self-same thing God plainly and expresly and with reiterated Precepts commands that every Male except the unclean and such as were in a Journey should keep the Passover He never therefore intended to frighten away some under the figure of the Leaven There were then plenty enough of bad men present that it must be needless to typifie and shadow them out by Leaven And the wickedness of men was a thing as obvious to mens senses and as much to be taken notice of as the Leaven that should represent it Therefore since no figures are commonly instituted of such things as are at hand and in view and which with equal clearness strike the Senses 't is in vain to seek for any Figure there How much more where the things figured are more notorious and common than the Figures themselves But besides Moses does not command that the Eater of Leaven should be debarr'd eating the Passover but commands him to be slain Therefore sinners should not so much be kept from the Lords Supper as they should be capitally punished Which is a Consequence I should be so far from admitting with difficulty that I rather wish it might so be for I desire nothing more than that the strictest Moral Discipline might be observ'd in the Church but such still as is of Gods appointment not of mans invention Secondly The Jews might eat Leaven all the year round excepting onely those seven days of Unleavened Bread which they did commence from the eating of the Passover Now if you would parallel this with the Lords Supper you must of necessity grant a liberty for licentious living all the year provided you abstained from vice all the time you were celebrating the Lords Supper Thirdly Moses speaks here of the Passover onely not of any other Sacraments by Analogie therefore wicked men should onely be kept from the Lords Supper not from Baptism Fourthly The Apostle makes not the comparison to run betwixt the Feast of the Jews and the Lords Supper but betwixt that and our whole course of life he says we are unleavened as men that are washed in the Bloud of Christ and purged from all Leaven and therefore says he let us keep the Feast that is let us live not with the Leaven of Malice but with the Unleavened Bread of Sincerity and Truth There is a vast difference betwixt Leaven simply so called and the Leaven of Malice or Wrath There is none but knows that in the second sence 't is taken figuratively and School-men say that an analogical or figurative sence proves nothing This is certain whatever is meant by Leaven Excommunication can never be maintain'd or justifi'd from it against Gods precept XVIII But some may object that Paul speaks here of the Passover but what I pray makes this to our business as if this word Passover were put for the Lords Supper in the New Testament Christ saith the Apostle 1 Cor. 5. 7. is our Passover sacrificed or slain for us not his Supper The meaning of the words is this As the Jews who onely began their Feast of Unleavened Bread with eating the Lamb did eat Unleavened Bread all that week after so should you who have begun to believe in Christ and are purified and become unleavened through his Bloud you should lead a pure and unspotted life all the rest of the week that is all the days of your life XIX Now that nothing of different nature is to be met with in the other Books of the Old Testament may be known and proved if it were but from this alone that the Jews Posterity were to live according to the Laws and Institutions of Moses contrary to which they might not by any means institute or enjoyn any thing which related to the Worship of God Most certainly the good and pious Judges Priests Prophets and Kings forced away none from their Sacraments and Sacrifices but rather invited all to them with the greater earnestness and zeal The story of good King it should be Hezekiah I suppose See 2 Chron. 35. Josiah 2 Chron. 35. v. 18. is well known who called together all the Children of Israel as well those whom he knew to have sacrificed and burnt Incense to strange Gods or Devils as those who for the shortness of the warning could not be cleansed 2 Chron. 30. v. 19. according to the purification of the Sanctuary From whence 't is observable that Sacraments are Provocations and Allurements to Religion and Piety and that men grow better rather by frequenting than by being robb'd of them provided they are rightly and faithfully instructed XX. Excommunication therefore can never be maintain'd from the first Chapter of Isaiah v. 13. Psal 50. v. 8. and many places of like import where 't is said that God will have nothing to do with the Sacrifices and Oblations of the Wicked for God doth in all those places condemn the abuse of them in that they thought that they fully perform'd the Will of God by the meer external performance at what rate soever their Soul stood affected Besides God neither commands the Prophet nor any one else by him to exclude the Wicked from the Sacrifices and Rites but shews that God will not hear them unless that withal they amend their lives Now the external Policy and Government of the Church stands upon a different foot with the Will of God to us-ward as himself is the Approver or Condemner of our thoughts and actions In fine from the self-same places it may directly and in the same manner be demonstrated that none that is a sinner may call upon the Name of the Almighty nay that 't is unlawful for such an one so much as to praise or give thanks unto God and then 't will be incumbent on the Priests and Elders to forbid the Wicked all these for God hath a like aversion to those when they come from wicked men as is plain as well from the Texts instanc'd in as from places of the like import And if this latter carries absurdity in it no less doth the former XXI Neither doth that of 1 Esdras chap. 9. v. 3. 4. make any whit against us for that was a matter of Policy and no ways relating to the Sacraments for the Magistracy not Esdras the Priest alone though he too was a part of the Magistracy for as Josephus bears witness though they had a Leader yet were they govern'd by the Optimacy or Nobility set forth a Proclamation That whosoever met not at Jerusalem within two or three days their Cattel should be seized to the use of the Temple and they be cast out from them that were of the Captivity not from their Sacraments and Sacrifices But we make it not the enquiry of this place whether the Magistrate hath a right of punishing so or so but whether the Priests had any authority of removing dissolute and bad Livers from the Sacrifices Esdras could not do this contrary to the Command of God Adde to this that Moses never commanded
A TREATISE OF Excommunication WHEREIN 'T is Fully Learnedly and Modestly demonstrated THAT There is no Warrant Precept or President either in the Old or New Testament for Excommunicating any Persons or Debarring them the Sacraments whilst they make an outward Profession of the true Christian Faith Written Originally in Latine By the famous and pious THOMAS ERASTVS Doctor in Physick About the Year 1568. Brethren ye have been called unto LIBERTY onely use not Liberty for an occasion to the Flesh but by LOVE SERVE one another Gal. 5. v. 13. LONDON Printed for L. Curtis 1682. To the Pious READER AND Such as is studious of Truth THOMAS ERASTVS a Physician sends greeting LEst any lighting upon this Treatise should wonder what Motives or Provocations made me busie my self in this Controversie about Excommunication I shall as Concisely as Truly acquaint the World with the Rise and Occasion of it 'T is now much about sixteen years since some men have fallen into a kind of Excommunicating Frenzy under the specious Title of Ecclesiastical Discipline and as they contend sacred in it self and enjoyn'd the Church by God and fain would they have the whole Church tainted with the like that the manner of it they propose should be thus That a select number of Elders should sit in the name of the whole Church and judge who were fit and who unfit to be admitted to the Lords Supper I could not but wonder to see them consulting of such matters at such a time when we had neither fit persons to excommunicate or to be excommunicated for scarce a thirteenth part of the people understood and approved of the Doctrine of the Reformation which was then but blooming the residue were our profest Enemies so that no man who had his wits about him but must needs see that such a matter must unavoidably introduee dangerous Divisions among us And therefore I thought it not then so proper an Enquiry how some might be shut out of the Church as how more might be brought in and that the best thing we could apply our selves to would be the propagating saving Truths Besides they who were to be the Supervisors were not so much superior to the others in Age Experience Parts Judgment Virtue or Eminency that they could manage so weighty a matter with that Port and Dignity that was requisite Since therefore I saw that their desires could not have the labour'd Effects without the Churches Ruine and Subversion I was ever and anon cautioning them that they should weigh well what they did and not rashly attempt what they might after too late repent But though as yet I verily thought that Excommunication had been a thing commanded in the Scriptures yet I did not find it commanded after that manner that they proposed So that since Christ seemed to me to have left us at large for the manner of it I set my thoughts on work what might be the best way and course under our circumstances and would be attended with the least Distractions and Inconveniencies which I did with the closer application and diligence upon some Reflections that I had how fatal and turbulent to Christianity this had formerly proved and was still little better as it was managed Whilst I was upon these thoughts and look'd a little back upon what the Antients had writ on this subject I find it weaker in all points than I had before suspected so that I could not but begin to doubt of the very thing My next resort was to the School-men among whom I met with as little satisfaction Then came I to our Modern Writers who no whit mended the matter nay I observ'd that they did most manifestly differ among themselves in some things which quicken'd my diligence in the Enquiry So I laid by these Commentators a while and betook my my self to the Scripture in the perusal of which I mark'd and noted with all the exactness I could what was discrepant from and what agreeable unto the commonly received Opinion And truly it was no ordinary assistance to me in this matter to take a survey with my self of the state of the Jewish Church and Government for thus thought I with my self God in the 4th Chapter of Deut. v. 6 7 8. bears witness to their Laws that there was no Nation that had Statutes and Judgments so righteous and that for their Laws sake it should be said of them Surely this great Nation is a wise and understanding People Therefore it seem'd necessary with me that to have a Church gloriously and wisely modell'd it must make near approaches to the Judaical Form But certain it is that in this Jewish Church things were never so instituted by God as that there should be distinct procedures in the punishing Immoralities one by the Civil and another by the Ecclesiastical power What hinders then but that even now too that that Church which God hath blessed with a Christian Magistracy may sit down contented under one form of Government I then communicated my thoughts to learned good and pious men so far as that I press'd them not to consider the matter slightly and cursorily for I could not but deem it very unnecessary that there should be two Heads of the Visible Church where the Body is but one and that their Mandates Injunctions Decretals and all the Acts of a governing Authority should be distinct as hitherto they have been so that the Government of one should not be subject to the Inspection or Controul of the other but both their Jurisdictions be Chief in their kinds For such a Church-Senate or Convocation of select Elders would they in truth have fram'd that they should have the Supreme Right and Power of punishing Vice even in the Magistrates themselves but not with corporal punishments but by prohibiting them the Sacrament first privately and if on this they reform'd not then in a more solemn and publick manner But my Opinion was as I always told them That one Supreme Magistrate of Gods institution and of the true Faith might and had as good right now to restrain Vice as heretofore under the Law And I took me an instance from Solomon's glorious Reign which was a kind of Type of the Christian Church's reigning upon Earth Now neither under him nor yet under Moses the Judges or any other the Kings or when govern'd by the Optimacy have we any foot-steps of two so distinct Judicatures over mens actions and manners Nature says Musculus allows not two absolute and Independent Governments without any subordinacy of one to the other to Lord it over the same people I must confess I received great Aids and Improvement of these my Thoughts from the persons with whom I conferr'd them for in some things their Observations out-went my own and where they did not they furnisht me many material hints to mend them by But still I kept my self quiet from any publick Contests in this Affair and entered not into any Debates about it where I was
having a Gonorrhea or Leprosie on them were not for that inroll'd among the wicked or doom'd to damnation But he that shall so live that honest good men shall deem him worthy of Excommunication cannot be accounted of otherwise than as a sinful and impious person 11. Legal Uncleannesses took place and were regarded but with one single People and there too but for a limited time whereas sins sprang up every where among all Nations without distinction of place or time Since then as well among all other Nations as among the Jews themselves before Legal Impurities were introduced sins were both when punished and in the punishing adjudged sins it certainly signified something more than the punishment of flagitious men which was surely lighter than what was to make satisfaction to the Will of God 12. Every person was purified at set-times and places and by using set and peculiar Ceremonies be the party how he would as to his mind that is whether he become unclean with or against his Will but none stand acquitted from their sins but such as heartily repent and do with as much sincerity as earnestness desire to grow and be better 13. Every one was his own judge of his being cleansed excepting the leprous and some few others and stood not in need of Judges or Elders who should judge for them and pronounce them clean or unclean Our Opposers have otherguess Sentiments of the excommunicated for they put the Decision upon the judgment of their Elders not upon the Assertion of the Parties who say they repent 14. The Leper Lev. 13. v. 12 13. whose Leprosie spread from the crown of the head to the soâ—â— of the feet so that the Leprosie cover all his flesh and that the skin of the whole body be all over of a colour was to be pronounced whole and clean but he who on the contrary had his skin raw and defiled but in some one or more parts was to be accounted unclean Now in the case of sinners 't is quite otherwise for he that wallows over head and ears in sin like a Sow all bemir'd is not an honester man than he who retains some shadow of Religion and shew of Honesty 15. The Lepers are not commanded to do any thing on their part towards their cleansing but barely to shew themselves to the Priest that he may pronounce the Plague clean or not clean But to wicked men the Command is direct that themselves amend their lives and give evidence of a sorrowful and penitent heart by their good and holy works 16. Many were made unclean by touching the very things whereby others were made clean and while themselves did purifie others v. Numb 19. but sure no man deserves to be excommunicated from the means he uses in the healing and purifying others who are defiled with sin and iniquity Whereas if you would have the figure to answer herein you must grant that all that would recal others into the ways of Righteousness by Excommunication are to be excommunicated themselves 17. The unclean were not by the Law interdicted all Sacraments for they were to observe all the private Rites and Ceremonies of their Country they were to keep the Sabbath and celebrate the Feast of Purification whereby the fruits and benefits of Christs meritorious works were chiefly shadowed or expressed and all this at the peril of their lives vid. Lev. 16. and 23. for they were not as I said before taken for men damn'd and of a desperate condition But whether in the opinion of our Adversaries the Excommunicate are to be thought otherwise 't is needless for me to attempt much the proving it 18. The unclean under the Law did propagate an uncleanness to the cloaths houses places and persons that they touched or had otherwise to do with but wicked men did neither defile the Temple nor any thing else nor indeed any other men unless those others joyn'd with them in the sin The Temple was not polluted by bringing in an Adulteress Numb 5. v. 19. John 8. v. 11. no more did the Publican who in the Parable Luke 18. v. 9. went up with the Pharisee into the Temple to pray defile it by his presence that Pharisee who thought him a mighty sinner compar'd with himself yet never thought himself defiled by his company When Judas threw down the Traiterous Pieces the Price of Bloud in the Temple we do not read that the Temple was thereby polluted or that the Pharisees made any complaint as to that who yet would not go into the Judgment-hall lest they should be defiled John 18. v. 28. Whereas were but a woman in her Menstruousness or having an Issue of Bloud or any one who had buried another or had though unawares touched a dead body been seen in the Temple all had been polluted and unclean nor might they have sacrificed or perform'd any other Worship till 't were again purified In like manner Judas polluted not that last Paschal-Supper by his detestable acts which yet would have been the case had but he or any other of the Disciples touch'd any dead body In fine the uncleanness under the Law did figure our perverted and corrupt Nature which could not be admitted into Heaven unless washed and purified in and by the most pure and precious Bloud of Christ for as the Tabernacle typified Heaven and the casting out thence signified Damnation or the Exclusion from the heavenly Jerusalem so the cleansing or washings by ordinary or sanctified Water prefigured that Purification by the death of Christ 'T was not therefore typical or figurative of the quality of the Actions but of the quality or pravity of our Nature Nor did Gods Law prefigure how Vice should be bridled and restrained for Moses taught this in clear and express words but what should be our State in another life to wit in the Kingdom of Heaven which the Land of Canaan did shadow to them All which plainly enough appears in Rev. 21. v. 27. St. Augustin writing against the Donatists was of opinion that it signified the Exclusion of Hereticks But be it how 't will even a blind man may see from the many and great differences between the Legal and Moral Impurities that the former could not be figurative of the latter as our Adversaries contend XVI Though Moses makes none but the forementioned Exception yet shall I answer to an Objection which may be collected out of his words for peradventure some one may thus argue The Jews are by Moses commanded to eat the Passover without Leaven which Paul 1 Cor. 5. v. 8 interprets the filthiness of the flesh that is Moral wickedness It may therefore seem to some a very agreeable and likely matter that the Lords Supper which succeeded to the Passover should be celebrated by shutting out malicious and wicked men XVII I answer first That it carries little of probability with it that God should command a thing in express terras and again at the same time figuratively prohibit the
the Pattern for we are to live up to the Laws and not to Presidents and not walk after any one in his deviations from the Laws of God unless we will confound all the Rules and Measures of Right and Wrong Let us indeed have an eye to the good Examples of the good and strive to come after them but not after the bad of the bad I have been so particular though with all the brevity I could on this Argument because some do mightily hug and applaud themselves in it though to the deceiving of themselves as well as others XXIII 'T is therefore a most certain unshaken and indisputable truth that under the old Testament no man was shut out from Sacraments for Immoralities but on the contrary all the holy Priests Prophets Judges Kings and at last John the Baptist that most eminent and most holy Forerunner of Christ rather sent Invitations to all good and bad to come in and keep them according to the Law than shut the doors upon them XXIV But now our Sacraments and those of our Forefathers under the Old Testament are as to the things signified see the spiritual sence of them altogether the same as Paul 1 Cor. 10. plainly intimates And therefore unless it can appear that the Law of Moses either is abolished or changed in this point none has authority to set up a contrary practice XXV For as against the Anabaptists we do well urge as a most effectual Argument that since Baptism came in the place of Circumcision and that Christ did nowhere forbid the baptizing of Infants it cannot be less lawful for us to baptize our Children than 't was for the Jews to circumcise theirs so may we here argue with equal force that the Lords Supper succeeded to the eating the Passover but Vice and Immoralities were not punished by prohibiting them to eat the Passover nor were the Jews on any such account drove from it but the Law did rather invite all of what age or condition soever especially every Male to keep it Which being not found to be either antiquated nor abolished but holding still as to the reason of it Crimes are no more now to be punished by denying us the Lords Supper neither ought any one on this account to be rejected But enough has been said with reference to the Old Testament 't is time we should now come to Christ and his Apostles that is to the New Testament XXVI Now we read not any where that our Lord and Saviour Christ did in any wise interdict any person access unto or use of the Sacraments or that he so much as commanded the Apostles that they should do any thing like it for Christ came not into the world to destroy the Law but to fulfil and perfect it therefore when the Law commanded all but the unclean to celebrate the Passover Christ would not surely forbid any one XXVII For 't is very clear that Christ checkt no body for using Sacraments or frequenting the Temple and Sacrifices but onely caution'd them to use them aright and agreeably to the Will and Law of God He went into the same Temple with Pharisees Sadduces Publicans and who not be they bad be they good he was with them at the same Sacrifices used all Sacraments promiscuously with the rest of the people was baptized of John with the same Baptism as those wicked ones were XXVIII Upon this account was it that Jesus hindred not Judas his Betrayer from eating the last Paschal Lamb with him but he sate down to it with all his twelve Disciples not but that there are some who endeavour to prove that Judas was not present at this new instituted Supper of our Lord which is an hard if not an impossible matter to evince from Sacred Writ but that he withdrew before the Institution yet sure none can have the hardiness to deny that Judas was according to the Law admitted to the eating the Passover on which Concession our Argument holds firm and unanswerable for whether he went or went not out before the Institution of another Supper though the latter carries most of probability in it and always hath been believed by most men this still is plain that he was present and partaker of the first and was not openly or expresly forbidden the latter Neither read we any where that Christ commanded him to go out to the end that he might not be a Communicant in his new instituted Supper if therefore he did go out he did it voluntarily and of his own head neither went he out for any such purpose But â—he Question with us is what Christ not what Judas did 'T is enough for our purpose that Christ never commanded him to withdraw from his Supper XXIX But the common Put-off and Salvo for this matter is very light and frivolous That Judas his Crime was not of a publick nature and that on that consideration he was not to be put out for first he had struck the bargain and agreed the price with the Pharisees before and Christ acquainted his Disciples with it at that Supper-time this was an ample Publication by Christ himself and should therefore have been the rather made a President and Example in this matter But secondly whatever this may be he was at least known to be a Thief before and though such an one he were yet did our Lord commit a Ministry and office to him and bestowed on him the power of casting out Devils of healing the Sick and of doing other such-like Miracles Lastly Christ admitted him as well as the rest of his Disciples to the Celebration of the Passover all the whiles he was with him Is not this proof enough that Christ had no mind no intent or desire that flagitious persons should be punisht by debarring them the Sacraments Sure 't is matter of greater moment to take a wicked man into the Ministry than to admit such an one to the Supper yet we see that Christ did both to Judas XXX 'T is farther observable that at his first Supper the Disciples began to contend about Greatness and Superiority yet was none of them shut out thence on that score nay Christ would and commanded that all should drink of the Cup Mat. 26. v. 27. which Mark 14. v. 23. is said to be actually done And as to this business the reason holds in the Bread as well as Wine Now what can it be believed was the mind and intent of Christ but to ratifie what God had before commanded by Moses to wit â—â—t none who were initiated by Baptism should be debarr'd from that publick and solemn act of Thanksgiving who had a mind to be at it Whence it appears that no person is to be thrust from the Lords Table who embraces the Doctrine of Christ and submits to be instructed by him XXXI Christ doth not desire that his Kingdom I speak of his visible and external one in this world should be of a narrower extent among Christians than were
the boundaries and limits set unto the Jews As therefore God commanded that all that were externally circumcised should participate and communicate in the same Sacraments and Rites but that Criminals and other Transgressors should by the Sword and other civil Punishments be restrained and punished so is it Christ's Will that all who are baptized into him all that profess Christianity and have a right and sound sense of Religion should be admitted to the use of all external Ceremonies and Sacraments whilst the Wicked and Criminal fall under the correction of the Magistrate whether it be by Death Exile Imprisonments or other the like Penalties And the Parables of the Net Marriage and Tares seem to import no less XXXII We find among the Apostles Paul especially no fewer nor less plain and forcible Arguments for our Assertion First there are no Footsteps that the Apostles did either teach or practise such a kind of Excommunication This Argument though it be not so evincing and strong of it self yet will be made unanswerable if we consider that the Apostles all their time kept themselves to a strict observance of such Laws of Moses which Christ had not abrogated as may be gathered out of the 21th and 28th Chapters of the Acts of the Apostles for which cause they never did nor would attempt to put by any one from our Sacraments which differ from the Sacraments of their Forefathers in the signes and time of signifying onely if he be a professed Christian and make a right Confession of that Doctrine for they neither did nor taught any thing contrary to the Precepts of Moses which Christ had not before abrogated but kept themselves to as close and strict observance of the Law after his death as before as the chief of the Apostles bears witness in the before-cited places for that permission to live free from the Law of Moses was to the Gentiles onely not to the Convert Jews which ought carefully to be remark'd here for the sake of what follows And as to the substance of their Doctrine they taught nothing that interfer'd with Moses and the Prophets for had they taught any thing dissonant the Bereans could not have judged it agreeable to those Scriptures that they searched Acts 17. v. 11. XXXIII But to adventure yet one step farther Much may be said for the sense of Moses which jumps altogether with ours but for the contrary Opinion Paul affords us not one Argument for that Apostle in 1 Cor. 8. v. 7. excludes neither those who yet retaining some fear and conscience of the Idols thought them to be something nor those proud boasting Gnosticks who in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the House or Temple of the Idol at least in the Room that was set apart for their solemn and publick Idol-Festivals did promiscuously with the profane and impious Idolaters eat of the things offer'd to Idols A thing expresly forbid by Moses Exod. 34. v. 15. by the Apostles Acts 15. v. 29. by John Rev. 2. v. 14. This was a sin as hainous as 't would be now-a-days for a man to dare to be present and communicate at a Popish Mass as any one may easily gather out of the 10th Chapter of that Epistle for Paul there proves that such as those do not less declare themselves by that action to be Communicants and keep a Fellowship with Devils than they testifie themselves to be Members of the mystical Body of Christ by partaking of the Lords Supper XXXIV Again Paul 1 Cor. 10. 1 2 c. reasons the matter thus As says he God spared not in old time such as lusted after evil things nor Idolaters nor Fornicators nor such as tempted and murmured against Christ though all of them were baptized unto Moses in the same Baptism v. 2. and did all eat the same spiritual meat and did all drink the same spiritual drink v. 3 and 4. so shall he not spare even you too whoever of you are defiled with like abominations though you also all eat in like manner as did they of the same Bread and drink of the same Cup with the righteous and holy ones By this it is seen first that the Sacraments of the Jews before Christ and ours since are as to the internal and heavenly designe of them the very same else would the Apostles Argument be of no force Secondly 'T is evident that in both cases many vile and wicked Wretches and notoriously known and mark'd for such found admittance Thirdly 'T is also clear that none were commanded to keep away as the Excommunicated now-a-days always are for the Apostle doth not say that such whilst such should be kept from coming but foretels and denounces like punishments on them as befel such sinners of old Some of whom Moses with the Levites slew Exod. 32. v. 28. some God himself destroyed with Fire and Sword Serpents and Earthquakes which was these Corinthians case too for saith St. Paul 1 Cor. 11. v. 30. For this cause many are weak and sickly among you and many sleep that is are punished by Disease and Death from God XXXV In the next Chapter though St. Paul take notice of Divisions and Heresies among them and of some drunken at the Lords Supper yet neither are those Schismaticks and Sectaries those Drunkards or others of whatsoever debauched Principles commanded to be kept from eating it there 's no tittle or word of any such Interdiction Yet doth he there redress lesser matters as that every man should eat at home if he be hungry How could he have here pass'd over this in silence had he approved it had he thought it so necessary to the Church But the Apostle well knew that the Law commanded otherwise and that the use of Sacraments in the Church was to other purposes than the punishing of Moral Vices by their deprivation therefore commands he that every man examine himself 1 Cor. 11. 28. the Precept is not that they should try and examine one another Nay the Apostle there cautions them that they eat worthily For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh damnation to himself v. 29. He doth not in the least command that unworthy Communicants should be denied access but threatens them with sad dooms from the hand of God He divides the Eaters into two sorts according to their differing Complexions the worthy and unworthy ones he gives no Precept to either for their not eating but would that all should eat worthily XXXVI Afterwards in 2 Cor. ch 12 and 13. he threatens not those who 2 Cor. 12. v. 21. after a former admonition had not repented of the Uncleanness and Fornication and Lasciviousness which they had committed with exclusion from the Table of the Lord but 2 Cor. 13. 10. according to the power and authority which the Lord had given him to edification and not to destruction he would not spare ch 13. v. 2. and 10. that is he would proceed with rigour and severity according to his extraordinary and
absence he determin'd not to do it without them he doth not command the Church that they by themselves should do this as if this were purely an Apostolical not an Ecclesiastical Power an authority annexed to the persons of the Apostles and not to any Church or other Order or Succession of men which are considerations not to be slurr'd over with slight and contempt Lastly We do not any-where read that the Apostle commanded any single person or number of men to deliver any one to Satan for the destruction of the Flesh either whilst he lived or when he should be dead and gone well knowing that this was appropriated to his Apostolick Power and not to be delegated not to be agreeable to any other or less Authority for as they had the Power of Healing so had they that of Wounding too as appears Acts 5. 5 10. and 13. 11. for which reason we read not of any ordained by the Apostles that are commanded to exercise this Extraordinary Power And therefore the Apostle is ever and anon threatning them with his coming in power with his being sharp and severe upon them with his dealing with them according to the power given him by God with his coming to them with a Rod and the like and commands to note those by Epistle that offend This is not a thing given in charge to the Elders that it may be without all controversie that this Power was granted to the Apostles and to none else Of the same import is that which we read 1 Tim. 1. 20. of Hymenaeus and Alexander whom Paul not the Church nor the Presbyters nor any other persons whatsoever delivered unto Satan LIX I have hitherto by way of Argument and from Circumstances clearly evinced that 't was a thing of a quite different nature to deliver to Satan and to shut out from the Sacrament Now proceed I to demonstrate the same truth from the words themselves and the propriety tendency and nature of that whole passage for First The Apostle does not say Why did ye not interdict this incestuous person the Lords Supper but why have ye not mourned 1 Cor. 5. 2. that is why have ye not by Mourning and Prayers put up to God besought that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you what way God shall best please St. Augustine in his third book against Parmen explains the place to the same sence and the same way doth he expound what the Apostle ch 12. hath written of sorrowing They also seem to be of St. Augustine's and Truth 's side too who suppose the Apostle to allude to 1 King 21. 9 12. From whence we may conjecture it to have been an ancient Custom among the Jews to make inquisition after enormous crimes by fasting Prayers and publick mourning that the same when detected might be brought to condign punishments as the Law requir'd Therefore at that time when the Church was destitute of the Civil Authority he admonishes them that they ought to address to God that he would as might seem best to him take him out of the way which was a quite different thing from that which we call excommunicating a man But besides by what competent Author can it be made out that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To take away from among men should be a phrase for debarring a man access to the Sacrament In propriety of speech he is said è medio sublatus to be taken away from among men who is any ways kill'd for though a banished or exil'd person may in some sence be said to be driven away from among others yet in propriety of speech and as the Greeks commonly use it 't is not so taken by them at leastwise 't is not to be found in that sence in Holy Writ Secondly But if the Apostles direction here be to have him discommon'd and thrust out of the Fellowship and Converse of the Faithful what need was there of publick mourning he should have been turn'd over and banisht to the Gentiles But that 's not consistent with that other Clause That his Soul may be saved which at least on our Adversaries principles could never be out of the pale of the Church If you say he was onely debarr'd and removed from the Sacrament and private Commerce he was not then è medio eorum sublatus he was not taken away from among them for I do not think any man able to make it out that the Apostle order'd him to be kept from the Sacrament alone and from private Conversation Familiarity and Fellowship with them This then is a mere addition a forc'd sence upon the Apostles words which cannot be prov'd ever to have enter'd into his thoughts Truly I think that no man who is vers'd in Scripture and the most ancient Expositors of it can doubt but that the Apostle borrowed this passage and the very words that he expresseth himself in from Deut. 17. 10. ch 19. 20. ch 21. 7. ch 22. 6 11. ch 24. 8. where Moses puts the words for cutting off the Offender by death and for nothing else and in all the alleadged places Moses keeps to the self-same words Whereas in ch 13. he puts 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but both in the same sence How is it therefore possible that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here should bear such a construction viz. to excommunicate as Excommunication now-a-days signifies Thirdly The Context seems to prove that this Offender did not persist in that piece of Wickedness for in v. 2 3. of that fifth Chapter 't is him that hath done this deed which shews he had not that he then did do it The Apostle therefore seems to designe the punishing him for the Fact that he had committed agreeable to the Command of God and to the Practice of every good Magistrate And indeed when he says v. 4. That the Spirit may be saved c. he seems to have been inform'd of his penitence for how could he otherwise have written thus of a man who had given no proof how his Soul was touch'd for so enormous a Wickedness Fourthly The Apostle tells them he had determin'd or judg'd already to deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus Are we to seek for the signification of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In what prophane Author or in what place of Scripture hath it a different sence from what 't is here taken in of giving giving up delivering permitting yielding and the like And here we have first the person giving him up and the person to whom he was so given and he that was given Nay 't is over and above added why and for what purpose he was deliver'd up And as to the form of speech 't is just as if I should say I deliver over my Son to his Master or I put him into such a Masters hands
for Instruction or for Discipline Who that should hear a man speak so would not think that he put his Son into the Masters power to be instructed or corrected by him He that would have instances of this nature let him turn to 1 Tim. 1. 19. Acts 27. 24. Mat. 5. 25. and ch 18. 34. and ch 27. 2. Mark 13. 9. John 19. 16. and that of Mat. 24. 9. they shall deliver you up to be afflicted is directly parallel So Mark 13. 12. the Brother 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 shall deliver up or as we render it shall betray the Brother to death So 2 Pet. 2. 4. speaking of the Angels that sinned he says that God deliver'd them into chains of darkness to be reserv'd unto Judgment In Job 2. 6. God says unto Satan Behold 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I have deliver'd him to thee or as we render it he is in thine hand onely save his life Do not all these places tell us of a delivering up to be afflicted to be killed to be condemned and the like In short none shall to the worlds end be able to shew that ever this kind of phrase is used to signifie the excluding one from the Sacrament unless the destruction of the Flesh here and interdicting the Sacrament be the same Fifthly 'T is impossible to shew that this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 destruction is any where in the New Testament put for mortifying the Lusts of the Flesh but where-ever 't is found 't is put for the death of the Soul or Body whether the word Flesh be joyn'd with it or not I might also say that no extant Greek Author hath used it to that sence that some as I have said put upon it but we keep to its acceptance in Scripture The Apostle makes use of it in 1 Thess 5. 3. and 2 Thess 1. 9. and in 1 Tim. 6. 9. and the Verbal 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we read in 1 Cor. 10. 10. as the Participle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Heb. 11. v. 28. and the Compound 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Acts 3. 23. taken by that holy Pen-man out of Deut. 18. 15. But in all these places Death and Destruction are thereby signified The Septuagint do ordinarily use 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which Pagninus generally renders exscindo to cut off or slay 't is certain they always mean Death by it I know that which the Apostle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rom. 8. 13. and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Col. 2. 3. and Gal. 5. 12. and 6. 14. are put for mortification of the Fleshly Lusts But for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they are not met with in that sence either in sacred or profane Authors nor in truth do I remember my self to have read that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the New Testament is so taken 'T is therefore a poor Evasion that some frame supposing Paul here to distinguish betwixt the affections of the Flesh and the Spirit Since he here sets the Destruction of the Flesh or which is all one the Death of the Body against the saving of the Soul or Spirit as both the genuine sence of the words the drift and purpose of Paul the whole series and circumstances of the Discourse and the very word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to deliver so unquestionably demonstrate that any lover of Truth can't but sit down satisfied under the proof of it But Sixthly The following words That the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus that is in the day of Judgment give farther testimony to the truth of this Interpretation and are a convincing demonstration that the Apostle speaks of this wicked one as of one whose death was at hand Seventhly and lastly The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2 Cor. 2. v. 6. which we translate Punishment but ought rather to be rendered Censure argues he was not expuls'd from the Sacrament for in its primitive signification 't is put for Chiding Censuring Reproving or Rebuking and the like as Interpreters commonly translate it not for Punishment Mulct or Penance There are yet two more Reasons left us the one That the Interdicting from the Sacrament is nowhere in Scripture put for or ordained to be Punishment The other that the words themselves plainly shew that 't is here put for Chiding or Censure which not one single person alone but many used towards him for says St. Paul there sufficient for such an one is this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this Censure not as we read it Punishment which was inflicted of many He absolves him from nothing but those Comminations and Threats which many or peradventure the whole Church all the Corinthian Believers had denounced against him That he should be delivered over to Satan to be by him buffeted tormented kill'd He had yet therefore onely experienced their Threats for Paul doth not absolve him of part but of all that had as yet befallen him and as he says this Censure these Threats and Ratlings that had been rounded in his ears were sufficient Nay he plainly intimates withal that this was all that was done to him We read of this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mat. 16. 22. ch 17. 18. ch 19. 13. ch 20. 13. and in the other Evangelists as also 2 Tim. 4. 2. where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bear it company In all which places 't is put for Reproof and Rebuking or the like but nowhere for Punishment LX. But here now it may be askt me If the incestuous person underwent no more than this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this Censure or Rebuke how can he be said to have been deliver'd unto Satan to be tormented and slain by him Some of the ancient Writers hold that he was indeed deliver'd over to be tormented with Diseases or the like and so be gradually brought to destruction but was released and absolv'd aagain by the Apostle before it had gone so far If this Answer be true I see not but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 might here signifie Punishment as indeed our Translation has rendered it But now though I do not deny but that this is a passible Interpretation yet I shall present you another as suitable to the Apostles words St. Paul had not resolved to deliver this man to the Devil by himself alone but had rather have it done in a full Congregation when the whole Body of Believers should be gather'd together for that purpose But when once the Church saw this deplorable Creature so dejected and overwhelm'd with Sorrow and that Grief had almost already given him the Death that they threatned they reprieved him as 't were and deferr'd pronouncing the Sentence till they might learn the Apostles pleasure whether at their intercession he would remit the rigour of it and restore him on his Repentance which if they could not prevail with him to do they threaten they will not longer be wanting in their Duty Thus came it to pass
and truly prov'd that no circumcised person was ever before Christ's days prohibited those Ceremonies and Sacraments which God by the hand of Moses had ordain'd amongst them upon any delinquency in Morals or Piety of Life Nay I have withal shewn that 't was not lawful for any one whomsoever to forbid them and I have by pregnant Testimonies from Scripture and Reason made it out that neither Christ nor his Apostles taught or acted contrary Besides I think I have demonstrated that what our Adversaries offer on their own behalfs cannot maintain the Opinion they would build on it So that now I see not any farther rubs nothing that can shock this Conclusion That that Excommunication which shuts out Christians from the Sacrament for pure Immoralities and the Vitiousness of their lives was never ordained by God but is a Figment and Invention of men for so far is it from deriving its original from Scripture that the invention and trick of it is rather declaim'd against and condemn'd there LXIX If any yet reply that at this rate we bespatter we condemn whole shoals of pious Bishops who quickly after the Apostles times began this excommunicating Sinners I must tell them 't is one thing to speak against an Opinion and another against the Assertors or Authors of it Many in our Age of no less Piety than Learning have examin'd have sifted and confuted sundry ancient and as I may say Catholick Errours Errours that crept early into the Church As for instance the Limbus Patrum Purgatory Praying to Saints Exorcisms in Baptism Coelibacy of the Priesthood Unctions in Baptism and at the point of Death Prayers for the Dead and Satisfaction in the Case how in question and yet I know not any man that has it charg'd on him as a Crime barely for that he hereby condemns his Predecessors If men will needs labour to enforce this Excommunication upon the Churches as a Law of Gods promulgation I can never be brought to commend it therefore though at the same time I cannot but highly praise and approve of their Zeal and good Intentions who first gave rise to it for their aim was hereby to curb the restiff and unweildy humours of vitious men since they could not imagine a more commodious and effectual way of doing it And very many as we see even to this day walk on in this beaten and publick Path do it because others before them did it having never so much as taken it into their considerations whether it be a matter that stands with holy Scripture or no. LXX I cannot at present say much of the very time when Excommunication had its first rise onely that towards the latter end of the second Century after Christ I meet with something like it then attempted and set up For above one hundred and fifty years I do not find any one suspended or put by from receiving the Sacrament for unholiness of life They that are fuller vers'd in the History and Writings of the Fathers may perchance speak better and clearer in this point They that shall carefully peruse what Socrates in his fifth book of Eccles History chap. 19. has transmitted to us I verily believe will without much difficulty confess with us that this Custom of Excommunicating had its first Epoch or Commencement in the Church about the time of Novatus Yet Sozomen in his seventh book chap. 16. pretends other causes for its Institution Besides which we read that about the year of the Lord 200. Victor Bishop of Rome admitted not to the Lords Supper them who refused to forgive Injuries but I have observ'd that till that time none were denied the Communion but Hereticks and such as swerv'd from or renounced the Christian Faith But be that how it will this is both certain and evident that Excommunication was first introduced into the Church for the restraint and punishment of Vice and afterwards when the Church had got the Sword into their hand as well as the Keys at their girdle that is when the Magistrates Kings and Princes became Christian and subjected themselves to the Faith yet did the Church-men not let go this power but continued the exercise of it by their Bishops partly for that the Episcopal Order was then believed to be of Divine Right partly for that they could not but be fond and tenacious of that Power which made them formidable to Kings and Emperours and was therefore a morsel too sweet to be parted with without regret And they easily wrought others into a belief of Christs being the Author and Institutor of it since themselves had before so forwardly and so willingly swallowed it Superstition too in a little time had ascribed so much virtue to the Sacrament that it gave strength to the Opinion for 't was believed and publickly owned by their Writings that there were some that could not die till they had been housell'd and received the Sacrament Either therefore this Errour made men dread Excommunication or Excommunication led them into the Errour for how facile a thing was it to impose upon the Credulity of the illiterate and weak Vulgar that Life was annext to the receiving and Death to the deprivation of the holy Sacrament since the denial of this to a sinner was the highest and last Punishment that they saw inflicted on him LXXI But for the Persons that executed and denounced this Excommunication as far as our Conjectures can carry us in this affair they seem to have been at first such Elders as we read of 1 Cor. 6. 4. who supplied the place and defect of Magistracy in the Church together with the Ministry but afterwards all this Authority was devolved upon the Bishops who took cognizance of all Suits made up Differences gave Judgment and did every thing that related to the decisions of Right and distributing Justice betwixt man and man as we perceive by the History of those times and by St. Augustine's complaining of so much then lying on the Bishops hands of this nature Ambrose affirms that those sort of Elders whose assistance was wont to be made use of in the Church on all occasions were in vogue and authority when yet they were destitute of Bishops And it appears by the Apostle that these Elders were to have an Authority as to that Employment of Judging as long as the Church should be under the pressures of an Heathen Magistrate which gives us to understand that as under a Christian Government that Employment would be useless and was therefore to cease so Excommunication upon supposition that they had exercis'd such a thing before yet should it in a Christian Kingdom cease For we must note that these Elders were instead of Civil Magistrates and manag'd Civil affairs and were no Ecclesiastical Judicature which now-a-days is of a different nature from the Civil for 't is plainly said that they were to deal in Suits and Controversies of Law things relating to this Life and the Concerns of it LXXII 'T would