PRIMS Full-text transcription (HTML)

The Nullity of Church-Cenſures: OR A DISPUTE Written by that Illuſtrious Philoſopher, Expert Phyſician, and Pious Divine Dr THOMAS ERASTƲS, Publick Profeſſor in the Univerſity of Heidelberge, and Baſil.

Wherein is proved by the holy Scriptures, and ſound Reaſon;

That Excommunication, and Church-Senates or Members, ex­erciſing the ſame, are not of Divine Inſtitution; But a meere humane Invention.

Si Deus nobiſcum, quis contra nos?

But let a man examine himſelf, and ſo let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup,1 Cor. 11.28.

But why doſt thou judg thy brother? we ſhall all ſtand before the judgment ſeat of Chriſt. So then every one of us ſhall give an account of himſelf to God. Let us not therefore judg one another any more,Rom. 14.10, 12, 13.

London Printed for G. L. and are to be ſold at the Star in St Pauls Church-yard, neare the Weſt end. 1659.

For the moſt excellent Medico Chyrurgion John Troutbeck of Hope, late Chyrurgion-Generall in the Northern Army, his much ho­noured Maſter and Patron.

Honoured SIR:

YOur Concernments in this Book are ſo ma­ny, and manifeſt, that it would be no leſs then Sacriledge in it ſelf, and ungratitude in me, to lance it forth under the Looky­fate of any other Tutelar. It was done at your Direction, and in your ſervice re­ceived its Birth; therefore cannot be free without your Manumiſſion and Patronage: And your intereſt is ſo great in••e parts and qualifications, which rendred the Author hereof Famous to Poſterity, that if I did not fear a Church-Cenſure, I would fall into the Pithagorian error, and proteſt, that the Authors Soul had again lodged her ſelf in your Body. To tell that the Author hereof was a great Maſter of Reaſon, an expert Phyſician, and pious Divine, is a work not at all neceſſary; for his enemies confeſs it; and his actions, and Writings do aſſert it to all poſterity. To ſpeak the ſame of you, I hold it an abſolute duty laid upon him that is free to bear witneſs to the Truth, and is willing at every ſeaſona­ble occaſion, to be thankfull to them, by whom he hath pro­fited. And indeed I think, there are none can more truly a­vouch the ſame then my ſelf, who for five years together, had the happineſs to be witneſs, to ſo many of your pious, and vir­tuous actions. 'Tis true, You never courted the applauſe of Men, or overthrow of Widows by long Prayers; neither thought Preaching a fit Pulley to raiſe your preferment: you leſt theſe Ginns of Hypocriſie to Men, that had no better parts to become eminent: of which Nets any of themſelves were aſhamed, at leaſt did not uſe, ſo ſoon as they had caught, what they fiſhed for. But your piety is of a more un­tainted Tincture. If we believe (as we ought) what the A­poſtle in ſo many, in ſo pithy words inforceth: That all things profit nothing without Charity: not tongues, not faith to remove Mountains, not prophecy it ſelf, not zeal to the fire. It is kind, it envyeth not, it is not eaſily moved, it rejoyceth in the truth, it beleveth, hopeth, and endureth all things: and is no more ſubject to time, then eternity is. This is that virtue that maketh you pious: this is it that crowneth your actions; and this is it which compelleth me (in deſpite of forgery or envy) to proclaime you religious. How oft have I ſeen you viſit the ſick? how oft feed the hungry? cloath the naked, comfort Priſo­ners? What Souldier of what Regiment, Troop, or Company ſoe­ver, can ſay, but you were ever more willing to affoard, then he was ready to deſire, your aſſiſtance in your Art and Me­dicines? How many Countrey-Men, both Angles and Scots, have you helped in their ſickneſſes and diſtreſſes? I have known you liberally beſtow on them whoſe former degree and parts made aſhamed to beg, and nevertheleſs their neceſſi­ties required the help of the meaneſt: and this was done by you undeſerved, undeſired, and without the ſound of Trum­pet. And the Army you ſerved, cannot ſay that ever you for­ſooke them in their greateſt hazards or hardſhips; though they forſook you in that proſperity, whereof you ſhould have been a ſharer. But it is a rule of Machiavell; That we ſhould fall out with thoſe, whoſe benefits confer'd on us, we are not able to requite; and this confidence ſhall make the people be­lieve, that either we were not oblieged, or at leaſt we have not been unthankfull; As for the ſkill in your profeſſion, I need ſay little. Your enemies [if there be any ſuch Beaſts] will not deny it. The whole Iſland is filled with the Fame, and Mo­numents thereof; And there is not an honeſt ſcarre ſhewn by the valiant, but is an equall trophy of his and your glory. And truly I believe not any will queſtion this, but he whoſe courage could never affoard, to make him the fit object of your care and profeſſion. I come to your reaſon, but that is ſo piercing, ſo profound, that I dare not meddle with its edge, nor ſearch its bottome; leaſt mine ſhould be divided by the one, and loſt in the other, But thus farre I dare adventure to ſay, that I never ſaw you do an action, though many ſeemed triviall, but alwaies a good effect followed thereon. You ne­ver Churched it, nor Kirked it; yet your wiſdome [under the Divine providence] carried you our and up in all your enter­priſes. You ſpoke the truth bluntly, and yet it alwaies left an impreſſion. You neither profeſt a Sect nor Sectling, yet you were reſpected by all, and imployed by moſt. And your reaching wit was never miſtaken in the greateſt deſigns, which I believe made the deſigners more willing to quit you. If this then be not the higheſt enjoyment of reaſon, it ſhall be my de­ſire alwaies to remaine in folly. SIR, (to give no further trouble) I have Tranſlated this Book at your deſire, and have according to my duty Dedicated it to You; not becauſe either You are, or are not of theſe Opinions; or that I deſire You to draw out an Act of reſolution in reference to either: But that at this time, when moſt men ſeem to be buſie in the inqueſt of truth, You thought it fit, that this Opinion ſhould likewiſe come to the Teſt, in ſubmiſſion to that word of the Apoſtle, Try all things, and hold that which is good: We are commanded here, to try that which we are not commanded to hold: o­therwiſe the words would be ridiculous. Try all things that are good, and hold that thing which is good: and ſo we ſhould try that which we knew to be good, whether it were good, which is vain, and needleſs. But all things here, are meant all Doctrines, all Opinions: and we ought only adhere to that, that is able to abide the touch of Scripture, and ſound reaſon deduced there­from. Now whether this be ſuch a work, or not, I leave it to e­very triers judgment; and You to the protection of him, that in the great day of tryall, ſhall ſave you in mercy;

Which is the Devotion of your Servant CHR.

TO THE READER.

BE pleaſed to be informed, that the de­fences of theſe Theſes, againſt Mr. Beza and others, are like­wiſe tranſlated; and if thou deſire, ſhall be Printed. In both which, if thou find not all Anſwered, that can be ſaid againſt them; or hath been ſaid by Mr. Beza, Mr. Catherwoods in his Altare Damacenum, Mr. Gileſpy in his Aarons Rod Bloſſoming; or by the Divines of London in their Jus Divinum; never believe me to have reaſon, if thou wilt be at the pains to con­ferre their Reaſons and Anſwers, with what is by our Author Aſwered and urged. The Life is ſomewhat Scholaſtick and Laconick; Nevertheleſs to know the force of his Reaſons, is well worth the time that ſhall ſo be employed: I chuſed rather to be a Pedant in adhereing to the Authors words, and Conſtruction, then to be too buſie in anothers La­bour. Pardon the Errors of the Preſſe in this Edition: for both my Amanuenſis, and the Corrector are Presbyterians: the next E­dition ſhall make an amendment of theſe faults which now we deſire thee to amend, &c.

To the Reader that is pious, and deſirous of Truth.THOMAS ERASTUS Phyſician wiſheth all health and Happineſs.

LEaſt any, that ſhall fall on theſe my Writings, ſhould wonder what cau­ſes induced, yea fully moved me to enter this Diſpute concerning Ex­communication; I will briefly and truly relate the originall and occaſion of the commencement thereof. It is about ſixteen years ago, ſince ſome men were ſeaſed on by a certain Excommunicatory-feaver, which they did adorn with the title of Eccleſiaſticall Diſci­pline, and did contend, that it was holy and com­manded of God to the Church; and which they earneſtly did deſire ſhould be impoſed on the whole Church. They affirmed the manner thereof to be this, That ſome certain Presbyters ſhould ſit in the name of the whole Church, and ſhould judg who were worthy or unworthy to come unto the Lords Supper.

I wondred that then they conſulted about theſe matters, when neither we had men to be Excommunicates, nor fit Excommunicators: for ſcarcely the thirtieth part of the people did underſtand or approve the Reformed Religion; all the reſt were our violent enemies: ſo that any man, that was indewed with the leaſt under­ſtanding, could not but foreſee, that there would follow on this neceſſarily a dangerous ſchiſme of the multitude. Therefore at that time, it ſeemed to me not good to inquire, how any might be throwne out of the ſociety of the Church: But on the contrary, I rather judged, that we ſhould uſe means to induce moſt to the knowledg of the truth, and to infold them into the Church. And they that were to be Over­ſeers herein, did neither in age and experience, nor in wit and judgment, no nor in carriage and authority, ſo farre excell the reſt, that they ſhould be eſteemed able to diſcharge theſe mat­ters worthily. Wherefore when I did ſee this buſineſs, which they ſo violently deſired, could not go forward without the loſs and overturning of the Church; I oft requeſted them that they ſhould ponder the matter accurately, and that they ſhould not raſhly begin any thing, which afterwards they ſhould repent; but in vain. For although at that time my opinion was, that Ex­communication was commanded in the holy Scriptures; yet notwithſtanding I found not the manner thereof, which they propoſed to us, to be commanded there. Wherefore ſeeing it ſeem'd that Chriſt had left the manner thereof free to our own choice, I alſo did ſeriouſly conſider of the way and manner which would moſt fit our matters, and draw leaſt trouble with it. In which I uſed ſo much more diligence, as I had ob­ſerved it to be more deſtructive to Chriſtianity, not only in former times, but now alſo.

Whileſt I was in theſe thoughts, and did in­quire what the Antients had written concerning theſe matters, and that I found all things weak­er in them then I had perſwaded my ſelf; I was compelled a little to doubt of the whole buſineſs: preſently after that, I conſulted the Schoolmen, but found nothing better amongſt them. From them I betook my ſelf to the Modern Writers. But even amongſt theſe men I found nothing more exact or ſolid: yea I perceived that in ſome things they manifeſtly diſagreed amongſt themſelves; which made me a great deal more attentive. Therefore, leaving the Interpreters, I returned to the holy Scriptures: and in my reading I diligently noted, according to my un­derſtanding, what was conſonant or diſſonant to the received opinion. In which the confide­ration of the Jewiſh Republick and Church did not a little help me. For I thought thus with my ſelf: The Lord himſelf doth teſtifie, Deut. 4. that his people hath Statutes and Laws ſo juſt and wiſe, that the Inſtitutes of no people, that the Sanctions of no Republick, that no Ordi­nances, howſoever wiſely conſtitute, were able to compare with them. Therefore it is neceſ­ſary, that that Church is moſt worthily and wiſely ordered, which cometh neareſt to the conſtitution of the Jewiſh Church. But in this the matters were ſo ordered by God, that we find not any where two divers Judicatories con­cerning manners, the one Politick, and the other Eccleſiaſtick. What then hindreth, that the Church now alſo, on whom the moſt mercifull God hath beſtowed a Chriſtian Magiſtrate, ſhould be leſs content with one Government?

After this I did conferre about my thoughts with good, holy and Learned men, and I did ex­hort them that they ſhould not lightly ponder the Cauſe. For it ſeemed to me moſt unneceſ­ſary, to put two heads upon one body of a vi­ſible Church, whoſe commands, decrees and Government were already divers, ſo that the rule of the one was not ſubject to the care of the other, but the Government of each in its own kind was ſupream. Indeed they would have had their Eccleſiaſticall Senate or Presbytery ſo conſtitute, that it ſhould have the ſupream pow­er of puniſhing of vices, yea in the Magiſtrates themſelves: notwithſtanding not with corpo­rall puniſhments, but with the debarring them from the Sacrament, firſt privately, then mixt, if it did not ſucceed well, then ſolemnly and pub­likely. But I ſaid, I did beleeve that one Magi­ſtrate appointed by God, could as well now bri­dle all tranſgreſſors, as he could of old. I did pro­poſe for example to my ſelf the moſt famous Kingdom of Solomon, which was as it were a type of Chriſts Church reigning on this earth. And that we did not find either under Moſes, or under the Judges, or Kings, or under the Go­vernment of theſe that were called Rulers, ſuch two diſcrepant Judicators. Nature denies (ſaith Muſculus) two authentick Governments in the ſame people, whereof one is not to be ſubject to the other. I was not a little helped by thoſe, with whom I conferr'd: partly becauſe they ob­ſerv'd ſome things better then I could, partly becauſe they gave me occaſion to think of certain other things more exactly.

In the mean time I kept my ſelf quiet: nei­ther did I reaſon with any man, except he pro­voked me, in this matter; and being provoked, I ever anſwered moſt modeſtly: becauſe it ſeemed neither profitable nor neceſſary to di­ſturb our Churches with this diſpute, whileſt no man was known to thruſt this form of Go­vernment on them openly. Indeed they who thought it farre more ſweet and pleaſant to com­mand then to obey, reſted not ſo; but by all arts they could (as I afterwards knew) labour­ed to perſwade our moſt holy Prince, that he ſhould indeavour to bring ſome ſuch thing into our Churches. And if ſome other things had not withſtood it, perchance they had perſwaded him. By what ſcandalous ſpeeches they did every where traduce me, [Who they knew did not conſent to them, and were not ignorant that I laboured, that they might not accompliſh their deſign] it is needleſs here to relate.

It fell out afterwards, that an Engliſh-man, who was ſaid to have left his Country by rea­ſon of certain veſtures in the Church, deſired to be graduat Doctor, and did propoſe a diſ­pute concerning indifferent things, and veſtures. This diſpute our Theologues would not admit, leaſt they ſhould offend the Engliſh, [albeit in his laſt Theſes there was ſomething concern­ing this matter] but as it ſeem'd, they eſteem'd it nothing to diſturbe our peace; wherefore a­mongſt other Theſes he propoſed this, That it behoved in each right conſtitute Church, that this order ſhould be kept, In which the Mini­ſters with their Presbytery choſen for that pur­poſe, ſhould have power to Excommunicate a­ny ſinners, yea Princes themſelves. Although I feared that this Diſpute was not appointed in vain, yet I hoped that it would be nothing elſe but an ordinary Diſpute, not ſuch an one as are appointed for the deciding of Controverſies, but ſuch as are inſtituted for the exerciſing of the youth, and for judging of their gifts, that defire theſe publick honours. Therefore neither would I move any thing, neither could I by reaſon of my occaſions be preſent at it. And I did exhort o­thers, which I did ſee would Diſpute againſt it, that they would have a greater care of the good of the Church, then of ſome few mens impru­dency. Nevertheleſs one and another diſputed, whom if they had not afterwards called, together with me, Prophane, Satanick, Diabolick, Tur­bulent, Phanatick Perſons, enemies to Piety, &c. the Diſpute had been nothing but ordinary.

Indeed, As for my part I can truly affirme, that I never purpoſ'd with my ſelf to Write any thing concerning this matter of Controverſie, before I did ſee and hear them to carry them­ſelves ſo immodeſtly, both in private and pub­lick: And becauſe I was then a great deale more then uſually imployed [By reaſon of the Soul­diers, which then Anno. 1568. returned with Duke Caſimire, &c. out of France, loaden with diverſe diſeaſes] I did note down my thoughts by peeces, as they did, amongſt ſo great buſi­neſſes occure to me at any time. Which albeit I had thrown them together confuſedly, and had placed them in no certain order, for the foreſaid cauſe; partly whilſt they were writing over, and partly as ſoon as they were written, I gave them to be examined and judged of unto ſome, unto whoſe judgement I attributed much, and of whom I thought my ſelf to be very well belo­ved, and that not without cauſe, though I be­leeved it falſely: And I did deſire them if they found any thing that was truely affirmed, or ſo­lidly proved, that they ſhould freely refute it with better reaſons. I did hope that if I gaind nothing elſe, yet I would obtain this; That they ſeeing our Arguments, would become more calme, and would think that we did not without reaſon diſſent from them. One of the two chief with whom I reſolved principally to conferre, did read three parts of four, before all were written faire over. Of which being demanded his opinion, he promiſed he would give it, after he had read over all. Neverthe­leſs he by the by propoſed ſomething concern­ing the Leaven, and did think that the conſent of the Ancient Church was much to be eſteem­ed: to conclude, he produced other ſuch like ſtuff, by which it was moſt eaſie for me to know his mind and opinion. I underſtood almoſt at that ſame time, that this ſelf ſame man had writ­ten a Treatiſe of Excommunication, in which he did approve of the common opinion: which once known, there needed no doubt to be made what his Anſwer would be. For I knew, that he would not depart from that he had once af­firmed, without it were for fear of Danger. Therefore ſeeing theſe things which he did op­poſe were refuted in the laſt part of my writing. I offered it all to be judged by the other, whom I eſteemed to be as dear a friend to me, as was living. He did not only receive the Book from me loathingly, (I know not whether he was ad­moniſhed before) but did openly declare, he would not read it: and albeit I did urge it, he declared he was compelled to it againſt his will. Nevertheleſs I left the Book ſome daies with him, and did intreat him by all meanes and prayers I could, that he would read it over, and give me his judgment thereon. Which when I knew by certain reaſons that I had in­treated this of him in vain, I took my Book back from him after twelve daies, or therea­bouts, that I might require the judgment of others. But becauſe that writing was of a grea­ter length, then that it could be read in a ſhort time by more perſons, I did contract it into a few Poſitions: whereby it might be more eaſi­ly communicate to many. And in this point my reſolution fell not out unhappily. For both I did know the opinion of many moſt worthy and famous Theologues throughout Germany, which was the thing I only deſired: And they were ſo diſperſed amongſt the Students, that they who at my intreaty would not read them, were now compelled to peruſe them againſt their will.

But that it might appear unto all, that I ſought no other thing but the naked truth, I prefix'd a Preface, in which I demanded theſe two things: Firſt, That all men would diligently examine each parcell, and that they would weigh them in the Balance of the holy Scriptures, and if they ſhould ſee me in an Error, that they ſhould free me there from, that thereby I might like­wiſe free others. I promiſed with my very heart [I call God the Searcher of all hearts to witneſs] that I would before God and Men give him thanks that would ſhew me my error. But becauſe I foreſaw that would come to paſs, which afterwards happened; I deſired in the ſe­cond place, That if they had reſolved to repre­hend any thing therein, they would do it in theſe waies and places, wherein it ſhould be lawfull for me both to Interpret my own words, and to defend juſtly, what injuſtly they ſhould condemn. And although they had ever found me their moſt conſtant Friend, and moſt ready to ſerve them in all good Offices, notwithſtanding I could ſcarcely keep them, by reaſon of what had paſ­ſed before, that they would ſo deal with me, as I dealt with them. Neither was I deceived in my opinion: for of my greateſt friends, as I fooliſhly beleeved, they became ſuddainly my enemies, in ſo much, that they would not any more deign to ſpeak with me, although in my whole Life I had never hurt them in word or deed, but had e­ver laboured to deſerve well at their hands, which I yet reſolve to do. In the mean time I gave God thanks, that it ſo happened, that I ſhould make proof of their faith and good will, rather in ſuch a matter, then in any other.

In the mean time they were not quiet: for after they did ſee that they had tryed in vain by the Magiſtrate, to wring the Theſes out of the hands of the Students, they wrought another way: To wit, under the ſhew of Laws, which are no where extant: they deſired, That as the The­ologues did aſſay nothing in the profeſſions and rights of others, ſo they deſired that other pro­feſſors might be injoyned to abſtain from their Schools. If this had been defired ſixty years ago, it had ſeem'd tollerable: how at this time it can be carried, let others judg. Was it only ſaid to them, that teach Theology for a yearly Salary of ſome hundred Florens, Search the Scriptures: Prove the Spirits, whether they be of God: Prove all things, hold that which is good? I thought the Doctrine of Theology had been common to all Chriſtians, and that therefore it was every where taught publickly. What other thing do they deſire, when they deſire we ſhould abſtaine ſo from their Schooles, as they eſſay no­thing in the rights & doctrines of other faculties?

I believe they would not this, That we ſhould not hear their Leſſons, or that we ſhould not enter that place to Learn. Chiefly ſeeing they deſired that, by reaſon of my Theſes propos'd moſt modeſtly. Who I pray hath interdicted them the ſtudies of the tongues, of Me­dicine, Philoſophy, or of the Laws? Is it be­cauſe they care not for theſe Studies, that we ſhould alſo neglect the Study of Theology? If we got not more loſs by the ignorance of holy Scripture, then we ſhould receive by our un­skillfullneſs in thoſe matters, perchance we ſhould gratifie them. They will eaſily vanquiſh if it be not conceded to any, to contradict their Statutes. Of old thoſe of the Church of Rome required theſe things of us, and they deſired it with ſome more right thereto. But I cannot gratifie either, whilſt my Saviour Jeſus Chriſt commandeth me otherwiſe.

In the Interim it doth not move me, that they ſay, that it becometh not me to handle Theolo­gy: and that in ſo doing, I do not rightly pro­vide for my own eſteem. It may be it is, becauſe I enquire after the truth without wages. For if I were hired by a Stipend to teach Theolo­gy; I ſhould do nothing in this Point, accord­ing to their opinion different from my Office and Duty. But I deſire nothing elſe then to underſtand the truth, to glorifie God, and that I ſhould be rather made aſhamed, then that the truth ſhould be troden on. Chriſt in that place ſpoke not in vain, That they cannot believe, who deſire glory of one another, neg­lecting the glory of God.

Wherefore when even this had not fallen out according to their opinion, and that they could not contain their conceived hatred, They be­gun to oppugne them with Arguments: which at every opportunity they did propoſe not with­out cruell Criminations. Which albeit they were told me by diverſe Men; notwithſtanding for Peace's ſake, I eaſily contemn'd them: and I hoped it would come to paſs, then when that violence of their mind ſhould begin to languiſh, and their wrath was a little cooled, they would be rendred more favourable to us. Notwith­ſtanding here I was alſo deceived: for after the firſt Moneth almoſt, they neither have re­mitted any thing of their wrath, neither have they forborne to impugne our writings, partly by reproaches, partly by calumnies, partly I know not by what Sophiſticall little reaſon; wherefore I brought again the hundred Theſes to the forge, and reduc'd them to ſeaventy five, and plac'd them in their own order; which at firſt I had plac'd, not where they ſhould have been, but where they did occurre: I explain'd ſomething in them more clearly: and prov'd ſomething more ſolidly: To conclude, I laboured that I might fully ſatisfie the lovers of the truth, as far as could be done in ſo ſhort a writing.

1

AN EXPLICATION Of that moſt weighty QUESTION, Whither Excommunication; (as it debarreth Men that know and imbrace Religion, from the uſe of the Sacraments, for their Delinquencies,) Be of Divine Inſtitution OR A Humane Invention?

The I. Poſition.

THe word Excommunication ſeemeth to be taken out of the tenth Chapter of the 1 Corinthians: And to ſigni­fie a removall from that Commiunion which in that place is called the Bo­dy of Chriſt. And indeed at this time Excommunication is defined by almoſt all to2 be, An excluſion from the fellowſhip and Communion of Believers.

II.

There is a twofold fellowſhip of Believers; The one is internall and spirituall, The other externall or viſible and politick. The third ſort of which ſome of the late Romiſh-Catholicks do mention, is neither fitly feigned, nor belongeth at all to our preſent purpoſe.

III.

And the difference betwixt theſe two is ſo great; that he which is comprehended within either of them, is not likewiſe neceſſarily included in the other. For as that man may be a Member of Chriſt, that is unjuſtly thruſt out of a viſible Congregation; or is compelled to live and lurke a­mongſt Infidels: So, all they that are of a viſible Congregation, are not alſo the lively Members of Chriſt, whence it follows, that theſe matters may be different, which tye us to the one, and not to the other: and which divide us from the one, and not from the other.

IV.

And indeed we are made Members of Chriſt, that is; we are joyned to the internall and ſpirituall ſociety of Chriſt, and of the faithfull, by Faith a­lone, which worketh in Charity: and we fall from this fellowſhip, only by Infidelity. Therefore none can ingraff us in, or loppe us off from this, ex­cept only he that can give us living Faith, and can take again the ſame from us.

V.

But we are made Conſorts of the externall and3 viſible Church, by the profeſſion of the ſame Faith, by the conſent we give to the ſame Do­ctrine, and by the uſing of the ſame Sacraments. In whatſomever Perſon theſe three are found, he is, ſo long as they are found in him, accompt­ed for a Member of the externall Congregation of Believers: although he never attaine to the in­ward Communion of the ſpirit and mind.

VI.

Therefore he that is thrown out of the exter­nall Communion of the Church, that is, He that is excommunicated; Is debarr'd either of all theſe three; or of two of them; or only of one. But not any ought to be debar'd of the two former, that is, from profeſſing of the Faith, and approving the Doctrine (under which the hearing of the Word or Doctrine is comprehended) of Chriſti­ans: but rather all men are to be invited, and by all meanes poſſible are to be induced thereto.

Wherefore it remaineth, That he that is Ex­communicated, is debar'd from the ſole (of the foreſaid three) participation of the Sacrament: we will conſider afterwards, whither the deniall of private converſe doth inſeperably adhere unto this, or may be ſeperate therefro. But this is cer­tain, that not any other puniſhment belongeth to the eſſence of Excommunication; for the ſame may be inflicted upon Perſons, that are not ex­communicate; and may not be inflicted upon the Excommunicate.

VII.

Therefore Roman Catholicks have not rightly, beſides this Excommunication (which they call4 the leſſer, and have moſt properly defined it, to be only a deniall of the Sacrnments) added more­over an other, which they term, the greater Excommunication, and Anathema: And have againſt the clear ſenſe of Scripture, defined it to be an interdiction of Churches private Commerce, and all other lawfull converſe; becauſe the Apo­ſtle in the 1 Corinth. 14. openly ſheweth, that nei­ther the Heathen, nor any other Perſons what­ſomever were forbidden from the hearing of the Divine Word, from the Readings, Thankſgiv­ings, and Prayers of the Chriſtians.

VIII.

It appeareth from what hath been ſaid, that Excommunication is nothing elſe then a ſolemne and publick interdiction of the Sacraments, and chiefly of the Lords Supper. (which the Apoſtle eſpecially calleth a Communion,〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as was ſaid in the beginning,) The Elders taking no­tice, and voycing the ſame before: whereby they that ſin may repent, and again be admitted to the Sacraments.

IX.

Here then ariſeth a Queſtion, Whither any man for committing of a ſin, or living in filthi­neſs, ſhould be removed from the uſe and parti­cipation of the Sacraments, he being deſirous to receive the ſame with other Chriſtians?

The Queſtion here is moved concerning him, that profeſſeth the ſame Faith with us, that hath entred the ſame Church by Baptiſm; and doth not diſſent therefrom in Doctrine, (as we laid it down in the fifth,) but erreth only in life and5 manners. This then is demanded; Whither in the holy Scriptures, there is extant either any Precept or example, whereby it is commanded or taught that ſuch ſhould be removed from the Sacra­ments?

X.

Our Anſwer is, that there is not any ſuch ex­tant; But rather, that contrary both Examples and Precepts are to be found every where in the Bible.

For we find it written by Moſes, Exod. 12.23, 24. Numb. 9. Deut. 16. That every Circumcis'd Male ſhould appear thrice every year before the Lord: To wit, in the Feaſt of unleavened Bread, in the Feaſt of Weeks, and that of Ta­bernacles. For that Law commandeth ſtrangers alſo, if they be Circumcis'd, to celebrate the Paſ­ſover together with the Jews. And likewiſe it is commanded that the unclean; and they that are travelling, ſhould upon the ſame day of the ſecond Moneth, and after the ſame manner, eate the Paſſover with the Jews: And it is moreover ad­ded, that he ſhall be put to death, that ſhall neg­lect the Celebration of the Paſſover: viz. he that neither travelleth, nor is unclean. Wherefore God hath willed and commanded all the Circum­cis'd to Celebrate the Paſſover. Neither hath he excluded any from this Sacrament, or from other Rites, Ceremonies, or Sacrifices except uncleane Perſons.

XI.

In Leviticus there are diverſe Sacrifices com­manded for diverſe ſins, whither they be commit­ted6 by ignorance or error, or willingly and wil­fully, by which theſe ſins ſhould be expiate by them that have committed them. Likewiſe God commandeth Deut. 14. That all (without excepting of the wicked,) ſhould at Jeruſalem eate their Tenths before the Lord: and he addeth the cauſe, that ſo they might learn to fear their Lord Jehovah all the daies of their lives. Therefore the Sacraments were Incitements to Piety: and therefore none were debarr'd therefrom, but all ſo much the more invited thereto.

XII.

Verily we do not read that any Perſon at any time amongſt the Jews, was for the foreſaid cauſe, forbid by the Prieſts, Levites, Prophets, Scribes, or Phariſees to come to the Sacrifices, Ceremo­nies, or Sacraments. The High-Prieſts and Pha­riſees eſteemed Chriſt and his Apoſtles to be moſt wicked Perſons: But we do not find during Chriſts Life, or after his death, that ever they went about to debarre them of the Sacraments and Sacrifices inſtituted of God: yea neither did they chaſe any Publican Jew, or any other Cir­cumcis'd Perſon that liv'd impurely, from the Temple or Ceremonies, for they were not igno­rant, that the Law permitted them not to do it. They reprehended indeed Chriſt, Mat. 9. that he did eate and drinke with Publicans. But they did not in any place at any time upbraide him, that he Prayed in the Temple with them; that he was preſent with them at the Sacrifices and Rites: That with them and all others he went up to Je­ruſalem to Celebrate the Paſſover and other year­ly7 Solemnities. And for the ſame reaſon they were ſo farre from indeavouring to debarre theſe wicked Knaves and moſtcruell Hereticks, the Saduces from their Ceremonies; That they per­mitted them to aſcend to the honour of the High-Prieſt-Hood. In the mean time, how much the one hated the other, is clear out of Joſephus Hiſto­ry, and the Acts of the Apoſtles. They would with ſtretched out armes have embraced this oc­caſion to be revenged on their enemies, if it had been lawfull.

XIII.

Yea they could not indeed debarre the impure from eating of the Paſſover: ſeeing they did not eat it before the Prieſts, but in their private hou­ſes; as we find that Chriſt together with his Diſ­ciples did Celebrate the laſt Paſſover. For then all the people in ſome meaſure did diſcharge the Office of a Prieſt, as Philo the Jew ſpeaking of the Paſchall doth teſtifie; When every one of the people do Sacrifice, not expecting the Prieſts, they being by the permiſſion of the Law allowed once a year on the day appointed, to diſcharge the Office of a Prieſt. And if in one Family there were too few to eat up all the Paſchall Lamb, they were commanded to call their Neighbours to them, Exod. 12. that they might eat up the whole. The ſame way ſeemeth to be obſerved in Circum­ciſion, except that they were not bound only to Circumciſe at Jeruſalem, as they were oblig'd to Celebrate the Paſſover there: for I do not remem­ber that I have read, that the preſence of a Prieſt was neceſſary to that matter.

8

XIV.

That forerunner of Chriſt John the Baptiſt ob­ſerved the ſame conſtantly: when he Baptized all the Phariſees, and Sadduces, whoſe manners he fully knew; and thence openly called them a generation of Vipers,) together with the Pub­licans, and all others that came unto him, Matth. and Luke 3. that they might repent and a­mend their former life, and flye from the wrath of God which was to come. It is not likely, that this eminent man would have admitted men co­vered with ſo many wickedneſſes, yea impiouſly and publickly denying the Reſurrection of the dead, except he had well known, that the Law excluded no ſuch perſons. For the Law exclud­eth no Circumcis'd Perſon, except the unclean and leprous, as was ſaid before.

XV.

This uncleanneſs indeed was a legall Ceremo­ny, and not the impurity of life and manners, for he was not unclean that had committed any ſin or perpetrated any villany: But he was unclean that had touched any dead Body, Excrements, bloody Iſſues, or ſuch like. For this reaſon the Phariſees would not enter the Councell-houſe, when they delivered Chriſt to Pilate, to be put to death, leaſt they ſhould be hindred to eat the Paſſover. Certes, the Moſaicall uncleanneſs did not ſo figurate out ſins, that as thoſe that were de­filed with them, were forbidden the Tabernacle, and converſe of others; So they that were guilty of ſin, ſhould be chaſtis'd and puniſhed by the de­nying them the Sacraments, or throwing them9 out of the viſible Church: which is clearly held forth by the reaſons following.

1. Tranſgreſſors were not puniſh'd with the ſame puniſhment that the unclean were, whilſt that legall uncleanneſs was in force, and together therewith there were multitudes of wicked per­ſons. How then is it likely, that after theſe Cere­monies are remov'd and aboliſhed, they ſhould have ſignified theſe wickedneſſes ought to be ſo puniſhed?

2. Moſes ſhould have openly been oppoſite to himſelf, whilſt he did really admit thoſe perſons to the Temple and Ceremonies, which by the le­gall Ceremonies he ſignified ſhould be debarred the ſame. For it is certain, that not any was for­bidden the Temple and company of others, for the vitiouſneſs of his manners. If he had not, ac­cording to the appointment of the Law, touched a dead body, or defiled himſelf by any other ſuch like meanes: Therefore he ſhould have puniſh­ed them that ſignified the wicked, and ſhould have left the wicked themſelves (as to this puniſh­ment) unpuniſhed: and ſo he ſhould both deny and affirme the ſame thing.

3. Legall impurity was a certain quality and ſtaine of the body, when as wickedneſſes are op­perations and conſiſt in action. For the cauſe and wet of wickedneſs is brought forth together with us, neither is it puniſhed by man ſo long as it bringeth forth no fruits: Otherwiſe all men ſhould be Excommunicated. For we will ne­ver be freed from this impurity of ſoul, ſo long as we ſhall enjoy this mortall life. But the other10 being only a blemiſh and uncleanneſs of body, is puniſhed by ſecluding them from dyeting toge­ther with others; although it produce no fruite; that is, although the legall unclean Perſon do not offend in any thing againſt the Law. The workes and tranſgreſſions of legall unclean per­ſons; If whilſt they were unclean, they offend­ed againſt the Law in any thing, were puniſh­ed by the Magiſtrate, as other tranſgreſſions were.

4. Our Adverſaries confeſs that all ſorts of ſins are not to be puniſh'd by Excommunication, whenas the Law commandeth every purity to be puniſh'd by excluding the Offender from the Tabernacle and publick Sacrifices; wherefore they did not prefigurate all offences.

5. Not any can be Excommunicate that ſinneth unwillingly; when as men moſt frequently be­came unclean againſt their wills, and without a­ny fault in them; yea many times to their great grief. What guilt is to be thought in him, who againſt his will, and whilſt he was ſleeping loſt his ſeed in the night? whoſe Wife became men­ſtruous before his expectation? whoſe Children, Wife, Parents, did die? or to whom any ſuch thing did happen? But that theſe vices ſhould be voluntary, for which men ſhould be excluded from the Sacraments (as ſome are of opinion) needeth no probation.

6. There was a farre heavier puniſhment ap­pointed for one that ſhould kill a man againſt and beſides his will; Then a few daies or weeks exclu­ſion from the Sacraments: which was almoſt11 the greateſt puniſhment was inflicted on unclean­neſs. Becauſe then, an involuntary, and there­fore the moſt eaſie ſin was chaſtiſed with a ſeverer puniſhment, then the moſt unclean legall impu­rity, it eaſily appeareth that the puniſhment due to this is not to be transferr'd for the chaſtiſing of wickedneſs.

7. It frequently came to paſs, that the moſt ho­ly and upright perſon was made unclean, and was debarr'd from entring the Temple and uſe of the Sacrifices; whilſt the moſt wicked perſon without any impediment was admitted to both. Wherefore if in the Church of God, the puniſh­ment of both ſhould be the ſame, this perſon ſhould much more be debarr'd the uſe of them then the other.

8. It is clear, That God hath not at any time or in any place abſolutely forbidden all legall im­purity; for then without doubt he would not have had ſome to attend that were dying, or that were infected with ſome unclean diſeaſe: yea he would not have ſome to bury the dead, and cleanſe the unclean, by whoſe meanes they themſelves be­came alſo defiled, Numb. 19. And whilſt he willed this, he willed that all legall uncleanneſs ſhould not be avoided. But God did forbid all ſorts of wickedneſs to all perſons at all times: neither did he permit them at any time, or in any place to do evill.

9. God commandeth that wickedneſs ſhould be repreſſ'd with fire, ſword, ſtrangling, ſtones, ſtripes, fines, impriſonment, and with other ſuch like puniſhments: But he commanded the12 unclean to be purified by water, and with other ſuch like meanes to be purged.

10. He was not eſteem'd a wicked and con­demn'd perſon, who was according to the ſen­tence of the Law, made unclean, and even to the day of his death did remain ſuch; as when Wo­men in their courſes, or Men ſick of a Gonorrhaee or infected with a Leproſie did die. But he that liveth ſo, that even at the houre of his death, he ſhall be by good and upright men thought wor­thy of Excommunication, he cannot but be e­eſtem'd an unworthy and ungodly perſon.

11. Legall impurity had no place but amongſt one people and for a certain time. But vices did ſpring every where amongſt all Nations, in all places, and at all times. Wherefore ſeeing vi­ces were puniſh'd and judged fit to be puniſh'd both by Gentiles and Jews, before ever the legall impurity was introduced, it certainly ſignified ſome other thing, then this puniſhment of wick­ed perſons, being much more light then that which would be ſatisfactory to the will of God.

12. Every man was purified in a certain ſpace of time, or number of daies, by uſing certain Ce­remonies, of what mind ſoever he was of, that is, whither he willingly, or againſt his will be­came unclean. But no man is delivered from wickedneſs, except he be cordially ſorry, and de­ſire truely and earneſtly both to be, and be made better.

13. Every unclean perſon was purged accord­ing to his own judgment, (The Leproſe and ſome few others being excepted) neither had they13 any need of Judges and Elders, who were to diſ­cern wither they were rightly purified or not. Our Adverſaries hold another opinion concern­ing Excommunicate Perſons. For in this point they will have us to follow the judgement of their Elders: and not to accept of their Aſſertion, who declare that they are penitent for their ſinnes.

14. He was to be declared ſound and clean, who had the whole skin of his body of one colour, though from the crown of his head, to the ſole of his feet he were Leprous: And on the other part he was eſteemed unclean, who had his skin ſpot­ted in one or more parts. In wicked perſons the caſe is farre different: for he that is altogether cloathed with wickedneſs (as the Sow that hath weltred in the mire, is altogether durty) is not bet­ter then he, who yet carrieth ſome ſhadow of ho­neſty and godlineſs.

15. The Leprouſe Perſons are not commanded to do any thing for their own cure; but they are only commanded to ſhew themſelves to the Prieſt; that he may declare whither they be, or be not purifi­ed. But wicked perſons are commanded to amend their lives, and that they declared the ſorrow of their ſouls by their upright and holy converſation.

16. Many became unclean by touching thoſe things, whereby others were purified, and whilſt they were purifying others, Numb. 19. But not any deſerve to be excommunicate for that, by which he goeth about to cure and cleanſe thoſe, that are defiled with ſin and wirkedneſs Where­fore if you aſſert the figure to coreſpond, it be­hoveth you to concede, that all they, that by this14 means go about to bring the ſtray into the way, are to be excommunicate.

17. Unclean Perſons, according to the Law, were not debarr'd from all the Sacraments; for they were commanded to obſerve all the private rites of their Countrey, to obſerve the Sabboth and feaſt of expiation, which chiefly held forth the fruits of Chriſts works, and that under pain of death, Lev. 16, and 23. for (as we ſaid before) they were not judged to be condemned and for­lorne Perſons. Now whither the condition of excommunicate Perſons, according to our Adver­ſaries opinion, be not far different from this, is not needfull further to be inſiſted on.

18. Unclean Perſons did defile legally the cloaths, houſes, places and people, with whom they hold any converſe. But wicked men do not defile the Temple or any other thing, or Per­ſons except thoſe that communicate with them in their vices. The Temple was not defiled ſo oft as Adultereſſes were brought in thither, Numb. 5. and John 8. And the Publican did not defile the Temple when he went up thither toge­ther with the Phariſee to pray, Luke 18. Certain­ly the Phariſee who eſteem'd him a wicked Per­ſon in reſpect of himſelf, did not think himſelf defiled by his company. When Judas threw back the price of treaſon, we do not read that the Temple was defiled by him: neither do we find the Phariſees complained thereof, which never­theleſs would not enter the Counſell-houſe, leaſt they ſhould be defiled. But if a woman ſick of her flowers or any other Iſhew, or that had a care of a Buriall, or had touched a dead body though unwillingly, were ſeen in the Temple, then all things became unclean: neither was it lawfull to Sacrifice or uſe any other worſhip, till it was purified. After the ſame manner Judas did not defile the laſt Supper by his villanies: which nevertheleſs had come to paſs, if either he or any other of the Diſciples had touched any dead thing.

To conclude, Legall uncleanneſs was a figure of our crooked and corrupt nature, which cannot enter Heaven, unleſs it be waſhen and cleanſed by the pure blood of Chriſt; for as the Taberna­cle ſignified Heaven, and the excluſion from it, the keeping out from the Heavenly Jeruſalem; ſo the purification by common or holy water, did prefigure the changing by the death of Chriſt. The quality then thereof was not a figure of a work, but of a quality, or of our corrupted Nature: nei­their did it foreſhew how offences were to be pu­niſhed (for Moſes had taught this in clear and plain words.) But what our condition was to be in the life to come, that is, in the Kingdome of Heaven, which the Land of Canaan did repreſent: which all are manifeſtly enough to be ſeen throughly from the 21. of the Revelation. Au­guſtine in his Writeing againſt the Donatiſts did believe it ſignified the excluding of Hereticks. From the many and great differences that are found betwixt both theſe impurities, yea a blind man may diſcern that the one could not ſo figure the other as our Adverſaries averre.

16

XVI.

Although Moſes lay down no other exception, except that which we have ſpoken of, notwith­ſtanding I will anſwer to another Objection, which may be gathered from Moſes words. For may be after this manner ſome will reaſon: The Jews were commanded by Moſes to eate the Paſ­chall without Leaven: which St Paul interprets to be without corruptneſs of life, 1 Gor. 5. It muſt then ſeem unto any man very agreeable, That the Lords Supper, which ſucceded unto the Paſchall, ſhould be celebrated ſo that the wicked ſhould be excluded.

XVII.

I anſwer, firſt, That indeed it is very unlike­ly, that God ſhould command any thing in clear words, and yet at the ſame time ſhould again forbid the ſame figuratively. He commandeth clearly in a mandate ſometimes repeated, that every Male (except theſe that were unclean, and were on the way) ſhould celebrate the Paſſover. He would not then by the figure of Leaven af­fright any others therefrom. There were then enough of evill Men preſent, that it was not need­full they ſhould be figured by Leaven. Neither did the wicked Men leſs appear to the ſenſes, then Leaven it ſelf. Wherefore ſeeing figures are not propos'd of thoſe things that are preſent, and that as fully repreſented themſelves to the ſenſes, (chiefly if the things figured be more known and frequent them the figures themſelves) a figure here is ſought after in vain. Again, Moſes doth not command him to be debarr'd the eating of the17 Paſchall, that had eate Leaven: but command­eth him to be killed. Wherefore wicked men are not to be debarr'd from the Supper, but are to be put to death: which conſequence I ſhall not unfreely admit: and I heartily wiſh it may be done: for I deſire nothing more, then that a moſt ſevere Diſcipline concerning manners may be obſerved in the Church: but I would wiſh it ſuch as God hath appointed, and not Man fained. Thirdly, It was lawfull for the Jews to eat Lea­ven all the year over, except on theſe ſeaven daies of Unleavened-Bread which they begin with eat­ing of the Paſſover. If you do apply this unto the Lords Supper, you muſt concede, that men may live impurely all the year long; only they muſt abſtaine from wickedneſs, in the time of celebra­tion of the Lords Supper. Fourthly, Moſes ſpeaketh here only of the Paſchall, not of the o­ther Sacraments. Then wicked men ſhould be debarred only from the Lords Supper, but not from Baptiſm. Fifthly, The Apoſtle doth not compare the Feaſt of the Jews with the Supper of the Lord, but with our whole life. He ſaith we are Unleavened, as being men which are throw­ly purged from all Leaven by the Blood of Chriſt. Therefore he ſaith it is fitting, that we ſhould live in the Unleaven of truth and ſincerity, and not in the Leaven of malice. There is a vaſt dif­ference betwixt Leaven ſimply ſo termed: and the Leaven of malice or verity; for Leaven be­ing ſo put or taken, is known by all to be figura­tively taken. The Analogick or figurative ſenſe, as the School-Men affirm, is not Argumentative. 18Certainly whatſoever we ſhall underſtand by Leaven, yet Excommunication cannot hence be held up and eſtabliſhed againſt the clear com­mand of God.

XVIII.

Nevertheleſs ſome may ſay, that Paul maketh mention here of the Paſſover. But what doth this concern our buſineſs? as if indeed this word, Paſſover, were put in the new Teſtament for the Lords Supper. Chriſt, ſaith the Apoſtle, is our Paſchall Sacrificed for us, not his Supper. The meaning is, That as the Jews beginning their Feaſt of Unleavened-Bread, by the eating of the Lambe, did after that thorow the whole Week eat Unleavened-Bread: So likewiſe you, which have begun to believe in Chriſt, and who are purged and unleavened by His Blood, you ought purely and chaſtely to ſpend all the reſt of the Week, that is, all the reſt of your life.

XIX.

Now that not any thing diverſe to this, is to be found in any other of the Volumes of the old Te­ſtament, is clear from this alone, that the Poſte­rity were to live according to Moſes's Laws and Conſtitutions. And it was not lawfull to ordain any thing oppoſite to them, concerning the wor­ſhip of God. Indeed the holy Judges, Prieſts, Prophets, and Kings, debarr'd none from the Sa­crifices and Sacraments: But rather by all meanes indeavoured to invite all men to the ſame. The Hiſtory of the holy King Joſiah is known, 2 Chron. 30. who did convocate all the Iſraelites, (which he knew newly had offered incenſe to19 ſtrange Gods or Devils) or beſides them all thoſe which by reaſon of the ſhortneſs of time could not be purified, to the celebration of the Paſchall. From which place it is moreover cleared, That the Sacraments are incitements or invitements to Piety: And that men become better rather by their frequent uſe, then by their privation: If together with them they be fully and faithfully in­ſtructed.

XX.

Wherefore excommunication cannot be defen­ded out of the 1. of Iſaiah, Pſalm 50. and many o­ther ſuch places, in which it is ſaid, that God wil­leth not the Sacrifices and Oblations of the wick­ed; for in all ſuch places God reprehendeth that abuſe, that they thought they had moſt clearly ſatisfied the will of God, if they did theſe exter­nall things, howſoever their hearts were affected. Again, He doth not command the Prophet, or any other perſon by him, to keep back the wick­ed from the Sacrifices or Ceremonies: But de­clareth he will not hear them unleſs they amend their lives alſo. The reaſon of the externall po­licie of the Church, is other from that of the will of God towards us approving or diſapproving of our actions. Laſtly, From the ſame places after the ſame preciſe manner, it ſhall be demon­ſtrate, that it is not lawfull for any wicked man to call on the name of the Lord, yea neither to praiſe nor thanke him: becauſe the Miniſters and Elders ought to interdict the ſinfull of all theſe: for God doth likewiſe turn his counte­nance from theſe in the wicked: as is clear from20 the cited and all other like places. Wherefore if this be abſurd, the other muſt be abſurd like­wiſe.

XXI.

Neither doth that make againſt us which we read in the 1. of Eſdras, and 10. Chapter, for that matter was publick, and belonged not to the Sa­craments. For the Magiſtrate, not the Prieſt Eſdras alone (who nevertheleſs was one of the Magiſtracies, for as Joſephus witneſſeth, they were govern'd by States, though they had a Chieſtaine) ſent forth that decree, that under pain of confiſ­cation of their good and excluſion (not from the Sacraments and Sacrifices, but) from the people which were returned from captivity, all men within three daies ſhould preſent themſelves at Jeruſalem. We do not queſtion in this place, whi­ther the Magiſtrate hath right to puniſh this, or that way: but whither the Prieſts could remove diſſolute and filthy livers from the Sacrifices? Eſ­dras could not do this, which was againſt the command of God. Adde, That Moſes did not command Deut. 7. this puniſhment, to wit, to be removed from the Sacraments, to be inflicted on them that had Married ſtrange Wives. And how Eſdras was to puniſh the tranſgreſſours of the Law, is ſet down in the 7. Chapter of the ſame Book, by death, baniſhment, puniſhment of the body, confiſcating of their goods, fetters or im­priſonment. To conclude, It is a farre other thing to be turn'd out of the ſociety of thoſe that had come back from Captivity; then to be de­barred the Temple and Sacrifices. For it appear­eth21 from the 12. Chap. of Exod. and Numb. 6. that even ſtrangers were admitted to the Cele­bration of the Paſſover, ſo be they were Circum­ciſed: At that time alſo, many of theſe that had either remained ſtill in Judea: or that being Na­tives, had forſaken the impurity of the Gentiles, and had turned to the Jews, did together with all the others Celebrate the Paſſover, as it is written in the end of the ſixt Chapter of that Book. Theſe being ſuch perſons, were not debar'd the Temple, Sacrifices, or Ceremonies; although they were not numbred amongſt them that had returned out of Babylon. So likewiſe they removed ſome Prieſts from their Office; becauſe they could not inſtruct their Geneologies, as is clear from the 2. of Eſdras. From all appeareth, that it is impoſſible, that excommunication can have any help from this.

XXII.

There remaineth only the ejection out of the Synagogue to be conſidered, wherewith diverſe perſons do wonderfully pleaſe themſelves; whileſt they produce for excommunication, that which is written John the 9. and 12, 16. concerning this matter. But here diverſe and ſolid Anſwers are offered. The word Synagouge ſometimes ſignifieth a place; as when Chriſt is ſaid to have entred into the Synagogue, and to have taught them: Sometime it ſignifieth a meeting, or con­vention of the people, whither their gathering together was in the Synagogue, or in any other place; As when we read that the Phariſees deſir­ed the firſt ſeats at Banquets, and the firſt places22 in the Synagogues. In the ſame ſignification, or in both it is taken Mat. 10. and 23. Where Chriſt foretelleth that the godly ſhall receive ſtripes in the Synagogues. And Mat. 10. Mark 13. Luke 12.21. In which places it ſignifieth the publick judgment, in which ſignification this word is oft put by the ſeventy Interpreters; as we ſhall afterwards ſhew in its convenient place. In the next foregoing places, as in Mat. 10. Marke 13. the word〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Synedrium, and〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Synagogue are clearly ſo put, as if the ſome ſhould be underſtood by both. In the other pla­ces,〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to the word Synagogue are im­mediately added〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Kings and Rulers, as Luke 21. (for which the ſame Evan­geliſt in the 12. Chapter had put〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Magiſtrates and powers.) Marke 13. Mat. 10. as by the collation of places is manifeſtly ſhewn, that the Evangeliſt or Chriſt in theſe laſt places did underſtand nothing elſe by the words Synedrium and Synagogue then thoſe judicato­ries of the Jews, which were exercis'd by many ſitting together: As the judicatories of the Gen­tiles are expreſſ'd by the words, Kings, Magi­ſtrates, Powers, and Rulers: over which al­waies one was preſident, or if more then one did adminiſter judgment, yet it was adminiſtrate in one mans name. In theſe Convents or Syna­gogues, they that were judged guilty, were pu­niſh'd with rods, ſtripes, buffets, Matth. 10.23. Acts 17.26. 2 Cor. 11.1. which place any man may eaſily underſtand by the 25. of Deut. The caſting out then out of ſuch a Synagogue, was a23 kind of politick ignominy and puniſhment, and ſo as it were a locall baniſhment, as we may con­jecture by the fourth Chapter of Luke. It cannot be drawn to the Sacraments, which were only celebrate in the Temple (which was but one) and at Jeruſalem, except circumciſion, and ſome few others. It ſeemeth to be a puniſhment not diſlike to that, of which we have ſpoken a little before, in our explication of the place of Eſdras. There is not any that doth not know, that there were ſuch Synagogues in every Town. Therefore whither the word Synagogue in John be taken for the place, or for the convent it ſelf, it will not in any part be repugnant to our opinion. And if it ſhall altogether be denied to have been politick, yet this will be clear, that it belong'd to Religion; But I do not diſpute here, whither he that hath an evill opinion of the true Religion is to be ex­communicate. For the Phariſees, ſaith John 9. did conſpire together in this, That they ſhould be thrown out of the Synagogue, which eſteemed Jeſus to be Chriſt: And that, to be in the Sy­nagogue, was only an honour; and to be thrown out of it an ignominy; It ſeemeth that it may be gathered from this, which is written in the 12. of John, That many chief Rulers amongſt the Jews [in whch number may be Nicodemus was] did believe in Chriſt, but durſt not confeſs him, for fear of the Phariſees, leaſt they ſhould throw them out of the Synagogues: and this reaſon is added; becauſe they loved more the glory of men, then the glory of God. Moreover it is clear, that the Circumcis'd Publicans were not admit­ted24 into the Synagogues (we meane of theſe of which we diſpute at preſent. ) for the Phariſees would not ſo much as conferre with them; And upon this accompt they did backbite Chriſt; be­cauſe he did familiarly converſe with them. But I believe not any man of a ſound judgment will affirme, that theſe men were not admitted to the Paſſover, Temple, and Sacrifices. Wherefore to be thrown out of the Synagogue; and to be debarr'd the Sacraments and Ceremonies appoin­ted by God, do very much differ: As appear­eth by all, that hath been ſaid already, and is more clearly ſeen by the firſt Chapter of the Acts. For the Diſciples being ſharpely reprov'd by the Synagogue, did notwithſtanding teach daily in the Temple. Out of how many Synagogues was the Apoſtle Paul thrown? Nevertheleſs the Jews did never reprehend him, that he entred into the Temple; and offered oblations for himſelf and others. And if it could be never ſo well prov'd, that to be thrown out of the Synagogue, and kept back from the Sacraments, were one and the ſame amongſt the Phariſees [that which at no time can be proved to be true, to have been, or to be hereafter] Nevertheleſs they had done this (as they did many other things) againſt the expreſs precept of Moſes: therefore we ſhould not follow, but condemne their doing thereof: for we muſt not live by examples, but by Law, neither ought we to imitate what is oppſite to the Law of God, except our intentions be to confound all things. We muſt follow the examples of good men and good examples, and not of evill men, and evill25 examples. I have therefore handled theſe things in ſo many words, yet ſhortly: becauſe ſome men do wonderfully flatter themſelves with this Argument, when in the mean time they deceive themſelves and others.

XIII.

This then remains firme, unmoveable, and unſhaken; That in the old Teſtament none were remov'd from the Sacraments for their delinquen­cies in manners: But that every one according to the Law, were rather invited to, then repuls'd from their celebration, by the holy Prieſts, Pro­phets, Judges, Kings, yea and at laſt even by that moſt famous and holy forerunner of Chriſt, John the Baptiſt himſelf.

XIV.

And indeed the Sacraments of the Antients and ours, are the ſame, in reſpect of the thing ſignifi­ed, as Paul cleareth in the 1 Cor. 10. wherefore ex­cept it appear that the Law of Moſes is either abo­liſh'd or chang'd in this point, it is not lawfull for any man to bring in the contrary.

XXV.

For as we uſe rightly againſt the Anabaptiſts this firme Argument, becauſe circumciſion hath ſucceded to Baptiſme, and Chriſt hath not in any place forbid Infants Baptiſm, therefore it is not leſs lawfull for us to Baptiſe our Infants, then it was for the Jews to circumciſe theirs: So here like­wiſe, we can no leſs ſoundly reaſon after this manner. The Lords Supper ſucceeded to the eat­ing of the Paſſover. But vices were not puniſh'd by the deniall of the Paſſover, neither were any26 for theſe debarr'd it: but rather all, eſpecially the Male, were invited by the Law to the celebrati­on thereof, which ſeeing in no place we read to be antiquate and aboliſh'd, neither are they in­deed to be puniſh'd by the deniall of the Lords Supper, nor upon this account ought any to be re­jected. We have ſaid enough concerning the old Teſtament: now it is convenient that we deſcend to Chriſt and his Apoſtles, that is to the new Te­ſtament.

XXVI.

After the ſame manner we do not read that our Lord and Saviour Chriſt did forbid any the uſe of the Sacraments: Yea moreover we do not find, that his Apoſtles in any place, command­ed that ſuch a thing ſhould be done. For Chriſt came not into this world to deſtroy the Law, but to fulfill and perfit the ſame. Wherefore ſee­ing the Law commanded all, except the unclean, to celebrate the Paſſover, he would not forbid any.

XXVII.

'Tis likewiſe apparent, that Chriſt never repre­hended any, becauſe they uſed the Sacraments, and were frequently preſent in the Temple, and at the Sacrifices: But only admoniſh'd them, that they ſhould uſe them aright according to the will and Law of God. He entred alwaies into the ſame Temple with the Phariſees, Sadduces, Pub­licans, with all other evill, together and with good perſons: he was preſent with them at the ſame Sa­crifices; and together with the whole people uſed the ſame Sacraments: And he was Baptis'd like­wiſe27 with the ſame Baptiſm of John, wherewith thoſe wicked perſons now named were Bap­tized.

XXVIII.

For this ſame cauſe he did not keep back from the eating of the laſt Paſchall Lamb, his betrayer Judas, but he did ſit down together with the o­ther eleven Diſciples. And albeit there are ſome, who go about to prove, that Judas was not pre­ſent at the inſtitution of the new Supper (which will be very hard, that I may not ſay impoſſible, to ſhew clearly out of the holy Scriptures,) but that he went away before it was inſtitute by Chriſt: Notwithſtandinging I believe none dare deny, but that according to the Law, he was ad­mitted to the eating of the Paſſover. Which be­ing granted, our Argument remaineth unmoved. For whither he went out before the inſtitution of the other Supper; or went not out (which is more probable and alwaies beleeved by more men,) This is ever clear, that he was preſent at the firſt, and was not commanded openly to ab­ſtaine from the ſecond. Yea moreover we do not read in any place, that he was commanded by Chriſt to go out, that he might not be preſent at the new Supper. Wherefore if he went out, he went out of himſelf, neither went he out for that cauſe. But we inquire what Chriſt did do, not what Judas did. It ſufficeth us that Chriſt did not command him to abſtain from his laſt Supper.

XXIX.

'Tis frivolous and light, that is brought for ex­cuſe;28 That the fault was not publick, and that therefore he ought not to be removed. For he had then agreed upon a price with the Phariſees. And in the time of Supper it ſelf, Chriſt did o­pen it up to his Diſciples, and had made it pub­lick; whereby the rather an example ſhould have been made thereof. Laſtly, That this be but ſomething, yet at leaſt he was noted before that time for a Thief. And although he was ſuch, nevertheleſs our Lord committed the Mi­niſtry to him, and did honour him with the pow­er of caſting out Divels, of healing the Sick, and of working other miracles: and to conclude, all the years he was with Chriſt, he admitted him together with the reſt, to the celebration of the Paſſover. Is not this Argument enough, that Chriſt would not that wicked men ſhould be pu­niſh'd by the deniall of the Sacrament? Certain­ly it is a greater matter, to admit a wicked man in­to the Miniſtry, then to admit any ſuch an one to the Supper. We ſee that Chriſt let both theſe fall to Judas.

XXX.

That is alſo to be obſerv'd, that the Diſciples at the firſt Supper, begun to contend amongſt them­ſelves, about the eminency and dignity, neverthe­leſs none of them were removed for that cauſe. But moreover he commanded and willed, that all ſhould drinke of the Cup, [in relation to this matter, the reaſon of the Cup and Bread is the ſame,] witneſs Matth. 26. which Marke doth te­ſtifie was done: what other thing can be believ'd Chriſt willed by theſe words then to confirm29 thoſe things, which God had of old commanded by Moſes? viz. that no Baptiz'd Perſon ſhould be excluded from that publick and ſolemne Thankſgiving, who deſire to be preſent thereat? By which it appeareth, that not any ought to be remov'd from the Table of the Lord, which em­braceth the Doctrine of Chriſt, and ſuffereth him­ſelf to be taught of Chriſt.

XXXI.

Chriſt will not have his Kingdome [I ſpeak of the externall] on this earth Circumſcrib'd with­in narrower boundings amongſt Chriſtians, then in old times he would have it contain'd and de­fin'd amongſt the Jews. Therefore as God com­manded all the circumcis'd externally to be parta­kers of the ſame Sacraments and Ceremonies, and commanded Offenders to be coerc'd and pu­niſh'd with the Sword and other puniſhments: So here Chriſt will have all them that are Baptiz'd, or are Chriſtians, and have right and true belief concerning Religion, to uſe the ſame externall Ceremonies and Sacraments: But will have thoſe, that are flagitious to be chaſtis'd by the Ma­giſtrate with death, baniſhment, impriſonment, and other puniſhments; hitherto, as it ſeemeth be­longeth theſe Parables of the net, marriage, and of the tares.

XXXII.

In the Apoſtles, eſpecially in the Apoſtle Paul, we find no fewer, and no leſs plain and pithy Ar­guments. The firſt is this, That the Apoſtles are not found any where either to have taught or exercis'd the Excommunication. Which Ar­gument30 ſeeming in itſelf invalide become unan­ſwerable, if we conſider, that they were even unto their deaths moſt ſtrict keepers of Moſes's Laws, which Chriſt had not aboliſh'd: as every man may know even by the 21. and laſt Chapter of the Acts. Wherefore they never tried or would try to repell any man, which profeſſ'd himſelf a Chriſtian, 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 ſome31 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-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 be32 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 that33 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.

34

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 whither and when at leaſt he ſhall perſevere in that holy Reſolution. It is our part alwaies to hope well of all men, albeit we will oft be de­ceived; and moreover from our hearts to beſeech God, that he will confirme them and us toge­ther35 in good. In the mean time he that doth evill, is to be reproved and admoniſht, that he ſhould prove himſelf, leſt he eat and drink damnation, as the appoſite teacheth.

XXXVIII.

To conclude, Are the Sacraments either in au­thority or dignity more excellent then the Word? or more neceſſary by uſe? not any where ſave without the Word: but no man doubteth but many both are and may be ſav'd without the Sa­craments; chiefly without the Lords Supper if they contemn them not. It ſeems the Apoſtle thought no otherwiſe, when he writes that he was not ſent to Baptize, but to Preach the Word. Do not moſt men call them the viſible words? and that they propoſe that thing to the eyes, which the Word doth to the ears? Why then do we ſtudy to keep men from the Word, but to keep ſome from the Sacraments, and chiefly from the Lords Supper? and that againſt, or at leaſt with­out the expreſs command of God? becauſe, ſay they, the Word was given to all, the Sacraments were only inſtitute for thoſe, that were converted. I know this; neither do I ſpeak of Turks, and of the unconverted: but I ſpeak of them that are cal'd by God into his Church; that are inſert threin, and approve of the Doctrine thereof, and that are deſirous at leaſt externally, to uſe the Sa­craments rightlier.

XXXIX.

I have ſhewn hitherto, that there is no exam­ple nor word extant, neither of Chriſt, nor of his Apoſtles of this chaſtiſment or rather36 coercement of the ungodly. Wherefore ſeeing neither the Old nor New Teſtament have com­manded this forme of puniſhment; but the con­trary doth occurre very oft in both, we deſerved­ly believe, that Excommunication (in ſo farre as it keepeth men from the uſe of the Sacraments for the wickedneſs of their life and manners) is rather a humane invention, then any divine Law. Therefore it ſeemeth now conſequent, that we ſhould view thoſe things which they, that think contrary to this, bring for themſelves, and demonſtrate that they have no ſtrength in them­ſelves.

XL.

The command ſay they is extant in the 18 of Matthew, and in the Epiſtles of Saint Paul, but the example is found 1 Cor. 5. Chapter, alſo the 1 of Timothy and 1. Chapter. Of theſe we will ſpeak in order: And firſt of that place which is in Matthew.

XLI.

Chriſts purpoſe in this Chapter was not to in­ſtitute a new government, or a forme of exerci­ſing Excommunication, but to inſtruct his Diſci­ples how they ſhould avoid offence in repelling of private injuries. For becauſe theſe that immedi­ately purſued the right before the Magiſtrate, (chiefly before a Heathen and prophane Magi­ſtrate, to which then the Jews were ſubject) did oft-times offend the weak; firſt he exhorteth them, that they ſhould rather forgive injuries, then in every cauſe to run to the Magiſtrate. In this part he doth no other thing then call into me­mory37 that command of Moſes in the 19. of Exod. which Syracides in his 19. Chap. likewiſe doth more largely handle. Then he commandeth that if they ſhould perchance be compelled to bring their Cauſe before the Magiſtrate, that they ſhould not accuſe their Brethren the Jews before the Romans, before firſt they had deſired the aſi­ſtance of their own Magiſtrate in vain. If in­deed they would avoid ſcandall, the Apoſtle de­livers the ſame command to the Corinthians the 1.6. Chap. (which place is as it were an Expoſi­tion upon this,) viz. that the Chriſtians ſhould not raſhly go to Law together before the Gentiles. Therefore the genuine ſenſe of this place and Chapter is this: when thy Brother, that is, when a Jew doth unto thee an injury, ſtudy how by thy ſelf alone to reconcile him to thee, if thou a­lone cannot prevaile, take two or three with thee and try it again: if neither ſo, thou can deliver thy ſelf from the wrong, tell it to the Synedrium, that is, tell it to the Magiſtrate of thy People and Religion. But if he will not hear him, then you may proceed againſt him without the offence of any, as you will proceed againſt the Publicans and Heathens, (who will not ſuffer themſelves to be brought to any other Tribunall, but that of the Romans. ) that ſhould wrong you.

XLII.

That this is the proper and legitimate inter­pretation of this place is manifeſtly ſhewn by all the circumſtances and whole ſeries of the diſ­courſe, but chiefly by the concluſion. Firſt Chriſt doth not diſcourſe in this place of the weighty38 and publick ſins that belonged to his Countrey Religon, and rites, the puniſhing of which belong­ed to the Synedrium: but he ſpeaketh of private injuries, the power of remitting of which be­longed to every man: this proveth evidently that which I have ſaid, that the whole contexture of the diſcourſe is in the ſingular number. If thy Brother oeffnd againſt thee (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, ) reprove him betwixt thee and himſelf alone: tell the Church if he will not hear thee, &c. After the ſame man­ner alſo he ſpeaketh, Luke 17. if thy Brother (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) ſin againſt thee, and immediately if thy Brother ſin ſeaven times in one day againſt thee, and return to thee, and ſhall ſay, that he is ſory, forgive him. We cannot interpret (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, ) againſt the Church; for ſeeing he ſaies afterwards, tell the Church, the ſenſe will be, O Church, tell the Church. Neither can it ſignifie the ſame, that thou being conſcious: for neither the nature, nor circumſtances of the word or ſpeeches will ſuffer this: for preſently after is added, betwixt thee and himſelf alone. How then if he ſin, I be­ing conſcious to it, and did not ſin againſt me on­ly and alone, am I alone compelled to admoniſh him alone? am I not rather commanded to re­prove him, together with them, againſt whom he hath properly ſinned? but Chriſt doth not concede, that I ſhould firſt go to him with o­thers: therefore he ſpeaketh of an injury done by my Brother againſt me only. As likewiſe how ſhall the words of Luke agree with this interpreta­tion, when he ſaith, if thy Brother ſhall return to thee, forgive him? ſhall we likewiſe ſay here,39 that to thee, is put for thou knowing it? but what then will forgive him ſignifie? Muſt we al­ſo ſay here that it is, be thou conſcious to his for­giveneſs? did the prodigall Luke 15. ſinning a­gainſt Heaven, ſin, Heaven being conſcious there to? how we ſhall ſin againſt our Brethren by do­ing evil is clear, 1 Cor. 8. but the nature of this place is different. Truly the ſpeech and words do not ſuffer us to take them of any other but for pri­vate injuries; which you your ſelf may remit to the penitent; but if he will not of himſelf repent, you muſt uſe all meanes that he may repent. Se­condly, The ſame is proved, becauſe the Apoſtles did 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 we40 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〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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,41 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 its 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,42 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 an­ſwer43 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,44 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 manner45 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 appeare••hence that they were Miniſters ſworn to the Ro­mans againſt their own Nation: and that they could reſect no juſtice from the Phariſee, and the chief men of the Jews who eſteemed them Knaves and forlorne perſons. This is not permit­ted46 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,47 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 new48 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 not eaſily ſee a Jew going to Law with a Jew, be­fore the Chriſtian Magiſtrate.

XLVII.

Therefore this command doth not belong un­to all men ſay ye, but to them that live under an impious Magiſtrate. I anſwer, That the firſt part thereof to uſe means to be reconcil'd before they come before a Judge, doth belong to all Chriſtians: but the laſt part thereof hath only power, when godly men live under a Magiſtrate that is no Chriſtian; therefore the Apoſtle Paul likewiſe exhorts the Corinthians, that they would chooſe ſome amongſt themſelves, which ſhould deſide their controverſies, leſt they ſhould be compel'd to go to ſuit before a prophane Magi­ſtrate: who doubteth but that it was lawfull for the Corinthians, if there were any, who would not ſtand to the Sentence of theſe Arbitrators, or of the injurious perſons was nothing better for their Sentence, at laſt to come to the Roman and Heathen Magiſtrates? indeed Paul when he ſaw himſelf unjuſtly preſſed with the Jews, did appeal to Caeſar, Acts 25. which fact he did declare, Acts the laſt, that he might excuſe himſelf to the Jews that lived at Rome: He ſhall underſtand and ſee all theſe things more clearly and plainly, that will take the pains to conferre diligently, Lev. 19. Eccleſ. 9. and 1 Cor. 6. with this Chapter of Mat­thew,49 and he ſhall obſerve how fittle all things ſhall anſwer one another: chiefly he that ſhall intentively marke the words of Paul and Chriſt concerning the laſt part, which becauſe they had not place under Moſes and the Eccleſiaſticks, be­cauſe the Jews then did not ſo obey any former Prince as they did afterwards the Romans, there­fore theſe men were deſervedly omitted by both.

XLVIII.

And hitherto indeed as I believe it will eaſily be conſented unto by all, that Chriſt did ſpeak of a Church which then was in being and extant in Judea: but preſently they fall together by the ears, when they inquire what Chriſt meant by the word Church: for ſometimes its put for the meet­ing and multitude of the people: ſometimes its put for the Senate and Elders that did governe the ſame. After this manner we find the Hebrew words taken, which ſignifie the Church and the Meetings or Congregation, (which the Septuagint expreſs by the words (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, ) Numb. 35. Joſh. 20. Pſalme 82. and elſewhere. But there are ſolid Arguments to prove that Chriſt in this place by the word Church will not have us to under­ſtand the multitude, and common meetings of the Jews, but the Jewiſh Magiſtracy or Senate. (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, ) The firſt is, that it is clear that Chriſt did not innovate the forme of Judi­catories, and government which were admini­ſtred according to the Laws: neither that he did any thing, or permit his Diſciples to do any thing againſt thoſe things which Moſes had rightly ap­pointed50 Pointed at the command of God. But Moſes com­manded ſuch caſes to be propoſed to be judged not by the multitude, but by the Senate of every place, or (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, ) which uſed to ſit at the beginning in the Porch of every Towne. If Chriſt had thought to have inſtitute any thing a­gainſt this apointment of Moſes here, his Diſci­ples would not have been a little offended with the matter: which though their whole life were moſt ſtrict obſervers of the Law; let every one thinke with themſelves how much every one would have triumpht, if they could have accuſed Chriſt of this crime: that to wit, he had incited the people againſt the Magiſtrate, contrary to the Doctrine of Moſes? what more illuſtrious pre­text could they have wiſht to accuſe him as a ſedi­tious perſon, then if they could prove that he a­gainſt the appointment of God, did aſlay to arme the people againſt the Magiſtrate? to admit the examination of witneſſes? to give the power to them to call before them whom they would? to give them the power of cognoſcing and judging of cauſes? the other reaſon is, that Chriſt com­mands us to tell it to that Church which hath the power to call the accuſed perſon before it, to hear the cauſe, examine the witneſs, (therefore he in the ſecond admonition he bids us joyn 2 Cor. 3. That the fact may be lawfully proved) and to con­clude of pronouncing and judging; but theſe things cannot be done from the croude and mul­titude, except they choſe ſome men which may moderate all things as no man is ignorant of it, for (it behoveth that that convention to be very51 little, which without Senators, by it ſelf is able to expect ſuch matters and cauſes; for this cauſe ſome men rightly judge it, that if this precept of Chriſt were underſtood of the whole meeting, or company it could have no place, but where the Church did conſiſt of very few Members,) there­fore ſeeing they that proceed after this manner, are no other but the Senate or Synedrium; It again appeareth, that Chriſt did not command us to tell it to the croude, but to the Synedrium; but in­deed in Chriſts time the people had not power to chooſe unto themſelves a Magiſtracy and Princes; wherefore tt behoveth us by the Jewiſh Church to underſtand the Senate: as it is clear by what is ſaid before, that the Diſciples did ſo. Therefore if by the Chureh we underſtand the multitude it ſelf, it behoveth us to tell it to ſuch a Church which hath the power, to choſe to it ſelf ſuch a Senate as the Senate of the Jews were at that time; but our Churches have not power to chooſe ſuch a Senate as the Synedrium of the Jews was: yea the people of the Jews themſelves in Chriſts time had not that faculty, as is ſaid a little before. To this let us adde, That the Scripture, when it ſpeak­eth of the multitude, uſeth almoſt the words of people, of multitude, of croude, of the Children of Iſrael, or ſome other words, ſignifying the ſame thing. As when it is written that any thing is done or ſaid in the whole Synagogogue or the whole Congregation. I will paſs in ſilence that this form of ſpeaking iat this day uſuall; for we ſay we have told any thing to the Empire or Re­publick which we have propoſed to the Emperor52 or other governours of the Empire, or to the Se­nate of the Republick: we ſay they are reward­ed by the common wealth, who receive any gift from the Senate thereof, their phraſes are ſo uſu­all, that it is a wonder that they have been ob­ſereed by ſo few in this place. The ſum of all is, Chriſt did not change the cuſtome of his own time, neither did he change any thing in Judica­tories, as likewiſe the Diſciples ſeem to ſuſpect no change nor renovation. Wherefore he com­manded them to tell the Synedrium before they went to the Heathen Magiſtrate.

XLIX.

But it appears out of the holy Scriptures and Hiſtories that that Synedrium was a lawfull Ma­giſtrate: and that in the time of Chriſt it did yet return and exerce the power of this word. Thoſe things that are read in the Hiſtory of Chriſts Paſ­ſion do firſt demonſtrate this, and the next this other teſtimonies alſo. This ſendeth forth armed men to apprehend Jeſus: it examineth witneſſes againſt him, as it would have it to ſeem, commandeth Chriſt to be brought be brought be­fore it, and delivereth him bound to Pilate, hav­ing condemned him firſt publickly: It condemn­eth Stephen openly, and commandeth him to be kil'd: It commandeth the Apoſtles to be ſhut up in publick Priſons; it commandeth them to be beaten, holding a publick counſell concerning that matter: it giveth to Paul a commiſſion and power to draw from other Towns the godly be­ing bound to Jeruſalem, that they miuht be kild there, Acts 24. The Jews themſelves and the53 Judges or Synedrium, in plain tearms affirme this by Tertullus the Orator, when they accuſed Paul to Faelix, Tertellus ſaith, According to our Law we would have condemned him, except Lyſias had by force taken him out of our hands, Acts 23. Paul ſaies to the chief Prieſt, doſt thou ſit to judg me here according to the Law? and yet againſt the mind of the Law commands me to beſmit­ten? Afterwards Acts 26. he confeſſeth before Agrippa and Feſtus, that he put many Saints at Jeruſalem and other places in Priſon, having re­ceived power for this purpoſe from the chief Prieſts: and that he likewiſe kild them with the ſentence and voice, and that he compeld them with torments and puniſhments to blaſpheme through all the Synagogues: and he received power from the chief Prieſts likewiſe, to handle the Saints in forreign Towns, and among theſe in Damaſcus, I believe Agrippa and Feſtus knew whither it was lawfull for the Synedrium or not to do theſe things. Except it had had this power they would not have abſolved Paul by their votes as immediately they do. For Pauls ſins ſhould have been no leſs againſt Caeſar, then the Phariſees; for he offends no leſs who doth unlawfull things by the permiſſion and command of them, to whom it doth not belong to permit or command it; then he who doth command ſuch things, but neither of them are accuſed: and Paul is clearly abſolved as one that hath done nothing worthy of bonds. Neither would Pilate have ſaid John 18. take the him away, and according to your Law judg him: if they had not had thts power, there­fore54 when they ſay it is not lawfull to kill any bo­dy, this is to be underſtood of the feaſt day for fear of the people; as Auguſtin expoundeth it: or of the ſort of death to which they deſired Chriſt to be put: as Chryſoſtome interpreteth it; to this opinion the words of John fitly agrees theſe things was done, ſaith he, that it might be fulfilled which Chriſt had ſpoken ſignifying what death he ſhould die. Hither alſo it belongs, that in the 26. of Matthew Chriſt ſaith, That he could not be taken at other times by them, when he ſate in the Temple and taught: becauſe the Scriptures might have been fulfilled, therefore then they took him, when for fear of the people and the feaſt inſtant they could not kill him, Matthew 26. Marke 14.

Wherefore ſeeing they could indure him no longer, neither was it ſafe for them to put him to death; it followed that he ſhould be delivered up to the Romans: that ſo all things might might come to paſs as he had foretold ſhould come to paſs unto his Diſciples, Mat. 20. which are firſt inſinuate by Johns words, and after by Auguſtins and Chryſoſtoms. To this likewiſe belongs that crying out of the people, Crucie him, cru­cifie him, Matthew 27. Mark 15. Luke 23. John 19.

L.

From theſe it appeareth that it is not true that is affirmed by ſome, that the Synedrium had no power of the Sword, nor right to put to death: and that Steven was ſtoned of it in atumultuary manner. That they had a power, I approved with unanſwerable Arguments: that Stephen was55 not kild in a tumult, appeareth from that that he was accuſed before the Judgment ſeat: That witneſſes were heard, albeit falſe witneſſes: that he was led out of the Towne: that the ſame witneſſes did according to the command of the Law throw firſt ſtones at him: as may clearly be known by laying down their cloaths at the feet of Paul, the ſame is proved alſo perſpicuouſly from Hiſtorie. For the Romanes permitted all people but namely the Jews that living within and without Judea, to uſe their own Laws in matters belonging to Religion, and ſo freely according to the Law and rites and manners as Joſephus witneſſeth. In the fourteenth Book of his Jews antiquities in the 12.16, and 17. Chap­ters thereof according to the diſtinction of the Greek Copies, and in the 12. Chapter, he ſetteth Strabo as his Author, writing of the Town of Cy­rene, that they there had a chief Ruler, who heard all their cauſes, and that did govern their com­mon wealth no otheswiſe then as if he had been a Prince of a perfect Republick. Hitherto like­wiſe belongs thoſe things which are read Acts 18. concerning Gallio the prefect of Corinth. The ſame Author the 16. Book and 4. and 5. Chapter, re­lates how Herod obtained from Agrippa unto the Jews that live through Aſia that it ſhould be law­full for them afterwards to live according to the priviledges that were now already granted unto them by the Romans. I therefore mention theſe thing, becauſe ſome object that Herod did kill the Synedrium, and did bereave it of all power. How could Herod take from them at Jeruſalem56 the power of judging and decerning of things be­longing unto their Religion according to the Law, who indeavoured to preſerve and procure the ſame to them, that dwelt in Aſia? Moreover Chriſt did not teach under Herod or Archelaus, but under Pilate. Indeed the Jews made Pilate himſelf take his military Banners out of the Towne which he had caus'd ſecretly to be con­void in: Leaſt they ſhould againſt the precepts of God ſuffer Images to be in their Town. They keep this power to themſelves, to the deſtruction of the Town, which is clearly underſtood by the Oration which Joſeph had to the beſieged; The Romanes, ſaith he in the 5 Book of his Jewiſh war do deſire that tribute which our Anceſtors were wont to pay to their fathers, which if they ob­tain, they neither will plunder the Town, nor at all touch our holy things; they grant to you your Families, Children, and poſſeſſions, and ſuffer your holy Laws to remaine ſafe. After the taking of the Town, Titus himſelf ſpeaks all moſt the ſame words to the Jews in the 6. Book of Jo­ſephus. Therefore whither we conſult the holy or Jewiſh Hiſtory, it doth moſt certainly appear, that the Synedrium unto which Chriſt bid us complain, had the power of the Sword, or of putting to death, but chiefly of thoſe that ſhould act any thing againſt their Religion. But in po­litick matters, and in caſes of wrong, where the Law had conſtitute nothing of certainity, I do not doubt but that the Romans had taken to themſelves either all or moſt part, and uſurpt the ſame: as we may eaſily perceive by Hiſtory: and may gather57 by a ſure conjecture from the 18. of the Acts.

LI.

Neither is it repugnant to what hath been ſaid, that ſome of the Jews ſaid to Albinus, that it was not lawfull to the chief high Prieſt to convocate the Synedrium, without his permiſſion, as Joſe­phus relates it in the 20. Book of his Antiquities, for he only relates what ſome men did do: but doth not praiſe the deed. Moreover he ought not in the time of a inter-regnum, to wit, when Feſtus was now dead, and Albinus was but yet on his journey, to gather together a Judicatory, to do a buſineſs of ſo great moment, before the new preſident had confirmed to him that power: for he procurd the Brother of our Lord James, which was commonly cald Juſt, to be put to death: which ſeeing he was deare to many, did take it very hardly; for he was new recreated the high Prieſt, and had not as yet been confirmd by the Romans. Euſebius's 2. Book and 23. Chap­ter of his Eccleſiaſtick Hiſtory ſheweth, that he greedily gripped this occaſion of the inter-regnum; but what is that to our purpoſe? was therefore Archelaus named King in his Father Herods Te­ſtament, and that by permiſſion of Caeſar, not King, becauſe he would not admit the name of a King, and exerce the Kingly power, before he was confirmed by Caeſar? is the Magiſtracy of a­ny Town which hath a Prince, as there are many ſuch in Germane, therefore no true unlawfull Magiſtracy, becauſe the Prince being dead, they are compeld to require a confirmation of their58 priviledges from his ſucceſſor? Now that the high Prieſt had power to convocate the Judges of the Synedrium, the confirmation he had recei­ved formerly is clear from this, that they did not ſay to Albinus that this was not ſimply lawfull for him: but only that he ought not to do this without Albinus's knowledg.

LII.

Now it is ſolidly demonſtrate, that dic eccleſiae tell it to the Church, doth ſignifie no other thing then tell it to the Magiſtrate of thy people, or that is of that ſame Religion with thee, before thou go to Law with thy Brother, before a prophane Magiſtrate: as the Apoſtle Paul, 1 Cor. 6. excel­lently expoundeth it, where he commandeth them for this cauſe to choſe men of their own or­der to be Arbitrators. But who doubteth that this can have no place where God beſtoweth on us a godly Magiſtrate? indeed Auguſtin in his ſe­cond Book of faith and works, clearly enough de­clared, that he believed that excommunication ſhould ſupply the place of the viſible ſword, at that time when the Church wanted it. For the fact of Moſes in puniſhing tranſgreſſors with the ſword, and as Phineas killing the adulterers, did prefigurate the puniſhing of the evill by degrada­tion and excommunication, to wit, at that time when the ſword was to ceaſe in the viſible Church. I remember that ſome of the late Wri­ters do affirme, that the Jews therefore did ob­ſerve this cuſtome of excommunication, (which I have proved to be falſe with unanſwerable Ar­guments and Teſtimonies,) becauſe the Sword59 was taken from them. But if this were true, it would follow that it ſhould have no place in the Chriſtian Church, which keepeth the power of the Sword: Even as we are not neceſſitate now to appoint other Judges and Arbitrators to our ſelves, beſide the lawfull Magiſtrate. Therefore it is moſt certain, that the word Church in Mat­thew, ſignifieth nothing leſs then an Eccleſiaſtick Senate, which ſhould have power to debarre from the Sacraments.

LIII.

There are two things that might be objected to us: Firſt, How one cannot hear the Church if it be the Magiſtrate, and hath the power of the Sword. Next, How thoſe things that are ſpo­ken of binding and looſing, can be fitted to this cauſe. To the firſt we anſwered before: That the Jews had not power to judg of all matters whatſoever: but that all controverſies almoſt which did not concerne Religion, belong to the Roman Judicatory. If then in thoſe things any man would neglect the authority of the Synedri­um, Chriſt giveth him that is hurt leave to per­ſue his right before the Gentiles: as if he were to diſpute with a Gentile or Publican. Add this, That many cauſes do occurre, which the Law in­particular doth not puniſh, or doth not forbid­under a certain puniſhment, at which time it eaſily happeneth, that the guilty is ſent only away with a rebuke. But if yet he doth not leave off to be injurious, he that is offended by him may be inſtant with the Church or Magiſtrate, that he may be puniſhed for his Petulancy. Albeit this60 anſwer alſo is true, nevertheleſſe the firſt anſwer ſeemeth unto me to be moſt agreeable to the ap­pointment of Chriſt, to the times places and other circumſtances.

LIV.

The anſwer to the other reaſon is alſo eaſie; for ſeeing the ſame manner of ſpeaking here, and the ſame words almoſt hereafter repeated, which Chriſt uſed in the 16. of Matthew: it is altoge­ther neceſſary, that if they ſignifie not the ſame thing, yet that they ſhould ſignifie ſomething like it: but to bind and to looſe, 16. Matth. ſignifieth no other thing then to preach the Evangel: by which every one that doth believe ſhall be freed from ſin and death. Wherefore it ſignifieth no other thing here, then to intreat his Brother, that he would deſiſt from injuries, and rather fol­low godlineſs: therefore becauſe this is accepta­ble to God and he will puniſh thoſe that do con­trary to his Commandments, he that after this manner doth dehort his Brother from doing in­juries by ſhewing to him both the will and wrath of God, he if he perſwade him hath gaind him, that is, hath loos'd him: if he hath not perſwa­ded him, the wrath of God remains on him: as it remains or not remains, upon him that believes and not believes the Evangel, when he hear­eth it Preached. But that we may be ready and eaſie to forgive the penitent, Chriſt hath gone a­bout to perſwade us with what that elegant Para­ble by which the ſcope of his purpoſe in this place is eaſily diſcerned.

61

LV.

I wonder above meaſure how in this preſent place ſome interpret to bind and to looſe by keep­ing back, and admitting men to the Sacraments: ſeeing in the whole Bible there is not a place where thoſe words are put for this matter: nei­ther did ever the Apoſtles ſhew by any word or ſign that they ſo underſtood the words of Chriſt. Chriſts command is extant, that they ſhould go out from them who would not receive the Goſ­pell: But firſt ſhould ſhake off the duſt of their feet, Matthew, and Luke 10. which we know to have been done, Acts 13. and 18. but that they ſhould deny the Sacraments to them who believe in the word, or Baptized in Chriſt, and embrace his Religion and Doctrine, becauſe their life is not anſwerable to the Doctrine, we find it in no place either commanded unto them, or done by them. But here it will ſuffice to 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 An­guſtin62 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 Mſes, 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, becauſe63 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,〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, I repent not, though I did repent, or64 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,〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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,65 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,66 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 may67 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,〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to be taken ot 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 ſoul68 may be ſafe,〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: 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〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, he hath put on the ſame ſenſe and meaning,〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; 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 peni­tent69 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〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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?70 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〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, can be ſhewn to be put in the New Teſtament, for the puniſhing of the luſt of the fleſh, 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〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, is found written in the 1 of Crinth. 10. and the Participle〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 11. of the Heb. even the Compound〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, ta­ken out of Deuteronomy is found in the 3. of the Acts, and every where they all either ſignifie pe­riſhing or death,〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and Rom. 8. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and Coloſ. 13. To conclude,〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and Gal. 5, and 6. that they are put for the killing of the luſts of the fleſh, but〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to be taken in this ſignification in the new Teſtament, therefore it is frivolous71 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〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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 its 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;72 he together with it declareth, that he had ſuffered no more. We find the word〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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 Mneths: till he knew that the Apoſtle had for­given73 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 together74 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 a­ny75 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〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which he uſeth confirm­this for〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉or〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. which the Latins name laſſitude, and as〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, differ ſo. Likewiſe〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉or〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉and〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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 thoſe76 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 perſevere77 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〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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 is78 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 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 new79 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, that80 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.

81

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,82 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,83 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 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 the84 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.

85

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 Biſhop86 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 believed87 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 paſſed88 Jordan: neither do we read that he repulſt any becauſe they had not lived religiouſly and honeſt­ly enough. At the command of this man the Arke of God was carried and things belonging to religion were done, as is manifeſt by the whole Book of Joſhua, Samuel, and Eli, when they did diſcharge both the Offices; they did offer as Prieſts; and as Judges, they put in order things belonging to the Common-wealth together with Religion. And indeed it was lawfull for the high Prieſts in the Old Teſtament, to govern al­ſo civill buſineſs: becauſe they were Types of Chriſt as King and Prieſt: but to our Prieſts it is ſaid, but you ſhall not do ſo, 1 Pet. 5. which belongeth likewiſe to this place.

LXXIV.

When ye come to the Kings of the Jews the matter is alſo clear of David, no man doubteth: who did diſpoſe of all Offices and Miniſters of the Church as is manifeſt: Let any man read, who will, 1 Chron. 22, 27. Afterwards Salomon the King did not only build the Temple, but did alſo con­ſecrate it, and not a Prieſt. Hitherto belongeth that famous Hiſtory of Jehoſophat, 2 Chron. 19. which being diligently pondered, will clear this cauſe excellently: as doth likewiſe the Hiſtory of moſt holy King Ezekias: and to conclude the whole Old Teſtament. Wherefore if that Com­mon-wealth and Church was moſt wiſely foun­ded, ordered, and conſtitute; That Church can­not but be praiſed that cometh as near as the cir­cumſtances, and preſent matters will permit, to its forme. Therefore whereſomever the Magiſtrate is89 pious, and Chriſtian, there, there is not read in a­ny perſon, who under another name of life ſhould governe or puniſh: as if the pious Magiſtrate dif­fered nothing from the prophane. It is really the worſt of all errors, (ſaith Mr. Wolfgang Muſculus in his common places of the Magiſtrate: out of which I have written out what next proceeded) that moſt part think no otherwiſe of the Chriſtian Ma­giſtrates then of the dominion of the profane, whoſe power is only to be acknowledged in civill matters: Therefore if the godly Magiſtrate hath not only received power to conſtitute religion accord­ing to the precept of the holy Scriptures, and to diſpoſe of its Offices and Miniſters, (for which cauſe Moſes commandeth him. Which is cho­ſen King, with his own hand, to write out the Book of the Law, or Moſes's own writings; and to exerciſe himſelf therein continually) But like­wiſe alſo to puniſh vices; Then in vain do now ſome amongſt us thinke of a new forme of judg­ment: which ſhall reduce the Magiſtrate himſelf orderly and under his own ſubjects. For that Ec­cleſiaſtick judgment-Seat of manners, (for Do­ctrine the Magiſtrates ought ever to conſult them that are moſt acquainted therewith) it is not to be found commanded in any place of the holy Scrip­tures.

LXXV.

But in theſe Churches that live under an ungod­ly Magiſtrate (to wit, under a Popiſh or Turkiſh,) grave and godly men muſt be choſen, who muſt give judgment betwixt men that are at ſtrife: and muſt compoſe all differences: and do other things90 of this kind. And the ſame men ought together with the Paſtours to admoniſh and rebuke un­clean and defiled perſons: And if they prevaile nothing, they muſt puniſh them; either by de­nying them private commerce; or by publick re­buke, or by taking ſome other ſuch notice of them: But they cannot debar them that deſire to come to the Sacraments inſtituted by God. For who judgeth the heart but God? It may come to paſs, that a ſparke may be kindled by the publick Preaching; To noriſh which by any means that oppoſeth not Piety, is not only unprofitable, but al­together fruitfull. And I pray you, how can it not be abſurd, and therefore ungodly, to debar one from the publick and ſolemn Thankſgiving, for the remembrance of the death of the Lord, which findeth in his heart that he is compeld to cele­brate the ſame together with the Church, and who is willing to declare himſelf to be a member thereof, and will publickly declare that his by-paſt life id iſpleaſing to him.

91

Appendix.

PErchance it will not be beſides the purpoſe, if in place of an addition or corollary, I adde, what was decreed by all the Orders of the Laicks belonging to the Empire, in their meeting at Nurenberge, Anno. 1523. concerning this mat­ter, and were offered to the Pope of Rome: For by this meanes-will appear, that before about 46. years ago, the Divines begun to thinke of this Diſ­pute: neither are we the firſt that move the ſame. Indeed I believe there is not any that is but in a mean meaſure acquainted with the Ger­mane affaires, which either thinketh or believ­eth, that any of theſe things were decreed or deſi­red from the Pope, without the knowledg of the Divines. But that the matter might be more clear, it pleaſed me to conferre the Dutch examples, which was writ in the writing it ſelf, with the Latine one; which was ſent to the Pope, which Illy­ricus Printed with this Book of the Sects and Schiſms of Popery at Baſil, 1565. and out of the co­lation of both is ſet down the whole Decree. Therefore amongſt the one hundred grievances, which were two years before done at Wormes, but were now ſet down more diſtinctly at Nurenberg; the Thirty fourth pronounce thus.

Item. Many Chriſtians at Rome, and in other places alſo are Excommunicated by Arch-Biſhops92 Biſhops and their Eccleſiaſtick Judges for profane cauſes, and temporall goods: And many infirme conſciences are afflicted therewith, and led into diſpaire. So for many and for tranſitory things, and very oft for very light cauſes: ſome beſides, that they looſe their honour and their fortunes, are thrown into the danger both of ſoul and bo­dy. When notwithſtanding no man ought to be Excommunicate, or ought to be eſteemed for an Excommunicate perſon, as the holy Scriptures witneſſeth, except he that is convict of Hereſie. Wherefore the Laick orders of the holy Empire, beſeecheth the Popes holineſs, as becometh him, and appears in a Religious Father, that he would altogether abrogate this burden of Excommuni­cation at Rome, or in the Roman Court: and that he would have a care, that it ſhould be taken away e­very where in all other places, from Arch-Bi­ſhops, Biſhops, and their Judges. And to conclude, That he would command; that no man ſhould be Excommunicate, or holden for an Excommuni­cate Perſon, for any other cauſe, but for the ma­nifeſt and convicted ſin of Hereſie belonging to Religion. For men ought altogether otherwiſe, either for temporall goods, or for any other hu­mane offences, be removed or ſeparate from God and his Church, except for Infidelity and He­reſie.

Hitherto likewiſe belongeth that which John Stiumfius in his Chronicle of Helvetia, Book 2. of Germany, Chap. 29. That the Prieſts through Swab­lan, about the year of our Lord, 1245. (when by the inſtigation of the Pope Hendric Lantgrave of Tu­rengia,93 and after his death, William Earle of Holland was choſen againſt the Emperour, Frethrick the ſecond and his Son Conrad,) did conſtantly a­mongſt other things teach, That it was not grant­ed to any mortall man under the Sun, to forbid Chriſtians ſpirituall duties, and the worſhip of God. For this cauſe they continually ſay a Maſſe, as he relateth, albeit the Pope did interdict them, and pronounce them Excommunicate Perſons.

FINIS.

CourteuReader The••ooks following, are Printed, for, or, Sold by Simon Miller, at the Starre in St. Paul Church-yard.

Sall Folio.

DOctor Lightfoot his Har­mony on the New Teſta­ment, which will ſhortly be re­printed with large Additions.

The civil Warres of Spain in the Reign of Charles the fifth, Emperour of Germany, and King of that Nation, wherein our late unhappy differences are paralleled in many particu­lars.

A general Hiſtory of Scot­land, from the year 767. to the death of King James, contain­ing the principal Revolutions and Tranfactions of Church and State, with Political Ob­ſervations, and reflections up­on the ſame: by David Hume of Godſcroft.

The Hiſtory of this Iron Age.

Mr Paul Baine on the Ephe­ſians.

The Queen of Arragon, a Play: In fol.

In Quarto large.

Jo. Barklay his Argenis, Tanſlated by Sir Robert le Griſe Knight, by his Late Ma­jeſties ſpecial Command.

Quarto Small.

An Eperimental Treatiſe of Surgery, by Felix Wortz.

Abraham's Faith, or the good Old Religion, proving the Do­ctrine of the Church of England to be the only true Faith of Gods Elect. By John Nicholſon Miniſter of the Goſpel.

The Anatomy of Mortality: By George Stroad.

Three Treatiſes: 1. The Converſion of Ninevch, touch­ing Prayer and Faſting. 2. Gods Trumpet ſounding to Repen­tance. 3. Sovereign preſerva­tives againſt diſtruſt full Thoughts and Cares: By Will. Atterſoll Miniſter of Gods Word at Isfield in Suſſex.

Aynſworth on the Canticles.

Paul Baine, his Dioceſans Trial

Grlle againſt Appolonius.

A Treatiſe of Civil policy, being a clear Deciſion of 43. Queries, concerning preroga­tive, right and priviledge, in reference to the ſupream Prince and people: By Samuel Ruther­ford Profeſſor of Divinity of Sr Andrews in Scotland.

Politick and Military Obſer­vations of Civil and Military Government, containing the Birth, Encreaſe, Decay of Mo­narchies, the carriage of Princes and Magiſtrates.

Mr Pinchin his Meritorious price of mans Redemption, cleared.

A ſtrology Theologized, ſhewing what nature and in­fluence the Starres and Planets have over men, and how the ſame may be diverted and avoi­ded.

Wells his Souls Progreſs.

Chriſt tempted, the Devils Conquered; Being a plain Ex­poſition on the fourth Chapter of Sr Mathews Goſpel: By John Gumbledon, Miniſter of the Goſpel.

The Saints Society.

Dr Stoughtous thirteen choice Sermons, with his Body of Di­vinity.

The Reaſons of the diffent­ing Brethren concerning the Presbyterian Government, to­gether with the anſwer of the Aſſembly of Divines.

Camdens Remains.

The Harmonious Conſent and Confeſſion of Faith, of all the Proteſtant Reformed Churches in Chriſtendome.

The diſcription of the Uni­verſall Quadrant, by which is perform'd with great Expedi­tion, the whole Doctrine of Triangles, both plain and Sphericall: Alſo the Reſolution of ſuch Propoſitions as are moſt uſefull in ſtronomy, Na­vigation, and Dialling: By which is performed the propor­tioning of Lines for meaſuring of all manner of Land, Board, Glaſs, Timber, Stone, &c. by Tho. Stirrup Mathemat.

Large Octavo.

Florus Anglicus, with the lively Effigies of all the Kings and Queens ſince the Con­queſt, cut in Braſs.

The Reconciler of the Bible, wherein above two thouſand ſeeming Contradictions are fully and plainly Reconciled.

Evidences for Heaven, con­taining infallible Signs and real Demonſtrations for aſſu­rance of Salvation: publiſhed by Edm. Calamy Miniſter of Aldermanbury, Lond.

The Life and Reign of King Charles from his Birth to his Death, By Lambert Wood.

The Night-Search, the ſe­cond part: By H. Mill.

A view of the Jewiſh Reli­gion, with their Rites, Cu­ſtomes and Ceremonies.

Uſefull Inſtructions for theſe Evil times; held forth in 22. Sermons, by Nicholas Lockyer, Provoſt of Eaton Col­ledge.

The Nullity of Church-Cenſures, or Excommunicati­on, not of Divine Inſtitution, but a meer humane Invention: Written by the famous Tho. E­raſtus, and never before Eng­liſhed.

Small Octavo.

Ed Waterhouſe Eſq His Diſ­courſe of Piety and Charity.

Panacca, or the Univerſall Medicine; being a Diſcourſe of the Admitable Nature and Virtues of Tobacco: By Dr. Everard, and Others.

A view and Defence of the Reformation of the Church of England, very uſefull in theſe times.

Daphnis and Chloe, A moſt ſweet and paſtorall Romance for young Ladies, by Geo. Thornhill, Gent.

Mr. Pet. du Moulin, his Anti­dote againſt Popery; publiſh­ed on purpoſe to prevent the Deluſions of therieſts and Jeſuites who are now very bu­ſie amongſt us.

Herberts Devotions, or a Companion for a Chriſtian, containing Meditations and prayers uſefull upon all occaſi­ons,

Ovid de Ponto, in Engliſh.

The ſpirituall Seaman, or the Matriners Companion, being a Compendium of the Principles of Religion by Jo. Durant, formerly in the Navy, now at Chriſt-Church in Cant.

The Loves of Clerio and Lozio a Romance.

Mr. Knowles, his Rudiment of the Hebrew Tongue.

A Book of Scheams or Fi­gures of Heaven, ready ſet for every four Minutes of times, and very uſefull for all Aſtro­logers.

Florus Anglicus, or an exact Hiſtory of England, from the Reign of William the Conque­rour to the death of the Late King.

Lingua, or the Combate of the Tongue, and five Senſes for Superiority: a ſerious Comedy.

Venus Cabinet unlockt, and her Secrets laid open.

The Spirits Touchſtone; being a clear diſcovery how a man may certainly know whe­ther he be truly taught by the Spirit of God, or not.

The poor mans Phyſician and Chyrurgion.

Phyſicall Rarities, contain­ing the moſt choice Receipts in Phyſick and Chyrurgery, for the cure of all Diſeaſes Inci­dent to mans body: By R Wil­liams. To which is added the phyſical Mathematicks: By Hermes, Treſ. Magiſtus.

The Idol of Clowns, or the Relation of Wat Tiler's Rebel­lion.

Hiſtoricall Collections or Eccleſiaſtick affaires in Scot­land, including the murther of the Cardinall of St. Andrews, and the beheading of their Queen Mary in England, by R. Watſon.

The Chriſtian Moderator, in 3 parts.

The Golden Fleece, or a Diſcourſe of the cloathing of England.

Dr. Sibbs his Divine Medi­tations.

Vigerius Preceptes of Idiotiſmes. Grotij Poemata.

Three Books of Mr. Ma­thews Miniſter at Swanſey in Southwales.

1 The Meſſiah Magnified by the mouthes of Babes in America; or Gaius and Gamaliel, a helpfull Father and his hope­ful Son, diſcourſing of the three moſt conſiderable points: 1. The great want of Chriſt. 2. The great worth that is in Chriſt. 3. The good way that is chalkt out by Chriſt

2. The New Congregationall Church, prov'd to be the old Chriſtian Church, by Scrip­ture, Reaſon, and Hiſtory.

3. The Rending Church­member Regularly cal'd back to Chriſt and his Church.

A phyſical Dictionary, or an Interpretation of all the tearms of Art, and markes uſed in Phy­ſick, Anatomy, Chirurgery, and Chymiſtry.

Duodecim.

A Collection of Proverbs, Engliſh, French, Dutch, Italian, and Spaniſh, all Engliſhed and Alphabetically Digeſted, by N. R. Gent.

Doctor Smith's practice of phyſick.

The Grammar War.

Poſſellius Apothegmes.

Faſciculus Florum.

Craſhaw's Viſions.

The Juniper Lecture.

Helvicus Colloquies.

The Chriſtian Souldier, his Combate with the three arch­enemies of man-kind, the world, the fleſh, and the devil.

Henſius de Crepundiis.

The Hiſtory of Ruſſia, or the Government of the Emperour of Muſcovia, with the manner and faſhions of the people of that Countrey.

Drexeliu's ſchool of Patience.

Drexelius his right Intention of every ones Action.

Viginti Quat.

The New Teſtament.

The third part of the Bible.

Sir Richard Baker's Med. and Prayers for every day of the Week.

Playes.

The Ball.

Chawbut.

Conſpiracy.

Obſtinate Lady.

The London Chanticlers; a Comedy full of various and de­lightfull Mirth, never before publiſhed.

BE pleaſed to take notice, that there is now in the Preſſe Eighteen Books of the Secrets of Art and Na­ture, Collected out of the choiceſt Authors, both An­tient and Modern; firſt de­ſigned by John VVecker Dr of Phyſick, and now much en­larged by Dr R. Read. The like never before in the En­gliſh Tongue.

About this transcription

TextThe nullity of church-censures: or A dispute written by that illustrious philosopher, expert physician, and pious divine Dr Thomas Erastus, publick professor in the University of Heidelbertge, and Basil. Wherein is proved by the holy Scriptures, and sound reason; that excommunication, and church-senates or members, exercising the same, are not of divine institution; but a meere humane invention.
AuthorErastus, Thomas, 1542-1583..
Extent Approx. 200 KB of XML-encoded text transcribed from 65 1-bit group-IV TIFF page images.
Edition1659
SeriesEarly English books online text creation partnership.
Additional notes

(EEBO-TCP ; phase 2, no. A84062)

Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 170369)

Images scanned from microfilm: (Thomason Tracts ; 223:E1783[2])

About the source text

Bibliographic informationThe nullity of church-censures: or A dispute written by that illustrious philosopher, expert physician, and pious divine Dr Thomas Erastus, publick professor in the University of Heidelbertge, and Basil. Wherein is proved by the holy Scriptures, and sound reason; that excommunication, and church-senates or members, exercising the same, are not of divine institution; but a meere humane invention. Erastus, Thomas, 1542-1583.. [30], 93, [5] p. Printed for G.L. and are to be sold at the Star in St Pauls Church-yard, neare the west end.,London :1659.. (With three final advertisement leaves.) (Annotation on Thomason copy: "October".) (Reproduction of the original in the British Library.)
Languageeng
Classification
  • Excommunication -- Early works to 1800.

Editorial statement

About the encoding

Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford.

Editorial principles

EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO.

EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org).

The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source.

Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data.

Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so.

Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor.

The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines.

Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements).

Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site.

Publication information

Publisher
  • Text Creation Partnership,
ImprintAnn Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) : 2014-11 (EEBO-TCP Phase 2).
Identifiers
  • DLPS A84062
  • STC Wing E3217
  • STC Thomason E1783_2
  • STC ESTC R209663
  • EEBO-CITATION 99868528
  • PROQUEST 99868528
  • VID 170369
Availability

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. Searching, reading, printing, or downloading EEBO-TCP texts is reserved for the authorized users of these project partner institutions. Permission must be granted for subsequent distribution, in print or electronically, of this EEBO-TCP Phase II text, in whole or in part.