in the esteem of the Church no brother, and so not of the visible body of Christ. 4. Paul

bringeth in this as a reason why they should cast out the incestucus man, v. 9. did not (saith he) I write to you before, and do I not now write, v. 11. even now that you are not to k••ep intimate familiarity with such titular brethren, who are brethren in name only? Therefore put out from amongst you this man, v. 13. the Apostles argument to infer they ought to judge, and put such a man out of the Church; because they are not to eat with him, were of no weight, if this ••schewing of familiarity with one who is a brother only in name, did not infer the Churches casting of him ou••.

Erastus. it is false that Paul forbiddeth to eat with him who is cast* 1.1 out, for he forbiddeth not eating with a dead man.

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

Erastus. It is false that Paul forbiddeth as to eat meat with such;* 1.2 Yea in no place he forbiddeth to eat with heathen, but elsewhere gran∣teth it to be lawfull, and in this Chapter he permitteth private com∣merce with them.

Ans. 1. Let the reader judge whether Erastus resuteth Paul, or Beza, Paul forbiddeth to eat with a brother; that is a fornicator: Erastus saith, he forbiddeth no such thing. 2. Though I think Christians may eat with heathens, 1. Cor. 10. 27. and that Paul did eat with heathen; yet it is no argument to say, it is therefore lawfull to eat with one cast out of the Church, because we may eat* 1.3 with heathens to gain them, and we are not bidden abstain from heathens company, that they may be ashamed of their religion, (though Christians are to use no heathens with intimate familiarity as we do our brethren in Christ;) But we are to eschew intire fel∣lowship with a scandalous and cast out brother, to gain him, that he may be ashamed, 2 Thes. 3. 14. and in this a scandalous brother is in worse case then a heathen: But in other respects he is in bet∣ter condition, as being under the medicine of the Church.

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

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

Ans. 1. It is true, that avoiding of the company of scandalous Brethren, hath in it something civill; but it is a censure-spirituall, and a Church-censure, two wayes: 1. Objectively, in its tendency, Respectu termini ad quem. 2. Effectively, in its rise and cause, Respectu termini à quo, it is a spirituall censure Objectively, because it tendeth to make the party ashamed, that he may repent, and be∣come a Brother with whom we are to converse; and therefore is destinated for no civill use, but for the good of his soul, that is a member of a Church, that he may return to what he was. 2. This censure, though one private Brother may exercise it upon another, yea, a woman on a man, who yet hath no Authority over the man, is notwithstanding in its rise and efficient cause, a Church-censure. 1. If Christ will not have one Brother to condemne another, while first he rebuke him; and if he be not convinced, while he do the same before two or three witnesses; and if he yet be not gained, one private Brother may not after conviction, before two or three witnesses repute him as a Heathen, or complain of him before an Heathen Iudge, as Erastus saith; How shall we imagine any one single Brother may withdraw Brotherly fellowship from another Brother, by his own private Authority, while he first be sentenced before the Church? And the Church shall convince him to walk

disorderly, to cause divisions and offences, to be a Fornicator, a Cove∣tous person, and so to be unworthy of the intire Brotherly fellow∣ship of another? For if this order were not in the Church, every Brother might take up a prejudice at his Brother, and so break all bands of Religious Communion, and Brotherly fellowship, and dissolve and make ruptures in the Churches: Now certain it is, These Texts, Rom. 16. 17, 18. 2 Thes. 3. 11, 12, &c▪ in the letter, intimate no such order as is Matth. 18. But it is presupposed, as clear by other Scriptures, we are not to withdraw from an offen∣ding Brother, but after such an order: Now the places in the let∣ter, except we expound them by other Scriptures, do not bear that we are to rebuke our Brother, before we withdraw from him, con∣trary to Levit. 19. 17. 2. If I am to withdraw from a Brother, all Brotherly fellowship by these places; then I am to esteem him as a Heathen, and as a Brother in name, not in reality, 1 Cor. 5. 11. Whereas once I esteemed him a Brother, and did keep Brotherly fellowship with him; now this is materially Excommunication▪ I do no more in this kinde to one who is formally Excommunicated; yea, I am not so strange to a Heathen; Ergo, This I must have done upon some foregoing sentence of the Church, otherwise, I might un-Church and un-Brother the man whom the Church neither hath, nor can, un-Church and un-Brother. 3. Eschewing of Bro∣therly fellowship to any, is an act of Government distinct from the Preaching of the Word, tending to make a Brother that walketh disorderly ashamed, that he may repent, and of a Brother in name only, may become a Brother in reallity, 2 Thes. 3. 14. But this act of Government belongeth not to the Christian Magistrate; for every Brother (saith Erastus) may exercise it toward his Brother; Ergo, here is Church-Government that the Magistrate hath no hand in, contrary to the way of Erastus, and not in the hands of Pastors, for it is distinct from Preaching; nor is it in a Colledge of Pastors, Doctors, and Elders, for Erastus denyeth any such Colledge; Ergo, here every one must govern another, the man the woman, and the woman the man; the son the father, if he walk unorderly, and the Father the Son; this can be no∣thing, but the greatest Confusion on Earth. 4. To put any to shame, especially publikely, by way of punishment for publike sins, must come from some Iudges, or others armed

with Authority, Iudg. 18. 7. 1 Cor. 4. 14. 1 Cor. 6. 5. 1 Cor. 25. 34. Then the Apostles sense cannot be, that every one hath power of himselfe without the Church, or any authority there from to put his brother to shame; for when a brother is not to eat with a scandalous brother, he must be convinced by the Church to be scan∣dalous, and so cast our, 1 Cor. 5. 11, 12, 13. as we have proved be∣fore, and every man here should be his owne judge, and party in his owne cause, except he put his brother to some shame by an higher authority then his owne. The word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, is to put a publike note or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 upon the offender. So Stephanus. So Piscator, Nota ignominiosâ excommunicationis. Pomponius laetus de Magistr. Rom. ••. 21. Censores quinto•• quo{que} anno creari solebant, hic prorsus cives sic notabantur, ut qui Senator esset ejece••etur Senatu, qui eques Romanus equum publicum perderet, &c. Mathaeus Har∣nish & Gec. Gabellus, who adde to Zanchius his Commentary in 2 Thes. say, Est not •• quâdam insignire, et in aliquem animadver∣tere; ut censores apud Romanos notare aliquem solebant, they ex∣pound it the publike note of Excommunication. Beza saith it is not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to signifie and declare, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 notate, & veluti inustâ not â compungite. So Calvin, Marlorat.

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

And whereas Erastus saith, Paul will have us 2 Thes. 3. 15. to admonish this man as a brother; Ergo, In holy things, and in the Sacraments▪ that are helpes of piety and Salvation, we are not to ••ast him off: It is true, the cast out man is not to be reputed as an enemy, but a brother. Yet a sicke and diseased brother, under the roughest Medicine of the Church, to wit, the rod of Excom∣munication, that the Spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord. But withdrawing of brotherly fellowship, is not a meere civill unbrothering of him, for if the brotherly fellowship of Christians must be spirituall, religious, and for the edifying of one anothers soules, for exhorting one another, to prevent hardning of heart,

for provoking one another to love, and to good works, to teach one another, to comfort and support one another, as we are expresly commanded by the Holy Ghost, Heb. 3. 13. Heb. 10. 24. Col. 3. 16. 1 Thess. 5. 11, 14. Mal. 3. 16. Jer. 50. 5. Zach. 8. 22. Psal. 42. 4. I wonder where Erastus learned this Divinity, to say, the denying of this edifying Communion to a scandalous brother, while he be ashamed and repent, Is to deny nothing that belongeth to his salvation: Admonition is but one of twenty comfortable acts of Communion, which we deny not to him, least the man should despaire, and we should cast off all care, hope, or intention to save his soul, whereas the genuine and intrinsecall intention of avoiding him, and casting him out of the Church, is, that he may be saved: Lastly, we deny not admonition, and preaching of the word to the man, thus cast out, because they be converting Ordinances, simply necessary to work the mans humiliation and repentance; but the Lords Supper is a confirming Ordinance, and denied to the excommunicated while he is in that condition upon that very reason, that it is denied to Pagans and Heathens; and though it be an help of piety, it is no help either to a Pagan, or an excommunicate man, but damna∣tion: But it may be, the excommunicate man hath faith. I answer, To us in the Court of the Church, in which the Seals are dispen∣sed,* 1.4 he hath no more then a Heathen hath; and therefore, in con∣firming Ordinances, he is looked on by the Church as an Heathen; and if the reason of Erastus be good, The Church is to deny no helps of godlinesse and salvation to him, though we deny private food to his body, because the Sacraments are necessary helps. Then 1. I much doubt, if the Church be to deny the necessary helps of godlinesse and salvation to a Pagan living amongst us; Ergo, shall we not deny the Sacraments to a Pagan? 2. We are not to avoid his company,* 1.5 and deny the edifying acts of Communion, which I named before, for these are necessary helps of salvation. 3. It is not the mans sin by this reason, That he eateth and drinketh unworthily; for if it be not the Churches sin to give him the seals, because the Seals are adminiclees and helps of piety, and saving of the soul; by the same reason, it is not the mans sin to receive the Lords Supper, for it must be equally an help of godlinesse and salvation to the Commu∣nicant receiving, as to the Church giving: Now Paul saith, 1 Cor. 11. He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh to

himself judgement. So Erastus teacheth us, that it may be a sin to Swine publikely known to be such, to receive pearles, when it is no sin, but the Churches duty to give these pearls to such known Swine, which is most absurd and impious.

Erastus. I said before, that God doth not exclude sinners from the* 1.6 Sacraments, but gather them in to them, that they may be more and more invited to repentance, and more easily raised up again; for Sa∣craments, and so many Ceremonies also, were for this end ordained, that they might draw men to the love and care of true piety and holy∣nesse, as Moses saith, Deut. 14.

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

Those whom God inviteth to repentance, those he will not ex∣clude from the Sacraments: But now under the Gospel, he inviteth all, even many Pagans and Heathen to repentance, 1 Tim. 2. 4. God will have all, even Heathen Magistrates, to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth, so Act. 17. 30. God now commandeth all men, every where, even the Idolators, and blinde Philosophers at Athens, who erected an Altar to the unknown God, ver. 23. and who jeered at the Doctrine of the Resurrection, ver. 32. even those God inviteth to repentance; Ergo, God excludeth not Pagans from the Sacraments; but the conclusion is absurd and blasphemous; therefore so must one of the premises be, but the Assumption is Scripture; Ergo, The Major Proposition of Erastus must be blas∣phemous. God inviteth scorners to repentance, and rebukes are means of repentance; Ergo, we may rebuke scorners; Gods spirit saith, Rebuke not a scorner, Prov. 9. 7, 8. His Proposition then must be, Those whom God inviteth to repentance, those God excludeth not from any mean of piety and sanctity: It is most false, God inviteth Dogs and Swine to repentance, and commandeth them to be holy, and the pearls of the Gospel are means of repentance, and holinesse: Must we therefore, Cast pearls to dogs and swine? The contrary our Saviour injoyneth, Matth. 7. 6. 2. Moses, Deut. 14. 1. forbid∣deth diverse Ceremonies and Sacraments of the Heathen by this Argument: Ye are the children of the Lord your God; and he saith expresly, that the stranger may eat some unclean thing, but the Lord saith to them, You shall not do so, for thou art an holy people to

the Lord thy God: Whence it is evident Moses saith poynt blank contrary to Erastus; for Moses saith, that Ceremonies and Sa∣craments are for this end, to draw only the holy and sanctified peo∣ple of God, to a further love and study of true piety and sanctity; was not the eating of the Passeover a mean of Repentance, as well as the eating of the Lords Supper? no question, but God invited the uncircumcised to repentance, but forbiddeth them to eat the Passeover.

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

Erastus saith, Then ••••e agree, for vve dispute only of those vvho* 1.7 acknovvledgeth their sins, and promise amendment.

Ans. We are not willing to hold up a needlesse controversie with Erastus; but Erastus saith, and his Arguments conclude in the Old Testament, None for Morall uncleannesse, and impenitency vvere debarred from the holy things of God; Ergo, We are to de∣barre none in the Nevv Testament; yea, 2. Paul did never com∣mand to debar any, nor did Christ debar Judas, nor the Pharisees debar the ••ewdest Publicans, nor the Apostles Simon Magus from the Sacraments; Ergo, saith he, we are to debar none at all: now* 1.8 here Erastus clearly contradicteth himself, and saith, We dispute on∣ly of such as acknowledge their ••ins and promise amendment: But let Erastus say, Did Iudas acknowledge his ••in and promise amendment: Did all the morally unclean in Corinth, such as repented not of their uncleannesse, and fornication, and lasciviousnesse which they com∣mitted, 2 Cor. 12. 21. acknowledge their sin, and promise amend∣ment? and did those that were partakers of the Table of Devils acknowledge their sin and promise amendment? And yet I brought the very words of Erastus, in which he saith right down in a Catholick assertion, without exception, not any of those are to be debarred from the Sacraments: Why? The Sacraments (saith he) are Adminicula pi••tatis, et resipiscentiae, are helps to godlinesse and repentance: And I aske of Erastus, doth the Lord invite none to repentance, but those that do acknowledge their sin and promise a∣mendment? And will Erastus have helps of repentance denied to all those who acknowledge not their sins? then let him give us Ar∣guments in the Old or New Testament, by which he can demon∣strate, that those who acknowledge not their sins, and promise

not amendment, are debarred in the Old Testament, from all the holy things of God, and in the New, from the Sacraments: Let E∣rastus extricate himself if he can.

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

Erastus. But we impugne this which you say, that God hath or∣dained* 1.9 Presbyters or Elders to be judges and examinators of that bu∣sinesse: But we say, that God neither commanded in the Old, or New Testament, that Priests or any other, should examine those who brought oblations for sin, whether they did truly repent, or dissemble only; and ye say there be chosen Elders who should try this in the New Testament.

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

2. Observe good Reader, How craftily Erastus passeth from one question to another: All his Arguments hitherto, both in his Thesis and in his Book, conclude that no man, in either Old, or New Te∣stament, ever was, or ought to be debarred from the holy things of God: Because there is neither precept, nor promise, nor practise in Moses, in the Prophets, or Apostles for it: 2. Because, The Sa∣craments are helps of repentance. 3. Because all are invited and com∣manded to come. Now here Erastus flyeth to another Question: Whether the unworthy should be debarred by Priests in the Old, and by certain select and chosen Elders in the New Testament? This is a far other Question: for let him answer our Arguments, by which we prove that pearls and the holy things of God, ought to be denied to all Dogs, Swine, and prophane men, whereas Erastus saith, all

those are invited to come; and then we shall yoak with Erastus, or any other, by whom, or by whose authority these pearls ought to be denied: whether by the Church, that is, by the Elders of the Church, and people consenting, or by the civill Magistrate. Now this latter question to Erastus, is no question at all▪ for if none ought to be debarred from the Sacraments at all; but all must come promiscuously, as their owne good or evill spirit inclineth them, it is a vaine thing for Erastus to make any question at all, by whom they ought to be debarred; for it is all one, as to aske the question, by whom should those who are to be gradued Doctors of Physick, be tryed and examined, whether by the faculty, and Colledge of of Physitians of the place, or by none at all: If you lay downe this ground, that there neither is, nor ought to be any graduated Do∣ctors at all in the world, the other of those, who are to try those who are graduated is vaine, if all be invited to a free banquet, poor, and rich, leaper, and clean: it is a vain question, whether be there some Masters of the house who should try who are worthy, and to be admitted to the feast, and who unworthy, and to be debarred.

Erastus. It is madnesse to say, that Paul by forbidding private ••ating,* 1.10 doth understand nothing but a debarring from the Sacraments, for 1▪ Cor. 11. he debarreth none from the Sacrament.

Ans. Neither Beza, nor any of ours say, that they are both one* 1.11 punishment; but that where we are forbidden to eat with a scan∣dalous brother, it is presumed the Church doth cast him out of her society: nor doth Paul 1 Cor. 11. invite all to come to the supper.

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

Erastus saith, that to whom lesse is denied, to him more is denied, is* 1.12 true in gifts, but not in punishments, and in things of the same kind, but not in things divers, and in things free, not in things of which one is commanded by God, and another thing not commanded; it holdeth not in punishments, he to whom the city is denied, and who is banished, his life is not denied to him, he who is punished in his purse, is not killed; for that a father denieth to his son an unworthy thing, yet he denieth not rayment to him.

Ans. Erastus in this granteth he wrongeth Beza, as if he had

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

Erastus. when he forbiddeth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, no not to eat, he forbiddeth, 1.* 1.13 Neer communion of familiarity. 2. Not to eat with them, which is to forbid all signes of neer communion.

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

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

Ans. This is a strong argument for us, if Paul had never spo∣ken, nor written to them of the delivering of the man to Satan, that is, of the miraculous killing of him, how could he in reason and

conscience chide them, because they prayed not that he might be mi∣raculo••sly killed? 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉? it is not possible they could mourn for not joyning in a businesse, that Paul had never revealed to them to be Gods will. Yea it is a strong argument to me, that delivering to Satan was excommunication, of which he had taught them before, (else their mourning had been unreasonble) and which he pointed at to them as a limbe of excommunication, to wit, their not famili∣er conversing with the scandalous.

Erastus. And when he has show••n how they ought to flee the company* 1.14 of the scandalous, he returneth to his former purpose, commanding the wicked man to be killed: This then he saith, I commanded you to es∣chew the company of wicked brethren, not of the heathen, whom the Lord shall judge.

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

Erastus. The end of refusing familiar conversing with the scanda∣lous,* 1.15 is, that he may be ashamed; and you say, that same is the end of de∣barring from the supper; then it must follow, as private conversing can do the contrary, to wit, it can soment and nourish sinnes, both in the brother we converse with, and in us, so the frequent use of the Lords supper should nourish vices in us, vvhich vvere vvickednesse to think.

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

Erastus. Paul forbiddeth not ill men of the company of good men,* 1.16 but he admonisheth good men, to flee ill men, that they may be asha∣med. But vvhen you deuy the Sacraments to any, you command not the Godly not to come to the supper with the wicked, but you forbid the scandalous to come to the supper.

Ans. There is no solidity in this conjecture, it leaneth upon the

perpetuall m••stake of Erastus in all this dispute, as if we held, That to be debabred from familiar fellowship with the Saints, and from the Sacrament, were one and the same thing: Else, I see no conclusion that Erastus doth, or can infer against us. 2. It is false, that wic∣ked men are not discharged the company of Saints; for in so far as fellowship with the Saints, is a spirituall mean of the gaining of their souls by Teaching, Exhorting, Edifying, Comforting the wic∣ked and scandalous, being Dogs and Swine are forbidden to touch such a Pearl; Yea, God layeth a charge on wicked men, while they remain in that case, not to meddle with Confirming Ordinances (with some Converting Ordinances they may,) as Psal. 50. 16. But to the wicked God said, What hast thou to do to declare my Statutes: or that thou takest my Convenant in thy mouth? 17. Seeing thou hatest Instruction, and castest my Word behinde thee. Here the wicked are forbidden to Teach or speak, to the instructing of others, which is a speciall act of Christian fellowship between Brother and Brother, Col. 3. 16. Heb. 3. 13. Heb. 10. 24. 1 Thes. 5. 11. 14. Be∣cause they hate to be Instructed of others: And you know how Christ* 1.17 speaketh to the unworthy intruder of himself on the secrets and spirituall marrow and comforts of the Gospel, Matth. 22. ver, 12. Friend, How camest thou here, not having thy Wedding garment? Ezra 4. 3. But Zerubbabel and Joshua, and the rest of the chief of the Fathers came and said unto the Adversaries of Iudah and Benjamin, You have nothing to do with us, to build an house unto our God; But we our selves together will build unto the Lord God of Israel: Doth not God expresly forbid David to build an house to his name? 1 Chron. 22. 8. 2 Chron. 6. 9. And we know it is a typicall dis∣charge layed upon men of blood, not to touch the holiest things of God; but that men of Peace must meddle with them, Isa. 1. 13. Bring no more vain Oblations, &c. All which holdeth forth, that not only those who have the charge of the house of the Lord, to see that no Swine and Dogs prophane the holy things of God; but they are forbidden all private Ordinances and publike, in so far as they can make no other use of them, but to defile them.

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

Beza Replieth well, 1. What if he know not what he desireth who cometh? 2. What if there be just suspition or clear evidence that he

playeth the Hypocrite? 3. What if it concern the whole Church that his desire be suspended?

Erastus. The first cause is not to purpose, because we speak of those* 1.18 that are well instructed. 2. The second is bred in the brain of Beza; I am compelled to think that he that publikely professeth he is grieved for his sins, and that he purposeth to live a holy life in time to come, that he thinketh as he speaketh, if he remain not in that purpose: I al∣so remain not alwayes in my good purpose; his desire is an Argu∣ment of Piety, which should not be smothered and oppressed, but excited and nourished: And this opinion of Beza dependeth on the Iudgement of men; neither hath the Lord committed the Examination of some to Elders: And it is folly to say, It concerns the Church to delay, to do that which the Lord hath Commanded me to do.

Ans. 1. Erastus professeth he standeth for their admission to the Lords Supper, who are Recte instituti, & profitentur dolere se prop∣ter peccata sua, who are instructed in the grounds of Christian Religion, and repenteth of their sins, or professeth it: And he said before, as I* 1.19 observed it, If any shall be found who shall trample on the Sacraments, Ego hunc minime admittendum censeo: I judge such a man should not be admitted to the Sacraments: Whence it is clear, That Erastus professeth that the ignorant and the scandalous should be debarred from the Lords Supper: But, good Reader, Observe that Erastus contradicteth himself in all his Arguments; for he proveth, that not any one Christian in the Visible Church, ignorant, or not igno∣rant; who professe their Repentance, or not professe it, can be exclu∣ded from the Sacraments; but that all are commanded by Christ to come. But Erastus saith, Scriptura illos, de quibus nos loquimur, nec à sacrificiis arcet, nec à sacramentis aliis ullis: Imò sub penâ ca∣pitis mandat, ut universi mares, &c. The Scripture excludeth none from Sacrifices, or any other Sacraments: But commandeth that all the Male Children, Jews and strangers, who are not legally unclean, and from home, should compear at Ierusalem thrice a year before the Lord: And pag. 104. In sacris literis non tantum non inveniri ali∣quos à sacramentis propter solam vitae turpitudinem, ab actos esse, sed* 1.20 contrarium potius probari: And Iohn Baptist (saith he) Baptized all that came to him, Pharisees and Sadduces, whom he affirmeth to be a Generation of Vipers, Ex quo intelligimus: Whence we understand, that Ministers are not to deny the Sacraments to those who seek them,

and the Iudgement is to be left to God, Whether he who professeth Re∣pentance, dissemble, or deal truly and sincerely: Yea, when Erastus saith, That it is not in all the Scripture to be found, Aliquos a Sacra∣mentis propter solam vitae turpitudinem abactos esse: That any were debarred from the Sacraments for only wickednesse of life; but rather the contrary may be proved, either ignorance of God, opposed to due instruction, and professed impenitency, is no wickednesse of life, which is most absurd; or then in Scripture, some must be debar∣red* 1.21 from the Sacraments for wickednesse of life only: But Erastus saith plainly, None in Scripture are debarred from the Sacraments, for only wickednesse of life: And so they are not debarred, because they professe not Repentance. And Erastus saith, Christ said, Drink ye all of this and Iudas was not excepted: Christ went into the Temple* 1.22 with most wicked men: the Pharisees and Sadduces were Baptized with the same Baptisme of Iohn vvith them: Then Erastus will exclude none at all, no not those whom Christ pronounced to sin against the Holy Ghost, and the convincing light of their own minde, Matth. 12. 31, 32. Ioh. 9. 39, 40, 41. and 15. 24. and 7. 28. Yea, pag. 117. He* 1.23 will have none excluded in Corinth, not those that are impenitent, and those that vvere partakers of the Table of Devils. Pag. 116. When* 1.24 Christ commandeth all to eat and all to drink, he excludeth none that professeth themselves to be Disciples: But many professe no Repen∣tance, Who professe themselves Disciples: See pag. 117, 118. and the following pages. 2. Erastus saith, He is compelled to think, That he that publikely professeth sorrovv for sin, doth think as he spea∣keth: But to whom shall he professe it? To the Church? Then hath the Church power to accept the confession of scandalous men, ere they be admitted to the Lords Supper: Erastus will stand at this, for it is Government in the hands of the Church; if he must confesse to the Civill Magistrate, who made him a Steward of the Seals, and Mysteries of the Gospel? Nor is the Church to think, as Erastus is compelled to think, manifest Hypocrites, and those that trample the Sacraments under their feet, will make profession of sorrow for sin: and Erastus thinketh such are not to be admitted:* 1.25 Erastus saith, they may change their purpose of Repentance, and so may he doe himselfe. Valeat totum, granting all, that is, nothing to us, for any Divinity we have proofe of in Erastus his booke▪ I should humbly conceive when he speaketh so ignorantly of the

worke of Repentance, and preparations for the Lords Supper: he hath been a man non rectè institutus, not well instructed, and* 1.26 so without the lists of the disputation by his owne word, and so not to have beene himselfe to be admitted to the Sacraments.

2. Nor is it in Beza his head onely, that those who desire the Sacrament have true piety, for Christ saith, Wicked men are known by their works; otherwise if tramplers of the Sacrament, and the ignorant desire the Sacrament, as ignorance is neighbour to arro∣gance and presumption: let Erastus give us a rule in the Word by which they are to be debarred, all his arguments will prove that they are to be admitted: and if Erastus deny that the judge∣ment of men either of Church or Magistrate is to be interposed in the excluding of those who are, non rectè instituti, not rightly instructed, and doe not professe sorrovv for their sin, he must speake against sense, if he grant some must judge, who are ignorant, and openly impenitent; then I say to Erastus what hee saith to Beza, your opinion dependeth on the opinion and judgement of men. 3. If God have not commanded either Elders, or any other (as Erastus saith,) to examine and judge, who are fit for the Lords Supper, who not: Then seeing Erastus saith the prophane, the ignorant, the im∣penitently scandalous, knowne to be such, are to be debarred. I aske of Erastus, to whom Christ hath commanded the tryall of this, who are ignorant, and non rectè instituti? Men cannot de∣barre* 1.27 themselves from the Sacraments in a judiciall way, most of men conceiting well of themselves, rush upon the ordinances of God, not knowing that they doe evill: Workers of iniquity, who cry, Lord, Lord, Adulterers, Theeves, Idolaters, who dare come to the Temple of the Lord and cry, The temple of the Lord, The tem∣ple of the Lord are these, Ier. 7. 9, 10, 11. will also fast and professe Repentance, Esa. 57. 3, 4, 5. even when their wickednes testifieth to their face against them in the eies of all, Ier. 2. 1, &c. Ier. 2. 34. Esa. 1. 9. and they will desire ••o partake of the Lords Supper, as is evident, Esa. 57. 2. Now there are none on earth, neither Elders, or any any others to debarre them; Erastus saith, Taceo jam, quod Deus* 1.28 non praecepit vel Presbyteris, vel aliis tale examen. Let Erastus an∣swer us in this, and by what charity is Erastus obliged to be∣leeve, all that seeketh the Lords supper, do it in truth? God has given to us mens works, not their words, of which hypocrites are

liberall, and shall we foment hypocrisie, and mens eating their owne damnation, under Erastus his pretence of incouraging, and not suffocating seeming godly desires? Lastly, Erastus saith, it doth not concern the Church, that the man deferre to do that which Christ commands him to do, this is to beg the question. Doth Christ com∣mand a man to eat his owne damnation?

Notes

• * 1.1

  L. 3. c▪ 8. p. 247. 248▪
• * 1.2

  Pag 248.
• * 1.3

  How es¦chewing intimate fellowship with a scandalous brother, is a Church∣censure.
• * 1.4

  Sacraments though helps of piety, yet not to be given to all.
• * 1.5

  Erastus p. 248. ••••••erum sa∣crament•• esse admini∣cula pi••tatis & salutis, nullus ••••gat, proi••de non sunt h••••, ••••∣ganda peten∣tibus, &c.
• * 1.6

  Pag. 249.
• * 1.7

  Erastus his contradi∣ction, in excluding both some and none at all from the Sacra∣ments.
• * 1.8

  Pag. 249. Nam de illis solis (an ar∣cendi sint a Sacramen∣tis) dispu∣tamus qui peccatum suum agnos∣cunt, & ••e∣liora pro∣mittunt.
• * 1.9

  Pag. 249.
• * 1.10

  Pag. 249. 250.
• * 1.11

  How with∣drawing from scan∣dalous bre∣thren, may inferre ex∣communi∣cation.
• * 1.12

  Pag. 250. 251.
• * 1.13

  Page 252.
• * 1.14

  Pag. 252.
• * 1.15

  Pag. 252. 253.
• * 1.16

  Pag 253.
• * 1.17

  The scan∣dalous are forbidden to come to the Sacra∣ments.
• * 1.18

  De rect•• institutis ego me sem per disputa re protesta∣tus fui.
• * 1.19

  An evident contradi∣ction in Erastus through his whole book. Lib. 3. c. 3. p. 206. 207.
• * 1.20

  Lib. 1. c. 4. pag. 112.
• * 1.21

  Whom E∣rastus ex∣cludeth from the Sacraments
• * 1.22

  Pag. 114. 115.
• * 1.23

  Page 117.
• * 1.24

  Page 116.
• * 1.25

  Page 207.
• * 1.26

  Some on earth must try who are to be ad∣mitted to, or debarred from the Sacrament, who not.
• * 1.27

  Pag. 254. Pendet haec opinia ••ua, ex opinione & judicio hominum.
• * 1.28

  Page 254.