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
self-same thing God plainly and expresly and with reiterated Precepts commands that every Male except the unclean and such as were in a Journey should keep the Passover He never therefore intended to frighten away some under the figure of the Leaven There were then plenty enough of bad men present that it must be needless to typifie and shadow them out by Leaven And the wickedness of men was a thing as obvious to mens senses and as much to be taken notice of as the Leaven that should represent it Therefore since no figures are commonly instituted of such things as are at hand and in view and which with equal clearness strike the Senses 't is in vain to seek for any Figure there How much more where the things figured are more notorious and common than the Figures themselves But besides Moses does not command that the Eater of Leaven should be debarr'd eating the Passover but commands him to be slain Therefore sinners should not so much be kept from the Lords Supper as they should be capitally punished Which is a Consequence I should be so far from admitting with difficulty that I rather wish it might so be for I desire nothing more than that the strictest Moral Discipline might be observ'd in the Church but such still as is of Gods appointment not of mans invention Secondly The Jews might eat Leaven all the year round excepting onely those seven days of Unleavened Bread which they did commence from the eating of the Passover Now if you would parallel this with the Lords Supper you must of necessity grant a liberty for licentious living all the year provided you abstained from vice all the time you were celebrating the Lords Supper Thirdly Moses speaks here of the Passover onely not of any other Sacraments by Analogie therefore wicked men should onely be kept from the Lords Supper not from Baptism Fourthly The Apostle makes not the comparison to run betwixt the Feast of the Jews and the Lords Supper but betwixt that and our whole course of life he says we are unleavened as men that are washed in the Bloud of Christ and purged from all Leaven and therefore says he let us keep the Feast that is let us live not with the Leaven of Malice but with the Unleavened Bread of Sincerity and Truth There is a vast difference betwixt Leaven simply so called and the Leaven of Malice or Wrath There is none but knows that in the second sence 't is taken figuratively and School-men say that an analogical or figurative sence proves nothing This is certain whatever is meant by Leaven Excommunication can never be maintain'd or justifi'd from it against Gods precept XVIII But some may object that Paul speaks here of the Passover but what I pray makes this to our business as if this word Passover were put for the Lords Supper in the New Testament Christ saith the Apostle 1 Cor. 5. 7. is our Passover sacrificed or slain for us not his Supper The meaning of the words is this As the Jews who onely began their Feast of Unleavened Bread with eating the Lamb did eat Unleavened Bread all that week after so should you who have begun to believe in Christ and are purified and become unleavened through his Bloud you should lead a pure and unspotted life all the rest of the week that is all the days of your life XIX Now that nothing of different nature is to be met with in the other Books of the Old Testament may be known and proved if it were but from this alone that the Jews Posterity were to live according to the Laws and Institutions of Moses contrary to which they might not by any means institute or enjoyn any thing which related to the Worship of God Most certainly the good and pious Judges Priests Prophets and Kings forced away none from their Sacraments and Sacrifices but rather invited all to them with the greater earnestness and zeal The story of good King it should be Hezekiah I suppose See 2 Chron. 35. Josiah 2 Chron. 35. v. 18. is well known who called together all the Children of Israel as well those whom he knew to have sacrificed and burnt Incense to strange Gods or Devils as those who for the shortness of the warning could not be cleansed 2 Chron. 30. v. 19. according to the purification of the Sanctuary From whence 't is observable that Sacraments are Provocations and Allurements to Religion and Piety and that men grow better rather by frequenting than by being robb'd of them provided they are rightly and faithfully instructed XX. Excommunication therefore can never be maintain'd from the first Chapter of Isaiah v. 13. Psal 50. v. 8. and many places of like import where 't is said that God will have nothing to do with the Sacrifices and Oblations of the Wicked for God doth in all those places condemn the abuse of them in that they thought that they fully perform'd the Will of God by the meer external performance at what rate soever their Soul stood affected Besides God neither commands the Prophet nor any one else by him to exclude the Wicked from the Sacrifices and Rites but shews that God will not hear them unless that withal they amend their lives Now the external Policy and Government of the Church stands upon a different foot with the Will of God to us-ward as himself is the Approver or Condemner of our thoughts and actions In fine from the self-same places it may directly and in the same manner be demonstrated that none that is a sinner may call upon the Name of the Almighty nay that 't is unlawful for such an one so much as to praise or give thanks unto God and then 't will be incumbent on the Priests and Elders to forbid the Wicked all these for God hath a like aversion to those when they come from wicked men as is plain as well from the Texts instanc'd in as from places of the like import And if this latter carries absurdity in it no less doth the former XXI Neither doth that of 1 Esdras chap. 9. v. 3. 4. make any whit against us for that was a matter of Policy and no ways relating to the Sacraments for the Magistracy not Esdras the Priest alone though he too was a part of the Magistracy for as Josephus bears witness though they had a Leader yet were they govern'd by the Optimacy or Nobility set forth a Proclamation That whosoever met not at Jerusalem within two or three days their Cattel should be seized to the use of the Temple and they be cast out from them that were of the Captivity not from their Sacraments and Sacrifices But we make it not the enquiry of this place whether the Magistrate hath a right of punishing so or so but whether the Priests had any authority of removing dissolute and bad Livers from the Sacrifices Esdras could not do this contrary to the Command of God Adde to this that Moses never commanded
this penalty to wit Exclusion from Sacraments to be inflicted on them who married strange women Deut. 7. v. 3. And in the 8th Chap. of 1 Esdras 't is shewn how he was to proceed against the Transgressors of the Law in that point to wit by Death Banishment Corporal Punishments Confiscation of Estates Bonds or Imprisonments But in fine 't was quite another thing to be thrust out from the company of them who had returned from the Captivity and to be shut out from the Temple and Sacrifices for it appears from Exod. 1. 2. 21. and Numb 9. 2. that the stranger that was circumcised was admitted to keep the Passover and then too many of those who either had continued in Judea or who of the Inhabitants had forsaken the filthiness and abominations of the Gentiles and became Jewish Proselytes did together with all the others celebrate the Passover as 't is written at the end of the 6th Chapter of Esdras These such as they were were not debarr'd the Sacrifices Temple or Ceremonious Rites though they were not reckoned among the number of them who return'd from Babylon In like manner did they remove some of the Priests from their Sacerdotal Function because they could not make out their Pedigree as appears 1 Esdras 2. And from all put together 't is plainly impossible that Excommunication can be shor'd up or supported hereby XXII There is yet one Objection left which some men hug themselves in and prize mightily and that is the casting out of the Synagogues for to assert Excommunication the more irrefragably they quote you what is written in John 9. v. 22. and ch 12. v. 42. and ch 16. v. 2. But many and true are the Answers to this The word Synagogue sometimes signifies a place as when Jesus is said to have entred into and taught in the Synagogue Sometimes a Convention or Meeting whether the same were in the Synagogue it self or elsewhere as when the Pharisees are said to chuse the chief Seats in the Synagogues and the uppermost Rooms at Feasts Mark 12. 39. Luke 20. 46. In this latter sence or rather in both of them is it used Mat. 10. v. 17. and ch 23. v. 34. where Christ foretels the scourging of his Followers in the Synagogues and Mat. 10. v. 17. Mark 13. v. 9. Luke 12. v. 11. and 21. v. 12. in which places the word signifies no more than the publick place of Judicature as 't is often used for the same by the Septuagint as we shall have opportunity to clear hereafter But in the last forecited places Mat. 10. v. 17. and Mark 13. v. 9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which we translate Councils and Synagogues are there put as if they both signified the same thing In the other places after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 presently follows 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Kings and Rulers as in Luke 21. v. 12. instead of which the same Evangelist ch 12. v. 11. puts 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Magistrates and Powers So in Mark 13. v. 9. Mat. 10. v. 17. By comparing these places 't is most plainly demonstrable that the Evangelists or rather Christ did not by the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Council and Synagogue understand or mean any thing more than the Jewish Judicatures which were held before several persons who sate as Judges though generally one had the Chair and something of Superiority or if more did act they did it in the name of one of them In these Assemblies or Synagogues those that were found adjudg'd guilty were buffeted and beaten with Rods and the like Mat. 10. 17. and 23. 34. Acts 17. 10. and 26. 11. and 2 Cor. 11. 25. which place may be easily understood by Deut. 25. 2 3. Now the casting out of this kind of Synagogue was a kind of Political or Civil Ignominy or Punishment and so a local banishment as 't were as we gather out of Luke 4. 28 29. which can never be applied to Sacraments which except it be that of Circumcision and some few others were celebrated in the Temple of which there was but one and at Jerusalem And of the same nature doth that punishment seem to be which we spoke of a little before in our clearing that of Esdras There is no body but knows that such Synagogues there were in every City therefore whether you take the word in that of John ch 10. v. 17. for the Assembly it self or for the place where they assembled it thwarts not our Opinion any manner of ways and if at most it were denied to be a Civil Assembly yet must it manifestly appertain to religious matters But I dispute not here whether he who entertains erroneous Opinions of the true Religion be to be excommunicated for the Pharisees says John 9. v. 22. agreed that if any man did confess that Jesus was Christ that he should be put out of the Synagogue But farther yet it was matter of Repute and Honour to be of the Synagogue as of the other hand 't was a piece of Reproach to be cast out of it as may methinks be easily gathered from Joh. 12. 42. where 't is said that among the Chief Rulers also of whom perhaps Nichodemus was one many believed on him but because of the Pharisees they did not confess him lest they should be put out of the Synagogue and the reason is added v. 43. for they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God Besides it appears that even the circumcised Publicans were not admitted into the Synagogues in the sence we now take the word for the Pharisees would not endure so much as to speak with them and one of their Cavils at Christ was for his familiar converse with those men But I cannot imagine that any one who understands himself can affirm that these very Publicans and Sinners were debarred from the Passover from the Temple or from Sacrifices therefore must they needs be two quite different things so to be dissynagogu'd and to be kept from the Sacraments and Rites of Gods own institution which is manifest as well from what has been already said as from Acts 5. v. 42. for the Disciples after they had been severely lesson'd by the Synagogue did not yet cease to teach and preach Jesus Christ dayly in the Temple What a many of Synagogues was Paul put out of but the Jews never cast it in his teeth never accus'd or condemn'd him for coming into the Temple and for offering there for himself and others But to close all this more may yet be said could it never so plainly be made out that the Pharisees counted it one and the same thing to exclude from the Synagogue and from the Sacraments which I shall make appear never was is or could be true yet they must needs have done this as well as many other things against the express Law of Moses and then are we obliged not to imitate but condemn
Apostolick power a thing he often did threaten in his Epistles But nowhere has he preach'd this Doctrine which is the Question now in hand That any should be interdicted the Sacraments nor has he commanded Presbyters or any others to do it But had he been disposed to have this way given check to Wickedness he would assuredly have ordain'd that Sinners should have been kept from Sacraments till they became reform'd in their manners especially since he had before appointed or ordain'd Elders in the same Church 1 Cor. 6. v. 5. and had corrected the Abuses the miss-celebration in the Lords Supper But perhaps we may have more to say to this hereafter XXXVII As we find no mention made of Excommunication in the receiving and celebrating this Sacrament so neither doth any thing of that nature appear in its Institution nor indeed hath the Scripture taken any notice thereof in her Explications of the use and ends of Sacraments Whereas had Sacraments been given to the Church for this as well as other ends and purposes that they should have been for Penalties upon Offences and Offenders some mention must needs have been of it The end and designes of this Institution of the Lords Supper are That we may commemorate in the most solemn manner the Death of our Lord That we may pay our Homage in a publick Recognition and Thankfulness for the Deliverance he hath purchased for us That we may remind our selves and by our presence bear testimony to others that we have no other Food of Life but a Crucified Saviour no other Drink but his Bloud poured out for us That we may declare our selves as well penitent for our past course of Life as that we have enter'd upon thoughts and resolutions of a better and that we embrace the Christian Doctrine are the Members of Christ belong unto his Church in which we desire piously and religiously both to live and die Has the Scripture anywhere prohibited any man from performing these things But you may perhaps say Some men have too frequently relaps'd to their former bad courses and become not one whit the better I answer He that by the aid and impulse of the Holy Spirit hath the thoughts of his heart right at the time of his receiving the Scripture turns him not away but God only knows whether and how long he will hold on his good purposes and resolutions 'T is our duty to hope always the best of all men however we may sometimes be mistaken nay we ought to address our hearty Prayers to God that he would vouchsafe to strengthen and confirm both us and them in all true Religion and Virtue But still the sinner is to be told of his faults is to be reprehended admonished and advised that he may so try himself that as the Apostle cautions he eat and drink not Damnation to himself XXXVIII Lastly Whether are the Sacraments either for the authority of their Institution or the intrinsick dignity of their nature of greater worth than the Word that Word of God which Christ preached or is there more necessity of the use of those than of this None without the Word can or could be saved but who can doubt but that many have been and yet may be saved without the Sacraments especially the Lords Supper provided they are not contemners of them The Apostle seems to have thought so too when he says he was not sent to baptize but to preach the Word Do not almost all men say that the Word is plain and visible and sets before our eyes what words signifie to our ears Why do we therefore make no attempts to shut any out from the Word but do it from the Sacraments especially the Eucharist and that contrary unto or at least much beside the interest of Gods express Command Do they say 't is because the Word is for all but that the Sacraments were instituted onely for Converts to the Word I know all that and speak not therefore of Turks and Pagans such as never came within the Churches Pale but of such as God hath called and ingrafted into his Church such as own the Doctrine and desire at least to all outward appearance to be worthy partakers of these Sacraments XXXIX Hitherto have I strongly demonstrated that there is no word or instance no footstep or president to be found either of Christs or among his Apostles of such Chastizements or rather Restraints and Coertions put upon wicked men Since therefore neither the Old nor New Testament hath commanded this sort of punishing but the clean contrary is often found in both of them we may justly think this Excommunication as far I mean as it excludes men from the use of the Sacraments for improbity of Life and vitiousness of Morals rather an Invention of Man than any Law of God It remains therefore that we examine what those who oppose us have to say for themselves and to convince the World that all that they say has nothing of proof or force in it XL. They tell you of a Precept Mat. 18. 15 16 17. and in St. Paul's Epistle they tell you too of an Example or Instance of that kind 1 Cor. 5. 3 4 5. and 1 Tim. 1. 19 20. We will take them in order and first for that in Matthew XLI 'T was not the designe of Christ in that Chapter of St. Matthew to set up any new Model of Government or form of putting Excommunications in execution but to instruct his Disciples how they should avoid giving of fence or scandal in the matter of righting themselves in private Injuries done them for since they who flie presently to the Magistrate to right them especially where the Magistrate as was that the Jews were then under is an Heathen and prophane do often give occasion of offence and scandal thereby to the weak He first exhorts and advises them that they rather forgive Injuries than run to the Magistrate upon every slight occasion Thus far doth he nothing but call to their minds that Precept of Moses Lev. 19. 17. which Ecclus 19. 13. hath a little more fully paraphras'd After this he directs that if they are necessitated to resort to the Magistrate for redress that yet they should not if they would avoid scandal accuse their fellow-brethren the Jews before the Roman Judicatures till their own Magistrates fail'd in doing them Justice The like Precept hath St. Paul given 1 Cor. 6. 1 c. which place is a kind of Comment upon this that is to say that Christians go not to Law with Christians before the Unbelievers This therefore is the true and genuine sense of this of St. Matthew If thy Brother that is a Jew trespass against thee try to make up the matter betwixt your selves alone but if alone you cannot do it try what may be done by the Arbitrement and Mediation of two or three of your Brethren the Jews still and if this way you have not a just satisfaction and amends made
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
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
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