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 to [Page 2]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 and [Page 3]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 call [Page 4]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, [...], 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 and [Page 5]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 commit­ted [Page 6]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 year­ly [Page 7]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.

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 them [Page 9]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 other [Page 10]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 almost [Page 11]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 the [Page 12]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 they [Page 13]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 this [Page 14]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 [Page]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.

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 S ^t 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 the [Page 17]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. [Page 18]Certainly 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 to [Page 19]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 from [Page 20]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 appear­eth [Page 21]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 places [Page 22]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 [...], Synedrium, and [...], Synagogue are clearly so put, as if the some should be understood by both. In the other pla­ces, [...], to the word Synagogue are im­mediately added [...], Kings and Rulers, as Luke 21. (for which the same Evan­gelist in the 12. Chapter had put [...], 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 a [Page 23]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 admit­ted [Page 24]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 evill [Page 25]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 any [Page 26]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 like­wise [Page 27]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; [Page 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 confirm [Page 29]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 Ar­gument [Page 30]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 some [Page 31]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 be [Page 32]of no effect. Next it is clear, That many cor­rupt persons, and that publickly known to be such, were admitted. Thirdly, This is likewise cer­tain, That not any was commanded to forbeare, as Excommunicate persons are commanded. The Apostle doth not say that such are to be kept back: But he foretelleth that they would be punish'd by God so, as the Antients were punish'd. For Mo­ses together with the Levites did kill a part of them 32. and the Lord did consume another part with fire, Serpents, with the Sword, and with the o­pening up of the earth: which also happened unto the Corinthians; for he affirmeth that many of them then were sick, and many of them dead.

XXXV.

In the following Chapter he commandeth nei­ther the contentious persons, and Sectaries, nei­ther them that were made drunke in the very ce­lebration of the Supper it self, nor them that were polluted with other sins to be kept back from the use thereof: indeed he doth not mention, so much as in one word this interdiction: when as he correcteth farre less faults, as that every one should eat at home. How could he in this place not have mentioned this matter, if he had ap­prov'd thereof, or thought it necessary in the Church? The Apostle knew the Law command­ed otherwise, and that there was another use of the Sacraments in the Church: then that by their deniall corruptness in life should be punished. Therefore he commandeth, that every one should examine himself: but he doth not command that [Page 33]they should examine and approve of one ano­ther; he moreover exhorteth them all, that they should strive to eat worthily, least any should eat judgment to themselves: he doth not command them that eat unworthily to be kept back there­from, but he threatneth them with the Lords chastisement. He divideth the generall sort of eaters into two kinds, by their opposite differen­ces, to wit, in them that eat worthily, and them that eate unworthily: he commandeth neither of them not to eat, but he desireth that all should eat worthily.

XXXVI.

Afterwards in the second Epistle, Chapter 12, and 13. he doth not threaten them, which after his admonition, had not repented them of the im­purity, lust and licentiousness, which they had committed, with a removall from the Lords Table; but by the authority and power which was given him of God, he sheweth that he would severely and rigorously punish them: which in his own writeings he doth verifie oft: but he no where telleth them of the debarring from the Sa­craments, which is the Question in hand: nei­ther doth he command the Elders or any others to do this. But if he would have had the wicked punished after this manner, he should have com­manded them to be removed from the Sacra­ments till they amend: Chiefly seeing he had ap­pointed Elders in the same Church before, 1 Cor. 6. Chap. and had amended the celebration of the Supper. But we will perchance speake more of this matter hereafter.

XXXVII.

Even as in the celebration of the Sacraments we see no mention to be made of Excommunication; so neither do we find any such thing in their Insti­tution. Yea the Scripture hath not made mention of it, where it explains the end and use of the same. But if they were given to this end to the Church, that they might be a kind of punishment to the wicked and wickedness, without doubt in one of the places there would have some mention been made thereof. The ends of the Lords Sup­per for which it was instituted are these: That we should solemnly celebrate the death of our Lord, and give publick thanks to him for our delivery: That we should by our presence teach and testifie that we have no other meat and drink of life, but Christ Crucified, and his Blood shed for us: That we should declare we repented of our forespent life, thinke of a better, imbrace the Christian Doctrine, to belong to his Church, in which we should desire afterwards to live ho­lily and godly, and dye therein. Hath the Scrip­ture in any place forbid any man to do these things? But some, you will say, do oft re­turn to their own Byass, and are made no bet­ter. I answer, That he who in the present thinks so, as I have said, by the motion of the holy Ghost is not repelled by the Scriptures but God know­eth 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 toge­ther [Page 35]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 rather [Page 36]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 me­mory [Page 37]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 weighty [Page 38]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 ( [...],) 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 ( [...]) 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 ( [...],) 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, [Page 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 we [Page 40]ought so oft to forgive our Brethren, for as oft as they say they repent of them: and that this transaction or remission done betwixt two only, shall be the end of all strife, is clearly held forth in these words. Again, I say unto you if, two of you agree together, &c. Ver. 19. but a great of­fence which belongs to more, or to the whole Church cannot be forgiven by one alone. By the way ye are to take notice here, that the Ad­verb [...], again, doth declare that he said the same now just before, albeit he used other words. Fifthly, Christ speaketh of such sins, whereof they are not ashamed that have committed them: or which they will not deny before any man, if he speak of other grievous sins, and of such as belong to the Church; and many other witnesses should have no place. For no man would confess that before witnesses, that he re­mitted such an act if it were done privately. But in all those things of which is spoken here, there is degrees set down by Christ to be kept, where­fore he speaketh of private injuries, belonging not at all to others. Sixtly, He speaketh of such, which the Church, of which Christ speaketh here, doth not punish, but sendeth away the Offendor chastis'd only with words. For in vain should he say, if he will not hear the Church; for indeed it could punish sins with publick punishment. Seaventhly, The Parable that immediately fol­lows, doth prove the same clearly; which doth teach, that God would not forgive them their sins, that would not forgive from their heart their pe­nitent Brothers, without pain or punishment, [Page 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, [Page 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 an­swer [Page 43]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, [Page 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 manner [Page 45]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 res [...]ect no justice from the Pharisee [...], and the chief men of the Jews who esteemed them Knaves and forlorne persons. This is not permit­ted [Page 46]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, [Page 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 S ^t Matthew relates: the rest of the Evangelists make no mention thereof at all; they would not have been silent in so great and necessary matter, if they had known it was then first done by Christ: adde, that the Apostles were certainly perswaded that Christ would not die, nor change the Religion of the Jews: and that they did in no token, no word, no sign declare that they understood not well enough the Doctrine of Christ: or if as they had heard something unknown and unusuall, they neither did question, we admire thereat. Peter only did wonder at this, that he was so oft commanded to forgive his Brother, therefore they did not understand these words of Christ of a new [Page 48]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, [Page 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 ( [...],) 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. ( [...],) 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 ap­pointed [Page 50]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 ( [...],) 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 very [Page 51]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 i [...] at this day usuall; for we say we have told any thing to the Empire or Re­publick which we have proposed to the Emperor [Page 52]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 the [Page 53]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, there­fore [Page 54]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, Cruci [...]e 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 was [Page 55]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 Jerusalem [Page 56]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 gather [Page 57]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 their [Page 58]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 Sword [Page 59]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 this [Page 60]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.

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 An­gustin [Page 62]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 M [...]ses, concerning the cele­bration of the Passover, in that part in which it is commanded, that all the circumcised should be present thereat? Therefore he neither com­manded this man that had committed incest, nei­ther any other that desire to be accounted a­mongst the Christians to be debarred from the Lords Supper; Of the Jews it is certain, because [Page 63]they would not suffer any thing to be done a­gainst the Law, or against their own inveterate custome: and who would believe that the Gentiles in this business were in a worse condi­tion?

LVIII.

If to deliver over to Satan, was no other thing then to interdict him the Sacraments till he repen­ted, why with such study and with such ex­quisite words, did the Apostle Paul excuse him­self to the Corinthians, and as it were deprecate them in the 2. and 7. Chapter of the last Epistle? Then why should the Corinthians be taken with so much sadness, seeing they now know that this way of restraining the wicked, was to remaine and ought to be exercised in the Church? they ought rather to have rejoyced for the example that was given to them which they afterwards ought to follow. If it was no other thing then an invitation to Repentance, and a wholesome remedy against damnation, why were they made sad and did not rather rejoyce? Christ saith, that the Angels of Heaven rejoyce more at the con­version of one sinner, then for ninety nine just; from whom it followeth, that the Corinthians were not indued with the Spirit of Christ, that they saw the Apostle do that one and sole thing which would recall an erring Brother unto the way: and save him that was in danger, who doth not clearly see, that it was another thing that the Apostle was framing. Thirdly, What needed the Apostle to write, [...], I repent not, though I did repent, or [Page 64]how could he repent any way of this fact, if he would have the same observed every where, and in all Churches? And if it was nothing else then a removing from the Sacraments for a time, or only untill his Repentance. Fourthly, What need was there that the Corinthians should inter­cede with the Apostle with so much diligence, for that miserable person, which they knew would be received again immediately unto their society so soon as he had repented? now that they intreated seriously for him, is evident by these words of the Apostle: to whom ye forgive I for­give also: for if I forgive any thing, I forgave him for your sakes in the sight of Christ. Fifthly. We read in the 2. Chapter, that he excuseth himself thus, that he would take a triall of their obedi­ence, and the 7. Chapter, that so he would make manifest their good will towards him: how could he have said these words, or written them, ex­cept he had commanded some greater matter, then to keep back that wicked person from the Sacraments? Sixtly, By what means will we shew that these words agree to it, [...], For ye sor­rowed to God, so that in nothing ye were hurt, by us. He saith, that they received no loss by their sadnes, because they obtained by their sorrow forgiveness, to that unhappy and miserable person. If this had not been done, they would have suffered loss: to wit, they would have left him, if he had only been to have been kept from the Sacrament, till he had repented, what less pray you could they have suffered? Seaventhly, [Page 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, [Page 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 may [Page 67]be taken away with sorrow, that is, that the sor­row of the lamenters might ascend unto God, and he might take away this work from the midst of them as he thought fit; he expoundeth after the same manner of way those words, which the same Apostle hath in the 12. Chap. concerning sorrow, they agree likewise with Augustin, and with the truth, who thinks the Apostle alludes to the place, 1 King. 21. out of which place we conjecture, that this custome was kept by the An­tient Jews, that they should search out enorme­ous crimes, by Fasting, Praying, and publick sorrow, and being found out, they did not pu­nish them according to the Law. Wherefore seeing the Church wanted the Sword, he did ex­hort them that they should obtain from God, that they should be taken out of the middle of them: which is farre different from that which we call to Excomunicate any man. Moreover by what fit Author will they ever shew unto us, [...], to be taken o [...]t from the mid­dle of you, is the same, that to be debard from the Sacrament is? he is only properly to be said to be taken out of the middle, that is put to death. For albeit he that is banished may be said to be cast out of the middle of others, nevertheless this is neither usuall nor a proper speech amongst the Grecians: or at least it is not sound to be set down in the holy Scriptures? but if he commanded him to be thrust out of the society of the faithfull, what needed publick sorrow, and besides he should have been sent unto the Gentiles. But that which is added is against this, that his soul [Page 68]may be safe, [...]: which could not be safe out of the Church. If you say that he was only removed from the Sacraments and private commerce, he was not taken out of the middle of them, for I believe that no man will ever demon­strate, that the Apostle commanded him only to be kept from the use of the Sacraments, and from the private diet and society of the Christians. Therefore this is stitched to the Apostles words, which can be shewn he never thought of; indeed I believe that there is not any that is acquainted with the holy Scriptures, and their more ancient Interpreters, that would doubt but that the Apo­stle borrowed this sentence, and therefore these words from Moses in Deutronomy, for it is put by Moses for killing, and for no other thing in the 17, 19, 21, 22, 24, Chapters of that book; in all these places the same words are found, when in the 13. Chap. for [...], he hath put on the same sense and meaning, [...]; it is impossible then that to take out of the middle, should signifie in this place Excommunication, as now Excom­munication is taken. Thirdly, It seems by the Text, that that miserable man did not persevere in that wickedness, for he saith, hath done this deed: And concerning him that hath so done this deed, which prove that he hath done it, but does not shew that he doth it still. So he seemeth to desire that he may be punished for the crime that is already committed; as God hath com­manded to be done, and a good Magistrate useth to do. Indeed when he saith that his soul may be safe, he seemeth to have known that he was peni­tent [Page 69]for the fact. For how could he have writ­ten this else of him of whose mind concerning the crime he was not yet informed of? Fourthly, He faith, that he hath resolved to deliver such an one unto Satan, for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of Jesus. Is it not yet known what the word [...], doth signifie, who ever found this Verb put either in prophane Writers, or in the holy Scriptures as it is put here, and that it did not signifie the same, that to concede, to permit, to give over doth signifie? the person that gives doth precede, the person to whom it is given doth follow? and that which is given is also a person: and last this is added also, for which and for what end it was given: the Speech is such as if I should say I would deliver my son to a Master for instruction or correction, what man will doubt but he that heareth a man speak thus, doth think but that he delivereth his son to the power of the Master, that he may instruct him, or chastise him? he that desires to see examples, let him looke to thee, 1 Tim. 1. Acts 27.28. Matth. 5.18, 27. Mark 13. John 19. and is most like to that that is con­tained Matth. 24. they shall deliver you up to be afflicted, and Mark 13. the Brother shall deliver up the Brother to death, and 2 Pet. 2. delivered them unto chains of darkness to be reserved unto judgment, and in the Book of Job. 2. God speak­eth to Satan in these words, Behold I have deliver­ed him up to thee, but only save thou his life. Doth not these places teach that they were deli­vered up to be afflicted, to be kild, to be condem­ned? [Page 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 [...], 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 [...], is found written in the 1 of Crinth. 10. and the Participle [...], 11. of the Heb. even the Compound [...], ta­ken out of Deuteronomy is found in the 3. of the Acts, and every where they all either signifie pe­rishing or death, [...], is frequently used by the 70. Interpreters, and Pagnin every where translateth it by the word exscindendi, of cutting off: this is certainly that they alwaies used to sig­nifie death. I know that in the Apostle the words [...], and Rom. 8. [...], and Colos. 13. To conclude, [...], and Gal. 5, and 6. that they are put for the killing of the lusts of the flesh, but [...], or [...], are neither found in holy, or prophane Authors to be taken so. Yea I do not remember, that I read in the New Testament this word [...], to be taken in this signification in the new Testament, therefore it is frivolous [Page 71]when they say Paul contradistinguishes here the lusts of the flesh, from the spirit: seeing the death of the flesh or of the body is opposed to the safety of the soul, or of the spirit: as the native signifi­cation of the words to the purpose of Paul, the series and circumstances of the discourse, and the Verb [...], do prove that the lovers of the truth can desire no more. Sixtly, These words that the spirit may be safe in the day of Jesus, that is, in the day of judgment. For they clear­ly demonstrate, that he speaketh of that wretch as of one that was to die. Seaventhly, and last­ly, The word [...], proveth that he was not rejected from the Sacraments. For in his own native signification it seems to be put for rebuke, correction, threatening, and upbraiding, as the Interpreters have turnd it, but not for a punish­ment or pain; and besides this there is a double reason for it. The first is, That in holy writs you never find the interdiction of the Sacraments to be put for a punishment: The other is, That the words of themselves do teach well enough, that 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; [Page 72]he together with it declareth, that he had suffered no more. We find the word [...], in the 16, 17, 19, 20. of Matthew, and in the other Evangelists, and in the 2 of Paul to Tim. 4. in all which places it is ever put for rebuke, but never for punishment.

I.X.

But here it may be demanded, if he did only suffer rebuke, by what means its said that he was delivered over to Satan, to be tormented and killed? There is a double answer to this; some of the Antients say, that he was indeed delivered over, that he might be tormented with sickness or some other way, and so he should kill him by little and little, but that in the mean time he was delivered by the Apostle before the matter was brought to that length. Which Answer if it be true, then [...], might signifie a punishment, albeit I do not deny but this Answer may be tol­lerated notwithstanding, I will bring another more agreeing to the words of the Apostle, the Apostle Paul did not resolve by himself alone to deliver this man to Satan, but he would have this done, the whole Church being gathered together for that matter. Now when the Church saw this unhappy man afflicted with so great sorrow, that he was almost swelled up with grief, it did defer the matter, till it tried the Apostles mind, whither it could obtain forgiveness to him or not. In the mean time the Church did threaten that it would do its duty, if it could obtain nothing. So that miserable man was afflicted for many M [...]neths: till he knew that the Apostle had for­given [Page 73]his punishment, that the business was thus carried on, may be clearly enough gathered, as it seemeth out of the latter Epistle.

LXI.

From all that hath been now said, and from more that might be said, it is so clearly and fully demonstrate, that this delivering up to Satan was farre another thing, from that which at this day we call Excommunication, or thrusting from the Sacraments, that it cannot be denied by any that is a lover or knower of the truth. I said above that some of the Antients did so expound this place. Amongst whom Augustin was one, whose Testimony I produced before; besides there is a­nother Testimony of this extant, in his 1. Book of the Lords Sermon upon the Mount: Before him Athanasias did so interpret it: and after him Chrysosteme: and at last his compilator Theo­phylact.

LXII.

Now let us take a view of these other places which they that dissent from us produce for themselves, but nevertheless in brief. In the A­postle Pauls sentence to Timothy, where the saith, that Presbyters which labour in the Word and Doctrine are worthy of double honour, they put some strength and firmness. For they think, that from this place it is proved, that there was some Presbyters that were not occupied in teaching: but they attribute to those another Office: to wit, to censure manners, to observe sinners, to admo­nish the obstinate, and to tell this to their fellow Presbyters, that is, to the Church, and together [Page 74]with them, to excommunicate these that will not hear the Church.

LXIII.

But we thinke that out of the writings of the Apostles Peter and Paul, it is clear that Minister, Bishop, and Presbyter, (if this name signifie an Office and not age) were the same in the Apostles times, and that therefore there was then no Pres­byter that did not also teach: except perchance any man will have them also comprehended un­der this name, that in the 1 Cor. 6. are appointed to be Judges and Arbitrators of controversies, and causes. But of these for the present we are not to speak, seeing their Office was farre another from this. Our opinion that is known to be most true is confirmed by Hierome, on the first Chap­ter to Titus, and by Ambrose, except that he writeth that at the first the Bishop was chosen out of the order of Presbyters. Therefore the meaning of the Apostle Pauls words are such, as if I should say: I love all Ministers and Pastors, but chiefly those that with undefatigable study and most intense care do feed the sheep committed to their trust: I love all Students, but chiefly those that study night and day. When I so speak, I do not say this, that there are some Pastors that do not feed; or some Students that do not study: but I affirme that there some that are more sedulous then others, but not more diligent in their Office, that this is the genuine interpretation of the mind and words of the Apostle, the words that immediately follow of a reward, do first prove it, for it is not likely that the same reward was at a­ny [Page 75]time appointed in the Church to the Ministers and to Elders that did not teach. For they dis­charge a double duty, but these discharge but one single one: yet nevertheless the Apostle saith that they are both worthy of double honour. Then the Apostle produceth the Testimony of the Oxe that treadeth out the graine: whereby in another place he sheweth, that maintenance be­longeth to the Ministers of the word. Lastly, The Participle [...], which he useth confirm­this for [...] or [...], doth not only signifie I work; but I am tired with working and labour­ing: or I do something with great study care or labour. Hence the Grecians call that [...]. which the Latins name lassitude, and as [...], differ so. Likewise [...] or [...] and [...], this word occurreth oft in the New Testament, and allwaies it signifieth toge­ther diligence tiredness and sedulity, as 11. Mat. Come unto me all ye that are wearied, and Luke 5. The whole night, &c. John 4. But Jesus was. 1 Cor. 4. We are smitten with buffets, and Ephes. 4. He that stealeth, and 1 Thes. 5. But we beseech you Brethren to know them which labour to tiredness a­mongst you. And this place doth excellently de­clare that other place in the 5. Tim. the exposition of which we are now handling. Besides it is found 4. Timothy. 1 Corinthians 25. and in other places.

LXIV.

Moreover they say that Christ forbid to throw Pearls before Swine: and to give holy things to Dogs. I answer, That Christ speaketh of those [Page 76]that contemn Pearls and trample them under their feet: and turning back to teare us; that is, of the enemies of the Gospell: of whom we do not at all speak. For we speak of no others, then of Christians instructed rightly in Doctrine and ap­proving of it, and desiring to participate the same Sacraments with the rest, albeit they have not so lived as become them. Moreover Christ speak­eth here not of the Sacraments, but that the Doctrine of the Gospell should not be taught to Dogs and Swine, that is, to them that will not, and will trample it. (Hither likewise the Parable of the Pearl is not incommodiously to be referred, Matth. 23. where Christ compareth the Kingdome of Heaven to a Merchant buying a precious Pearl.) Wherefore it no waies belongeth to our present purpose.

LXV.

The next which they object, that Paul com­manded Timothy that he would rebuke sinners be­fore all, we do not deny it: But we say it belong­eth not to our purpose, I will not now bring ma­ny other things which may prove this. But I will say this one thing, that no man shall ever prove, that to reprove or rebuke any man in the presence or sight of the Church, is the same that to debarring from the Sacraments is. If ye do not demonstrate it to be the same in vain do ye object it to us. Who can instruct us, that the Apostle in this place did think the interdicti­on of the Sacraments? Moreover he doth not here treat of sins publickly committed? But he saith, rebuke sinners, that is, them that persevere [Page 77]in sinning in the sight of all men, that both he that hath finned, and together with him the rest, may fear and flie sinning. There is not a diffe­rence put here betwixt light and heavy sins: And farre less betwixt publick and hid sins, whither ye call them altogether, or in part publick. This Objection that I may once say it is more then leaden: and like unto Wax it melteth be­fore the fire truth and evanisheth into smoake. Yea the words of the Apostle oppugn Excommu­nication, while it commandeth a sinner to be re­buked afore others: but it doth not command him to be Excommunicate, he addeth, that the rest may feare, as if he should say, if he will not repent, nevertheless other shall be bettered thereby: in this place the word sinner signifieth, not him that hath given over sinning: but that persevereth therein, and that doth not repent after admoniti­on, I say he commandeth [...], this sinner to be reproved, and be rebuked before others: but he doth not command him to be Excommu­nicate.

LXVI.

The Apostle say they commandeth us to avoid wicked men insomuch that he doth not permit us to take common meat with them: and farre less would he have us to celebrate the Lords Sup­per with them. I deny this connexion; for the forbidding of private familiarity, doth altogether much differ from the denying of the Sacraments: neither doth he that forbiddeth that: also deny this, for that is a kind of politick punishment, but this a holy one that is commanded to us, but this is [Page 78]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 new [Page 79]life, lest he should be desparaged by those who lov­ed him before. Therefore as the deniall of private commerce doth fright us from uncleanness and vices, so familiar living together doth cherish and nurse the same in us. But the receiving and denying of the Sacraments is a thing of a far diffe­rent nature from this, for the frequent receiving of them doth not at all so confirme and nurse vice as private familiarity, for in the Temples where they are administred, there is no conferences of private and vain things, but the Word of the Lord is Preached. Therefore when men hear that Christ hath died for them, and that he re­quireth for that benefit, publick thanksgiving, and that he is not a worthy guest that hath not tri­ed himself rightly, but that they all have judg­ment to themselves, that unworthily eat thereof. Then he that hath resolved with himself to come unto the Lords Table, whatsomever a man he was before, will be compeld to thinke with himself, what God would have done, and how afterwards he may so lead his life, that it may be acceptable unto God. He that is depri­ved of this invitation, becomes alwaies worse but never becomes better: for which cause never­theless it seems that God appointed and comman­ded so many Sacrifices, Ceremonies, and Obla­tions. Truly the Apostle never commanded those men to be debard of the Sacraments, with whom good men were not suffered to live fami­liarly. And when in another place he desireth that such men should be signified to him by an Epistle, he doth not lay this upon the Elders, that [Page 80]they should Excommunicate them, or keep them back from the Sacraments, all which do ma­nifestly prove that they are in a grosse mi­stake, that do think the Apostle doth either appoint or approve of Excommunication in this place.

LXVII.

But nevertheless say they, the Church ought not to be polluted with communion of evill men, therefore it is needfull that good men should be without dissimulation separate from evill men. Ianswer this, That evill men cannot defile good men in the use of these Ceremonies that are ap­pointed by God: so long as they do not follow their nature and manners. For neither the Pro­phets, nor the holy Kings and Judges, nor John the Baptist, nor Christ himself, nor his Apostles, afterwards were defiled, when in the Temple they were present at the same Sacrifices, with men of most wicked lives, and did receive with them the same Sacraments. That generation of Vipers did not defile Christ, when together with them he was Baptized with the same Bap­tisme by John; and Judas presence at the last Sup­per, did not defile either Christ or his Apostles, albeit he was both a Thief, and thinking how to betray Christ, and had received money therefore. The Apostle Paul doth not command us that the celebration and usurpation of the Sacraments, we should one examine another, and that we should look about if there be any there present, that can defile us; but he commandeth thus, that e­very man should examine himself and not others.

LXVIII.

Hitherto it hath been proved by me effectually and truly, that no Circumcised Person before Christ, were forbidden to come to the Ceremo­nies and Sacraments instituted of God by Moses, for the offences of the life and manners: and to­gether with this I shew, that it was not lawfull for any even to do the same. Afterwards it was demonstrate by reasons, and the evident Testi­monies of the holy Scriptures, that neither Christ nor his Apostles did teach or do any otherwise. Moreover I thought this also, that what was brought by these of another judgment, could not at all patronize their opinion; wherefore now I see nothing that can further hinder me that I should not rightly and truly conclude, that this Excommunication which debarreth Christians from the Sacraments, only because of the un­cleanness of their lives, was not commanded by God, but was invented and feigned by men. For it is so far from truth, that it can be shewn that it is founded in the Holy Scriptures, that rather the contrary of it can be proved.

LXIX.

Therefore some men will say, Will you then condemn so many holy Bishops, which immedi­ately after the Apostles times began to Excom­municate vile persons? I answer, It is one thing to improve the Doctrine, and another thing to improve the man. Many learned and godly men of our age have pondred and confuted the Catholick errors as I may call them of the Anci­ents, as limbum patrum in Hell, the fire of Purgato­ry, [Page 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, [Page 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 the [Page 84]same, when they saw wicked men punished with the deniall of them as with the last and greatest punishment.

LXXI.

But as farre as we can know by conjecture it seemeth, that at the beginning the Administra­tors thereof were those Elders of whom we read the 1 Cor. 6. who carried the place of Magistrates in the Church, together with the Ministers. Af­terwards this whole power remaind to the Bi­shops, who did cognosce in all causes, compose all differences, gave judgment, and did Admini­ster all such things. As we clearly see out of Au­gustine, complaining of those labours, and the History of that time. Ambrose indeed affirm­eth, that those Elders, without which nothing u­sed to be done in the Church, had then place, whenas yet they wanted Bishops. But by the A­postle it appeareth that they ought to have been overseers of this Office, so long as the Church was pressed with an ungodly Magistracy. By which that likewise is understood, that as under a godly Magistracy their Office ceased; so likewise Excommunication should cease under the same: Albeit they had exercised the same before; in the mean time it must be noted, that these Elders were in the place of the Magistrate, and did med­dle with civill matters, and were not an Eccle­siastick Judicatory, which at this day they di­stinguish from the politick: for it is clearly said that they ought to meddle with debates and mat­ters belonging to the sustentation and use of mans life.

LXXII.

The fruits that it brought forth in the Church, would scarcely be explained in many Books, tru­ly they cannot be comprehended in a few Lines. First, They brought this to pass, that men begun to ascribe safety to the Sacraments. For thus they reasoned, The deniall of the Sacraments bring­eth destruction: therefore the receiving of the same giveth life; they could not doubt of that which is the Antecedent, whilst they heard, that those were afflicted with great punishments and believed, were delivered to Satan, unto whom the Sacraments were denied. Hence it was believed that some could not die without receiving of the Supper; as I said a little before, those many and great and long satisfactions and Ceremonies did augment the errors, and likewise chiefly that, that they permitted the use of the Supper, to men that were only a doing: that they should not de­part hence without food necessary for their souls. Which if it did not happen, they esteem'd him condemned to whom this befell, as if God would not forgive them that were heartily penitent for their sins, and give them life, except those El­ders judg them worthy of the Lords Supper, what can be thought more horrid then this error? then likewise it brought this to pass, that every one al­most believed it was in the power of a man to shut and open Heaven, to whatsomever person he pleased. So the Emperor Theodosius the yonger would not dine, because he was Excommunicate by a Monke, unto whom he denied something to him that he had demanded. Albeit the Bishop [Page 86]of Constantinople told him, such exclusion was in­valid, nevertheless he would not be quiet, till at last he had absolved him who had bound him. So the Elder was compeld by Ambrose for eight Moneths to abstaine from the Church and Preachings. Indeed he had sinned, but much lightlier then Ambrose: which may be known by any man that is not void of judgment out of the History of Nicephorus, and Chronicle of Mr. Philip Melancthon. To conclude: By this meanes it was brought to pass, that the Bishop of Rome did bring the West under his obedience, and compeld the Kings, Princes, Emperours, to serve his lusts, and by reason that some Emperours and Kings were Excommunicate, some hundred thousands of men have been kild in the Germane Empire. Moreover according to his own Arbi­trement, he changed uncorrupted Religion, whilest for feare of this Thunder-bolt now durst hiss against his Laws and Statutes; and truly he that will ponder the matter rightly, shall find that that God of strength in Daniel signifieth no­thing but Excommunication: or a prohibition of holy things, chiefly of the Lords Supper. For this Excommunication truly was and at this day also is that God of strength: whereby the Pope of Rome hath subjected unto himself all things, and whereby now others also go about to subject likewise unto themselves the Empires of all men. But I hope that this false God shall be known, and shall hereafter less hurt the Church. To con­clude the whole matter, It brought business to this pass, that all men for the most part believed [Page 87]that these men who might judg it unworthy of eternall life, were out of the favour of God: and on the other part, that all men whom it desired to be saved were altogether saved: do we hope that men of our age will be better and more sober then the Ancients? he is deceived that believeth it, and neither hath he examined well the Scrip­tures, neither hath he any experience in present affairs.

LXXIII.

I see not why the Christian Magistrate ought not to do the same at this time in the Jewish Com­mon-wealth, he was commanded by God to do. Do we thinke that we can constitute a better form of Church and Common-wealth? In the 4. Chap­ter of Deutronomy, we read that for the judgment and statutes which God had given to the people of Israel, that all Nations should admire and praise their wisdome and understanding, but they wanted this Excommunication: And the power of restraining unclean and criminall persons was in the Magistrate, whose duty it was not only to punish these men according to the Law of God, but likewise to constitute all the externall Religi­on, for not Aaron but Moses did this: God so com­manding. Which power afterwards we know was translated to Joshua and not to Eleazer: for God commandeth Joshua, not Eliazer, that he should have a care that the Israelites the second time should be Circumcised, neither commanded he to except any, albeit many amongst them were most wicked: and he commanded him likewise to ce­lebrate the Passover, so soone as they had passed [Page 88] 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 is [Page 89]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 things [Page 90]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 i [...]d ispleasing to him.