Selected quad for the lemma: church_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
church_n	hear_v	heathen_a	publican_n	4,379	5	11.4435	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A84062	The nullity of church-censures: or A dispute written by that illustrious philosopher, expert physician, and pious divine Dr Thomas Erastus, publick professor in the University of Heidelbertge, and Basil. Wherein is proved by the holy Scriptures, and sound reason; that excommunication, and church-senates or members, exercising the same, are not of divine institution; but a meere humane invention.	Erastus, Thomas, 1542-1583.	1659 (1659)	Wing E3217; Thomason E1783_2; ESTC R209663	63,863	128

went up to the Temple to pray and returned home justified by Christs sentence that he left of to be a Publican Luke 18. neither these that praise God Luke 7.15 and was most dear to Christ and his Apostles to change their condition as we find In brief I will say it that the holy Scriptures that is that God did at no time and in no place condemn and dispraise the Publicans upon the account that they were Publicans that is Collectors of the revenues which all wise men will freely confess with me Which being laid down I argument thus God doth condemn no Publican because as Publican in the holy Scriptures but he that God doth condemn cannot be excommunicate by the Law of God therefore no Publican could by divine right be forbidden from the Temple and divine Worship Now I go on concluding this no Publican by the Law could be condemned or Excommunicated but Christ commandeth him that will not hear that Church of which he speaketh there to be esteemed as a Publican therefore he commands him to be esteemed such a one as by the Law of God could not be esteemed acceptable to waite upon this account because he was a Publican When the Excommunicators affirme that these words let him be unto thee as a Publican doth signifie also much as if he had said let him be to thee such an one as a Publican is to a Pharisee they speak what is absurd false and impossible for it is not credible that Christ would in that place in which he resolved to institute as our adversaries affirme a thing of so great moment and therefore so profitable and necessary in the Church take his rule which afterward was to be kept by all from the impious facts of most wicked men and moreover I proved before that no man was ever excommunicate by the Jews after that manner that now we dispute of To conclude all the words of Christ do oppose their interpretation for Christ doth not here speake of the Pharisees or with them but he hath to do with his Disciples and centers of the way to avoid scandals he saith this if an injurious man will not hear the Church let him be unto thee as a Publican viz. to thee not as he is to the Pharisees but it is known that Publicans were not hatefull to Christ and his Disciples and to all other Religious Truly they did not esteem them as persons worthy of Excommunication but they did eat and drinke with them daily But that he joynes a Heathenick and a Publican together it compels us to confess that Christ speaketh of something which should be common to them both but the Publicans could enter the Temple the Heathen could not Wherefore Christ speaketh here nothing of Excommunication therefore these words let him be to thee as a Publican signifieth for another thing then these let him be to thee as an Excommunicate person Thesense then of this place is this If he hear not the Church you may in this cease without the offence of any man so we with him as if he had bufiness to do with an Heathenick and a Publican he that had any controversie with such men was compel'd to dispute his cause before the Roman Magistrate This is cleare concerning the Hethenicks concerning the Publican it 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 by Christ to any person against his Brother Jew before he seek reconciliation after that manner that he hath proposed and was prescribed before in the Law To this belongs the excuse of Paul in the last of the Acts to wit that he did not appeal to Caesar but being compel'd neither that he might accuse the Jews but that he might defend himself from wrong and violence If a Christian had any thing against his Brother the Apostle in the Corinthians commands that he may try to transact with him before some chosen Arbitrators and that he should not immediately go to Law before a Heathen Magistrate but if a Christian had to do with a Heathen who doubteth but that he might persue his right before a Heathen Magistrate After the same manner if any should contemn the judgment and sentence of the Elders of the Church he that was wronged and injured might persue the other before the Heathen Magistrate without any offence to his Neighbour XLVI The handling hereof will be more clear if we shall consider which was and what an one that Church was which he commanded us to tell it to In the declaring of which matter in the beginning I laid down this as a fundament which I am confident will be approved by all and I know will not be denied by any viz that Christ speaketh of that Church which was then For how should he command them to tell to the Church which was not to be found in any place of whose constitution at that time they had not heard any thing If he would lay the foundation of a new Church or of a new form of Government unknown to the Apostles he should have delivered the institution thereof very lame and defective For he neither taught who were that Church neither of whom nor how it should be gathered neither the way of judgment and punishing therein neither did he speak of all sins as I have now proved and they themselves which out of this place build up Excommunication are compel'd to confess the same with us while they affirme openly that here only hid errours are handled Where Christ institutes any new thing he omits nothing of those things without which that matter cannot consist here only he commands us to tell it to the Church which if he hear not he permitteth the accuser to esteem him as a Publican therefore he addeth no punishment Luke when he fell upon this place doth not set down all these things particularly which St Matthew relates the rest of the Evangelists make no mention thereof at all they would not have been silent in so great and necessary matter if they had known it was then first done by Christ adde that the Apostles were certainly perswaded that Christ would not die nor change the Religion of the Jews and that they did in no token no word no sign declare that they understood not well enough the Doctrine of Christ or if as they had heard something unknown and unusuall they neither did question we admire thereat Peter only did wonder at this that he was so oft commanded to forgive his Brother therefore they did not understand these words of Christ of a new form of government unknown to them but they believed and that rightly that they were taught when it should be lawfull for them without offence to accuse their Brother Jew before a prophane Magistrate And at this very day ye will

understand Christs words any otherwise as is manifest by Peters Interogation on whom he asketh Is it enough that if my Brother sin against me seaven times I forgive him seaven times Peter was not ignorant that he neither should nor could of himself alone remit those sins which belong to the Church and divers others Thirdly The word to the proveth this Christ saith not let him be to us let him be to the Church let him be to others but let him be to thee alone which hath suffered or doth suffer an injury by him as a Publican Albeit chief speaketh to all the Apostles alike nevertheless he commandeth that the offender should be esteemed as a Publican to him only that was hurt by him and that after the admonition of the Church therefore he speaketh not of these things which belong to the whole Church or to many others but of these things which belong to every single man Fourthly He speaks of such sins as we ought so oft to forgive our Brethren for as oft as they say they repent of them and that this transaction or remission done betwixt two only shall be the end of all strife is clearly held forth in these words Again I say unto you if two of you agree together c. Ver. 19. but a great offence which belongs to more or to the whole Church cannot be forgiven by one alone By the way ye are to take notice here that the Adverb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 again doth declare that he said the same now just before albeit he used other words Fifthly Christ speaketh of such sins whereof they are not ashamed that have committed them or which they will not deny before any man if he speak of other grievous sins and of such as belong to the Church and many other witnesses should have no place For no man would confess that before witnesses that he remitted such an act if it were done privately But in all those things of which is spoken here there is degrees set down by Christ to be kept wherefore he speaketh of private injuries belonging not at all to others Sixtly He speaketh of such which the Church of which Christ speaketh here doth not punish but sendeth away the Offendor chastis'd only with words For in vain should he say if he will not hear the Church for indeed it could punish sins with publick punishment Seaventhly The Parable that immediately follows doth prove the same clearly which doth teach that God would not forgive them their sins that would not forgive from their heart their penitent Brothers without pain or punishment but the Church should not so as they say forgive the Offenders but should keep them at least for a time from the Sacraments untill they should approve their penitence to Presbyters chosen for this purpose Therefore he would have them forgiven seaven times a day that say they repent but would see Arguments of their Repentance of which Christ speaketh not one word here for he will have no other Argument then a confession of their fault which he that doth not dissemble it will not return seaven times a day It is then clearly demonstrate by these reasons that Christ doth not discourse here of these sins that are to be punished by Excommunication but of light and private injuries and of the meanes to compose them therefore it doth not belong to the business of Excommunication If the conclusion only used by Christ in the end of the Chapter be looked unto all cause of doubting will be removed XLIII Those that are of oppinion that Christ in this place and Chapter did institute Excommunication must be compelled to shew in what words this command is comprehended If they cannot demonstrate it to be contain'd there and it is in vain for them to say it is commanded here Therefore it s either in these words tell the Church or in these let him be to thee as a Publican or in these whatsomever you shall bind c. But that not any of these contain any such thing I will prove what solid Arguments therefore seeing it cannot be sought in any other words it is in vain sought after in this Chapter XLIV The words of Christ tell the Church prove only this that he that is injur'd by his Brother and hath indeavoured in vain to be reconciled to him may complaine of the injury to the Church or to the moderator of the Church Moreover that the Church hath right and power to reprove and admonish an injurious man that he may cease to be sick There is no more power here given to the Church then was given before to the witnesses if they only except this that the case was not to be brought before the Church without witnesses Would not this then be a foolish way of reasoning the Church hath power to reprove him that doth injury to others therefore it hath power to Excommunicate him and keep him back from the Sacraments But indeed some will say the Church hath no power to punish Offenders with corporall punishments or with the Sword therefore it is compel'd to punish them by forbidding them the Sacraments I answer That this connexion doth not follow albeit the Antecedent were true but that it is false being taken of the visible Church is clearly demonstrate to our eyes and senses by all the Old Testament and the History of all ages neither can it ever be proved that these should rightly cohere togegether it cannot punish by the Sword therefore it must debarre from the common Sacraments them that profess the same Religion XLV If he that is of another judgment shall answer that it is contained in those words let him be unto thee as a Publican and a Heathen I answer it is false for by no speech by no perswasion by no Arguments can it ever be demonstrate that this speech of Christ let him be to thee as an Heathen and a Publican is the same with this let them excommunicate let them be shut out from the Sacraments For in Christs time circumcss'd Publicans whither they were Jews or Gentiles were not kept back from the Sacrafices Temple Ceremonies and Sacraments Truly it seems that Christ therefore joyned a Publican with a Heretick lest any should judg that the interdiction of the Sacramehts were commanded here How could he according to the Law be kept from the Temple and divine worship seeing it was not a sin to be a collector of the publick revenues Neither is it in any place found to be forbidden by God and truly Christ hath not forbid it When the Publicans demand of John what was needfull for them to do that they might be saved he doth not bid them that they should forsake their office but he exhorteth them that they should not exact more then was imposed Luke 3. Christ likewise doth not bid Zacheus the chief of the Publicans to forsake this Office Neither doth he reprehend him for it Luke 19. Neither do we read of him who

by Moses to eate the Paschall without Leaven which St Paul interprets to be without corruptness of life 1 Gor. 5. It must then seem unto any man very agreeable That the Lords Supper which succeded unto the Paschall should be celebrated so that the wicked should be excluded XVII I answer first That indeed it is very unlikely that God should command any thing in clear words and yet at the same time should again forbid the same figuratively He commandeth clearly in a mandate sometimes repeated that every Male except these that were unclean and were on the way should celebrate the Passover He would not then by the figure of Leaven affright any others therefrom There were then enough of evill Men present that it was not needfull they should be figured by Leaven Neither did the wicked Men less appear to the senses then Leaven it self Wherefore seeing figures are not propos'd of those things that are present and that as fully represented themselves to the senses chiefly if the things figured be more known and frequent them the figures themselves a figure here is sought after in vain Again Moses doth not command him to be debarr'd the eating of the 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 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 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 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

the same as we may easily perceive by History and may gather 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 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 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 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

for wheresomever it is found it is found to be written either for the death of the body or of the soul whither the name of flesh be added or not I may likewise say that on Greek Author is extant that so hath used it as I have been told some do expound it but our discourse is of holy things The Apostle hath used it 1 Thes 5. and 2 Thes 1. and 1 Tim. the last The verball Noun 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is found written in the 1 of Crinth 10. and the Participle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 11. of the Heb. even the Compound 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 taken out of Deuteronomy is found in the 3. of the Acts and every where they all either signifie perishing or death 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is frequently used by the 70. Interpreters and Pagnin every where translateth it by the word exscindendi of cutting off this is certainly that they alwaies used to signifie death I know that in the Apostle the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Rom. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Colos 13. To conclude 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Gal. 5 and 6. that they are put for the killing of the lusts of the flesh but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are neither found in holy or prophane Authors to be taken so Yea I do not remember that I read in the New Testament this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be taken in this signification in the new Testament therefore it is frivolous when they say Paul contradistinguishes here the lusts of the flesh from the spirit seeing the death of the flesh or of the body is opposed to the safety of the soul or of the spirit as the native signification of the words to the purpose of Paul the series and circumstances of the discourse and the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 do prove that the lovers of the truth can desire no more Sixtly These words that the spirit may be safe in the day of Jesus that is in the day of judgment For they clearly demonstrate that he speaketh of that wretch as of one that was to die Seaventhly and lastly The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 proveth that he was not rejected from the Sacraments For in his own native signification it seems to be put for rebuke correction threatening and upbraiding as the Interpreters have turnd it but not for a punishment or pain and besides this there is a double reason for it The first is That in holy writs you never find the interdiction of the Sacraments to be put for a punishment The other is That the words of themselves do teach well enough that it s put for an upbraiding wherewith not any one but many did rebuke him for Paul in this 2. Epistle writeth sufficient to such a man is this rebuke which is of many He absolves him only from that threatening which had it proceeded from the Church or from any that it should come to pass that he should be delivered over to Satan to be tormented therefore he had only as yet indured this for he doth not only absolve him in part but altogether therefore while he saith that this rebuke and threatening was sufficient he together with it declareth that he had suffered no more We find the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the 16 17 19 20. of Matthew and in the other Evangelists and in the 2 of Paul to Tim. 4. in all which places it is ever put for rebuke but never for punishment I.X. But here it may be demanded if he did only suffer rebuke by what means its said that he was delivered over to Satan to be tormented and killed There is a double answer to this some of the Antients say that he was indeed delivered over that he might be tormented with sickness or some other way and so he should kill him by little and little but that in the mean time he was delivered by the Apostle before the matter was brought to that length Which Answer if it be true then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 might signifie a punishment albeit I do not deny but this Answer may be tollerated notwithstanding I will bring another more agreeing to the words of the Apostle the Apostle Paul did not resolve by himself alone to deliver this man to Satan but he would have this done the whole Church being gathered together for that matter Now when the Church saw this unhappy man afflicted with so great sorrow that he was almost swelled up with grief it did defer the matter till it tried the Apostles mind whither it could obtain forgiveness to him or not In the mean time the Church did threaten that it would do its duty if it could obtain nothing So that miserable man was afflicted for many M●neths till he knew that the Apostle had forgiven his punishment that the business was thus carried on may be clearly enough gathered as it seemeth out of the latter Epistle LXI From all that hath been now said and from more that might be said it is so clearly and fully demonstrate that this delivering up to Satan was farre another thing from that which at this day we call Excommunication or thrusting from the Sacraments that it cannot be denied by any that is a lover or knower of the truth I said above that some of the Antients did so expound this place Amongst whom Augustin was one whose Testimony I produced before besides there is another Testimony of this extant in his 1. Book of the Lords Sermon upon the Mount Before him Athanasias did so interpret it and after him Chrysosteme and at last his compilator Theophylact LXII Now let us take a view of these other places which they that dissent from us produce for themselves but nevertheless in brief In the Apostle Pauls sentence to Timothy where the saith that Presbyters which labour in the Word and Doctrine are worthy of double honour they put some strength and firmness For they think that from this place it is proved that there was some Presbyters that were not occupied in teaching but they attribute to those another Office to wit to censure manners to observe sinners to admonish the obstinate and to tell this to their fellow Presbyters that is to the Church and together with them to excommunicate these that will not hear the Church LXIII But we thinke that out of the writings of the Apostles Peter and Paul it is clear that Minister Bishop and Presbyter if this name signifie an Office and not age were the same in the Apostles times and that therefore there was then no Presbyter that did not also teach except perchance any man will have them also comprehended under this name that in the 1 Cor. 6. are appointed to be Judges and Arbitrators of controversies and causes But of these for the present we are not to speak seeing their Office was farre another from this Our opinion that is known to be most true is