private Tables men discourse of any thing whatsomever neither is he not only corrected that hath sineed if he thinke that he is also dear unto all after his sin as before but likewise others are more easily corrupted But if he see himself to be avoided and fled he cannot but think for what that is done and resolve to live a new life lest he should be desparaged by those who loved him before Therefore as the deniall of private commerce doth fright us from uncleanness and vices so familiar living together doth cherish and nurse the same in us But the receiving and denying of the Sacraments is a thing of a far different nature from this for the frequent receiving of them doth not at all so confirme and nurse vice as private familiarity for in the Temples where they are administred there is no conferences of private and vain things but the Word of the Lord is Preached Therefore when men hear that Christ hath died for them and that he requireth for that benefit publick thanksgiving and that he is not a worthy guest that hath not tried himself rightly but that they all have judgment to themselves that unworthily eat thereof Then he that hath resolved with himself to come unto the Lords Table whatsomever a man he was before will be compeld to thinke with himself what God would have done and how afterwards he may so lead his life that it may be acceptable unto God He that is deprived of this invitation becomes alwaies worse but never becomes better for which cause nevertheless it seems that God appointed and commanded so many Sacrifices Ceremonies and Oblations Truly the Apostle never commanded those men to be debard of the Sacraments with whom good men were not suffered to live familiarly And when in another place he desireth that such men should be signified to him by an Epistle he doth not lay this upon the Elders that they should Excommunicate them or keep them back from the Sacraments all which do manifestly prove that they are in a grosse mistake that do think the Apostle doth either appoint or approve of Excommunication in this place LXVII But nevertheless say they the Church ought not to be polluted with communion of evill men therefore it is needfull that good men should be without dissimulation separate from evill men Ianswer this That evill men cannot defile good men in the use of these Ceremonies that are appointed by God so long as they do not follow their nature and manners For neither the Prophets nor the holy Kings and Judges nor John the Baptist nor Christ himself nor his Apostles afterwards were defiled when in the Temple they were present at the same Sacrifices with men of most wicked lives and did receive with them the same Sacraments That generation of Vipers did not defile Christ when together with them he was Baptized with the same Baptisme by John and Judas presence at the last Supper did not defile either Christ or his Apostles albeit he was both a Thief and thinking how to betray Christ and had received money therefore The Apostle Paul doth not command us that the celebration and usurpation of the Sacraments we should one examine another and that we should look about if there be any there present that can defile us but he commandeth thus that every man should examine himself and not others LXVIII Hitherto it hath been proved by me effectually and truly that no Circumcised Person before Christ were forbidden to come to the Ceremonies and Sacraments instituted of God by Moses for the offences of the life and manners and together with this I shew that it was not lawfull for any even to do the same Afterwards it was demonstrate by reasons and the evident Testimonies of the holy Scriptures that neither Christ nor his Apostles did teach or do any otherwise Moreover I thought this also that what was brought by these of another judgment could not at all patronize their opinion wherefore now I see nothing that can further hinder me that I should not rightly and truly conclude that this Excommunication which debarreth Christians from the Sacraments only because of the uncleanness of their lives was not commanded by God but was invented and feigned by men For it is so far from truth that it can be shewn that it is founded in the Holy Scriptures that rather the contrary of it can be proved LXIX Therefore some men will say Will you then condemn so many holy Bishops which immediately after the Apostles times began to Excommunicate vile persons I answer It is one thing to improve the Doctrine and another thing to improve the man Many learned and godly men of our age have pondred and confuted the Catholick errors as I may call them of the Ancients as limbum patrum in Hell the fire of Purgatory the intercession of Saints Exorcisme and Baptism the single life of Priests unction in Baptism and death Prayers for the dead and in this present cause satisfactions Notwithstanding I do not remember that any of them have been accused therefore because they condemn the Ancients If they would have had this Excommunication thrust upon the Churches as a Law published by God I do not praise it Albeit I do much praise and approve of their study and good will in the mean while For by this meanes they studied seeing they could meet with no other better meanes hereby to bridle the wantonness of wicked men And most part also as we see to be done even this day did follow that publick custome received by all neither came it ever in their mind to inquire whither it was a thing agreeing to Scriptures or no. LXX Concerning the originall of this Excommunication I can bring nothing now that is certain except the 200. years after Christ that I find some such thing first to have been asseyed and done for more then 100 and 50. years I find not any to have been excluded from the Sacraments for the uncleanness of their life These that are versed in reading of the Fathers and in History perchance can affirme something more certain He that will attentively read those things which are left written by Socrates in the 5. Book and 19. Chapter of this Ecclesiastick History will I believe suffer themselves easily to be perswaded that this custome of Excommunication was introduced into the Church about Novatus time Notwithstanding Sozomenus in his 7. Book and 16. Chap. relateth another cause of the institution hereof But we also read that Victor Bishop of Rome about the 200. year of our Lord forbid them the use of the Supper that would not forgive injuries I have observed that before this time the communion was denied only to Hereticks and to such as was averse from Religion but however this be yet that is certainly known that excommunication was therefore brought into the Church that there might be in it some bridle to and punishment of vice Afterwards when the Church now had gotten
for wheresomever it is found it is found to be written either for the death of the body or of the soul whither the name of flesh be added or not I may likewise say that on Greek Author is extant that so hath used it as I have been told some do expound it but our discourse is of holy things The Apostle hath used it 1 Thes 5. and 2 Thes 1. and 1 Tim. the last The verball Noun 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is found written in the 1 of Crinth 10. and the Participle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 11. of the Heb. even the Compound 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 taken out of Deuteronomy is found in the 3. of the Acts and every where they all either signifie perishing or death 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is frequently used by the 70. Interpreters and Pagnin every where translateth it by the word exscindendi of cutting off this is certainly that they alwaies used to signifie death I know that in the Apostle the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Rom. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Colos 13. To conclude 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Gal. 5 and 6. that they are put for the killing of the lusts of the flesh but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are neither found in holy or prophane Authors to be taken so Yea I do not remember that I read in the New Testament this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be taken in this signification in the new Testament therefore it is frivolous when they say Paul contradistinguishes here the lusts of the flesh from the spirit seeing the death of the flesh or of the body is opposed to the safety of the soul or of the spirit as the native signification of the words to the purpose of Paul the series and circumstances of the discourse and the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 do prove that the lovers of the truth can desire no more Sixtly These words that the spirit may be safe in the day of Jesus that is in the day of judgment For they clearly demonstrate that he speaketh of that wretch as of one that was to die Seaventhly and lastly The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 proveth that he was not rejected from the Sacraments For in his own native signification it seems to be put for rebuke correction threatening and upbraiding as the Interpreters have turnd it but not for a punishment or pain and besides this there is a double reason for it The first is That in holy writs you never find the interdiction of the Sacraments to be put for a punishment The other is That the words of themselves do teach well enough that it s put for an upbraiding wherewith not any one but many did rebuke him for Paul in this 2. Epistle writeth sufficient to such a man is this rebuke which is of many He absolves him only from that threatening which had it proceeded from the Church or from any that it should come to pass that he should be delivered over to Satan to be tormented therefore he had only as yet indured this for he doth not only absolve him in part but altogether therefore while he saith that this rebuke and threatening was sufficient he together with it declareth that he had suffered no more We find the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the 16 17 19 20. of Matthew and in the other Evangelists and in the 2 of Paul to Tim. 4. in all which places it is ever put for rebuke but never for punishment I.X. But here it may be demanded if he did only suffer rebuke by what means its said that he was delivered over to Satan to be tormented and killed There is a double answer to this some of the Antients say that he was indeed delivered over that he might be tormented with sickness or some other way and so he should kill him by little and little but that in the mean time he was delivered by the Apostle before the matter was brought to that length Which Answer if it be true then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 might signifie a punishment albeit I do not deny but this Answer may be tollerated notwithstanding I will bring another more agreeing to the words of the Apostle the Apostle Paul did not resolve by himself alone to deliver this man to Satan but he would have this done the whole Church being gathered together for that matter Now when the Church saw this unhappy man afflicted with so great sorrow that he was almost swelled up with grief it did defer the matter till it tried the Apostles mind whither it could obtain forgiveness to him or not In the mean time the Church did threaten that it would do its duty if it could obtain nothing So that miserable man was afflicted for many Mâ—neths till he knew that the Apostle had forgiven his punishment that the business was thus carried on may be clearly enough gathered as it seemeth out of the latter Epistle LXI From all that hath been now said and from more that might be said it is so clearly and fully demonstrate that this delivering up to Satan was farre another thing from that which at this day we call Excommunication or thrusting from the Sacraments that it cannot be denied by any that is a lover or knower of the truth I said above that some of the Antients did so expound this place Amongst whom Augustin was one whose Testimony I produced before besides there is another Testimony of this extant in his 1. Book of the Lords Sermon upon the Mount Before him Athanasias did so interpret it and after him Chrysosteme and at last his compilator Theophylact LXII Now let us take a view of these other places which they that dissent from us produce for themselves but nevertheless in brief In the Apostle Pauls sentence to Timothy where the saith that Presbyters which labour in the Word and Doctrine are worthy of double honour they put some strength and firmness For they think that from this place it is proved that there was some Presbyters that were not occupied in teaching but they attribute to those another Office to wit to censure manners to observe sinners to admonish the obstinate and to tell this to their fellow Presbyters that is to the Church and together with them to excommunicate these that will not hear the Church LXIII But we thinke that out of the writings of the Apostles Peter and Paul it is clear that Minister Bishop and Presbyter if this name signifie an Office and not age were the same in the Apostles times and that therefore there was then no Presbyter that did not also teach except perchance any man will have them also comprehended under this name that in the 1 Cor. 6. are appointed to be Judges and Arbitrators of controversies and causes But of these for the present we are not to speak seeing their Office was farre another from this Our opinion that is known to be most true is
confirmed by Hierome on the first Chapter to Titus and by Ambrose except that he writeth that at the first the Bishop was chosen out of the order of Presbyters Therefore the meaning of the Apostle Pauls words are such as if I should say I love all Ministers and Pastors but chiefly those that with undefatigable study and most intense care do feed the sheep committed to their trust I love all Students but chiefly those that study night and day When I so speak I do not say this that there are some Pastors that do not feed or some Students that do not study but I affirme that there some that are more sedulous then others but not more diligent in their Office that this is the genuine interpretation of the mind and words of the Apostle the words that immediately follow of a reward do first prove it for it is not likely that the same reward was at any time appointed in the Church to the Ministers and to Elders that did not teach For they discharge a double duty but these discharge but one single one yet nevertheless the Apostle saith that they are both worthy of double honour Then the Apostle produceth the Testimony of the Oxe that treadeth out the graine whereby in another place he sheweth that maintenance belongeth to the Ministers of the word Lastly The Participle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which he useth confirmthis for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth not only signifie I work but I am tired with working and labouring or I do something with great study care or labour Hence the Grecians call that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the Latins name lassitude and as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 differ so Likewise 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this word occurreth oft in the New Testament and allwaies it signifieth together diligence tiredness and sedulity as 11. Mat. Come unto me all ye that are wearied and Luke 5. The whole night c. John 4. But Jesus was 1 Cor. 4. We are smitten with buffets and Ephes 4. He that stealeth and 1 Thes 5. But we beseech you Brethren to know them which labour to tiredness amongst you And this place doth excellently declare that other place in the 5. Tim. the exposition of which we are now handling Besides it is found 4. Timothy 1 Corinthians 25. and in other places LXIV Moreover they say that Christ forbid to throw Pearls before Swine and to give holy things to Dogs I answer That Christ speaketh of those that contemn Pearls and trample them under their feet and turning back to teare us that is of the enemies of the Gospell of whom we do not at all speak For we speak of no others then of Christians instructed rightly in Doctrine and approving of it and desiring to participate the same Sacraments with the rest albeit they have not so lived as become them Moreover Christ speaketh here not of the Sacraments but that the Doctrine of the Gospell should not be taught to Dogs and Swine that is to them that will not and will trample it Hither likewise the Parable of the Pearl is not incommodiously to be referred Matth. 23. where Christ compareth the Kingdome of Heaven to a Merchant buying a precious Pearl Wherefore it no waies belongeth to our present purpose LXV The next which they object that Paul commanded Timothy that he would rebuke sinners before all we do not deny it But we say it belongeth not to our purpose I will not now bring many other things which may prove this But I will say this one thing that no man shall ever prove that to reprove or rebuke any man in the presence or sight of the Church is the same that to debarring from the Sacraments is If ye do not demonstrate it to be the same in vain do ye object it to us Who can instruct us that the Apostle in this place did think the interdiction of the Sacraments Moreover he doth not here treat of sins publickly committed But he saith rebuke sinners that is them that persevere in sinning in the sight of all men that both he that hath finned and together with him the rest may fear and flie sinning There is not a difference put here betwixt light and heavy sins And farre less betwixt publick and hid sins whither ye call them altogether or in part publick This Objection that I may once say it is more then leaden and like unto Wax it melteth before the fire truth and evanisheth into smoake Yea the words of the Apostle oppugn Excommunication while it commandeth a sinner to be rebuked afore others but it doth not command him to be Excommunicate he addeth that the rest may feare as if he should say if he will not repent nevertheless other shall be bettered thereby in this place the word sinner signifieth not him that hath given over sinning but that persevereth therein and that doth not repent after admonition I say he commandeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this sinner to be reproved and be rebuked before others but he doth not command him to be Excommunicate LXVI The Apostle say they commandeth us to avoid wicked men insomuch that he doth not permit us to take common meat with them and farre less would he have us to celebrate the Lords Supper with them I deny this connexion for the forbidding of private familiarity doth altogether much differ from the denying of the Sacraments neither doth he that forbiddeth that also deny this for that is a kind of politick punishment but this a holy one that is commanded to us but this is not both the end and cause of that is told by the Apostle Paul but we find neither the end nor the cause of this expressed yea we do not find the thing it self either commanded or named in holy Scriptures And that the one was and may be without the other the Pharisees have proved by their own fact who as they would seem holier then other so they had no commerce in their life with Publicans I do not remember now that I have read whither all the rest did so but now shall ever shew us that they were excluded from the Temple from the Sacrifices from the Passover and from the other Sacraments for they were circumcised and had not revolted from Judaisme And at this day in many places some evill men are kept back from private commerce which nevertheless no man keepeth back from the use of the Sacrament From which likewise this followeth that this deniall of private eating together is rather a politick then an ecclesiastick punishment and that it cannot be esteemed for to deliver up to Satan which some men think Excommunication to be The Apostle commandeth good men to avoid the company of evill men that they may be ashamed and repent but he doth not forbid evill men the society of the good if any will admit them unto their familiatity At
the Sword that is when the Magistrates were made Christians nevertheless this power remaines still in the Bishops Partly because it was believed to be a divine ordination and partly because they would hardly lay down this spirituall Sword for which they were feared by the greatest Princes For they easily perswaded others which they more easily and willingly believed themselves to wit that Christ was the Author of this business Superstition confirmed the opinion by ascribing safety to the Sacraments for it was written and believed that some men could not die before they had been made pertakers of the Sacraments Therefore either by reason of this errour men did very much fear Excommunication or from Excommunication this error did spring among the unlearneder People that life was put in receiving of the Sacraments and death in deniall of the same when they saw wicked men punished with the deniall of them as with the last and greatest punishment LXXI But as farre as we can know by conjecture it seemeth that at the beginning the Administrators thereof were those Elders of whom we read the 1 Cor. 6. who carried the place of Magistrates in the Church together with the Ministers Afterwards this whole power remaind to the Bishops who did cognosce in all causes compose all differences gave judgment and did Administer all such things As we clearly see out of Augustine complaining of those labours and the History of that time Ambrose indeed affirmeth that those Elders without which nothing used to be done in the Church had then place whenas yet they wanted Bishops But by the Apostle it appeareth that they ought to have been overseers of this Office so long as the Church was pressed with an ungodly Magistracy By which that likewise is understood that as under a godly Magistracy their Office ceased so likewise Excommunication should cease under the same Albeit they had exercised the same before in the mean time it must be noted that these Elders were in the place of the Magistrate and did meddle with civill matters and were not an Ecclesiastick Judicatory which at this day they distinguish from the politick for it is clearly said that they ought to meddle with debates and matters belonging to the sustentation and use of mans life LXXII The fruits that it brought forth in the Church would scarcely be explained in many Books truly they cannot be comprehended in a few Lines First They brought this to pass that men begun to ascribe safety to the Sacraments For thus they reasoned The deniall of the Sacraments bringeth destruction therefore the receiving of the same giveth life they could not doubt of that which is the Antecedent whilst they heard that those were afflicted with great punishments and believed were delivered to Satan unto whom the Sacraments were denied Hence it was believed that some could not die without receiving of the Supper as I said a little before those many and great and long satisfactions and Ceremonies did augment the errors and likewise chiefly that that they permitted the use of the Supper to men that were only a doing that they should not depart hence without food necessary for their souls Which if it did not happen they esteem'd him condemned to whom this befell as if God would not forgive them that were heartily penitent for their sins and give them life except those Elders judg them worthy of the Lords Supper what can be thought more horrid then this error then likewise it brought this to pass that every one almost believed it was in the power of a man to shut and open Heaven to whatsomever person he pleased So the Emperor Theodosius the yonger would not dine because he was Excommunicate by a Monke unto whom he denied something to him that he had demanded Albeit the Bishop of Constantinople told him such exclusion was invalid nevertheless he would not be quiet till at last he had absolved him who had bound him So the Elder was compeld by Ambrose for eight Moneths to abstaine from the Church and Preachings Indeed he had sinned but much lightlier then Ambrose which may be known by any man that is not void of judgment out of the History of Nicephorus and Chronicle of Mr. Philip Melancthon To conclude By this meanes it was brought to pass that the Bishop of Rome did bring the West under his obedience and compeld the Kings Princes Emperours to serve his lusts and by reason that some Emperours and Kings were Excommunicate some hundred thousands of men have been kild in the Germane Empire Moreover according to his own Arbitrement he changed uncorrupted Religion whilest for feare of this Thunder-bolt now durst hiss against his Laws and Statutes and truly he that will ponder the matter rightly shall find that that God of strength in Daniel signifieth nothing but Excommunication or a prohibition of holy things chiefly of the Lords Supper For this Excommunication truly was and at this day also is that God of strength whereby the Pope of Rome hath subjected unto himself all things and whereby now others also go about to subject likewise unto themselves the Empires of all men But I hope that this false God shall be known and shall hereafter less hurt the Church To conclude the whole matter It brought business to this pass that all men for the most part believed that these men who might judg it unworthy of eternall life were out of the favour of God and on the other part that all men whom it desired to be saved were altogether saved do we hope that men of our age will be better and more sober then the Ancients he is deceived that believeth it and neither hath he examined well the Scriptures neither hath he any experience in present affairs LXXIII I see not why the Christian Magistrate ought not to do the same at this time in the Jewish Common-wealth he was commanded by God to do Do we thinke that we can constitute a better form of Church and Common-wealth In the 4. Chapter of Deutronomy we read that for the judgment and statutes which God had given to the people of Israel that all Nations should admire and praise their wisdome and understanding but they wanted this Excommunication And the power of restraining unclean and criminall persons was in the Magistrate whose duty it was not only to punish these men according to the Law of God but likewise to constitute all the externall Religion for not Aaron but Moses did this God so commanding Which power afterwards we know was translated to Joshua and not to Eleazer for God commandeth Joshua not Eliazer that he should have a care that the Israelites the second time should be Circumcised neither commanded he to except any albeit many amongst them were most wicked and he commanded him likewise to celebrate the Passover so soone as they had passed Jordan neither do we read that he repulst any because they had not lived religiously and honestly enough At the command of
and to believe rightly concerning that Doctrine from our Sacraments which only differed from them of old in the signs and time signified For they did not in any place either do or teach any thing against Moses's commands which were not abolish'd by Christ But they observ'd the Law no less diligently afterwards then they did before the death of Christ As the chief of the Apostles in the Place newly cited do witness For they only suffered the Nations to live without the Law of Moses and not the converted Jews which is diligently to be observed here because of the things that follow And as farre as concerns the substance of the Doctrine they taught nothing which was different from Moses and the Prophets For if they had taught otherwise their Doctrine had not been judged by them of Beroea to be consonant to the Scriptures Acts 17. XXXIII I will say somewhat more for the sentence of Moses which is much the very same which we hold That there are no reasons found in the Apostle Paul for the contrary opinion For in the 1 to the Corinthians and 8. Chapter he excluded not those which as yet believ'd Idols to be some thing Neither those elevate and proud swelling Gnosticks who did openly with profane and ungodly worshippers of Idols eat things offered to Idols in their very Chappels at their solemn and publick Banquets That which God by Moses had clearly forbidden Exod. 34. and by the Apostles Acts 15. and lastly by John 2. Revelation this was no less weighty sin than if any this day should dare to be present at the Mass of the roman-Roman-Church which may readily be gathered by any man out of the tenth Chapter of the same Epistle Because in this place the Apostle Paul proveth that such men do declare by this their deed that they are no less fellows and commonners of the Devill Then by the receiving of the Lords Supper they testifie themselves to be members of Christs mysticall Body XXXIV Next in the tenth Chapter Paul reasoneth thus As in old times the Lord did not spare those that coveted evill things nor Idolaters nor whoremongers nor tempters and murmurers against Christ although they were Baptis'd with the same Baptisme with all the rest and did eat the same spirituall food and drinke the same spirituall drink So neither will he spare any of you whatsomever which are defiled with the same sins although you eat all of the same Bread and drinke all of the same Cup with all the Saints By these it is perceived First That our Sacraments and those of the Antients were the same in respect of the thing internall and Heavenly otherwise the Argument of the Apostle would be of no effect Next it is clear That many corrupt persons and that publickly known to be such were admitted Thirdly This is likewise certain That not any was commanded to forbeare as Excommunicate persons are commanded The Apostle doth not say that such are to be kept back But he foretelleth that they would be punish'd by God so as the Antients were punish'd For Moses together with the Levites did kill a part of them 32. and the Lord did consume another part with fire Serpents with the Sword and with the opening up of the earth which also happened unto the Corinthians for he affirmeth that many of them then were sick and many of them dead XXXV In the following Chapter he commandeth neither the contentious persons and Sectaries neither them that were made drunke in the very celebration of the Supper it self nor them that were polluted with other sins to be kept back from the use thereof indeed he doth not mention so much as in one word this interdiction when as he correcteth farre less faults as that every one should eat at home How could he in this place not have mentioned this matter if he had approv'd thereof or thought it necessary in the Church The Apostle knew the Law commanded otherwise and that there was another use of the Sacraments in the Church then that by their deniall corruptness in life should be punished Therefore he commandeth that every one should examine himself but he doth not command that they should examine and approve of one another he moreover exhorteth them all that they should strive to eat worthily least any should eat judgment to themselves he doth not command them that eat unworthily to be kept back therefrom but he threatneth them with the Lords chastisement He divideth the generall sort of eaters into two kinds by their opposite differences to wit in them that eat worthily and them that eate unworthily he commandeth neither of them not to eat but he desireth that all should eat worthily XXXVI Afterwards in the second Epistle Chapter 12 and 13. he doth not threaten them which after his admonition had not repented them of the impurity lust and licentiousness which they had committed with a removall from the Lords Table but by the authority and power which was given him of God he sheweth that he would severely and rigorously punish them which in his own writeings he doth verifie oft but he no where telleth them of the debarring from the Sacraments which is the Question in hand neither doth he command the Elders or any others to do this But if he would have had the wicked punished after this manner he should have commanded them to be removed from the Sacraments till they amend Chiefly seeing he had appointed Elders in the same Church before 1 Cor. 6. Chap. and had amended the celebration of the Supper But we will perchance speake more of this matter hereafter XXXVII Even as in the celebration of the Sacraments we see no mention to be made of Excommunication so neither do we find any such thing in their Institution Yea the Scripture hath not made mention of it where it explains the end and use of the same But if they were given to this end to the Church that they might be a kind of punishment to the wicked and wickedness without doubt in one of the places there would have some mention been made thereof The ends of the Lords Supper for which it was instituted are these That we should solemnly celebrate the death of our Lord and give publick thanks to him for our delivery That we should by our presence teach and testifie that we have no other meat and drink of life but Christ Crucified and his Blood shed for us That we should declare we repented of our forespent life thinke of a better imbrace the Christian Doctrine to belong to his Church in which we should desire afterwards to live holily and godly and dye therein Hath the Scripture in any place forbid any man to do these things But some you will say do oft return to their own Byass and are made no better I answer That he who in the present thinks so as I have said by the motion of the holy Ghost is not repelled by the Scriptures but God knoweth
understand Christs words any otherwise as is manifest by Peters Interogation on whom he asketh Is it enough that if my Brother sin against me seaven times I forgive him seaven times Peter was not ignorant that he neither should nor could of himself alone remit those sins which belong to the Church and divers others Thirdly The word to the proveth this Christ saith not let him be to us let him be to the Church let him be to others but let him be to thee alone which hath suffered or doth suffer an injury by him as a Publican Albeit chief speaketh to all the Apostles alike nevertheless he commandeth that the offender should be esteemed as a Publican to him only that was hurt by him and that after the admonition of the Church therefore he speaketh not of these things which belong to the whole Church or to many others but of these things which belong to every single man Fourthly He speaks of such sins as we ought so oft to forgive our Brethren for as oft as they say they repent of them and that this transaction or remission done betwixt two only shall be the end of all strife is clearly held forth in these words Again I say unto you if two of you agree together c. Ver. 19. but a great offence which belongs to more or to the whole Church cannot be forgiven by one alone By the way ye are to take notice here that the Adverb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 again doth declare that he said the same now just before albeit he used other words Fifthly Christ speaketh of such sins whereof they are not ashamed that have committed them or which they will not deny before any man if he speak of other grievous sins and of such as belong to the Church and many other witnesses should have no place For no man would confess that before witnesses that he remitted such an act if it were done privately But in all those things of which is spoken here there is degrees set down by Christ to be kept wherefore he speaketh of private injuries belonging not at all to others Sixtly He speaketh of such which the Church of which Christ speaketh here doth not punish but sendeth away the Offendor chastis'd only with words For in vain should he say if he will not hear the Church for indeed it could punish sins with publick punishment Seaventhly The Parable that immediately follows doth prove the same clearly which doth teach that God would not forgive them their sins that would not forgive from their heart their penitent Brothers without pain or punishment but the Church should not so as they say forgive the Offenders but should keep them at least for a time from the Sacraments untill they should approve their penitence to Presbyters chosen for this purpose Therefore he would have them forgiven seaven times a day that say they repent but would see Arguments of their Repentance of which Christ speaketh not one word here for he will have no other Argument then a confession of their fault which he that doth not dissemble it will not return seaven times a day It is then clearly demonstrate by these reasons that Christ doth not discourse here of these sins that are to be punished by Excommunication but of light and private injuries and of the meanes to compose them therefore it doth not belong to the business of Excommunication If the conclusion only used by Christ in the end of the Chapter be looked unto all cause of doubting will be removed XLIII Those that are of oppinion that Christ in this place and Chapter did institute Excommunication must be compelled to shew in what words this command is comprehended If they cannot demonstrate it to be contain'd there and it is in vain for them to say it is commanded here Therefore it s either in these words tell the Church or in these let him be to thee as a Publican or in these whatsomever you shall bind c. But that not any of these contain any such thing I will prove what solid Arguments therefore seeing it cannot be sought in any other words it is in vain sought after in this Chapter XLIV The words of Christ tell the Church prove only this that he that is injur'd by his Brother and hath indeavoured in vain to be reconciled to him may complaine of the injury to the Church or to the moderator of the Church Moreover that the Church hath right and power to reprove and admonish an injurious man that he may cease to be sick There is no more power here given to the Church then was given before to the witnesses if they only except this that the case was not to be brought before the Church without witnesses Would not this then be a foolish way of reasoning the Church hath power to reprove him that doth injury to others therefore it hath power to Excommunicate him and keep him back from the Sacraments But indeed some will say the Church hath no power to punish Offenders with corporall punishments or with the Sword therefore it is compel'd to punish them by forbidding them the Sacraments I answer That this connexion doth not follow albeit the Antecedent were true but that it is false being taken of the visible Church is clearly demonstrate to our eyes and senses by all the Old Testament and the History of all ages neither can it ever be proved that these should rightly cohere togegether it cannot punish by the Sword therefore it must debarre from the common Sacraments them that profess the same Religion XLV If he that is of another judgment shall answer that it is contained in those words let him be unto thee as a Publican and a Heathen I answer it is false for by no speech by no perswasion by no Arguments can it ever be demonstrate that this speech of Christ let him be to thee as an Heathen and a Publican is the same with this let them excommunicate let them be shut out from the Sacraments For in Christs time circumcss'd Publicans whither they were Jews or Gentiles were not kept back from the Sacrafices Temple Ceremonies and Sacraments Truly it seems that Christ therefore joyned a Publican with a Heretick lest any should judg that the interdiction of the Sacramehts were commanded here How could he according to the Law be kept from the Temple and divine worship seeing it was not a sin to be a collector of the publick revenues Neither is it in any place found to be forbidden by God and truly Christ hath not forbid it When the Publicans demand of John what was needfull for them to do that they might be saved he doth not bid them that they should forsake their office but he exhorteth them that they should not exact more then was imposed Luke 3. Christ likewise doth not bid Zacheus the chief of the Publicans to forsake this Office Neither doth he reprehend him for it Luke 19. Neither do we read of him who
went up to the Temple to pray and returned home justified by Christs sentence that he left of to be a Publican Luke 18. neither these that praise God Luke 7.15 and was most dear to Christ and his Apostles to change their condition as we find In brief I will say it that the holy Scriptures that is that God did at no time and in no place condemn and dispraise the Publicans upon the account that they were Publicans that is Collectors of the revenues which all wise men will freely confess with me Which being laid down I argument thus God doth condemn no Publican because as Publican in the holy Scriptures but he that God doth condemn cannot be excommunicate by the Law of God therefore no Publican could by divine right be forbidden from the Temple and divine Worship Now I go on concluding this no Publican by the Law could be condemned or Excommunicated but Christ commandeth him that will not hear that Church of which he speaketh there to be esteemed as a Publican therefore he commands him to be esteemed such a one as by the Law of God could not be esteemed acceptable to waite upon this account because he was a Publican When the Excommunicators affirme that these words let him be unto thee as a Publican doth signifie also much as if he had said let him be to thee such an one as a Publican is to a Pharisee they speak what is absurd false and impossible for it is not credible that Christ would in that place in which he resolved to institute as our adversaries affirme a thing of so great moment and therefore so profitable and necessary in the Church take his rule which afterward was to be kept by all from the impious facts of most wicked men and moreover I proved before that no man was ever excommunicate by the Jews after that manner that now we dispute of To conclude all the words of Christ do oppose their interpretation for Christ doth not here speake of the Pharisees or with them but he hath to do with his Disciples and centers of the way to avoid scandals he saith this if an injurious man will not hear the Church let him be unto thee as a Publican viz. to thee not as he is to the Pharisees but it is known that Publicans were not hatefull to Christ and his Disciples and to all other Religious Truly they did not esteem them as persons worthy of Excommunication but they did eat and drinke with them daily But that he joynes a Heathenick and a Publican together it compels us to confess that Christ speaketh of something which should be common to them both but the Publicans could enter the Temple the Heathen could not Wherefore Christ speaketh here nothing of Excommunication therefore these words let him be to thee as a Publican signifieth for another thing then these let him be to thee as an Excommunicate person Thesense then of this place is this If he hear not the Church you may in this cease without the offence of any man so we with him as if he had bufiness to do with an Heathenick and a Publican he that had any controversie with such men was compel'd to dispute his cause before the Roman Magistrate This is cleare concerning the Hethenicks concerning the Publican it appeareâ—â— hence that they were Ministers sworn to the Romans against their own Nation and that they could resâ—ect no justice from the Phariseeâ— and the chief men of the Jews who esteemed them Knaves and forlorne persons This is not permitted by Christ to any person against his Brother Jew before he seek reconciliation after that manner that he hath proposed and was prescribed before in the Law To this belongs the excuse of Paul in the last of the Acts to wit that he did not appeal to Caesar but being compel'd neither that he might accuse the Jews but that he might defend himself from wrong and violence If a Christian had any thing against his Brother the Apostle in the Corinthians commands that he may try to transact with him before some chosen Arbitrators and that he should not immediately go to Law before a Heathen Magistrate but if a Christian had to do with a Heathen who doubteth but that he might persue his right before a Heathen Magistrate After the same manner if any should contemn the judgment and sentence of the Elders of the Church he that was wronged and injured might persue the other before the Heathen Magistrate without any offence to his Neighbour XLVI The handling hereof will be more clear if we shall consider which was and what an one that Church was which he commanded us to tell it to In the declaring of which matter in the beginning I laid down this as a fundament which I am confident will be approved by all and I know will not be denied by any viz that Christ speaketh of that Church which was then For how should he command them to tell to the Church which was not to be found in any place of whose constitution at that time they had not heard any thing If he would lay the foundation of a new Church or of a new form of Government unknown to the Apostles he should have delivered the institution thereof very lame and defective For he neither taught who were that Church neither of whom nor how it should be gathered neither the way of judgment and punishing therein neither did he speak of all sins as I have now proved and they themselves which out of this place build up Excommunication are compel'd to confess the same with us while they affirme openly that here only hid errours are handled Where Christ institutes any new thing he omits nothing of those things without which that matter cannot consist here only he commands us to tell it to the Church which if he hear not he permitteth the accuser to esteem him as a Publican therefore he addeth no punishment Luke when he fell upon this place doth not set down all these things particularly which St Matthew relates the rest of the Evangelists make no mention thereof at all they would not have been silent in so great and necessary matter if they had known it was then first done by Christ adde that the Apostles were certainly perswaded that Christ would not die nor change the Religion of the Jews and that they did in no token no word no sign declare that they understood not well enough the Doctrine of Christ or if as they had heard something unknown and unusuall they neither did question we admire thereat Peter only did wonder at this that he was so oft commanded to forgive his Brother therefore they did not understand these words of Christ of a new form of government unknown to them but they believed and that rightly that they were taught when it should be lawfull for them without offence to accuse their Brother Jew before a prophane Magistrate And at this very day ye will
admonish that it will never come to pass that it can be shewn in the holy Scriptures that to bind is put for that which is to keep back believers from receiving of the Sacraments and to loose signifies the same that is again to admit him to the Sacraments which for his wickedness was debarred thereof and by this means to be insert again as it were into the Church LVI So then it is firmely and truly proved that Christ in the 18. of Mat. did not discourse of excluding men from the Sacraments but of the private transaction and composing of private injuries Other men likewise have seen this as Angustin in his 16. Sermon upon the words of the Lord upon Matthew And Theophylact that compilator of Chrysostome which no man doubteth to have had this opinion as he hath allmost all other things from Chrysostome Amongst the late Divines Mr. John Brentius hath written many things in his Exposition on this Chapter which are very agreeable to our purpose LVII Now the matter requireth that we come to that fact of the Apostle Paul set down in the 1 Cor. and 5. and that we demonstrate that it belongeth not to this Excommunication First It is known that the Apostle was a strict observer of Moses's Law And to have done nothing against the same as he witnesseth of himself Acts 25. Yea it appeareth Acts 18. and 21. that he together with the rest of the Apostles did observe some Ceremonies also of the Law and therefore to have been evill reported of by the Jews not that he had taught unto the Gentiles that observation of the Law was not necessary but that he went about to perswade this to the Jews when all the faithfull in Judea did observe the Law nevertheless But who knows not that Christ did not change the Law of Mâ—ses concerning the celebration of the Passover in that part in which it is commanded that all the circumcised should be present thereat Therefore he neither commanded this man that had committed incest neither any other that desire to be accounted amongst the Christians to be debarred from the Lords Supper Of the Jews it is certain because they would not suffer any thing to be done against the Law or against their own inveterate custome and who would believe that the Gentiles in this business were in a worse condition LVIII If to deliver over to Satan was no other thing then to interdict him the Sacraments till he repented why with such study and with such exquisite words did the Apostle Paul excuse himself to the Corinthians and as it were deprecate them in the 2. and 7. Chapter of the last Epistle Then why should the Corinthians be taken with so much sadness seeing they now know that this way of restraining the wicked was to remaine and ought to be exercised in the Church they ought rather to have rejoyced for the example that was given to them which they afterwards ought to follow If it was no other thing then an invitation to Repentance and a wholesome remedy against damnation why were they made sad and did not rather rejoyce Christ saith that the Angels of Heaven rejoyce more at the conversion of one sinner then for ninety nine just from whom it followeth that the Corinthians were not indued with the Spirit of Christ that they saw the Apostle do that one and sole thing which would recall an erring Brother unto the way and save him that was in danger who doth not clearly see that it was another thing that the Apostle was framing Thirdly What needed the Apostle to write 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I repent not though I did repent or how could he repent any way of this fact if he would have the same observed every where and in all Churches And if it was nothing else then a removing from the Sacraments for a time or only untill his Repentance Fourthly What need was there that the Corinthians should intercede with the Apostle with so much diligence for that miserable person which they knew would be received again immediately unto their society so soon as he had repented now that they intreated seriously for him is evident by these words of the Apostle to whom ye forgive I forgive also for if I forgive any thing I forgave him for your sakes in the sight of Christ Fifthly We read in the 2. Chapter that he excuseth himself thus that he would take a triall of their obedience and the 7. Chapter that so he would make manifest their good will towards him how could he have said these words or written them except he had commanded some greater matter then to keep back that wicked person from the Sacraments Sixtly By what means will we shew that these words agree to it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For ye sorrowed to God so that in nothing ye were hurt by us He saith that they received no loss by their sadnes because they obtained by their sorrow forgiveness to that unhappy and miserable person If this had not been done they would have suffered loss to wit they would have left him if he had only been to have been kept from the Sacrament till he had repented what less pray you could they have suffered Seaventhly Paul doth not there speak of the Supper but of the whole Christian life Therefore he will not have him excluded from the Supper but he will have him taken out of the middle of them least a little Leaven should Leaven the whole lump This agrees with the Apostles words and with the figure of Leaven Excommunication can neither be easily fitted to the Apostles words nor those of Moses Eightly It is to be marked that he doth not simply write that they being gathered together should deliver him to Satan in the name of the Lord or according to the Commandment of Christ or that they should keep him back from the Sacraments but saith he I absent in body but present in spirit have decreed in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ you being gathered together in my spirit and in the power of our Lord Jesus Christ to deliver this man to Satan c. Manifestly declaring that the power of our Lord Jesus Christ was needfull to this business and therefore that it was a greater matter then to be removed for a while from the Sacraments Adde this That he writes that he hath decreed to do this albeit he resolved not to do it without them because perchance he was absent but he doth not command it to the Church that it alone should do this as if this power had not been the power of the Church but of the Apostle Lastly We do not read in any place that the Apostle gave command either to one or more that whither he was dead or alive they should deliver any to Satan for the destruction of the flesh because he knew this was proper to the Apostolick power and that it agreed in Noun else for as they had the gift of healing
so they had the gift of striking as appeareth in the 5.13 of the Acts for this cause we do not read that the Apostle ordained any men who were commanded to exercise this power Wherefore the Apostle writes in divers places that he would come with authority that he would become sharp and rigid that he would act according to the power given him of God that he would come with a rod he commandeth that the sinners may be signified to him by an Epistle But he commandeth in no place this to the Presbyters that is no doubt that this power was then given to the Apostles and to none other Hitherto it belongeth that which he writeth 1 Tim. 1. of Hymeneus and Alexander that he not the Church not the Presbytery not any other had delivered them to Satan LIX By circumstances and arguments I have evidently shewn that to deliver to Satan was another thing then to keep back from the Sacraments which now I shall more clearly demonstrate from the words themselves also and from the propriety and nature of the speech First The Apostle doth not say why have ye not interdicted this wicked man the use of the Supper but he saith this why have ye not sorrowed that is why have ye not besought God by your sorrow and Prayers that he would take away by whatsomever means this man from amongst you Augustin in his 3. Book against Parmen so interpreteth this place but saith he that he may be taken away with sorrow that is that the sorrow of the lamenters might ascend unto God and he might take away this work from the midst of them as he thought fit he expoundeth after the same manner of way those words which the same Apostle hath in the 12. Chap. concerning sorrow they agree likewise with Augustin and with the truth who thinks the Apostle alludes to the place 1 King 21. out of which place we conjecture that this custome was kept by the Antient Jews that they should search out enormeous crimes by Fasting Praying and publick sorrow and being found out they did not punish them according to the Law Wherefore seeing the Church wanted the Sword he did exhort them that they should obtain from God that they should be taken out of the middle of them which is farre different from that which we call to Excomunicate any man Moreover by what fit Author will they ever shew unto us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be taken oâ—t from the middle of you is the same that to be debard from the Sacrament is he is only properly to be said to be taken out of the middle that is put to death For albeit he that is banished may be said to be cast out of the middle of others nevertheless this is neither usuall nor a proper speech amongst the Grecians or at least it is not sound to be set down in the holy Scriptures but if he commanded him to be thrust out of the society of the faithfull what needed publick sorrow and besides he should have been sent unto the Gentiles But that which is added is against this that his soul may be safe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which could not be safe out of the Church If you say that he was only removed from the Sacraments and private commerce he was not taken out of the middle of them for I believe that no man will ever demonstrate that the Apostle commanded him only to be kept from the use of the Sacraments and from the private diet and society of the Christians Therefore this is stitched to the Apostles words which can be shewn he never thought of indeed I believe that there is not any that is acquainted with the holy Scriptures and their more ancient Interpreters that would doubt but that the Apostle borrowed this sentence and therefore these words from Moses in Deutronomy for it is put by Moses for killing and for no other thing in the 17 19 21 22 24 Chapters of that book in all these places the same words are found when in the 13. Chap. for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he hath put on the same sense and meaning 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is impossible then that to take out of the middle should signifie in this place Excommunication as now Excommunication is taken Thirdly It seems by the Text that that miserable man did not persevere in that wickedness for he saith hath done this deed And concerning him that hath so done this deed which prove that he hath done it but does not shew that he doth it still So he seemeth to desire that he may be punished for the crime that is already committed as God hath commanded to be done and a good Magistrate useth to do Indeed when he saith that his soul may be safe he seemeth to have known that he was penitent for the fact For how could he have written this else of him of whose mind concerning the crime he was not yet informed of Fourthly He faith that he hath resolved to deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh that the spirit may be saved in the day of Jesus Is it not yet known what the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth signifie who ever found this Verb put either in prophane Writers or in the holy Scriptures as it is put here and that it did not signifie the same that to concede to permit to give over doth signifie the person that gives doth precede the person to whom it is given doth follow and that which is given is also a person and last this is added also for which and for what end it was given the Speech is such as if I should say I would deliver my son to a Master for instruction or correction what man will doubt but he that heareth a man speak thus doth think but that he delivereth his son to the power of the Master that he may instruct him or chastise him he that desires to see examples let him looke to thee 1 Tim. 1. Acts 27.28 Matth. 5.18 27. Mark 13. John 19. and is most like to that that is contained Matth. 24. they shall deliver you up to be afflicted and Mark 13. the Brother shall deliver up the Brother to death and 2 Pet. 2. delivered them unto chains of darkness to be reserved unto judgment and in the Book of Job 2. God speaketh to Satan in these words Behold I have delivered him up to thee but only save thou his life Doth not these places teach that they were delivered up to be afflicted to be kild to be condemned the summe is not any shall ever be able to shew that such a phrase is put for that which is to be debarred from the Sacraments except the perishing of the flesh and the forbidding of the Sacraments be the same thing Fifthly It is impossible that this Noun 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 can be shewn to be put in the New Testament for the punishing of the lust of the flesh