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 ...
Rutherford, Samuel, 1600?-1661.

Quest. 3.

Whether Erastus doth justly deny that Excommunication was ty∣pified in the Old Testament?

VVEe take types of uncleannesse in the Old Testament, to be rightly expounded, when the holy Ghost in the New-Testament doth expound them. Now that Ceremoniall uncleannes did typifie Morall uncleannesse is cleare, 2 Cor. 7. 17. Touch no un∣cleane thing, and I will receive you, 18. And I will be a Father unto you, and yee shall be my Sonnes and Daughters, saith the Lord Almighty. This is a manifest Exposition of the Ceremoniall ho∣linesse and cleannesse, commanded in the booke of Leviticus, for Page  282 after the Lord hath given them a number of Lawes, about eschew∣ing of uncleane things, he saith in generall, Lev. 26. 3. If ye walke in my Statutes, and keepe my Commandements, and doe them. 11. I will set my Tabernacle amongst you, and I will be your God, and ye shall be my people. And it is a cleare allusion to Numb. 19. 11. He that toucheth the dead body of any man, shall be unclean seven dayes. 16. He that toucheth one that is slaine with the sword, in the open field, is uncleane. 22. Whatsoever the uncleane person toucheth shall be uncleane: So Paul, Tit. 1. 15. To them that are defiled and unbeleeving, nothing is pure, but even their minde and conscience is defiled.

2. The Prophets expound it so, Ezek. 36. 25. Then will I sprin∣kle clean water upon you, and yee shall be clean. From all your filthi∣nesse, and all your Idols will I cleanse you. Hath he not a cleare reference to the water of Separation, Num. 19.? With this water the unclean person, and his clothes were washed, yea, the Tents and the Vessels, ver. 17, 21. According to which, saith Paul, 2 Cor. 7. 1. Having therefore these promises (dearly beloved,) let us cleanse our selves, from all filthinesse of the flesh and spirit: Here a cleare Allusion to Ceremoniall filthines bodily, and of the flesh▪ and of Tents and Vessels, Heb. 10. 22. To both these washings there is a reference. Let us draw neere, having our hearts sprinkled from an evill conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water. And Heb. 9. 13. If the blood of buls and goates, and the ashes of an heifer (min∣gled with running water, Num. 19. 17. which purged vessels that were but capable of Ceremoniall uncleannesse) sprinkling the un∣clean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh. 14. How much more shall the bloud of Christ,—purge your conscience from dead works? It is cleare also, that the unclean were separated and the Leper put out of the campe, so as the children of Israel might not touch any thing Ceremonially unclean, and all uncleane persons were put out of the Congregation. Hence the Hypocrites word allu∣ding to that separation, Esa. 64. 5. Stand by thy selfe, come not neere to me; for I am holier then thou. So was Miriam removed, and leprous King Vzziah out of the Congregation of the Lord.


Erastus. We deny that the Ceremoniall uncleannes, signified the* wickednes of conversation, so that it can be proved that both these un∣cleannesses were punished with the same punishment. 1. Because ma∣ny Page  283 against their will were polluted legally, as the night pollutions, the diseases monethly of women, when they were necessitated to be with Children, Parents, Wife, brethren when they died; sometimes they touched unclean things ignorantly, but no man lives wickedly against his will. 2. God could not forbid in every time and place the touch∣ing of the dead, onely God commanded the polluted to be purified ac∣cording to the Law: God vvould have his people neere their dying friends, but God never gave leave to any to live vvickedly. 3. A holy man not sinning in his thought, remaining holy, might be le∣gally unclean, vvithout either his vvill or knovvledge, by touching some uncleane thing, that he knevv not to be unclean. But a vvic∣ked man doth not at one time both doe vvickedly, and remaine pure and holy.

Ans. All this is a meere cavilling at the wisedome of God, in making such Ceremoniall lawes, and such punishments against the transgressors of them, as the wise Law-giver of his free-will thought fit, because these Lawes seeme ridiculous. But the foo∣lishnes of God is wiser then men. 1. We say not, that the punish∣ment of legall and morall uncleannesse is all one every way, and alwayes; it is enough for our purpose that God will have those who are legally uncleane separated from holy things, while they bee purified, and little sinne and guiltinesse seeme to bee in legall uncleannesse, as when bodily Leprosie came on persons against their will, yet when God will have them punished with being removed from the people of God, from the Sanctuary and the holy things, this could not be for it selfe; for as Paul saith, Doth God take care of Oxen? So we, doth God hate bodily dis∣eases, which are his owne just actions, not our sinfull doings? since I say God hateth them not, and putteth not punishment on them for themselves; therefore it must be to signifie what detestation and punishment the Lord our God, would have his Church to put upon morall wickednesse: So we thinke Erastus might have spared paper and paines, in proving a difference (which no Divine denieth,) between Ceremoniall and Morall unclean∣nesse, and the punishment of the one and of the other, for it can never prove his conclusion. Ergo, Separation for legall unclean∣nesse, cannot typifie separation for Morall uncleannesse. I could give eight and twenty differences between Isaac and Christ, as Page  284Erastus giveth seventeen or eighteen between Legall and Morall uncleannesse, and the punishment of both: But I hope that should never conclude against the Holy Ghost, Heb. 11. 17, 18, 19. Gal. 4. 28, 29, 30. Rom. 9. 9. that Isaac was not a type of Iesus Christ. 2. Night pollutions are not altogether against our will, they are sinfull pollutions, except concupiscence, and lustfull habituall day lusts, the cause of them, be not sinfull pollutions; yea, and forbid∣den in the seventh Commandement.

3. These pollutions Legall caused by invincible ignorance, were types or symbolicall signes of our originall iniquity, and give me leave to doubt, if all actuall touching of things unclean, was no Morall sinfulnesse. I conceive the Iewes, as the Christians also were obliged to walk 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Ephes. 5. 15. and were to take heed to the outer-man, that they should come neere no uncleane thing, in some cases leprosie and other legall uncleannes came on them without either will or knowledge. 4. If the standing beside the dying friends be all one with touching the dead, I remit to the principles of Physicke, and if the touching of any dead be excep∣ted in the Law Ceremoniall, let the learned judge. All the o∣ther differences assigned by Erastus I leave, as not concludent a∣gainst us, they tend all either to blame God, who should punish some legall uncleannes, that is, altogether against the will of man, with any punishment at all, as the three first differences insinu∣ate. Or, 2. that God punished some Legall uncleannes more se∣verely then homicide and Morall uncleannes, as the 5. difference doth insinuate, and the 4. difference. And this is to challenge God, to whom I desire to ascribe a Soveraignty, both in punishing, or pardoning as he thinketh good: Or in punishing more severe∣ly, or more mildely these same sinnes, or in punishing greater sins with lighter punishment, and with a heavier rod lighter sinnes.


Erastus. Any legally unclean was debarred from the Temple,* the difference was onely in the time, but you debarre not all wicked men from the Supper.

Ans. The most that were legally unclean, were also morally un∣clean, in that they willingly transgressed a known Law; Ergo, Legall uncleannes, was also Morall uncleannes. 2. Though we debar not all wicked men, but onely the scandalous, yet we have in readi∣nesse vengeance against all, and so against latent disobedience, Page  285 which is a high censure, in debarring hypocrites from heaven; and we conceive Legall uncleannes as the monthly diseases of women, night pollutions, want of Circumcision did typifie much naturall and originall heart corruption, which cannot be punished by men or the Church; but it followes not, because Legall un∣cleannesse signifieth some other uncleannesse then that which is scandalous and censurable by the Church; Ergo, it signifieth not sinnes scandalous and censurable by the Church.


Erastus. He that was legally unclean a long time, or all his life,* as a Leper; was not esteemed as no Iew, or uncircumcised, or a damned man, he was to keepe the Sabbath; yea, none unclean were exclu∣ded from the Sacrament of the generall expiation in the 10. Moneth, Lev. 16. and 23. Yea, every soul under the pain of cutting off, was to afflict his soule that day: then the Lepers were not as Heathen and Publicans and condemned men, yea the Magistrate could not punish a man for Leprosie.

Ans. This is a poor argument, because Ceremoniall Excommunica∣tion differeth from Christian Excommunication; Ergo, the former is not a type of the latter, it followeth not. Isaacs blood was never real∣ly shed, Christ was really crucified, Isaac was not mocked, spitted on, did not wear a crown of Thornes, Iews and Gentiles crucified him not, between two Theevs. Ergo, Isaac was no figure of Christ offered for our sins, it followeth not. 2. Nor are Lepers no Iews, but in some respect, they might no more come to the Temple. 2. Nor amongst the people of God, nor 3. Eate the Passeover, then Heathens might doe; and so are the Excommunicated with u, they are not exempted from faith, repenting, afflicting their soule for the sinnes of the Land, nor are they eternally damned, so they repent. But Erastus hath no ground to say, because the unclean were to afflict their soules, and abstaine from servile worke in the day of atonement, (as our Excommunicants are not loosed from the duties of the ten Commandements wholly, but from some publike Church duties) but I see not how it followes; Ergo, The uncleane were to come to the holy convocation in the day of expiation, and to observe the publike solemnities with Gods people; One Law of God is not contradicent to another, and the Leper and unclean were separated, Ergo, God could not tie them to be mingled with his people. 3. The Leper was not punished by the Magistrate, for he suffered onely for Page  286 his Leprosie. But it followeth not that the Magistrate should not punish a person obstinate to the Church.


Erastus. When some uncleane persons were debarred from the Ta∣bernacle* and sacrifices, many wickedmen were admitted: Ergo. Mo∣ses both commanded men, at the same time, to come to the holy things, and not to come.

Answ. Moses bade the unclean come, he bade all clean, so they were not scandalously and openly wicked, come; and some came that were not bidden, but rebuked for their coming, as Ier. 7. 8. 9. Psal. 50. 15. Here is no contradiction.


Erastus. There be no figures of things present, but of things to come; morall uncleannesse was present, at least there be no figures of things that incurre in the senses, as theft and homicide.

Ans. Circumcision, the Lords Supper, are signes and Symbols of things present, as of Originall sinne, our present union with Christ, and communion of love amongst our selves, Col. 2. 11. 1 Cor. 10. 16, 17, 18. 2. Scandals, as they are spirituall wickednes, incurre not in our senses, yet other wayes they are visible. 3. Christs dying was both tyipfied to Iohn the Apostle, and Mary, and his death incurred in their senses, they saw him die. So was Christ raised from the dead, typified by Ionas in the belly of the Whale, and with their eyes they saw him, after he rose againe.


Erastus. Houses, cloaths, trees, stones, were capable of legall un∣cleannes,* men onely of Morall; Legall uncleannes is a qualitie, wic∣kednes morall is in actions.

Ans. I am ashamed and wearied to put in Paper such childish things, all this will not prove that Legall uncleannes is no type of Morall uncleannes; Isaac was but a man, Moses a man onely; Ergo, they cannot be Types of Christ who is more then a man; Bread and Wine are some other thing then Christ, then cannot these be symbols of Christ, and our spirituall communion with him. I see nothing here, but a challenging of Gods wisedome, who hath chosen leprosie bodily, to figure out sinnes spirituall Leprosie. E∣rastus will say not so, Leprosie is in the category of quality, and sinfull actions in the category of actions.


Erastus. Legall uncleannes, signifieth naturall corruption, not scandals.

Ans. Yea but Leprosie and other uncleannes legall, was conta∣gious and infectious, and did relate to wicked actions that infect Page  287 as a canker; sin originall being common to all▪ is not that conta∣gious from one to many; nor did the Lord ever command Se∣paration for sinne Originall, but for transgression of Ceremoniall Lawes he did.


Erastus. The Ceremoniall uncleannes does typifie the justification, and washing of a sinner in Christs blood, because no unclean thing can enter in the New Ierusalem, and so the Scripture, Rev. 21. Esa. 4. Ioel 3. Acts 15. And it shadowes out no such thing as Excommuni∣cation out of the Church.

Ans. All the arguments that Erastusmade to prove that legall* separation and uncleannes, proveth not Excommunication and Morall uncleannes, will with the same force conclude, that Legall uncleannes is not that which excludes men out of heaven, As for instance; to begin with the last, Legall uncleannesse signifieth sinne originall, not wicked actions, therefore it signifieth not scandals, then by this Legall uncleannes that caused legall separa∣tion, is signified mens exclusion out of the high Jerusalem, for one∣ly sinne Originall, not for actuall sins. This type must be a lying type, for actuall sins especially debares us out of the New Jeru¦salem, Rev. 21. 8. c. 22. 15. 1 Cor. 6. 9. 2. Legall uncleannes and corruption of nature, differ as much as legall uncleannes and actu∣all wickednesse. But Erastus said the former cannot typifie the latter. 1. Because Legall uncleannes is often involuntary, 2. It is not universally forbidden. 3. Many godly men may be legally un∣clean, but actuall morall wickednesse is not so, even so say I. 1. All naturall or originall uncleannes is voluntary in Adam. 2. Is uni∣versally forbidden. 3. It cannot consist with that holines which we must have, or we cannot see God. 3. By Erastus his fourth diffe∣rence, legall uncleannes was otherwise punished then naturall corruption, for naturall corruption is punished with the first and second death, Ephes. 2. 2. Rom. 5. 15, 16. the like may be said of all the rest. 4. Numb. 12. 14. Shame was unseparably annexed to Leprosie with contagion, so leavening of others, and shame is an∣nexed to oul scandals, and annexed to casting out of the Church, 1 Cor. 5, 6, 7. 2 Thes. 3. 14. Gal. 5. 9, 10. But though a necessity of washing may be holden forth to us in Legall uncleannes, ere we enter into Heaven; yet not so directly as in legall separation, for in it men scandalous are excluded out of the church, least the un∣cleane Page  288 should infect the clean, as is cleare as the light, Num. 19. 22. Hag. 2. 13. Gal. 5. 9. 10. 1 Cor. 5. 6, 7. but wicked men are not exclu∣ded out of the New Ierusalem in heaven, for fear they should infect and defile any person in heaven. 2. Separation from the Church is medicinall, Num. 12. 14. that the party may be humbled and pardo∣ned, 2 Cor. 5, 6, 7. that the Spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord, 1 Cor. 5. 5. and the man shamed for his further good, 2 Thes. 3. 14. But exclusion of men out of the New Jerusalem for their uncleannes, Rev. 21. is not medicinall, that they may be humbled, but for their everlasting shame and destruction; and therfore a sepa∣ration from the Church by way of discipline is here intended, not any exclusion out of heaven.


Erastus. All Legall uncleannes is punished with exclusion, but no* man for corruption of nature is excluded out of the Church.

Ans. We grant all, and therefore legall uncleannes did hold forth actuall scandalousnesse, not naturall corruption.


Erastus. The actions of unclean men were punished by death, Ergo, Not by exclusion out of the Church.

Ans. The Antecedent is not universally true: Capitall faults, as I said before, were onely thus punished; the consequence is null.


Erastus. He that was legally unclean did defile all beside him,* even vessels, places, garments; but Theeves, adulterers doe not defile, but these that consent to their wickednes; nor did they defile the places; The adulterous women brought to the Priest and temple, did not defile the Priest or Temple, Ioh. 8. Nor did Moses and others abstain from the worship, the Manna, &c. because many wicked men did partake thereof, nor were the vessels purified after wicked men touched them; therefore it followeth not, because God is more offended with the sa∣crifices of the wicked, then of those that are onely legally uncleane, that therefore wicked men are no lesse to be debarred from the holy things, then those that are legally unclean.

Ans. This is to dispute with God; God made a law, that he who being legally unclean, should touch men or things legally unclean, should pollute; This Law, God freely made as a positive statute; who can tye God to make the like Law touching those that are morally uncleane? no man: now because God made no such Law, it leaveth not off to be the sinne of the Priests, that they brought the uncircumcised in heart to the Sanctuary, as God complaineth, Page  289Ezek. 44. 8, 9. c. 22, 26. And that the Church should hinder the wicked to pollute the holy things of God. 2. The adulterous wo∣man was brought to the Priest and Temple to be judged, God had so commanded, and therefore no wonder she polluted neither Priest nor Temple, but had shee not polluted the Passeover Mo∣rally, though I say not Ceremonially, if she had eaten without Re∣pentance and offering for her sinne? I thinke she would.


Erastus. Though God punish not pollution of holy things, by debarring men from them, it followeth not that he winketh at them, for he puni∣sheth them with death, and more grievously.

Ans. But by this that God punisheth the pollution of non-con∣verting* Ordinances with death, we gather that the Church should also hinder the pollutions of them, and punish Swine that trample on Pearles, and not prostitute holy things to their lust. Beza said, those that were unclean, had need of Sacrifices, Ergo, They were guilty of sinne. Erastus saith, that externall uncleannes was not sinne, but because it put us in mind of our naturall corruption, that had need to be purged in Christs blood. Ans. The breach of a Law is sin, a Ceremoniall Law is a Law. 2. It was punished often with cut∣ting off from the Congregation, but God did not cut off men from* the Congregation for naturall corruption, as Erastus granteth.


Erastus. If legall uncleannes were sinne, God would not have com∣manded it: But God commanded, or at least permitted the Priests and others to pollute themselves with the dead, Levit. 21. Ezek. 44.

Ans. It is weakly argued, for the father to kill the sonne, then should be no sinne; God commanded Abraham to offer up his son Isaac; it is not properly a defiling, nor a sinne, when God Levit. 21. willeth the Priest to be neer those of his kin when they die, it is Gods owne exception from the Law, though to come neere to o∣thers when they are dead be sin. Gods commanding and forbid∣ding will is the formall cause and rule of obedience and sinne.


Erastus. Where finde you that the Priests were to judge whether* any had repented, that so he might be admitted to the Temple?

Ans. It is written, Ezek. 44. 99. c. 22. 26. the Priests should not have admitted the uncircumcised in heart to the Sanctuary; Ergo, they should have tryed if they were such ere they admitted them. Yea, if in the very day of his oblation ere he offer, the sinner must first re∣store what he hath unjustly taken away, Lev. 6. 4, 5, 6. Ergo, The Page  290 Priest except he rule unjustly, should judge whether he have first restored it in the principall, and added the fift part more into it, Le∣vit. 6. 5. As Ezra the Priest stood up, and said unto them, yee have transgressed, and have taken strange wives,—now therefore make confession, and separate your selfe from the people of the Land, and from the strange wives, Ezra, c. 10. v. 11, 12. And this they did ere they sacrificed; Ergo, the Priests judged of their repentance, before they were admitted to Sacrifice: and the washing of the hands in Innocency before the person compassed the Altar, Psal. 26. 6. must be tryed by the Priest, if not, the Priest offered to God the Sacrifice of fooles, and did eate the sinnes of the people, in offe∣ring for contumacious impenitents.


Erastus saith, the putting away of their wives was a civill busi∣nes, and belonged to the Magistrate.

Ans. Ezra was a Priest, and Shechaniah saith, ver. 5. Arise, this matter belongs to thee, and he is ordinarily called Ezra the Priest.