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
A TREATISE OF Excommunication WHEREIN 'T is Fully Learnedly and Modestly demonstrated THAT There is no Warrant Precept or President either in the Old or New Testament for Excommunicating any Persons or Debarring them the Sacraments whilst they make an outward Profession of the true Christian Faith Written Originally in Latine By the famous and pious THOMAS ERASTVS Doctor in Physick About the Year 1568. Brethren ye have been called unto LIBERTY onely use not Liberty for an occasion to the Flesh but by LOVE SERVE one another Gal. 5. v. 13. LONDON Printed for L. Curtis 1682. To the Pious READER AND Such as is studious of Truth THOMAS ERASTVS a Physician sends greeting LEst any lighting upon this Treatise should wonder what Motives or Provocations made me busie my self in this Controversie about Excommunication I shall as Concisely as Truly acquaint the World with the Rise and Occasion of it 'T is now much about sixteen years since some men have fallen into a kind of Excommunicating Frenzy under the specious Title of Ecclesiastical Discipline and as they contend sacred in it self and enjoyn'd the Church by God and fain would they have the whole Church tainted with the like that the manner of it they propose should be thus That a select number of Elders should sit in the name of the whole Church and judge who were fit and who unfit to be admitted to the Lords Supper I could not but wonder to see them consulting of such matters at such a time when we had neither fit persons to excommunicate or to be excommunicated for scarce a thirteenth part of the people understood and approved of the Doctrine of the Reformation which was then but blooming the residue were our profest Enemies so that no man who had his wits about him but must needs see that such a matter must unavoidably introduee dangerous Divisions among us And therefore I thought it not then so proper an Enquiry how some might be shut out of the Church as how more might be brought in and that the best thing we could apply our selves to would be the propagating saving Truths Besides they who were to be the Supervisors were not so much superior to the others in Age Experience Parts Judgment Virtue or Eminency that they could manage so weighty a matter with that Port and Dignity that was requisite Since therefore I saw that their desires could not have the labour'd Effects without the Churches Ruine and Subversion I was ever and anon cautioning them that they should weigh well what they did and not rashly attempt what they might after too late repent But though as yet I verily thought that Excommunication had been a thing commanded in the Scriptures yet I did not find it commanded after that manner that they proposed So that since Christ seemed to me to have left us at large for the manner of it I set my thoughts on work what might be the best way and course under our circumstances and would be attended with the least Distractions and Inconveniencies which I did with the closer application and diligence upon some Reflections that I had how fatal and turbulent to Christianity this had formerly proved and was still little better as it was managed Whilst I was upon these thoughts and look'd a little back upon what the Antients had writ on this subject I find it weaker in all points than I had before suspected so that I could not but begin to doubt of the very thing My next resort was to the School-men among whom I met with as little satisfaction Then came I to our Modern Writers who no whit mended the matter nay I observ'd that they did most manifestly differ among themselves in some things which quicken'd my diligence in the Enquiry So I laid by these Commentators a while and betook my my self to the Scripture in the perusal of which I mark'd and noted with all the exactness I could what was discrepant from and what agreeable unto the commonly received Opinion And truly it was no ordinary assistance to me in this matter to take a survey with my self of the state of the Jewish Church and Government for thus thought I with my self God in the 4th Chapter of Deut. v. 6 7 8. bears witness to their Laws that there was no Nation that had Statutes and Judgments so righteous and that for their Laws sake it should be said of them Surely this great Nation is a wise and understanding People Therefore it seem'd necessary with me that to have a Church gloriously and wisely modell'd it must make near approaches to the Judaical Form But certain it is that in this Jewish Church things were never so instituted by God as that there should be distinct procedures in the punishing Immoralities one by the Civil and another by the Ecclesiastical power What hinders then but that even now too that that Church which God hath blessed with a Christian Magistracy may sit down contented under one form of Government I then communicated my thoughts to learned good and pious men so far as that I press'd them not to consider the matter slightly and cursorily for I could not but deem it very unnecessary that there should be two Heads of the Visible Church where the Body is but one and that their Mandates Injunctions Decretals and all the Acts of a governing Authority should be distinct as hitherto they have been so that the Government of one should not be subject to the Inspection or Controul of the other but both their Jurisdictions be Chief in their kinds For such a Church-Senate or Convocation of select Elders would they in truth have fram'd that they should have the Supreme Right and Power of punishing Vice even in the Magistrates themselves but not with corporal punishments but by prohibiting them the Sacrament first privately and if on this they reform'd not then in a more solemn and publick manner But my Opinion was as I always told them That one Supreme Magistrate of Gods institution and of the true Faith might and had as good right now to restrain Vice as heretofore under the Law And I took me an instance from Solomon's glorious Reign which was a kind of Type of the Christian Church's reigning upon Earth Now neither under him nor yet under Moses the Judges or any other the Kings or when govern'd by the Optimacy have we any foot-steps of two so distinct Judicatures over mens actions and manners Nature says Musculus allows not two absolute and Independent Governments without any subordinacy of one to the other to Lord it over the same people I must confess I received great Aids and Improvement of these my Thoughts from the persons with whom I conferr'd them for in some things their Observations out-went my own and where they did not they furnisht me many material hints to mend them by But still I kept my self quiet from any publick Contests in this Affair and entered not into any Debates about it where I was
the boundaries and limits set unto the Jews As therefore God commanded that all that were externally circumcised should participate and communicate in the same Sacraments and Rites but that Criminals and other Transgressors should by the Sword and other civil Punishments be restrained and punished so is it Christ's Will that all who are baptized into him all that profess Christianity and have a right and sound sense of Religion should be admitted to the use of all external Ceremonies and Sacraments whilst the Wicked and Criminal fall under the correction of the Magistrate whether it be by Death Exile Imprisonments or other the like Penalties And the Parables of the Net Marriage and Tares seem to import no less XXXII We find among the Apostles Paul especially no fewer nor less plain and forcible Arguments for our Assertion First there are no Footsteps that the Apostles did either teach or practise such a kind of Excommunication This Argument though it be not so evincing and strong of it self yet will be made unanswerable if we consider that the Apostles all their time kept themselves to a strict observance of such Laws of Moses which Christ had not abrogated as may be gathered out of the 21th and 28th Chapters of the Acts of the Apostles for which cause they never did nor would attempt to put by any one from our Sacraments which differ from the Sacraments of their Forefathers in the signes and time of signifying onely if he be a professed Christian and make a right Confession of that Doctrine for they neither did nor taught any thing contrary to the Precepts of Moses which Christ had not before abrogated but kept themselves to as close and strict observance of the Law after his death as before as the chief of the Apostles bears witness in the before-cited places for that permission to live free from the Law of Moses was to the Gentiles onely not to the Convert Jews which ought carefully to be remark'd here for the sake of what follows And as to the substance of their Doctrine they taught nothing that interfer'd with Moses and the Prophets for had they taught any thing dissonant the Bereans could not have judged it agreeable to those Scriptures that they searched Acts 17. v. 11. XXXIII But to adventure yet one step farther Much may be said for the sense of Moses which jumps altogether with ours but for the contrary Opinion Paul affords us not one Argument for that Apostle in 1 Cor. 8. v. 7. excludes neither those who yet retaining some fear and conscience of the Idols thought them to be something nor those proud boasting Gnosticks who in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the House or Temple of the Idol at least in the Room that was set apart for their solemn and publick Idol-Festivals did promiscuously with the profane and impious Idolaters eat of the things offer'd to Idols A thing expresly forbid by Moses Exod. 34. v. 15. by the Apostles Acts 15. v. 29. by John Rev. 2. v. 14. This was a sin as hainous as 't would be now-a-days for a man to dare to be present and communicate at a Popish Mass as any one may easily gather out of the 10th Chapter of that Epistle for Paul there proves that such as those do not less declare themselves by that action to be Communicants and keep a Fellowship with Devils than they testifie themselves to be Members of the mystical Body of Christ by partaking of the Lords Supper XXXIV Again Paul 1 Cor. 10. 1 2 c. reasons the matter thus As says he God spared not in old time such as lusted after evil things nor Idolaters nor Fornicators nor such as tempted and murmured against Christ though all of them were baptized unto Moses in the same Baptism v. 2. and did all eat the same spiritual meat and did all drink the same spiritual drink v. 3 and 4. so shall he not spare even you too whoever of you are defiled with like abominations though you also all eat in like manner as did they of the same Bread and drink of the same Cup with the righteous and holy ones By this it is seen first that the Sacraments of the Jews before Christ and ours since are as to the internal and heavenly designe of them the very same else would the Apostles Argument be of no force Secondly 'T is evident that in both cases many vile and wicked Wretches and notoriously known and mark'd for such found admittance Thirdly 'T is also clear that none were commanded to keep away as the Excommunicated now-a-days always are for the Apostle doth not say that such whilst such should be kept from coming but foretels and denounces like punishments on them as befel such sinners of old Some of whom Moses with the Levites slew Exod. 32. v. 28. some God himself destroyed with Fire and Sword Serpents and Earthquakes which was these Corinthians case too for saith St. Paul 1 Cor. 11. v. 30. For this cause many are weak and sickly among you and many sleep that is are punished by Disease and Death from God XXXV In the next Chapter though St. Paul take notice of Divisions and Heresies among them and of some drunken at the Lords Supper yet neither are those Schismaticks and Sectaries those Drunkards or others of whatsoever debauched Principles commanded to be kept from eating it there 's no tittle or word of any such Interdiction Yet doth he there redress lesser matters as that every man should eat at home if he be hungry How could he have here pass'd over this in silence had he approved it had he thought it so necessary to the Church But the Apostle well knew that the Law commanded otherwise and that the use of Sacraments in the Church was to other purposes than the punishing of Moral Vices by their deprivation therefore commands he that every man examine himself 1 Cor. 11. 28. the Precept is not that they should try and examine one another Nay the Apostle there cautions them that they eat worthily For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh damnation to himself v. 29. He doth not in the least command that unworthy Communicants should be denied access but threatens them with sad dooms from the hand of God He divides the Eaters into two sorts according to their differing Complexions the worthy and unworthy ones he gives no Precept to either for their not eating but would that all should eat worthily XXXVI Afterwards in 2 Cor. ch 12 and 13. he threatens not those who 2 Cor. 12. v. 21. after a former admonition had not repented of the Uncleanness and Fornication and Lasciviousness which they had committed with exclusion from the Table of the Lord but 2 Cor. 13. 10. according to the power and authority which the Lord had given him to edification and not to destruction he would not spare ch 13. v. 2. and 10. that is he would proceed with rigour and severity according to his extraordinary and
you tell it to the Church that is to the Sanedrim to the Magistrate of your own Religion and Nation and if he refuse to hear him if he stand not to the judgment of your own chief Judicatures you may without just offence to any man deal with him as with a Publican or Heathen that should do you any injury and whom you cannot implead nor call before any other Authority but the Roman Tribunals XLII That this is the proper and genuine Interpretation of the place is plain and evident from the whole tenor and series of the Discourse but especially from the conclusion of it and from all its circumstances For First Christ talks not here of any enormous and publick Transgressions which belong'd to Religion and the Laws and Rites of their Nation for these the Sanedrim or great Councils of the Jews were to redress but his discourse is of private wrongs which every man had power for himself to remit One manifest proof of the truth of what I say may be for that all the whole Oration runs in the singular number If thy Brother shall trespass 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 against thee go and tell him his faults between thee and him alone and again tell the Church c. and let him be to thee as an Heathen c. So Luke 17. v. 3. If thy Brother 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and v. 4. if he trespass against thee seven times in a day and seven times in a day turn again to thee saying I repent thou shalt forgive him We can no ways interpret 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 against thee here to be meant against the Church For when 't is after said Tell it to the Church the sence would be O Church tell it to the Church And again we can as little interpret it with thy privity and knowledge for neither the sence of the words nor the nature or circumstances of the discourse will admit of such an Explication For why am I requir'd to tell a man his fault betwixt me and him alone if I was but as one privy to his Crime and that he trespassed not privately and against me alone Why should I not rather be enjoyn'd to take in them with me whom he directly injur'd that they and I might reprove him together But Christ gives not that scope and liberty to take others with me in my first Applications to my injuring Brother And therefore 't is plain Christ speaks of Injuries done me by my Brother privately But farther yet how can the words of St. Luke If he turn again to thee thou shalt forgive him be accommodated to this sence Can we say that here To thee is put for Thou being privy and conscious to the injury done by him What must then the meaning be of Thou shalt forgive him Must we here also say Thou shalt be privy and conscious to his forgiveness Did the prodigal son Luke 15. 11. that sinn'd against Heaven onely sin in the sight and privity of Heaven 'T is indeed plain enough in 1 Cor. 8. 12. that we sin against the Brethren when we do a thing which may become a Stumbling block to them through their weakness But this of St. Matthew is quite of a different nature and truly the whole frame of this Discourse and way of wording it can't allow us to expound it of any other than private wrongs which every man has power and right in himself to remit and forgive And if the Injurer repent him not of his own accord this is to be done on the part of the Injured to bring him to it Secondly This is again proved for that the Apostles of Christ did not otherwise understand him as may be gather'd from St. Peter's Question v. 21. Whether his seven times forgiving his offending Brother would be enough Peter could not be to learn that he neither could nor ought to pardon an offence which concern'd others or the whole Church Thirdly The words Unto thee v. 17. is a farther proof hereof Christ doth not say Let him be unto us or unto others or unto the Church but let him be unto thee as a Publican unto thee who art or hast been the injur'd man Christ though he address his discourse to all the Apostles equally yet commands that the Wrong Doer be held for an Heathen and Publican by him alone who is the Sufferer thereby and that too not till the Church that is the lawful Magistracy of the Jews in their Sanedrim had admonish'd him Besides he speaks not there of things which relate to the whole Church or to any number of persons but which relate to private men Fourthly Christ speaks of such Trespasses which we are obliged to pardon as often as the Offender says he repents And that this Remission and Forgiveness transacted between two alone puts an end to the Controversie appears from these words v. 19. Again I say unto you If two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask it shall be done for them of my Father which is in Heaven But an hanious and publick Offence which concerns many persons or perhaps the whole Church may not be remitted by one alone And here we may take notice by the by of that Adverb again whereby he intimates his having spoke before to the same purpose though in different words Fifthly Christ speaks of Trespasses and Offences which the actor of them is not asham'd of or which he will not stick frankly to confess and own before any man Had he spoke of Crimes of a deeper dye which concern'd many or the whole Church 't would be in vain to bring him to others that might bear witness as 't is v. 16. for such an Action if 't were yet private no Offender would avow it before witness which might endanger him But in all things here discoursed of this gradual procedure recommended by Christ must be observ'd and therefore he speaks of private Injuries which others have nothing to do with Sixthly Christ speaks of such Offences which the Church he here speaks of doth not otherwise punish than by admonishing the Offender with bare words for 't would be needless to have added If he hear not the Church could an open punishment have redress'd the Offence Seventhly The Parable that follows v. 23. gives a clear proof to this matter its conclusion being that God will not forgive them their Trespasses who from their hearts forgive not the Trespasses of a repenting Brother without exacting farther pains or penalties upon him But the Church as some of our Adversaries tell us ought not thus to forgive but ought to keep them at least for a time from the Sacraments till they shall have given testimony of their Repentance to Elders surrogated and appointed for that purpose So that such a Church will not seven times a day forgive them that say they repent but will see the argument and proof of that Repentance things which Christ says not a word of he
requires no farther argument than the Confession of the Fault which scarce any man will have occasion to repeat seven times a day who hath not plaid the Hypocrite in some or all of the former six We have I think from all this evidently prov'd that Christ in this 18th Chapter of St. Matthew speaks nothing of Crimes that are to be redressed by Excommunications but of light and private Injuries and the way and means of making them up and reconciling them and therefore belongs not to the business of Excommunication If indeed we do but well weigh the close of that Chapter all doubt from hence must be at an end XLIII He that can and will needs imagine that Christ in this 18th Chapter of St. Matthew set up or instituted Excommunication ought to shew in which of the words 't is contain'd If he cannot shew it any where there comprized 't is to no purpose to say 't is there commanded But if it be there it must either be in these words v. 17. Tell it unto the Church or in these Let him be to thee as an heathen and a publican or lastly in these v. 18. Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven c. But I doubt not to prove it with most unanswerable Arguments that none of these words comprize any such matter and since it can be found in no other 't is lost labour to enquire here after it XLIV These words of Christ Tell it unto the Church prove no more than this that he who has been injur'd by his Brother and all his endeavours of reconciliation with him have been ineffectual may honestly and lawfully complain of him to the Church or to the Governours and Rulers of the Church And further that this same Church hath a right and authority to reprehend and admonish the Wrong Doer that he cease from being so But no more of power is here given to the Church than v. 17. was before given to the one or two Witnesses excepting onely in this that the Cause is not to be brought before the Church without the Witnesses Is it not therefore a weak way of reasoning to say The Church has power to admonish him that trespasses against his Brother therefore has she power to excommunicate him or to debâ—â— him the Sacrament But now some may perhaps urge that the Church not having a Right or Authority of punishing the guilty with Death and other corporal punishments she is necessitated to have recourse to this way of denying them the Sacrament But I answer Were the Antecedent as true as indeed from both the old Testament from the History of all Ages from what our own Eyes and Senses tell us we are assured 't is quite otherwise no such consequence could be drawn from it nor can it be ever proved that these things have any necessary coherence one with another The Church hath not the power of the Sword she can't kill and slay therefore may she must she drive from the Sacrament those who own and profess the same Religion the same saving Faith she must drive from that Sacrament that was instituted for and ought to be open and common to all that outwardly profess the same Faith XLV If yet our Adversaries think Excommunication to have been instituted in these other words Let him be to thee as an heathen man and a publican I utterly deny it Nether can it by any Art or Rhetorick Perswasion or Argument whatever be demonstrated whilst the world stands that this form of Speech Let him be to thee as an heathen man and a publican should tantamount to this Let him be excommunicate let him be kept from the Sacrament for even in the days of Christ the circumcised Publicans were they Jews or Gentiles were not prohibited the Temple Sacrifices Rites Ceremonies and Sacraments And truly Christ may seem to have joyn'd the Publican with the Heathen to prevent all thoughts and suspition of his here interdicting them such Rites and Sacraments How could the Publicans by the Jewish Law be shut out from the Temple and from worshipping God there when 't was not so much as a sin to be a Farmer or Collector of Taxes and Tribute-money nor found to be any where prohibited by God Sure 't is that Christ nowhere forbad it When the Publicans askt John what they must do to be saved he doth not bid them quit their Employments but directs them Luke 3. 13. not to exact more than that which was appointed them And Luke 19. 5. Christ doth not order Zacheus the Chief among the Publicans to lay down his Office nor finds any fault with him on account of his Employ and the Publican that Luke 18. 10. went up into the Temple to pray and return'd to his house more Justified in the judgment of Christ than the Pharisee we do not read that he left off being a Publican nor those others who Luke 7. 29. and Luke 15. 7. justified and praised God and were dear and intimate with Christ and his Apostles In short I say that the Holy Writ that is God hath not at any time or place condemn'd or any ways spoke against Publicans for their very being Publicans that is Tax-gatherers which all sober men will voluntarily grant me Upon which Concession I argue thus God in Scripture condemns not a Publican as a Publican Now whom God condemns not he cannot be excommunicated by any Law of God therefore no Publican could by the Law of God be prohibited access to the Temple or to Divine Worship I therefore make this conclusion No Publican could by the Law be condemned or excommunicated but Christ commands that he that neglects to hear that Church which he there speaks of should be to him as a Publican therefore he wills that he should be to him as a man who was not by the Law of God accursed that is not barely for his being a Publican And whereas these Excommunication-men say that the words Let him be to thee as a Publican signifie as much as if he had said Let him be to thee as a Publican is to the Pharisees 't is both absurd false and impossible for 't is in no sort credible that Christ in the same place in which he design'd to institute as our Adversaries will have it a thing of that weight and moment and so beneficial and necessary to the Church should or would make the wicked action of most profligate men the Rule and Measure for all the World to go by afterwards Besides it hath been already prov'd that no man was ever excommunicated by the Jews after the rate that we now talk of Excommunication And lastly all the words of Christ are inconsistent with this their interpretation for Christ here talks neither of nor with the Pharisees but all is betwixt him and the Disciples and the subject of the discourse is of avoiding Scandals and this is the thing that Christ says If the Wrong Doer neglect to hear the
Church let him be to thee that is he is to thee as a Publican to thee not to the Pharisees Moreover 't is plain that Christ and his Disciples and other good men had no hatred for the Publicans most certainly they never thought them to deserve Excommunication but did dayly eat and live with them And in that Christ joyns the Heathen and Publican together we must needs acknowledge that Christ speaks of a matter common to them both therefore these words Let him be to thee as a Publican must have quite another meaning from these Let him be to thee as an excommunicate person This therefore must be the meaning of the place If he neglect to hear the Church you may as to this matter proceed against him without offence or scandal to any man as if you had to do with an Heathen man or a Publican Now he that had a Controversie with any such was forced to submit his Cause to the Roman Magistracy which is plain as to the Heathens alone and that 't was so for the Publicans may easily appear for that they were the sworn Officers of the Romans even against their own Nation and for that also that they could expect scarce common Justice from the Pharisees and Chiefs of the Jews who accounted them the most despicable and profligate of mankind But Christ allowed not this Appeal to the Roman Magistrate against a Brother-Jew till he had endeavoured a Reconciliation that way which Christ proposed and which had before been prescribed them by the Law St. Paul's excuse for himself in the last of the Acts looks much the same way to wit that he had never appeal'd unto Caesar had he not been constrain'd nor did he it to accuse the Jews but defend himself from violence and wrong The Apostle 1 Cor. 6. 1. commands that if any Christian had a matter against another he should decide it before the Saints and not presently go to law before the unjust But if a Christian had just cause of Action against an Infidel what doubt is there but that he might prosecute his Right before an Heathen Magistrate So if any one did neglect or despise the Sentence Judgment and Admonitions of the Elders of the Church he that was the Sufferer the injur'd person might without offence to his Neighbour appeal unto the Heathen Magistrate XLVI But we shall handle this matter with the more perspicuity if we take into examination what and of what nature that Church was which Christ commanded the injur'd person to tell it unto in the clearing of which I lay this for the entrance and foundation which I doubt not but all men will allow of and I know none that ever denies it viz. That Christ speaks of a Church that was then in being how could he otherwise have bid them tell it to a Church which was then nowhere to be found and of which and of its nature and constitution they as yet heard nothing Had he design'd the raising a new Church or new form of Government as yet unknown to the Apostles he had deliver'd them but a very lame Institution for that he neither told them who were that Church nor how nor of what sort or number of men it was to be made up of nor the ways of their judicial proceedings nor what penalties they might inflict and the like Neither did he speak of all kind of sins as I have before proved and even they who build their Excommunication upon this Text are forc'd themselves to confess as well as we for they openly own that Christ took notice here onely of private Trespasses But whenever Christ made any new Institution he omitted nothing that was requisite to its being and subsistency here he onely says Tell it unto the Church and if he neglect to hear her he gives the Complainant liberty to look on him as a Publican here 's no penalty annext to the Contumacy St. Luke when he sets down the same passage recounts it not with all those particularities as St. Matthew does The other two Evangelists make not the least mention of it who yet would scarce have pass'd over a matter of such moment and necessity had they known that Christ had then first made any such new Institution To which we may adde that the Apostles were all along firmly perswaded that Christ should not die or change the Jewish Rites nor did they here by word or otherwise declare themselves not to understand what Christ here taught them or shew any forwardness to ask farther after it or to wonder as if he had told them an unusual and unheard of piece of Doctrine Peter onely wondered at this that he was requir'd to forgive his Brother so many times together Surely therefore they never took these words of Christ to be institutive of a new form of Government which they had never dreamt of before but believed themselves to be taught as truly they were when and for what they might without offence and scandal accuse or implead a Brother Jew before an Heathen Magistrate And at this day 't is rarely seen that Jews go to law with Jews before Christian Judges XLVII But if any ask me whether and how then can this Precept reach all men whether it be of farther use than for those alone that live under an Unchristian Magistracy my answer is That the first part of it of labouring a Reconciliation before we appeal to the Magistrate or go to law about the matter belongs to all Christians but the latter is of no force or use but where true Professors live under an Unchristian or Antichristian Magistrate St. Paul 1 Cor. 6. v. 1. 4. therefore advises the Corinthians to chuse out some among themselves who may judge such Controversies betwixt man and man that they GO NOT TO LAW BEFORE THE VNIVST that is the Heathen Roman Judges Who doubts but that the Corinthians might lawfully have conven'd a Christian Brother that had injur'd them before the Roman and Gentile Tribunals if he had refused to stand to the Determination of those who were chose from among themselves to judge on such occasions or if he mended not upon their Sentence 'T is certain that St. Paul when he saw himself hardly pressed by the Jews appealed unto Caesar Acts 25. 11. which Acts 28. 19. he excuses to those Jews that lived at Rome But he that shall carefully compare Lev. 19. with Ecclus 19. and 1 Cor. 6. with this Chapter of St. Matthew will be able much more clearly and easily to understand this whole matter and may observe how well all hangs together especially if he diligently note the latter part of Christ's and of St. Paul's words which were justly omitted in Moses and Ecclesiasticus there being then no occasion for them for that the Jewish Nation was not then subject to any forreign Power as they were in our Saviour's and St. Paul's time to the Roman Empire XLVIII And thus far as I conceive all will easily
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
well belov'd by all many took it very ill at his hands for he was but newly got to that Dignity and not approv'd of or confirm'd in it by the Roman Governour And Eusebius in the second of his Ecclesiastical History chap. 23. tells us that this High Priest snatcht at this occasion of the interregnum But what 's all this to our purpose Was not Archelaus who was stiled King in his Father Herod's last Will and that by the Allowance and Gift of Caesar was he not therefore King because he refus'd the Name and Authority of a King till he had Caesar's confirmation for it And not the Magistrates of some Cities of which there are many in Germany who are subject to some particular Prince not true and lawful Magistrates because on the death of the Prince they are requir'd to pray the Confirmation of their Priviledges from the Successor But now that the High Priest had power after his Confirmation to convoke the Judges of the Sanedrim is clear enough for that they do not say to Albinus that this summoning them was in it self unlawful but that it ought not to have been done by him without the apprebation and privity of Albinus LII It has now been fully and solidly prov'd that Tell it unto the Church signifies no more than Tell it unto the Magistrate of thy People or who is of the same Religion with thy self before you implead your Brother in the Heathen Courts as St. Paul 1 Cor. 6. 5. hath incomparably expounded it where he commands them for this cause to chuse persons out of themselves to judge and arbitrate their Quarrels But now who doubts but that this Precept holds not where God hath blessed us with a pious Christian Magistracy a Magistracy of the same Religion with our selves Indeed St. Augustine in the second Chapter of Faith and Works plainly enough informs us that he accounted Excommunication supplied the place and defect of the visible Sword when the Church wanted that external aid for as he would have it Moses his punishing Transgressors with Death and Phineas his slaying the Adulterers did typifie and prefigure the punishing evil men by Degradations and Excommunications that is at such time as the material Sword the Civil Temporal Power should be wanting in the Church I remember that some Modern Writers hold that the Jews had and retain'd this Custom of Excommunicating because the Sword was taken from them which I have prov'd by irrefragable Reason Argument and Testimonies to be utterly false but were it but thus far true it must necessarily follow that there 's no occasion for Excommunication in such a Church which hath the Civil Authority of its side Nor is it requir'd as a thing obligatory to us to chuse Judges or Arbitrators other than the lawful Judicatures of the Land Be it how it will nothing can be more certain than that the word Church in this passage of Matthew signifies nothing less than a Church-Senate a Council of Clergie-men or Ecclesiasticks endowed with a Faculty a Right or Power to shut out whom they please from the Sacraments LIII Two Objections yet remain First How any one can be said to neglect to hear the Church if that and the Civil Magistrate who hath the power of the Sword are the same thing Secondly How that passage of binding and loosing Mat. 18. v. 18. suits with this matter To the first the Answer is intimated before That the Jews had not then power of judging in all matters but almost every thing that related not to Religion belong'd to the Roman Judicatures And therefore Christ permits that if any one neglects or contemns the Authority of the Sanedrim in such matters the injur'd person may prosecute his Right before the Heathen Magistrate in like manner as if he were to sue an Heathen or Publican Besides many cases may occur which the Law had not provided a distinct and proper punishment for or had not prohibited under any penalty at all in which case it may well be that the Offender may be dismist without more ado than a verbal chiding or admonition Now if the Wrong Doer does not yet leave wronging him the party injur'd may seek farther satisfaction and may again and again apply himself to the Church or Magistrate to punish the other's obstinacy But though this Answer hold true yet the former seems in my mind more apposite and suitable to the purpose and designe of Christ as well as to the several circumstances of time and place and the like LIV. To the second there is as little difficulty in framing it an Answer for since the manner of speaking is the same and almost the self-same words are here repeated which are used by Christ Mat. 16. 19. 't is necessary that they signifie either the same thing or something very like it but in Mat. 16. 19. to bind and to loose signifies nothing else but to preach the Gospel whereby he that believes in it is loosed from Sin and from Death and therefore can signifie here no more than the desiring his Brother to leave injuring him and rather to become good and affectionate to him this being a thing acceptable unto God and he will surely punish those that break this great Commandment of Love and Charity Now he that thus wins upon his Brother by soft advice and entreaties to forbear wronging him and urging to him the revealed Will of God and what Wrath he has in store for them that thus offend if his Admonitions have their effect he hath gained his Brother that is he hath loosed him if they return unsuccessful he is still bound the Wrath of God remains upon him in like manner as it doth upon him who having heard the Word of the Gospel preached unto him believes or disbelieves it But now that we might be ready and forward to forgive them that repent Christ labour'd to perswade us to it by that most apposite Parable of the Kings taking account of his servants which he subjoyn'd to this passage whereby Christ's meaning and purpose is mightily cleared as to the sence we have put upon it before LV. I cannot but infinitely wonder how or why some men do here expound this binding or loosing by driving men from the Sacraments and readmitting them thither again when throughout the whole Bible these words are never put for any such matter and the Apostles have neither by word or otherwise discover'd that they understood Christ in such a sence There is extant a Precept of Christ that if any refused to receive the Gospel they should depart out of that house or City shaking off the dust of their feet against them Luke 10. 11. Mat. 10. 14. which they put in practice Acts 13. 25. and 18. 6. But that they should deny any Sacrament to those that believed the Word and were baptized unto Christ and embraced his Religion and Doctrine we nowhere find it either enjoyned unto or practised by them as hath been before abundantly
and firmly proved But it may suffice at present to inform the World that it can never be made out by Holy Writ that Binding is put for Excluding Believers from receiving the Sacrament or Loosing to signifie a Readmission again of him who had been for his sins and contumacies debarr'd and thus to re-engraft him as 't were into the Church anew LVI Thus have I firmly and truly prov'd that Christ in Mat. 18. 19. treats not of Exclusion from Sacraments but of the charitable management and composure of private Injuries between fellow-brethren men professing the same Faith But others have seen this before as well as I as St. Augustine in his sixteenth Sermon upon St. Matthew and Theophylact who as no body can otherwise doubt borrowed this Opinion as almost all he says besides from Chrysostom Among the more modern Divines D. Johannes Brentius writes many things in his Comments upon this Chapter very agreeable to what we have said LVII 'T is now requisite that I should shew that the action of St. Paul 1 Cor. 5. 3 c. is nothing of kin to this Excommunication First That Apostle appears to have been a strict observer of the Mosaick Law against which as he answers for himself Acts 25. 8. he had not at all offended And Acts 18. 18. and 21. v. 24 26. it appears that he with other of the Apostles complied with the Ceremonies of the Law and bore the Jews company in keeping them and was ill spoken of by the Convert Jews not for teaching the Gentiles that the observation of the Law was not requir'd of them but for teaching the Jews which were among the Gentiles to forsake Moses c. whereas all the believing Jews that were in Judea kept and were zealous of the Law v. 20. But who knows not that Christ changed not the Law of Moses in that point of celebrating the Passover which commands all to come who were circumcised and therefore neither doth he keep back that incestuous person nor any other from communicating at the Lords Table who would come and profess the Christian Faith As to the Jews 't is a plain case who would never have suffer'd such an Encroachment upon their Law and their constant inveterate usage to the contrary And who can well think that the Gentiles should be in worse circumstances than they as to this purpose LVIII But again if the delivery to Satan was no more than a bare interdiction from the Sacraments till his repentance why did Paul excuse himself to the Corinthians with all that care and niceness Why did he so near repent him as 't were of what he had done as we read he did 2 Cor. 2. 4. and 7. v. 8. Besides why were the Corinthians so overwhelm'd with grief if they already knew this to be the method and practice of the Church in punishing sinners and that this was to be a lasting Discipline for all successions of Ages they should rather methinks have rejoyced that they had such a President and Pattern given them to walk by for the future If it were but a spur to Repentance and an wholsome and safe Antidote against Damnation why did their sorrows run so high why were they not rather rejoyced Christ tells us that the Angels of God rejoyce more over the Conversion of one Sinner than over ninety nine just persons The Corinthians therefore could not have had the Spirit of Christ in them had they conceiv'd such mighty sorrow on seeing the Apostle do this and no more and barely to recal an erring Brother into the right way again and save him from that damnation he was pulling down upon his own head But who can be so blind as not to see that the Apostle struck deeper than this comes to Thirdly What need had the Apostle to write to them 2 Cor. 7. 8. that he does not repent though he did repent or how indeed could he any ways repent him of what he had done if his purpose was to have it put dayly in practice every where and in all Churches or if it were but a Temporary Seclusion from the Sacrament and at longest but till his repentance Fourthly What occasion was there that the Corinthians should use such earnest and powerful Intercessions with the Apostle on that Wretch's behalf if they knew that upon his repentance he should straitway be admitted into their Fellowship again But that they did earnestly entreat for him 't is evident from the Apostles words 2 Cor. 2. 10. To whom ye forgive any thing I forgive also for if I forgave any thing to whom I forgave it for your saeke forgave I it in the presence of Christ. Fifthly We find Paul in that second Chapter v. 9. excusing himself that one of his aims was to know the proof of their Obedience And in the seventh Chapter v. 12. he tells them he did it that his care for them in the sight of God might appear to them How could he have said or writ thus if he had commanded them no greater a matter than that they should trun away such a one from the Sacrament Sixthly How shall we ever make these words hang together Ye were made sorry in a godly manner or with respect to God that ye might receive damage by us in nothing 2 Cor. 7. 9. He tells them they suffer'd no loss damage or detriment by that sorrow of theirs for that their grief had been prevalent with him for the pardoning that unhappy Wretch without this they had received loss even the loss of that incestnous person But pray what loss had it been to them if he had been onely to be kept from the Sacrament till he repented Seventhly Paul speaks not there of the Lords Supper but of the whole Life of a Christian and therefore his meaning must be not to put him away from the Table of the Lord but from among them that is out of the world that that little Leaven might not vitiate the whole Mass This is suitable to the Apostles phrase and to the Figure of Leaven but Excommunication cannot be easily accommodated either to his or Moses's words Eighthly It must be observ'd that he doth not say simply that they themselves and they onely when they are gathered together in the Name of the Lord or according to Christs command should deliver him to Satan or deprive him of the Sacrament but I verily as absent in body but present in spirit have judged already as though I were present concerning him that hath so done this deed in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ when ye are gathered together and my spirit with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ to deliver such an one to Satan c. Plainly intimating that the power of our Lord Jesus Christ was necessary to intervene in this business and therefore was a matter of greater moment than a Temporary Amotion from the Sacrament Besides he says that he himself had already judged though perhaps by reason of his
for Instruction or for Discipline Who that should hear a man speak so would not think that he put his Son into the Masters power to be instructed or corrected by him He that would have instances of this nature let him turn to 1 Tim. 1. 19. Acts 27. 24. Mat. 5. 25. and ch 18. 34. and ch 27. 2. Mark 13. 9. John 19. 16. and that of Mat. 24. 9. they shall deliver you up to be afflicted is directly parallel So Mark 13. 12. the Brother 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 shall deliver up or as we render it shall betray the Brother to death So 2 Pet. 2. 4. speaking of the Angels that sinned he says that God deliver'd them into chains of darkness to be reserv'd unto Judgment In Job 2. 6. God says unto Satan Behold 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I have deliver'd him to thee or as we render it he is in thine hand onely save his life Do not all these places tell us of a delivering up to be afflicted to be killed to be condemned and the like In short none shall to the worlds end be able to shew that ever this kind of phrase is used to signifie the excluding one from the Sacrament unless the destruction of the Flesh here and interdicting the Sacrament be the same Fifthly 'T is impossible to shew that this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 destruction is any where in the New Testament put for mortifying the Lusts of the Flesh but where-ever 't is found 't is put for the death of the Soul or Body whether the word Flesh be joyn'd with it or not I might also say that no extant Greek Author hath used it to that sence that some as I have said put upon it but we keep to its acceptance in Scripture The Apostle makes use of it in 1 Thess 5. 3. and 2 Thess 1. 9. and in 1 Tim. 6. 9. and the Verbal 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we read in 1 Cor. 10. 10. as the Participle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Heb. 11. v. 28. and the Compound 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Acts 3. 23. taken by that holy Pen-man out of Deut. 18. 15. But in all these places Death and Destruction are thereby signified The Septuagint do ordinarily use 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which Pagninus generally renders exscindo to cut off or slay 't is certain they always mean Death by it I know that which the Apostle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rom. 8. 13. and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Col. 2. 3. and Gal. 5. 12. and 6. 14. are put for mortification of the Fleshly Lusts But for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they are not met with in that sence either in sacred or profane Authors nor in truth do I remember my self to have read that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the New Testament is so taken 'T is therefore a poor Evasion that some frame supposing Paul here to distinguish betwixt the affections of the Flesh and the Spirit Since he here sets the Destruction of the Flesh or which is all one the Death of the Body against the saving of the Soul or Spirit as both the genuine sence of the words the drift and purpose of Paul the whole series and circumstances of the Discourse and the very word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to deliver so unquestionably demonstrate that any lover of Truth can't but sit down satisfied under the proof of it But Sixthly The following words That the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus that is in the day of Judgment give farther testimony to the truth of this Interpretation and are a convincing demonstration that the Apostle speaks of this wicked one as of one whose death was at hand Seventhly and lastly The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2 Cor. 2. v. 6. which we translate Punishment but ought rather to be rendered Censure argues he was not expuls'd from the Sacrament for in its primitive signification 't is put for Chiding Censuring Reproving or Rebuking and the like as Interpreters commonly translate it not for Punishment Mulct or Penance There are yet two more Reasons left us the one That the Interdicting from the Sacrament is nowhere in Scripture put for or ordained to be Punishment The other that the words themselves plainly shew that 't is here put for Chiding or Censure which not one single person alone but many used towards him for says St. Paul there sufficient for such an one is this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this Censure not as we read it Punishment which was inflicted of many He absolves him from nothing but those Comminations and Threats which many or peradventure the whole Church all the Corinthian Believers had denounced against him That he should be delivered over to Satan to be by him buffeted tormented kill'd He had yet therefore onely experienced their Threats for Paul doth not absolve him of part but of all that had as yet befallen him and as he says this Censure these Threats and Ratlings that had been rounded in his ears were sufficient Nay he plainly intimates withal that this was all that was done to him We read of this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mat. 16. 22. ch 17. 18. ch 19. 13. ch 20. 13. and in the other Evangelists as also 2 Tim. 4. 2. where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bear it company In all which places 't is put for Reproof and Rebuking or the like but nowhere for Punishment LX. But here now it may be askt me If the incestuous person underwent no more than this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this Censure or Rebuke how can he be said to have been deliver'd unto Satan to be tormented and slain by him Some of the ancient Writers hold that he was indeed deliver'd over to be tormented with Diseases or the like and so be gradually brought to destruction but was released and absolv'd aagain by the Apostle before it had gone so far If this Answer be true I see not but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 might here signifie Punishment as indeed our Translation has rendered it But now though I do not deny but that this is a passible Interpretation yet I shall present you another as suitable to the Apostles words St. Paul had not resolved to deliver this man to the Devil by himself alone but had rather have it done in a full Congregation when the whole Body of Believers should be gather'd together for that purpose But when once the Church saw this deplorable Creature so dejected and overwhelm'd with Sorrow and that Grief had almost already given him the Death that they threatned they reprieved him as 't were and deferr'd pronouncing the Sentence till they might learn the Apostles pleasure whether at their intercession he would remit the rigour of it and restore him on his Repentance which if they could not prevail with him to do they threaten they will not longer be wanting in their Duty Thus came it to pass
that this poor Soul remain'd for some months under great Terrors and Agonies of mind till he had receiv'd the joyful intelligence of Paul's remitting the Punishment That the matter was manag'd much after this rate may be plainly collected out of that second Epistle to the Corinthians LXI From what has been already alleadg'd as well as from what might yet be urg'd 't is so clearly and solidly demonstrated that this delivering up to Satan was quite another thing from that which we now-a-days call Excommunication or Suspension from the Sacrament that sure none but those who are as defective in understanding as in love to the Truth can have the face to deny it I said just now that some ancient Writers expounded this place as we do Augustine whose Testimony I cited before is one of them there is another passage of his in his first Book upon Christ's Sermon in the Mount concurring with us as doth also Athanasius and after him Chrysostom and his Compiler Theophylact. LXII Let us now take a short survey of those other places which our Opponents flie unto for their own defence Some lay a stress upon that passage of St. Paul to Timothy 1 Tim. 5. 17. Let the Elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour especially they who labour in the Word and Doctrine for hereby they fancy themselves able to squeeze out a proof that there were some Elders who did not labour in the Word and on these they bestow another Office to wit that of inspecting and censuring our Manners and Behaviour of being Observators of our sins and failings of admonishing the Stubborn and Refractory of certifying their fellow-Elders that is say they the Church and lastly in conjunction with these of excommunicating such as hear not or obey not the Church LXIII But we think it evident from the Writings of the Apostles Peter and Paul that Ministers Bishops and Presbyters or Elders if Office Function and Ministry be meant by those two last and not their Age were all the same in the Apostles time and so that there was no Presbyter who was not a Teacher or Preacher as we now call them that is who did not labour in the Doctrine unless any are desirous to stretch this word to those Judges and Arbitrators of Suits and Controversies mentioned 1 Cor. 6. 4. But we talk not of them at present since their Duty was of a quite different nature This Opinion of ours which we think grounded upon apparent truth hath both Hierom and Ambrose to vouch for it onely this latter says that Bishops were first nominated out of the Order of Presbyters This therefore is the manner of Paul's Discoursing as if I should say I love all Ministers and Pastors but especially those who with unwearied Industry and a constant waking Care and Sedulity feed the Sheep committed to their charge I love all studious persons but especially those who sit to it night and day I do not now by saying thus say that there are some Pastors who never feed their Sheep or some Students who never study but I suppose thereby some more diligent than others though I do not say that any do more than they ought to do or than their Function requires of them That this is the genuine and true Exposition of the Apostles meaning and words the subsequent words v. 18. concerning the reward proves it for 't is in no sort probable that the same reward was at any time allotted in the Church to them that did and to them that did not teach for the first should be charg'd with a double Duty and the other with but a single one yet the Apostle stiles them both worthy of double honour Besides the Apostle quotes that passage of the Ox treading out the Corn to prove that Sustenance is due to the Ministry and the Participle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 confirms our Exposition which signifies not barely labouring but wearying our selves with labour or using an extraordinary diligence therein And thus is it always taken in the New Testament where it often occurs And the Greeks call that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the Latins call Lassitudo Weariness And as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 differ so do their Verbs LXIV They say withal that Christ did forbid to cast Pearls before Swine and to give things that are holy unto Dogs I answer Christ speaks of them that despise those Pearls and tread them under their feet and turn again and rend the Donors of them that is he speaks of the Enemies of the Gospel with whom we have nothing to do in this dispute for we meddle not with any here but Christians who are rightly principl'd in that Doctrine and approve the same and are desirous to be Partakers of the Sacraments with their fellow-Christians though they live not up to that Integrity that others do Besides Christ speaks not there of Sacraments but of the Doctrine of the Gospel which ought not to be offer'd to Dogs and Swine that is to such as refuse and trample it under feet of which nature is that Parable of the Pearl Mat. 13. 45. where Christ likens the Kingdom of Heaven to a Merchant-man who bought a Pearl of great price and therefore it makes nothing to our purpose LXV Whereas again they remember us that St. Paul gave it in charge to Timothy 1 Tim. 5. 29. That them that sin he should rebuke before all We deny not the thing but deny that it relates to our purpose I will not muster up multitudes of Arguments to prove it this onely shall I say That 't is beyond the wit of man to make it out that to reprove or rebuke any man before or in the presence of the Church is the same thing with forbidding him the Sacrament Nay they that object this object it to no purpose unless they can shew it to be the same Who can prove that the Apostle so much as thought here of interdicting the Sacrament Again the Apostle treats not here of sins that are committed openly and in the face of the world but those that sin says he that is that persevere continue in sin rebuke before all that thereby both he that hath sinned and others that saw it may fear with him and do no more wickedly He puts no distinction here between little and great venial and moral sins much less between publick and private sins To speak once for all 't is a leaden Objection and will melt away like wax at the Fire of Truth and vanish like the smoak Besides St. Paul's words stand in perfect opposition to this Excommengent for he commands him that sins to be rebuk'd not to be excommunicated before all subjoyning it as a reason that all may fear as if he should say If he will not repent and mend himself at least others shall thereby learn to be and do better Where by him that sins is not meant him that has left
sinning or him that had sinned onely but him that abides and continues to walk in the ways of sin and repented not after admonitions and warnings given him Him I say that thus sins he charges Timothy to rebuke and reprove before others he does not give it in charge to him to see him excommunicated LXVI Next say they the Apostle commands so far to avoid the company of the Wicked that he allows not the liberty of making our common Meals with them 1 Cor. 5. 11. With such an one no not to eat much less conclude they would he have us eat the Lords Supper with them But I utterly deny the consequence for surely they are of very different import the prohibition of private familiarities and the non-admission to the Sacrament and the forbidding the one is not a denial or disallowance of the other the former is a Civil or Political Punishment the latter Sacred we have a Command for one none for the other St. Paul explains the end and reason of the former but we find no mention of either for the latter nay the thing it self is nowhere enjoyn'd or so much as the name of Excommunication once heard of in Scripture And that one may be without the other the Pharisees are a pregnant instance who that they might pass with the World for the greater Saints would not approach the Publicans would not eat drink or associate with them in the common concerns of Life I can't at present recollect that I have read of the like Niceness in any others but no man can shew me whilst the World lasts that these Publicans were denied admission to the Sacrifices to the Temple to the Passover or any other Sacraments provided they were but circumcis'd and turn'd not Renegades to their Religion There are at this day some who shut out all notoriously lewd and dissolute persons out of their company they will not live nor entertain a Conversation with them which evinces that this avoiding their Company and maintaining no Correspondencies with them is rather a Civil than an Ecclesiastical Punishment and amounts not near to that of delivering over to Satan which some will needs have to be Excommunication The Apostle directs Good men to shun all Consortship with Ill that Shame may hasten in them a Repentance The Interdiction runs not to the Ill that they shall not live among the Good if any good men would give them admittance In private Conversations men talk of all matters indifferently and if a dissolute Wretch find by the freedom of his access that for all his Debaucheries he is as much made of as ever not onely himself is not amended but his Company by degrees endanger'd But where a man sees himself avoided and that all shrink flie and detest his society he can't but cast a reflecting thought upon the occasion and enter into considerations of a better life that he be no longer the Scorn and Contempt of those that before embrac'd him with all the arms of Friendship And therefore as being debarr'd of private Commerce and Conversation frights us from some sorts of Crimes and Uncleannesses so the indulgence of familiar and fair outward Correspondencies feeds pampers and encourages us in those bad courses But these reasons hold not in the receiving or being denied the Sacrament for frequent Communicating at that Table gives not vigour and nourishment to our Vices at the rate private Communications and Familiarities do for in the Churches or Chappels where that is administred no vain and worldly things nothing of private concern is then transacted but the Word of God onely is there handled There when men shall hear of a Christ that died for them of a Christ that invites to that Commemoration and publick demonstration of our acknowledgments and thankfulness for so great a Benefit and that none can be a worthy Communicant who hath not throughly and sincerely examin'd himself and that those who thrust themselves in unworthily amongst his Guests do but eat and drink damnation to themselves This will put men that intend to approach unto the Lords Table upon a seriousness of thought What is there exhibited what is his concern in it what God requires of him and how he may for the future so regulate his life that it may be acceptable in the sight of God how debauched soever and villanous it were before He that has not these offers these incitements and invitations is depriv'd of these invitations grows still the worse to be sure no whit the better for it which seems to be the reason of Gods instituting and enjoyning such multitudes of Sacrifices Offerings Rites and Ceremonies But for certain the Apostle has nowhere order'd that they with whom he would not have good men to hold a Correspondence should be also put by or denied the Sacrament And when in another place 2 Thess 3. 14. he writes to have them signifie that man by Epistle who walks disorderly for the Marginal translation in our English Bibles seems to be truest in this place he does not there set the Elders upon excommunicating them or suspending them the Sacrament All which are evident proofs of their mistakes who think Excommunication to have been either here approved allowed of or design'd by the Apostle LXVII But to enforce the Objection they tell us 't is no less unfit that the Church the Congregation of the Faithful assembled in the Worship of God should be defil'd with the Company and Communion of the Wicked and that 't is therefore consequently necessary that the Evil should in all accounts be serv'd and kept from the Pious and Good But I would return them this Answer There is no danger that the Wicked should pollute or injure the Good in the use of those Rites and Ceremonies which are of God's own institution whilst they take not after them in their natures nor learn not their immoralities for neither the holy Prophets Kings or Judges nor John the Baptist nor even Christ himself nor yet his Apostles after him were ever defil'd by being present at the same Worship at the same Sacrifices in the same Temple using the same Rites and Sacraments with men of the most debauched and profligate lives Our Saviour was spotless amidst that Generation of Vipers who were baptized with him by John in the same Baptism Judas neither polluted Christ nor the Apostles nor the last Supper of our Lord by his presence at it though he was then a known Thief and had before laid the Plot for betraying his Master and had received the Pay for his pains Again the Apostle Paul does not bid us examine one another in the celebration or receiving of the Lords Supper and to look about us whether any of the by-standers any of our fellow-Communicants be sinful or unworthy be such as may derive any Pollution or Uncleanness to us but thus runs his Commandment 1 Cor. 11. 28. Let a man examine himself himself he says not others LXVIII Hitherto have I effectually