agree that Christ spoke of a Church which was then in being I mean the Church in Judea but quickly shall we be divided again in our enquiry what Christ understood by the word Church for sometimes it is put for the whole Congregation or Multitude gathered together sometimes for the Senate Council or Elders which were its Governours Thus find we the Hebrew words to signifie a Church Company or Congregation as Num. 35. 24 25. Josh 20. 6. Psal 82. 1. and elsewhere which the Septuagint renders by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Congregation Now there are Arguments of no little weight to induce us to conclude that Christ in this passage of St. Matthew would not have us understand by the word Church the Multitude or Congregation of People but the Jewish Senate or Council called sometimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for first 't is evident that Christ did not innovate any thing in the forms of Judicature or Government which were administred agreeable to the Law nor did he himself or permitted his Disciples to do any thing contrary to what Moses had rightly instituted by Gods command Now Moses did ordain that such Suits and Controversies should be decided not by the Multitude but by the Senate or Sanedrim of such and such places which at first was held at the Gates of each City where the Elders sate to judge Had Christ thought of introducing any thing here contrary to the Institution of Moses his Disciples must needs have been highly moved at it who were all their lives strict observers of the Law Let every man think with himself what dust and Triumphs the Pharisees would have rais'd could they have in truth fixt so criminal an Action upon him that he in opposition to the Law of Moses had stir'd up the People against the Magistrate what fairer pretext could they have wish'd to lay Sedition to his charge than by proving upon him this attempt to set up the People against the Magistrate contrary to Gods determination to commit to them the Examination of Witnesses to give them a power to convene whom they would before them to grant them cognizance of Gauses and power of Judicature Secondly Christ commanded to tell it unto that Church which had power to send for and call before them the party accused which might hear the Cause which might examine Witnesses and therefore he commands us in the second place to take two or three that the Fact may be competently prov'd and lastly which might pronounce their Sentence and Judgement in the case But every one must know that these things could not be done by the Croud the Multitude without chusing some set persons who might manage and moderate matters It must be a very small Congregation a very handful of men who could be able of themselves without the Elders to dispatch such Causes for which reason some have rightly judg'd that this Precept of Christ could not hold well could be of little or no use but when the Church consisted of very few Members But now since that they who thus preside in these Affairs are in very truth nothing but the Senate the Sanedrim the Sessions of the Elders it again follows that Christ commanded not to tell it unto the Multitude but to the Council or Sanedrim and truly in Christ's time the People had not the power of chusing their Magistracy and Governours We must needs therefore by the word Church understand the Jewish Senate or Council as 't is plain the Disciples did from what has been already said Therefore if the meaning of the Church there be all the Members of it the People we are then to tell it unto a Church which has right and authority to make choice of such a Senate or Council as was that of the Jewish Church but our Churches have no power to chuse such a Council as the Jewish Sanedrim was nay in Christ's time the Jews themselves had not that liberty as I told you just now We might adde that when the Scripture speaks of the Multitude it generally uses the words People Multitude Children of Israel or the like comprehensive words but when any thing is related to be said or done in the Synagogues or in all the Congregation I need not tell you that this form of speech is usual at this very day for we say we have communicated the matter to such a Kingdom or State when we have acquainted onely the King Senate or Governing part of such State or Kingdom We recount how this or that Nation has rewarded a man when the Representatives onely in such a Dyet or Parliament hath been liberal-handed to them 'T is so common a thing to use phrases of this nature that 't is wonderful so few should have observ'd it But the sum of all is this Christ alter'd not the Customs of his time nor introduced any Novelties or Changes into their Courts of Judicature or Measures and Ways of Judging nor do his Disciples betray any suspition of Innovation or Alteration and therefore his Command is to acquaint the Sanedrim before their denier resort to the Heathen Magistracy XLIX Now 't is evident from Holy Writ as well as other History that the Sanedrim was the legal Magistracy of the Jewish Nation and that in Christ days they both kept and us'd the power of the Sword Many things in the Narratives of the Passion of Christ besides other Testimonials evince as much They send armed men to take Jesus they proceed in examining Witnesses as the Law requir'd at least they pretended so they command him to be set before them in Judgment they delivered him bound to Pilate after they had first publickly condemn'd him they openly condemn Stephen and command him to be stoned they seize the Apostles and put them in the common Prison they cause them to be beaten after a general Consult held about them they give Letters and authority to Paul to bring any that he found of that way bound to Jerusalem for to be punished The Jews themselves with the Elders and High Priest that is the Sanedrim say it in express terms by their Speaker Tertullus who accusing Paul before Foelix Acts 24. v. 2. adds v. 6. That they took him and would have judg'd him according to their Law but that Lysias came upon them and with great violence took him away out of their hands And Acts 23. v. 3. says Paul to the High Priest Sittest thou to judge me after the Law and commandest me to be smitten contrary to the Law And afterwards Acts 26. v. 10. Paul confesses before King Agrippa and Festus that many of the Saints he shut up in prison having received authority from the Chief Priests and when they were put to death he gave his voice against them and punished them often in every Synagogue and compelled them to blaspheme and farther persecuted them into strange Cities still acting under the authority derived from the High Priests as when he was going to Damascus
by their Commission v. 12. I can't imagine but that Agrippa and Festus too knew well enough whether it was lawful or not for their Council to do so and sure they would not have acquitted him in the manner they did v. 34 35. had not the Authority he had been committed by been warrantable for Paul should have offended no less against Caesar than against the Pharisees For he who doth an unlawful act by the permission and command of them who have no right nor authority to permit and command transgresses no less than they that command it but no such thing is charg'd upon the Accusers or Accused but Paul is fully acquitted as one that hath done nothing worthy of death or of bonds And had not the Jewish Sanedrim had this authority and liberty then lest them Pilate could not have said to them Joh. 18. 31. Take ye him and judge him according to your law And when they answer that it was not lawful for them to put any man to death this must be understood either as St. Augustin interprets it at the time of that Festival for fear of the People or as St. Chrysostom expounds it of that kind of Death which they desired that Christ should die With which latter Opinion the words of St. John which immediately follow very well agree to wit That the saying of Jesus might be fulfilled which he spake signifying what death he should die To the same purpose is that of Mat. 26. 55 56. where Christ says I sate dayly with you teaching in the temple and ye laid no hold no me but all this was done that the Scriptures of the Prophets might be fulfilled They took him therefore at a time when by reason of the Feast then at hand and for fear of the People they could not put him to death vid. Mat. 26 5. and Mark 14. 2. Since therefore they could not bear that he should live any longer and they could not well take his life away themselves it follows of course that he must be deliver'd into the hands of the Romans that so all things which he had Mat. 24. foretold his Disciples might be fulfilled as the words of St. John intimate and as Augustine and Chrysostom agree And those Cries and Vociferations of the People Crucifie him crucifie him give farther Testimony to this Interpretation L. By what has been said the falsity of that Affirmation is apparently detected which says that the Sanedrim had not the power of the Sword that is the authority of Life and Death and that Stephen was ston'd tumultuously by the Rabble and not by Decree of the Council For I think I have proved beyond all contradiction that such a Power they had and for St. Stephen's case 't is clear that he was not tumultuously slain for that Acts 6. 12. he was solemnly brought and accused before the Council Witnesses were produced though false ones v. 13. they carried him out of the City and those Witnesses as the Law provides cast the first stones at him as may be easily gather'd from their laying down their Clothes at Saul's feet v. 58. The same too may be as fully proved out of other Histories for Josephus in his fourteenth book of the Antiquity of the Jews ch 12. 16 17. according to the Greek Copies tells us That the Romans gave liberty to all Nations and by name to the Jews who dwelt in or out of Judea to use their own Laws in things relating to Religion and to live freely according to their own Rites and Customs And in that twelfth Chapter he quotes Strabo for his Author that he writing of the City Cyrene says they had there a President or Chief Ruler who heard and decided their Causes and transacted all affairs as absolutely as if they had been an Independent State That also makes farther for us which we read Acts 18. 15. of Gallio the Deputy of Achaia where he tells them that if it be a matter of their Law they may look to it The same Josephus lib. 16. ch 4 5. recounts how Herod had obtained of Agrippa that the Jews in Asia might have the freedom of enjoying the Priviledges before that time indulg'd them by the Romans I take occasion to remember this because some object that Herod destroy'd and slew all the Sanedrim and stript them of all Authority as if none had succeeded those that were kill'd How likely is it that Herod should take from them in Jerusalem that power of judging in matters relating to Religion and determining therein according to their Law who endeavour'd to procure and preserve the same to all the other Asiaticks Besides the time of Christ's preaching fell not under Herod or Archelaus but under the Government of Pilate 'T is certain that the Jews forced even Pilate himself to send again out of the City the Roman Standards which he had caused to be privately introduc'd to prevent the breach of Gods Commands of suffering any Image in the City And that they reserv'd and continued this Power to themselves to the very destruction of Jerusalem may be clearly gathered from Josephus his Oration to the Besieged The Romans says he in his fifth Book of the Wars of the Jews ch 26. exact Tribute of us for that our Forefathers have a long time been wont to pay it to theirs If in this you comply they 'll neither sack this our City nor meddle with our Temple but leave both you your Goods and Families free and the free use and enjoyment of your sacred Laws Titus himself after his having taken the City said almost the very same to the Jews lib. 6. chap. 34. Whether therefore we consult the Holy Writ or the Jewish History 't is an undoubted truth that that Sanedrim which Christ commanded to tell it unto had the power of the Sword the power of Life and Death especially over those who sin'd against their Religion for in Civil matters and Causes of Right and Wrong where the Law had not specified the Punishment I do not question but that the Romans encroached and usurp'd if not all yet most of them to themselves as is easily discernable out of History and may well be conjectur'd out of Acts 18. v. 12. LI. And 't is no ways repugnant to what we have said that in Josephus his Antiquities of the Jews some of them tell Albinus that it was not lawful for the High Priest to call the Sanedrim or Council without his leave For he there as an Historian relates what others did not that he applauds or approves of the Fact thereby Besides peradventure the High Priest during the interregnum that is whilst Albinus after the death of Festus was no his Journey thither ought not to summon a Court for a matter of that weight and moment till the new Governour confirm'd him in that Authority for he had procur'd that James the Lords Brother who was vulgarly sirnamed the Just should be put to death who being a person
the Pattern for we are to live up to the Laws and not to Presidents and not walk after any one in his deviations from the Laws of God unless we will confound all the Rules and Measures of Right and Wrong Let us indeed have an eye to the good Examples of the good and strive to come after them but not after the bad of the bad I have been so particular though with all the brevity I could on this Argument because some do mightily hug and applaud themselves in it though to the deceiving of themselves as well as others XXIII 'T is therefore a most certain unshaken and indisputable truth that under the old Testament no man was shut out from Sacraments for Immoralities but on the contrary all the holy Priests Prophets Judges Kings and at last John the Baptist that most eminent and most holy Forerunner of Christ rather sent Invitations to all good and bad to come in and keep them according to the Law than shut the doors upon them XXIV But now our Sacraments and those of our Forefathers under the Old Testament are as to the things signified see the spiritual sence of them altogether the same as Paul 1 Cor. 10. plainly intimates And therefore unless it can appear that the Law of Moses either is abolished or changed in this point none has authority to set up a contrary practice XXV For as against the Anabaptists we do well urge as a most effectual Argument that since Baptism came in the place of Circumcision and that Christ did nowhere forbid the baptizing of Infants it cannot be less lawful for us to baptize our Children than 't was for the Jews to circumcise theirs so may we here argue with equal force that the Lords Supper succeeded to the eating the Passover but Vice and Immoralities were not punished by prohibiting them to eat the Passover nor were the Jews on any such account drove from it but the Law did rather invite all of what age or condition soever especially every Male to keep it Which being not found to be either antiquated nor abolished but holding still as to the reason of it Crimes are no more now to be punished by denying us the Lords Supper neither ought any one on this account to be rejected But enough has been said with reference to the Old Testament 't is time we should now come to Christ and his Apostles that is to the New Testament XXVI Now we read not any where that our Lord and Saviour Christ did in any wise interdict any person access unto or use of the Sacraments or that he so much as commanded the Apostles that they should do any thing like it for Christ came not into the world to destroy the Law but to fulfil and perfect it therefore when the Law commanded all but the unclean to celebrate the Passover Christ would not surely forbid any one XXVII For 't is very clear that Christ checkt no body for using Sacraments or frequenting the Temple and Sacrifices but onely caution'd them to use them aright and agreeably to the Will and Law of God He went into the same Temple with Pharisees Sadduces Publicans and who not be they bad be they good he was with them at the same Sacrifices used all Sacraments promiscuously with the rest of the people was baptized of John with the same Baptism as those wicked ones were XXVIII Upon this account was it that Jesus hindred not Judas his Betrayer from eating the last Paschal Lamb with him but he sate down to it with all his twelve Disciples not but that there are some who endeavour to prove that Judas was not present at this new instituted Supper of our Lord which is an hard if not an impossible matter to evince from Sacred Writ but that he withdrew before the Institution yet sure none can have the hardiness to deny that Judas was according to the Law admitted to the eating the Passover on which Concession our Argument holds firm and unanswerable for whether he went or went not out before the Institution of another Supper though the latter carries most of probability in it and always hath been believed by most men this still is plain that he was present and partaker of the first and was not openly or expresly forbidden the latter Neither read we any where that Christ commanded him to go out to the end that he might not be a Communicant in his new instituted Supper if therefore he did go out he did it voluntarily and of his own head neither went he out for any such purpose But â—he Question with us is what Christ not what Judas did 'T is enough for our purpose that Christ never commanded him to withdraw from his Supper XXIX But the common Put-off and Salvo for this matter is very light and frivolous That Judas his Crime was not of a publick nature and that on that consideration he was not to be put out for first he had struck the bargain and agreed the price with the Pharisees before and Christ acquainted his Disciples with it at that Supper-time this was an ample Publication by Christ himself and should therefore have been the rather made a President and Example in this matter But secondly whatever this may be he was at least known to be a Thief before and though such an one he were yet did our Lord commit a Ministry and office to him and bestowed on him the power of casting out Devils of healing the Sick and of doing other such-like Miracles Lastly Christ admitted him as well as the rest of his Disciples to the Celebration of the Passover all the whiles he was with him Is not this proof enough that Christ had no mind no intent or desire that flagitious persons should be punisht by debarring them the Sacraments Sure 't is matter of greater moment to take a wicked man into the Ministry than to admit such an one to the Supper yet we see that Christ did both to Judas XXX 'T is farther observable that at his first Supper the Disciples began to contend about Greatness and Superiority yet was none of them shut out thence on that score nay Christ would and commanded that all should drink of the Cup Mat. 26. v. 27. which Mark 14. v. 23. is said to be actually done And as to this business the reason holds in the Bread as well as Wine Now what can it be believed was the mind and intent of Christ but to ratifie what God had before commanded by Moses to wit â—â—t none who were initiated by Baptism should be debarr'd from that publick and solemn act of Thanksgiving who had a mind to be at it Whence it appears that no person is to be thrust from the Lords Table who embraces the Doctrine of Christ and submits to be instructed by him XXXI Christ doth not desire that his Kingdom I speak of his visible and external one in this world should be of a narrower extent among Christians than were
absence he determin'd not to do it without them he doth not command the Church that they by themselves should do this as if this were purely an Apostolical not an Ecclesiastical Power an authority annexed to the persons of the Apostles and not to any Church or other Order or Succession of men which are considerations not to be slurr'd over with slight and contempt Lastly We do not any-where read that the Apostle commanded any single person or number of men to deliver any one to Satan for the destruction of the Flesh either whilst he lived or when he should be dead and gone well knowing that this was appropriated to his Apostolick Power and not to be delegated not to be agreeable to any other or less Authority for as they had the Power of Healing so had they that of Wounding too as appears Acts 5. 5 10. and 13. 11. for which reason we read not of any ordained by the Apostles that are commanded to exercise this Extraordinary Power And therefore the Apostle is ever and anon threatning them with his coming in power with his being sharp and severe upon them with his dealing with them according to the power given him by God with his coming to them with a Rod and the like and commands to note those by Epistle that offend This is not a thing given in charge to the Elders that it may be without all controversie that this Power was granted to the Apostles and to none else Of the same import is that which we read 1 Tim. 1. 20. of Hymenaeus and Alexander whom Paul not the Church nor the Presbyters nor any other persons whatsoever delivered unto Satan LIX I have hitherto by way of Argument and from Circumstances clearly evinced that 't was a thing of a quite different nature to deliver to Satan and to shut out from the Sacrament Now proceed I to demonstrate the same truth from the words themselves and the propriety tendency and nature of that whole passage for First The Apostle does not say Why did ye not interdict this incestuous person the Lords Supper but why have ye not mourned 1 Cor. 5. 2. that is why have ye not by Mourning and Prayers put up to God besought that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you what way God shall best please St. Augustine in his third book against Parmen explains the place to the same sence and the same way doth he expound what the Apostle ch 12. hath written of sorrowing They also seem to be of St. Augustine's and Truth 's side too who suppose the Apostle to allude to 1 King 21. 9 12. From whence we may conjecture it to have been an ancient Custom among the Jews to make inquisition after enormous crimes by fasting Prayers and publick mourning that the same when detected might be brought to condign punishments as the Law requir'd Therefore at that time when the Church was destitute of the Civil Authority he admonishes them that they ought to address to God that he would as might seem best to him take him out of the way which was a quite different thing from that which we call excommunicating a man But besides by what competent Author can it be made out that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To take away from among men should be a phrase for debarring a man access to the Sacrament In propriety of speech he is said è medio sublatus to be taken away from among men who is any ways kill'd for though a banished or exil'd person may in some sence be said to be driven away from among others yet in propriety of speech and as the Greeks commonly use it 't is not so taken by them at leastwise 't is not to be found in that sence in Holy Writ Secondly But if the Apostles direction here be to have him discommon'd and thrust out of the Fellowship and Converse of the Faithful what need was there of publick mourning he should have been turn'd over and banisht to the Gentiles But that 's not consistent with that other Clause That his Soul may be saved which at least on our Adversaries principles could never be out of the pale of the Church If you say he was onely debarr'd and removed from the Sacrament and private Commerce he was not then è medio eorum sublatus he was not taken away from among them for I do not think any man able to make it out that the Apostle order'd him to be kept from the Sacrament alone and from private Conversation Familiarity and Fellowship with them This then is a mere addition a forc'd sence upon the Apostles words which cannot be prov'd ever to have enter'd into his thoughts Truly I think that no man who is vers'd in Scripture and the most ancient Expositors of it can doubt but that the Apostle borrowed this passage and the very words that he expresseth himself in from Deut. 17. 10. ch 19. 20. ch 21. 7. ch 22. 6 11. ch 24. 8. where Moses puts the words for cutting off the Offender by death and for nothing else and in all the alleadged places Moses keeps to the self-same words Whereas in ch 13. he puts 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but both in the same sence How is it therefore possible that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here should bear such a construction viz. to excommunicate as Excommunication now-a-days signifies Thirdly The Context seems to prove that this Offender did not persist in that piece of Wickedness for in v. 2 3. of that fifth Chapter 't is him that hath done this deed which shews he had not that he then did do it The Apostle therefore seems to designe the punishing him for the Fact that he had committed agreeable to the Command of God and to the Practice of every good Magistrate And indeed when he says v. 4. That the Spirit may be saved c. he seems to have been inform'd of his penitence for how could he otherwise have written thus of a man who had given no proof how his Soul was touch'd for so enormous a Wickedness Fourthly The Apostle tells them he had determin'd or judg'd already to deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus Are we to seek for the signification of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In what prophane Author or in what place of Scripture hath it a different sence from what 't is here taken in of giving giving up delivering permitting yielding and the like And here we have first the person giving him up and the person to whom he was so given and he that was given Nay 't is over and above added why and for what purpose he was deliver'd up And as to the form of speech 't is just as if I should say I deliver over my Son to his Master or I put him into such a Masters hands
and truly prov'd that no circumcised person was ever before Christ's days prohibited those Ceremonies and Sacraments which God by the hand of Moses had ordain'd amongst them upon any delinquency in Morals or Piety of Life Nay I have withal shewn that 't was not lawful for any one whomsoever to forbid them and I have by pregnant Testimonies from Scripture and Reason made it out that neither Christ nor his Apostles taught or acted contrary Besides I think I have demonstrated that what our Adversaries offer on their own behalfs cannot maintain the Opinion they would build on it So that now I see not any farther rubs nothing that can shock this Conclusion That that Excommunication which shuts out Christians from the Sacrament for pure Immoralities and the Vitiousness of their lives was never ordained by God but is a Figment and Invention of men for so far is it from deriving its original from Scripture that the invention and trick of it is rather declaim'd against and condemn'd there LXIX If any yet reply that at this rate we bespatter we condemn whole shoals of pious Bishops who quickly after the Apostles times began this excommunicating Sinners I must tell them 't is one thing to speak against an Opinion and another against the Assertors or Authors of it Many in our Age of no less Piety than Learning have examin'd have sifted and confuted sundry ancient and as I may say Catholick Errours Errours that crept early into the Church As for instance the Limbus Patrum Purgatory Praying to Saints Exorcisms in Baptism Coelibacy of the Priesthood Unctions in Baptism and at the point of Death Prayers for the Dead and Satisfaction in the Case how in question and yet I know not any man that has it charg'd on him as a Crime barely for that he hereby condemns his Predecessors If men will needs labour to enforce this Excommunication upon the Churches as a Law of Gods promulgation I can never be brought to commend it therefore though at the same time I cannot but highly praise and approve of their Zeal and good Intentions who first gave rise to it for their aim was hereby to curb the restiff and unweildy humours of vitious men since they could not imagine a more commodious and effectual way of doing it And very many as we see even to this day walk on in this beaten and publick Path do it because others before them did it having never so much as taken it into their considerations whether it be a matter that stands with holy Scripture or no. LXX I cannot at present say much of the very time when Excommunication had its first rise onely that towards the latter end of the second Century after Christ I meet with something like it then attempted and set up For above one hundred and fifty years I do not find any one suspended or put by from receiving the Sacrament for unholiness of life They that are fuller vers'd in the History and Writings of the Fathers may perchance speak better and clearer in this point They that shall carefully peruse what Socrates in his fifth book of Eccles History chap. 19. has transmitted to us I verily believe will without much difficulty confess with us that this Custom of Excommunicating had its first Epoch or Commencement in the Church about the time of Novatus Yet Sozomen in his seventh book chap. 16. pretends other causes for its Institution Besides which we read that about the year of the Lord 200. Victor Bishop of Rome admitted not to the Lords Supper them who refused to forgive Injuries but I have observ'd that till that time none were denied the Communion but Hereticks and such as swerv'd from or renounced the Christian Faith But be that how it will this is both certain and evident that Excommunication was first introduced into the Church for the restraint and punishment of Vice and afterwards when the Church had got the Sword into their hand as well as the Keys at their girdle that is when the Magistrates Kings and Princes became Christian and subjected themselves to the Faith yet did the Church-men not let go this power but continued the exercise of it by their Bishops partly for that the Episcopal Order was then believed to be of Divine Right partly for that they could not but be fond and tenacious of that Power which made them formidable to Kings and Emperours and was therefore a morsel too sweet to be parted with without regret And they easily wrought others into a belief of Christs being the Author and Institutor of it since themselves had before so forwardly and so willingly swallowed it Superstition too in a little time had ascribed so much virtue to the Sacrament that it gave strength to the Opinion for 't was believed and publickly owned by their Writings that there were some that could not die till they had been housell'd and received the Sacrament Either therefore this Errour made men dread Excommunication or Excommunication led them into the Errour for how facile a thing was it to impose upon the Credulity of the illiterate and weak Vulgar that Life was annext to the receiving and Death to the deprivation of the holy Sacrament since the denial of this to a sinner was the highest and last Punishment that they saw inflicted on him LXXI But for the Persons that executed and denounced this Excommunication as far as our Conjectures can carry us in this affair they seem to have been at first such Elders as we read of 1 Cor. 6. 4. who supplied the place and defect of Magistracy in the Church together with the Ministry but afterwards all this Authority was devolved upon the Bishops who took cognizance of all Suits made up Differences gave Judgment and did every thing that related to the decisions of Right and distributing Justice betwixt man and man as we perceive by the History of those times and by St. Augustine's complaining of so much then lying on the Bishops hands of this nature Ambrose affirms that those sort of Elders whose assistance was wont to be made use of in the Church on all occasions were in vogue and authority when yet they were destitute of Bishops And it appears by the Apostle that these Elders were to have an Authority as to that Employment of Judging as long as the Church should be under the pressures of an Heathen Magistrate which gives us to understand that as under a Christian Government that Employment would be useless and was therefore to cease so Excommunication upon supposition that they had exercis'd such a thing before yet should it in a Christian Kingdom cease For we must note that these Elders were instead of Civil Magistrates and manag'd Civil affairs and were no Ecclesiastical Judicature which now-a-days is of a different nature from the Civil for 't is plainly said that they were to deal in Suits and Controversies of Law things relating to this Life and the Concerns of it LXXII 'T would
make a Volume to recount what advantages the Church did hereby reap most certainly they can't be set out in a small compass for first this Excommunication made men to look for salvation from the Sacrament for thus they fram'd the Argument The Exclusion from the Sacrament draws down Death and Damnation say they therefore the Receiving of it gives Life They scarce could entertain a doubt of the truth of the Antecedent whilst they were taught that this was so dreadful so Soul-destructive a punishment and when they thought themselves by being shut out from the Sacrament to fall straight into the very clutches of the Devil and be wholly at Satan's mercy which has made it thought by some that they could not die without being housled as I said before This Errour grew and got strength from the many great and long Penances the Solemnities of Absolution and the like amongst which none was more prevalent than that they would not administer the holy Eucharist to them till the very point of Death and that then they gave it them 't was of pure compassion that they might not go hence destitute of the Souls necessary food for if any through whatever Accident was so unfortunate he was held for a man damn'd and lost to all Eternity as if God would not forgive them their sins who heartily and sincerely repent and vouchsafe unto them everlasting life unless these Elders should adjudge them qualified for the Lords Supper What errour is there of a more detestable and fatal consequence But another Fruit of this was that all the World now began to believe that 't was in the power of men to shut and open Heaven when and to whom they pleased and therefore the younger Theodosius would not eat his Dinner because having denied an importunate Monk's Request he stood excommunicate by him for his pains and though the Bishop of Constantinople told the Emperour that the Excommunication was invalid yet rest good man he could not nor would not till the same hand absolv'd that had bound him So Ambrose for eight months together kept an Elder from Church from Sermons and all the acts of publick Worship 'T is true offended he had but more pardonably than Ambrose himself as any man that has his eyes in his head may see upon the perusal of Nicephorus his History and the Chronicle of Philip Melancthon By these steps has the Roman See encroached upon the Western World and made Princes Kings and Emperours to lacky to her Lust and arbitrary sway in pretended Spirituals Dyed has been the German Empire in the Gore of hundred thousands that fell a Sacrifice to this Roman Diana to excommunicating Popes and excommunicated Emperours Kings and Princes Religion she has chopt and chang'd mangled and disfigured debased and vitiated at her pleasure none daring to question her Canons dispute her Decretals or look her Bulls in the face the whole World were Caligula's and durst not shew their heads when she sent her Thunder of Excommunication abroad The God of Foxes spoken of by Daniel Dan. 11. 38. if we weigh that passage aright signifies nothing but this Excommunication or the Prohibiting men the use of Sacred things especially the Lords Supper For this Excommunication acts a very God in earnest 't is to this day a God of Forces a God who has put all things all the power of Heaven and Hell under the Popes feet And there are not wanting now-a-days too another sort of men acting upon the same Principles who would make all Humane Authority and the Civil Christian Magistrate truckle to them and dread their Censures as far as the Popes ignorant Votaries do his Bulls But I hope the time will come when this God shall stand expos'd and condemn'd for a false and feigned God and be stript of all its God-like terror and dread and whatsoever may or has so long plagu'd and enslav'd the Church In fine this Idol Excommunication had every where such an Ascendant that 't was the constant Belief of the World that they who by Church-Censures and Interdictions from the Sacrament and publick acts of Worship were denounced unworthy of eternal Life were thereby wholly fallen from divine Grace as on the other hand saved must they needs be whom the Church received and would have so Can we hope better terms or greater moderation from our Modern Church-men than the World has experienced in their Predecessors I fear he that should expect it would find himself deceiv'd and that he has but little weigh'd what either the Scriptures or Experience might inform him of LXXIII I see no cause why Christian Rulers should not now-a-days do what God in the Jewish Common-wealth requir'd of the Civil Magistrate Do we conceit that we can frame a better Model and Form of Discipline in Church or State than God gave to them since we read in Deut. 4. that the Nations for this should praise and admire the People of Israel for their Wisdom and Understanding evinc'd by those Statutes and Judgments which God had given them yet God never taught them Excommunication But the Power of punishing the Debaucheries and restraining the looseness and licentiousness of manners was wholly in the Magistrate whose duty 't was not onely to animadvert on such Crimes by the Rules that God had in their Law prescribed them but the management of all the Externals of Religion the Disciplinary part and Constitution was in them For 't was not Aaron but Moses that did this God still commanding it and we know this Jurisdiction was transferred over to Joshua not to Eleazar 't was Joshua on whom God laid that Injunction of seeing the Israelites circumcis'd the second time and not Eleazar Josh 5. 2. and this was to be universal without exception of one man the Bad were to be circumcis'd as well as the Good and Bad there were without question And the keeping the Passover then was by him too directed nor was any person that we there read of excluded from it for dishonesty of his life The Ark of God was carried from place to place as he gave the word and in all things relating to Religion he interpos'd his Commands as may be observ'd throughout the whole book of Joshua Eli and Samuel who had the charge of Religious as well as Civil affairs they offer'd and administred at the Altar as Priests but as Judges they manag'd both Church and State for 't was lawful for the High Priests under the Old Testament to meddle with the arts of Government and Secular affairs as they were the Types of Christ our King and High Priest but under the Gospel 't is another case IT SHALL NOT BE SO WITH YOV says Christ See 1 Pet. 5. 3. which is pertinent to our purpose LXXIV If we go farther to the Kings the case is no less plain As to David there 's none can doubt it since it appears that he order'd all the Offices and Charges relating to God's Worship he that pleases may read