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
requires no farther argument than the Confession of the Fault which scarce any man will have occasion to repeat seven times a day who hath not plaid the Hypocrite in some or all of the former six We have I think from all this evidently prov'd that Christ in this 18th Chapter of St. Matthew speaks nothing of Crimes that are to be redressed by Excommunications but of light and private Injuries and the way and means of making them up and reconciling them and therefore belongs not to the business of Excommunication If indeed we do but well weigh the close of that Chapter all doubt from hence must be at an end XLIII He that can and will needs imagine that Christ in this 18th Chapter of St. Matthew set up or instituted Excommunication ought to shew in which of the words 't is contain'd If he cannot shew it any where there comprized 't is to no purpose to say 't is there commanded But if it be there it must either be in these words v. 17. Tell it unto the Church or in these Let him be to thee as an heathen and a publican or lastly in these v. 18. Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven c. But I doubt not to prove it with most unanswerable Arguments that none of these words comprize any such matter and since it can be found in no other 't is lost labour to enquire here after it XLIV These words of Christ Tell it unto the Church prove no more than this that he who has been injur'd by his Brother and all his endeavours of reconciliation with him have been ineffectual may honestly and lawfully complain of him to the Church or to the Governours and Rulers of the Church And further that this same Church hath a right and authority to reprehend and admonish the Wrong Doer that he cease from being so But no more of power is here given to the Church than v. 17. was before given to the one or two Witnesses excepting onely in this that the Cause is not to be brought before the Church without the Witnesses Is it not therefore a weak way of reasoning to say The Church has power to admonish him that trespasses against his Brother therefore has she power to excommunicate him or to debâ—â— him the Sacrament But now some may perhaps urge that the Church not having a Right or Authority of punishing the guilty with Death and other corporal punishments she is necessitated to have recourse to this way of denying them the Sacrament But I answer Were the Antecedent as true as indeed from both the old Testament from the History of all Ages from what our own Eyes and Senses tell us we are assured 't is quite otherwise no such consequence could be drawn from it nor can it be ever proved that these things have any necessary coherence one with another The Church hath not the power of the Sword she can't kill and slay therefore may she must she drive from the Sacrament those who own and profess the same Religion the same saving Faith she must drive from that Sacrament that was instituted for and ought to be open and common to all that outwardly profess the same Faith XLV If yet our Adversaries think Excommunication to have been instituted in these other words Let him be to thee as an heathen man and a publican I utterly deny it Nether can it by any Art or Rhetorick Perswasion or Argument whatever be demonstrated whilst the world stands that this form of Speech Let him be to thee as an heathen man and a publican should tantamount to this Let him be excommunicate let him be kept from the Sacrament for even in the days of Christ the circumcised Publicans were they Jews or Gentiles were not prohibited the Temple Sacrifices Rites Ceremonies and Sacraments And truly Christ may seem to have joyn'd the Publican with the Heathen to prevent all thoughts and suspition of his here interdicting them such Rites and Sacraments How could the Publicans by the Jewish Law be shut out from the Temple and from worshipping God there when 't was not so much as a sin to be a Farmer or Collector of Taxes and Tribute-money nor found to be any where prohibited by God Sure 't is that Christ nowhere forbad it When the Publicans askt John what they must do to be saved he doth not bid them quit their Employments but directs them Luke 3. 13. not to exact more than that which was appointed them And Luke 19. 5. Christ doth not order Zacheus the Chief among the Publicans to lay down his Office nor finds any fault with him on account of his Employ and the Publican that Luke 18. 10. went up into the Temple to pray and return'd to his house more Justified in the judgment of Christ than the Pharisee we do not read that he left off being a Publican nor those others who Luke 7. 29. and Luke 15. 7. justified and praised God and were dear and intimate with Christ and his Apostles In short I say that the Holy Writ that is God hath not at any time or place condemn'd or any ways spoke against Publicans for their very being Publicans that is Tax-gatherers which all sober men will voluntarily grant me Upon which Concession I argue thus God in Scripture condemns not a Publican as a Publican Now whom God condemns not he cannot be excommunicated by any Law of God therefore no Publican could by the Law of God be prohibited access to the Temple or to Divine Worship I therefore make this conclusion No Publican could by the Law be condemned or excommunicated but Christ commands that he that neglects to hear that Church which he there speaks of should be to him as a Publican therefore he wills that he should be to him as a man who was not by the Law of God accursed that is not barely for his being a Publican And whereas these Excommunication-men say that the words Let him be to thee as a Publican signifie as much as if he had said Let him be to thee as a Publican is to the Pharisees 't is both absurd false and impossible for 't is in no sort credible that Christ in the same place in which he design'd to institute as our Adversaries will have it a thing of that weight and moment and so beneficial and necessary to the Church should or would make the wicked action of most profligate men the Rule and Measure for all the World to go by afterwards Besides it hath been already prov'd that no man was ever excommunicated by the Jews after the rate that we now talk of Excommunication And lastly all the words of Christ are inconsistent with this their interpretation for Christ here talks neither of nor with the Pharisees but all is betwixt him and the Disciples and the subject of the discourse is of avoiding Scandals and this is the thing that Christ says If the Wrong Doer neglect to hear the
agree that Christ spoke of a Church which was then in being I mean the Church in Judea but quickly shall we be divided again in our enquiry what Christ understood by the word Church for sometimes it is put for the whole Congregation or Multitude gathered together sometimes for the Senate Council or Elders which were its Governours Thus find we the Hebrew words to signifie a Church Company or Congregation as Num. 35. 24 25. Josh 20. 6. Psal 82. 1. and elsewhere which the Septuagint renders by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Congregation Now there are Arguments of no little weight to induce us to conclude that Christ in this passage of St. Matthew would not have us understand by the word Church the Multitude or Congregation of People but the Jewish Senate or Council called sometimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for first 't is evident that Christ did not innovate any thing in the forms of Judicature or Government which were administred agreeable to the Law nor did he himself or permitted his Disciples to do any thing contrary to what Moses had rightly instituted by Gods command Now Moses did ordain that such Suits and Controversies should be decided not by the Multitude but by the Senate or Sanedrim of such and such places which at first was held at the Gates of each City where the Elders sate to judge Had Christ thought of introducing any thing here contrary to the Institution of Moses his Disciples must needs have been highly moved at it who were all their lives strict observers of the Law Let every man think with himself what dust and Triumphs the Pharisees would have rais'd could they have in truth fixt so criminal an Action upon him that he in opposition to the Law of Moses had stir'd up the People against the Magistrate what fairer pretext could they have wish'd to lay Sedition to his charge than by proving upon him this attempt to set up the People against the Magistrate contrary to Gods determination to commit to them the Examination of Witnesses to give them a power to convene whom they would before them to grant them cognizance of Gauses and power of Judicature Secondly Christ commanded to tell it unto that Church which had power to send for and call before them the party accused which might hear the Cause which might examine Witnesses and therefore he commands us in the second place to take two or three that the Fact may be competently prov'd and lastly which might pronounce their Sentence and Judgement in the case But every one must know that these things could not be done by the Croud the Multitude without chusing some set persons who might manage and moderate matters It must be a very small Congregation a very handful of men who could be able of themselves without the Elders to dispatch such Causes for which reason some have rightly judg'd that this Precept of Christ could not hold well could be of little or no use but when the Church consisted of very few Members But now since that they who thus preside in these Affairs are in very truth nothing but the Senate the Sanedrim the Sessions of the Elders it again follows that Christ commanded not to tell it unto the Multitude but to the Council or Sanedrim and truly in Christ's time the People had not the power of chusing their Magistracy and Governours We must needs therefore by the word Church understand the Jewish Senate or Council as 't is plain the Disciples did from what has been already said Therefore if the meaning of the Church there be all the Members of it the People we are then to tell it unto a Church which has right and authority to make choice of such a Senate or Council as was that of the Jewish Church but our Churches have no power to chuse such a Council as the Jewish Sanedrim was nay in Christ's time the Jews themselves had not that liberty as I told you just now We might adde that when the Scripture speaks of the Multitude it generally uses the words People Multitude Children of Israel or the like comprehensive words but when any thing is related to be said or done in the Synagogues or in all the Congregation I need not tell you that this form of speech is usual at this very day for we say we have communicated the matter to such a Kingdom or State when we have acquainted onely the King Senate or Governing part of such State or Kingdom We recount how this or that Nation has rewarded a man when the Representatives onely in such a Dyet or Parliament hath been liberal-handed to them 'T is so common a thing to use phrases of this nature that 't is wonderful so few should have observ'd it But the sum of all is this Christ alter'd not the Customs of his time nor introduced any Novelties or Changes into their Courts of Judicature or Measures and Ways of Judging nor do his Disciples betray any suspition of Innovation or Alteration and therefore his Command is to acquaint the Sanedrim before their denier resort to the Heathen Magistracy XLIX Now 't is evident from Holy Writ as well as other History that the Sanedrim was the legal Magistracy of the Jewish Nation and that in Christ days they both kept and us'd the power of the Sword Many things in the Narratives of the Passion of Christ besides other Testimonials evince as much They send armed men to take Jesus they proceed in examining Witnesses as the Law requir'd at least they pretended so they command him to be set before them in Judgment they delivered him bound to Pilate after they had first publickly condemn'd him they openly condemn Stephen and command him to be stoned they seize the Apostles and put them in the common Prison they cause them to be beaten after a general Consult held about them they give Letters and authority to Paul to bring any that he found of that way bound to Jerusalem for to be punished The Jews themselves with the Elders and High Priest that is the Sanedrim say it in express terms by their Speaker Tertullus who accusing Paul before Foelix Acts 24. v. 2. adds v. 6. That they took him and would have judg'd him according to their Law but that Lysias came upon them and with great violence took him away out of their hands And Acts 23. v. 3. says Paul to the High Priest Sittest thou to judge me after the Law and commandest me to be smitten contrary to the Law And afterwards Acts 26. v. 10. Paul confesses before King Agrippa and Festus that many of the Saints he shut up in prison having received authority from the Chief Priests and when they were put to death he gave his voice against them and punished them often in every Synagogue and compelled them to blaspheme and farther persecuted them into strange Cities still acting under the authority derived from the High Priests as when he was going to Damascus
well belov'd by all many took it very ill at his hands for he was but newly got to that Dignity and not approv'd of or confirm'd in it by the Roman Governour And Eusebius in the second of his Ecclesiastical History chap. 23. tells us that this High Priest snatcht at this occasion of the interregnum But what 's all this to our purpose Was not Archelaus who was stiled King in his Father Herod's last Will and that by the Allowance and Gift of Caesar was he not therefore King because he refus'd the Name and Authority of a King till he had Caesar's confirmation for it And not the Magistrates of some Cities of which there are many in Germany who are subject to some particular Prince not true and lawful Magistrates because on the death of the Prince they are requir'd to pray the Confirmation of their Priviledges from the Successor But now that the High Priest had power after his Confirmation to convoke the Judges of the Sanedrim is clear enough for that they do not say to Albinus that this summoning them was in it self unlawful but that it ought not to have been done by him without the apprebation and privity of Albinus LII It has now been fully and solidly prov'd that Tell it unto the Church signifies no more than Tell it unto the Magistrate of thy People or who is of the same Religion with thy self before you implead your Brother in the Heathen Courts as St. Paul 1 Cor. 6. 5. hath incomparably expounded it where he commands them for this cause to chuse persons out of themselves to judge and arbitrate their Quarrels But now who doubts but that this Precept holds not where God hath blessed us with a pious Christian Magistracy a Magistracy of the same Religion with our selves Indeed St. Augustine in the second Chapter of Faith and Works plainly enough informs us that he accounted Excommunication supplied the place and defect of the visible Sword when the Church wanted that external aid for as he would have it Moses his punishing Transgressors with Death and Phineas his slaying the Adulterers did typifie and prefigure the punishing evil men by Degradations and Excommunications that is at such time as the material Sword the Civil Temporal Power should be wanting in the Church I remember that some Modern Writers hold that the Jews had and retain'd this Custom of Excommunicating because the Sword was taken from them which I have prov'd by irrefragable Reason Argument and Testimonies to be utterly false but were it but thus far true it must necessarily follow that there 's no occasion for Excommunication in such a Church which hath the Civil Authority of its side Nor is it requir'd as a thing obligatory to us to chuse Judges or Arbitrators other than the lawful Judicatures of the Land Be it how it will nothing can be more certain than that the word Church in this passage of Matthew signifies nothing less than a Church-Senate a Council of Clergie-men or Ecclesiasticks endowed with a Faculty a Right or Power to shut out whom they please from the Sacraments LIII Two Objections yet remain First How any one can be said to neglect to hear the Church if that and the Civil Magistrate who hath the power of the Sword are the same thing Secondly How that passage of binding and loosing Mat. 18. v. 18. suits with this matter To the first the Answer is intimated before That the Jews had not then power of judging in all matters but almost every thing that related not to Religion belong'd to the Roman Judicatures And therefore Christ permits that if any one neglects or contemns the Authority of the Sanedrim in such matters the injur'd person may prosecute his Right before the Heathen Magistrate in like manner as if he were to sue an Heathen or Publican Besides many cases may occur which the Law had not provided a distinct and proper punishment for or had not prohibited under any penalty at all in which case it may well be that the Offender may be dismist without more ado than a verbal chiding or admonition Now if the Wrong Doer does not yet leave wronging him the party injur'd may seek farther satisfaction and may again and again apply himself to the Church or Magistrate to punish the other's obstinacy But though this Answer hold true yet the former seems in my mind more apposite and suitable to the purpose and designe of Christ as well as to the several circumstances of time and place and the like LIV. To the second there is as little difficulty in framing it an Answer for since the manner of speaking is the same and almost the self-same words are here repeated which are used by Christ Mat. 16. 19. 't is necessary that they signifie either the same thing or something very like it but in Mat. 16. 19. to bind and to loose signifies nothing else but to preach the Gospel whereby he that believes in it is loosed from Sin and from Death and therefore can signifie here no more than the desiring his Brother to leave injuring him and rather to become good and affectionate to him this being a thing acceptable unto God and he will surely punish those that break this great Commandment of Love and Charity Now he that thus wins upon his Brother by soft advice and entreaties to forbear wronging him and urging to him the revealed Will of God and what Wrath he has in store for them that thus offend if his Admonitions have their effect he hath gained his Brother that is he hath loosed him if they return unsuccessful he is still bound the Wrath of God remains upon him in like manner as it doth upon him who having heard the Word of the Gospel preached unto him believes or disbelieves it But now that we might be ready and forward to forgive them that repent Christ labour'd to perswade us to it by that most apposite Parable of the Kings taking account of his servants which he subjoyn'd to this passage whereby Christ's meaning and purpose is mightily cleared as to the sence we have put upon it before LV. I cannot but infinitely wonder how or why some men do here expound this binding or loosing by driving men from the Sacraments and readmitting them thither again when throughout the whole Bible these words are never put for any such matter and the Apostles have neither by word or otherwise discover'd that they understood Christ in such a sence There is extant a Precept of Christ that if any refused to receive the Gospel they should depart out of that house or City shaking off the dust of their feet against them Luke 10. 11. Mat. 10. 14. which they put in practice Acts 13. 25. and 18. 6. But that they should deny any Sacrament to those that believed the Word and were baptized unto Christ and embraced his Religion and Doctrine we nowhere find it either enjoyned unto or practised by them as hath been before abundantly
Apostolick power a thing he often did threaten in his Epistles But nowhere has he preach'd this Doctrine which is the Question now in hand That any should be interdicted the Sacraments nor has he commanded Presbyters or any others to do it But had he been disposed to have this way given check to Wickedness he would assuredly have ordain'd that Sinners should have been kept from Sacraments till they became reform'd in their manners especially since he had before appointed or ordain'd Elders in the same Church 1 Cor. 6. v. 5. and had corrected the Abuses the miss-celebration in the Lords Supper But perhaps we may have more to say to this hereafter XXXVII As we find no mention made of Excommunication in the receiving and celebrating this Sacrament so neither doth any thing of that nature appear in its Institution nor indeed hath the Scripture taken any notice thereof in her Explications of the use and ends of Sacraments Whereas had Sacraments been given to the Church for this as well as other ends and purposes that they should have been for Penalties upon Offences and Offenders some mention must needs have been of it The end and designes of this Institution of the Lords Supper are That we may commemorate in the most solemn manner the Death of our Lord That we may pay our Homage in a publick Recognition and Thankfulness for the Deliverance he hath purchased for us That we may remind our selves and by our presence bear testimony to others that we have no other Food of Life but a Crucified Saviour no other Drink but his Bloud poured out for us That we may declare our selves as well penitent for our past course of Life as that we have enter'd upon thoughts and resolutions of a better and that we embrace the Christian Doctrine are the Members of Christ belong unto his Church in which we desire piously and religiously both to live and die Has the Scripture anywhere prohibited any man from performing these things But you may perhaps say Some men have too frequently relaps'd to their former bad courses and become not one whit the better I answer He that by the aid and impulse of the Holy Spirit hath the thoughts of his heart right at the time of his receiving the Scripture turns him not away but God only knows whether and how long he will hold on his good purposes and resolutions 'T is our duty to hope always the best of all men however we may sometimes be mistaken nay we ought to address our hearty Prayers to God that he would vouchsafe to strengthen and confirm both us and them in all true Religion and Virtue But still the sinner is to be told of his faults is to be reprehended admonished and advised that he may so try himself that as the Apostle cautions he eat and drink not Damnation to himself XXXVIII Lastly Whether are the Sacraments either for the authority of their Institution or the intrinsick dignity of their nature of greater worth than the Word that Word of God which Christ preached or is there more necessity of the use of those than of this None without the Word can or could be saved but who can doubt but that many have been and yet may be saved without the Sacraments especially the Lords Supper provided they are not contemners of them The Apostle seems to have thought so too when he says he was not sent to baptize but to preach the Word Do not almost all men say that the Word is plain and visible and sets before our eyes what words signifie to our ears Why do we therefore make no attempts to shut any out from the Word but do it from the Sacraments especially the Eucharist and that contrary unto or at least much beside the interest of Gods express Command Do they say 't is because the Word is for all but that the Sacraments were instituted onely for Converts to the Word I know all that and speak not therefore of Turks and Pagans such as never came within the Churches Pale but of such as God hath called and ingrafted into his Church such as own the Doctrine and desire at least to all outward appearance to be worthy partakers of these Sacraments XXXIX Hitherto have I strongly demonstrated that there is no word or instance no footstep or president to be found either of Christs or among his Apostles of such Chastizements or rather Restraints and Coertions put upon wicked men Since therefore neither the Old nor New Testament hath commanded this sort of punishing but the clean contrary is often found in both of them we may justly think this Excommunication as far I mean as it excludes men from the use of the Sacraments for improbity of Life and vitiousness of Morals rather an Invention of Man than any Law of God It remains therefore that we examine what those who oppose us have to say for themselves and to convince the World that all that they say has nothing of proof or force in it XL. They tell you of a Precept Mat. 18. 15 16 17. and in St. Paul's Epistle they tell you too of an Example or Instance of that kind 1 Cor. 5. 3 4 5. and 1 Tim. 1. 19 20. We will take them in order and first for that in Matthew XLI 'T was not the designe of Christ in that Chapter of St. Matthew to set up any new Model of Government or form of putting Excommunications in execution but to instruct his Disciples how they should avoid giving of fence or scandal in the matter of righting themselves in private Injuries done them for since they who flie presently to the Magistrate to right them especially where the Magistrate as was that the Jews were then under is an Heathen and prophane do often give occasion of offence and scandal thereby to the weak He first exhorts and advises them that they rather forgive Injuries than run to the Magistrate upon every slight occasion Thus far doth he nothing but call to their minds that Precept of Moses Lev. 19. 17. which Ecclus 19. 13. hath a little more fully paraphras'd After this he directs that if they are necessitated to resort to the Magistrate for redress that yet they should not if they would avoid scandal accuse their fellow-brethren the Jews before the Roman Judicatures till their own Magistrates fail'd in doing them Justice The like Precept hath St. Paul given 1 Cor. 6. 1 c. which place is a kind of Comment upon this that is to say that Christians go not to Law with Christians before the Unbelievers This therefore is the true and genuine sense of this of St. Matthew If thy Brother that is a Jew trespass against thee try to make up the matter betwixt your selves alone but if alone you cannot do it try what may be done by the Arbitrement and Mediation of two or three of your Brethren the Jews still and if this way you have not a just satisfaction and amends made
by their Commission v. 12. I can't imagine but that Agrippa and Festus too knew well enough whether it was lawful or not for their Council to do so and sure they would not have acquitted him in the manner they did v. 34 35. had not the Authority he had been committed by been warrantable for Paul should have offended no less against Caesar than against the Pharisees For he who doth an unlawful act by the permission and command of them who have no right nor authority to permit and command transgresses no less than they that command it but no such thing is charg'd upon the Accusers or Accused but Paul is fully acquitted as one that hath done nothing worthy of death or of bonds And had not the Jewish Sanedrim had this authority and liberty then lest them Pilate could not have said to them Joh. 18. 31. Take ye him and judge him according to your law And when they answer that it was not lawful for them to put any man to death this must be understood either as St. Augustin interprets it at the time of that Festival for fear of the People or as St. Chrysostom expounds it of that kind of Death which they desired that Christ should die With which latter Opinion the words of St. John which immediately follow very well agree to wit That the saying of Jesus might be fulfilled which he spake signifying what death he should die To the same purpose is that of Mat. 26. 55 56. where Christ says I sate dayly with you teaching in the temple and ye laid no hold no me but all this was done that the Scriptures of the Prophets might be fulfilled They took him therefore at a time when by reason of the Feast then at hand and for fear of the People they could not put him to death vid. Mat. 26 5. and Mark 14. 2. Since therefore they could not bear that he should live any longer and they could not well take his life away themselves it follows of course that he must be deliver'd into the hands of the Romans that so all things which he had Mat. 24. foretold his Disciples might be fulfilled as the words of St. John intimate and as Augustine and Chrysostom agree And those Cries and Vociferations of the People Crucifie him crucifie him give farther Testimony to this Interpretation L. By what has been said the falsity of that Affirmation is apparently detected which says that the Sanedrim had not the power of the Sword that is the authority of Life and Death and that Stephen was ston'd tumultuously by the Rabble and not by Decree of the Council For I think I have proved beyond all contradiction that such a Power they had and for St. Stephen's case 't is clear that he was not tumultuously slain for that Acts 6. 12. he was solemnly brought and accused before the Council Witnesses were produced though false ones v. 13. they carried him out of the City and those Witnesses as the Law provides cast the first stones at him as may be easily gather'd from their laying down their Clothes at Saul's feet v. 58. The same too may be as fully proved out of other Histories for Josephus in his fourteenth book of the Antiquity of the Jews ch 12. 16 17. according to the Greek Copies tells us That the Romans gave liberty to all Nations and by name to the Jews who dwelt in or out of Judea to use their own Laws in things relating to Religion and to live freely according to their own Rites and Customs And in that twelfth Chapter he quotes Strabo for his Author that he writing of the City Cyrene says they had there a President or Chief Ruler who heard and decided their Causes and transacted all affairs as absolutely as if they had been an Independent State That also makes farther for us which we read Acts 18. 15. of Gallio the Deputy of Achaia where he tells them that if it be a matter of their Law they may look to it The same Josephus lib. 16. ch 4 5. recounts how Herod had obtained of Agrippa that the Jews in Asia might have the freedom of enjoying the Priviledges before that time indulg'd them by the Romans I take occasion to remember this because some object that Herod destroy'd and slew all the Sanedrim and stript them of all Authority as if none had succeeded those that were kill'd How likely is it that Herod should take from them in Jerusalem that power of judging in matters relating to Religion and determining therein according to their Law who endeavour'd to procure and preserve the same to all the other Asiaticks Besides the time of Christ's preaching fell not under Herod or Archelaus but under the Government of Pilate 'T is certain that the Jews forced even Pilate himself to send again out of the City the Roman Standards which he had caused to be privately introduc'd to prevent the breach of Gods Commands of suffering any Image in the City And that they reserv'd and continued this Power to themselves to the very destruction of Jerusalem may be clearly gathered from Josephus his Oration to the Besieged The Romans says he in his fifth Book of the Wars of the Jews ch 26. exact Tribute of us for that our Forefathers have a long time been wont to pay it to theirs If in this you comply they 'll neither sack this our City nor meddle with our Temple but leave both you your Goods and Families free and the free use and enjoyment of your sacred Laws Titus himself after his having taken the City said almost the very same to the Jews lib. 6. chap. 34. Whether therefore we consult the Holy Writ or the Jewish History 't is an undoubted truth that that Sanedrim which Christ commanded to tell it unto had the power of the Sword the power of Life and Death especially over those who sin'd against their Religion for in Civil matters and Causes of Right and Wrong where the Law had not specified the Punishment I do not question but that the Romans encroached and usurp'd if not all yet most of them to themselves as is easily discernable out of History and may well be conjectur'd out of Acts 18. v. 12. LI. And 't is no ways repugnant to what we have said that in Josephus his Antiquities of the Jews some of them tell Albinus that it was not lawful for the High Priest to call the Sanedrim or Council without his leave For he there as an Historian relates what others did not that he applauds or approves of the Fact thereby Besides peradventure the High Priest during the interregnum that is whilst Albinus after the death of Festus was no his Journey thither ought not to summon a Court for a matter of that weight and moment till the new Governour confirm'd him in that Authority for he had procur'd that James the Lords Brother who was vulgarly sirnamed the Just should be put to death who being a person
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