The Nullity of Church-Censures: OR A DISPUTE Written by that Illustrious Philosopher, Expert Physician, and Pious Divine Dr THOMAS ERASTUS, Public Professor in the University of Heidelberge, and Basil.  
Wherein is proved by the holy Scriptures, and sound Reason;  
That Excommunication, and Church-senates' or Members, exercising the same, are not of Divine Institution; But a mere humane Invention.  
Si Deus nobiscum, quis contra nos?  
But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup, 1 Cor. 11.28.  
But why dost thou judge thy brother?— we shall all stand before the judgement seat of Christ. So then every one of us shall give an account of himself to God. Let us not therefore judge one another any more, Rom. 14.10, 12, 13.  
London Printed for G. L. and are to be sold at the Star in St Paul's Churchyard, near the West end. 1659.   

For the most excellent Medico Chirurgeon John Troutbeck of Hope, late Chyrurgion-Generall in the Northern Army, his much honoured Master and Patron.  
Honoured SIR:  
YOur Concernments in this Book are so many, and manifest, that it would be no less than Sacrilege in itself, and ungratitude in me, to launce it forth under the Lookyfate of any other Tutelar. It was done at your Direction, and in your service received its Birth; therefore cannot be free without your Manumission and Patronage: And your interest is so great in ●●e parts and qualifications, which rendered the Author hereof Famous to Posterity, that if I did not fear a Church-Censure, I would fall into the Pithagorian error, and protest, that the Author's Soul had again lodged herself in your Body. To tell that the Author hereof was a great Master of Reason, an expert Physician, and pious Divine, is a work not at all necessary; for his enemies confess it; and his actions, and Writings do assert it to all posterity. To speak the same of you, I hold it an absolute duty laid upon him that is free to bear witness to the Truth, and is willing at every seasonable occasion, to be thankful to them, by whom he hath profited. And indeed I think, there are none can more truly avouch the same than myself, who for five years together, had the happiness to be witness, to so many of your pious, and virtuous actions. 'Tis true, You never courted the applause of Men, or overthrow of Widows by long Prayers; neither thought Preaching a fit Pulley to raise your preferment: you lest these 'Gins of Hypocrisy to Men, that had no better parts to become eminent: of which Nets any of themselves were ashamed, at least did not use, so soon as they had caught, what they fished for. But your piety is of a more untainted Tincture. If we believe (as we ought) what the Apostle in so many, in so pithy words enforceth: That all things profit nothing without Charity: not tongues, not faith to remove Mountains, not prophecy itself, not zeal to the fire. It is kind, it envieth not, it is not easily moved, it rejoiceth in the truth, it believeth, hopeth, and endureth all things: and is no more subject to time, then eternity is. This is that virtue that maketh you pious: this is it that crowneth your actions; and this is it which compelleth me (in despite of forgery or envy) to proclaim you religious. How oft have I seen you visit the sick? how oft feed the hungry? cloth the naked, comfort Prisoners? What Soldier of what Regiment, Troop, or Company soever, can say, but you were ever more willing to afford, than he was ready to desire, your assistance in your Art and Medicines? How many Countrymen, both Angles and Scots, have you helped in their sicknesses and distresses? I have known you liberally bestow on them whose former degree and parts made ashamed to beg, and nevertheless their necessities required the help of the meanest: and this was done by you undeserved, undesired, and without the sound of Trumpet. And the Army you served, cannot say that ever you forsook them in their greatest hazards or hardships; though they forsook you in that prosperity, whereof you should have been a sharer. But it is a rule of Machiavelli; That we should fall out with those, whose benefits conferred on us, we are not able to requite; and this confidence shall make the people believe, that either we were not obliged, or at least we have not been unthankful; As for the skill in your profession, I need say little. Your enemies [if there be any such Beasts] will not deny it. The whole Island is filled with the Fame, and Monuments thereof; And there is not an honest scar shown by the valiant, but is an equal trophy of his and your glory. And truly I believe not any will question this, but he whose courage could never afford, to make him the fit object of your care and profession. I come to your reason, but that is so piercing, so profound, that I dare not meddle with its edge, nor search its bottom; lest mine should be divided by the one, and lost in the other, But thus fare I dare adventure to say, that I never saw you do an action, though many seemed trivial, but always a good effect followed thereon. You never Churched it, nor Kirked it; yet your wisdom [under the Divine providence] carried you our and up in all your enterprises. You spoke the truth bluntly, and yet it always left an impression. You neither professed a Sect nor Sectling, yet you were respected by all, and employed by most. And your reaching wit was never mistaken in the greatest designs, which I believe made the designers more willing to quit you. If this than be not the highest enjoyment of reason, it shall be my desire always to remain in folly. SIR, (to give no further trouble) I have Translated this Book at your desire, and have according to my duty Dedicated it to You; not because either You are, or are not of these Opinions; or that I desire You to draw out an Act of resolution in reference to either: But that at this time, when most men seem to be busy in the inquest of truth, You thought it fit, that this Opinion should likewise come to the Test, in submission to that word of the Apostle, Try all things, and hold that which is good: We are commanded here, to try that which we are not commanded to hold: otherwise the words would be ridiculous. Try all things that are good, and hold that thing which is good: and so we should try that which we knew to be good, whether it were good, which is vain, and needless. But all things here, are meant all Doctrines, all Opinions: and we ought only adhere to that, that is able to abide the touch of Scripture, and sound reason deduced therefrom. Now whether this be such a work, or not, I leave it to every triers' judgement; and You to the protection of him, that in the great day of trial, shall save you in mercy;  
London 1. of May. 1659. Which is the Devotion of your Servant CHR.   

TO THE READER.  
BE pleased to be informed, that the defences of these Theses, against Mr. Beza and others, are likewise translated; and if thou desire, shall be Printed. In both which, if thou find not all Answered, that can be said against them; or hath been said by Mr. Beza, Mr. Catherwoods' in his Altar Damacenum, Mr. Gilespy in his Aaron's Rod Blossoming; or by the Divines of London in their Jus Divinum; never believe me to have reason, if thou wilt be at the pains to confer their Reasons and Answers, with what is by our Author Answered and urged. The Life is somewhat Scholastic and Laconic; Nevertheless to know the force of his Reasons, is well worth the time that shall so be employed: I choosed rather to be a Pedant in adhering to the Author's words, and Construction, then to be too busy in another's Labour. Pardon the Errors of the Press in this Edition: for both my Amanuensis, and the Corrector are Presbyterians: the next Edition shall make an amendment of these faults which now we desire thee to amend, etc.   

To the Reader that is pious, and desirous of Truth.  
THOMAS ERASTUS Physician wisheth all health and Happiness.  
Lest any, that shall fall on these my Writings, should wonder what causes induced, yea fully moved me to enter this Dispute concerning Excommunication; I will briefly and truly relate the original and occasion of the commencement thereof. It is about sixteen years ago, since some men were seized on by a certain Excommunicatory-feaver, which they did adorn with the title of Ecclesiastical Discipline, and did contend, that it was holy and commanded of God to the Church; and which they earnestly did desire should be imposed on the whole Church. They affirmed the manner thereof to be this, That some certain Presbyters should sit in the name of the whole Church, and should judge who were worthy or unworthy to come unto the Lord's Supper.  
I wondered that then they consulted about these matters, when neither we had men to be Excommunicates, nor fit Excommunicators: for scarcely the thirtieth part of the people did understand or approve the Reformed Religion; all the rest were our violent enemies: so that any man, that was endued with the least understanding, could not but foresee, that there would follow on this necessarily a dangerous schism of the multitude. Therefore at that time, it seemed to me not good to inquire, how any might be thrown out of the society of the Church: But on the contrary, I rather judged, that we should use means to induce most to the knowledge of the truth, and to enfold them into the Church. And they that were to be Overseers herein, did neither in age and experience, nor in wit and judgement, no nor in carriage and authority, so fare excel the rest, that they should be esteemed able to discharge these matters worthily. Wherefore when I did see this business, which they so violently desired, could not go forward without the loss and overturning of the Church; I oft requested them that they should ponder the matter accurately, and that they should not rashly begin any thing, which afterwards they should repent; but in vain. For although at that time my opinion was, that Excommunication was commanded in the holy Scriptures; yet notwithstanding I found not the manner thereof, which they proposed to us, to be commanded there. Wherefore seeing it seemed that Christ had left the manner thereof free to our own choice, I also did seriously consider of the way and manner which would most fit our matters, and draw least trouble with it. In which I used so much more diligence, as I had observed it to be more destructive to Christianity, not only in former times, but now also.  
Whilst I was in these thoughts, and did inquire what the Ancients had written concerning these matters, and that I found all things weaker in them then I had persuaded myself; I was compelled a little to doubt of the whole business: presently after that, I consulted the Schoolmen, but found nothing better amongst them. From them I betook myself to the Modern Writers. But even amongst these men I found nothing more exact or solid: yea I perceived that in some things they manifestly disagreed amongst themselves; which made me a great deal more attentive. Therefore, leaving the Interpreters, I returned to the holy Scriptures: and in my reading I diligently noted, according to my understanding, what was consonant or dissonant to the received opinion. In which the consideration of the Jewish Republic and Church did not a little help me. For I thought thus with myself: The Lord himself doth testify, Deut. 4. that his people hath Statutes and Laws so just and wise, that the Institutes of no people, that the Sanctions of no Republic, that no Ordinances, howsoever wisely constitute, were able to compare with them. Therefore it is necessary, that that Church is most worthily and wisely ordered, which cometh nearest to the constitution of the Jewish Church. But in this the matters were so ordered by God, that we find not any where two divers Judicatories concerning manners, the one Politic, and the other Ecclesiastic. What then hindereth, that the Church now also, on whom the most merciful God hath bestowed a Christian Magistrate, should be less content with one Government?  
After this I did confer about my thoughts with good, holy and Learned men, and I did exhort them that they should not lightly ponder the Cause. For it seemed to me most unnecessary, to put two heads upon one body of a visible Church, whose commands, decrees and Government were already divers, so that the rule of the one was not subject to the care of the other, but the Government of each in its own kind was supreme. Indeed they would have had their Ecclesiastical Senate or Presbytery so constitute, that it should have the supreme power of punishing of vices, yea in the Magistrates themselves: notwithstanding not with corporal punishments, but with the debarring them from the Sacrament, first privately, then mixed, if it did not succeed well, then solemnly and publicly. But I said, I did believe that one Magistrate appointed by God, could as well now bridle all transgressors, as he could of old. I did propose for example to myself the most famous Kingdom of Solomon, which was as it were a type of Christ's Church reigning on this earth. And that we did not find either under Moses, or under the Judges, or Kings, or under the Government of these that were called Rulers, such two discrepant Judicators. Nature denies (saith Musculus) two authentic Governments in the same people, whereof one is not to be subject to the other. I was not a little helped by those, with whom I conferred: partly because they observed some things better than I could, partly because they gave me occasion to think of certain other things more exactly.  
In the mean time I kept myself quiet: neither did I reason with any man, except he provoked me, in this matter; and being provoked, I ever answered most modestly: because it seemed neither profitable nor necessary to disturb our Churches with this dispute, whilst no man was known to thrust this form of Government on them openly. Indeed they who thought it fare more sweet and pleasant to command then to obey, rested not so; but by all arts they could (as I afterwards knew) laboured to persuade our most holy Prince, that he should endeavour to bring some such thing into our Churches. And if some other things had not withstood it, perchance they had persuaded him. By what scandalous speeches they did every where traduce me, [Who they knew did not consent to them, and were not ignorant that I laboured, that they might not accomplish their design] it is needless here to relate.  
It fell out afterwards, that an Englishman, who was said to have left his Country by reason of certain vestures in the Church, desired to be graduate Doctor, and did propose a dispute concerning indifferent things, and vestures. This dispute our Theologues would not admit, lest they should offend the English, [albeit in his last Theses there was something concerning this matter] but as it seemed, they esteemed it nothing to disturb our peace; wherefore amongst other Theses he proposed this, That it behoved in each right constitute Church, that this order should be kept, In which the Ministers with their Presbytery chosen for that purpose, should have power to Excommunicate any sinners, yea Princes themselves. Although I feared that this Dispute was not appointed in vain, yet I hoped that it would be nothing else but an ordinary Dispute, not such an one as are appointed for the deciding of Controversies, but such as are instituted for the exercising of the youth, and for judging of their gifts, that desire these public honours. Therefore neither would I move any thing, neither could I by reason of my occasions be present at it. And I did exhort others, which I did see would Dispute against it, that they would have a greater care of the good of the Church, then of some few men's imprudency. Nevertheless one and another disputed, whom if they had not afterwards called, together with me, Profane, Satanick, Diabolick, Turbulent, Fanatic Persons, enemies to Piety, etc. the Dispute had been nothing but ordinary.  
Indeed, As for my part I can truly affirm, that I never purposed with myself to Write any thing concerning this matter of Controversy, before I did see and hear them to carry themselves so immodestly, both in private and public: And because I was then a great deal more then usually employed [Bianca reason of the Soldiers, which then Anno. 1568. returned with Duke Casimire, etc. out of France, loaden with divers diseases] I did note down my thoughts by pieces, as they did, amongst so great businesses occur to me at any time. Which albeit I had thrown them together confusedly, and had placed them in no certain order, for the foresaid cause; partly whilst they were writing over, and partly as soon as they were written, I gave them to be examined and judged of unto some, unto whose judgement I attributed much, and of whom I thought myself to be very well beloved, and that not without cause, though I believed it falsely: And I did desire them if they found any thing that was truly affirmed, or solidly proved, that they should freely refute it with better reasons. I did hope that if I gained nothing else, yet I would obtain this; That they seeing our Arguments, would become more calm, and would think that we did not without reason dissent from them. One of the two chief with whom I resolved principally to confer, did read three parts of four, before all were written fair over. Of which being demanded his opinion, he promised he would give it, after he had read over all. Nevertheless he by the by proposed something concerning the Leaven, and did think that the consent of the Ancient Church was much to be esteemed: to conclude, he produced other such like stuff, by which it was most easy for me to know his mind and opinion. I understood almost at that same time, that this self same man had written a Treatise of Excommunication, in which he did approve of the common opinion: which once known, there needed no doubt to be made what his Answer would be. For I knew, that he would not departed from that he had once affirmed, without it were for fear of Danger. Therefore seeing these things which he did oppose were refuted in the last part of my writing. I offered it all to be judged by the other, whom I esteemed to be as dear a friend to me, as was living. He did not only receive the Book from me loathingly, (I know not whether he was admonished before) but did openly declare, he would not read it: and albeit I did urge it, he declared he was compelled to it against his will. Nevertheless I left the Book some days with him, and did entreat him by all means and prayers I could, that he would read it over, and give me his judgement thereon. Which when I knew by certain reasons that I had entreated this of him in vain, I took my Book back from him after twelve days, or thereabouts, that I might require the judgement of others. But because that writing was of a greater length, then that it could be read in a short time by more persons, I did contract it into a few Positions: whereby it might be more easily communicate to many. And in this point my resolution fell not out unhappily. For both I did know the opinion of many most worthy and famous Theologues throughout Germany, which was the thing I only desired: And they were so dispersed amongst the Students, that they who at my entreaty would not read them, were now compelled to peruse them against their will.  
But that it might appear unto all, that I sought no other thing but the naked truth, I prefixed a Preface, in which I demanded these two things: First, That all men would diligently examine each parcel, and that they would weigh them in the Balance of the holy Scriptures, and if they should see me in an Error, that they should free me there from, that thereby I might likewise free others. I promised with my very heart [I call God the Searcher of all hearts to witness] that I would before God and Men give him thanks that would show me my error. But because I foresaw that would come to pass, which afterwards happened; I desired in the second place, That if they had resolved to reprehend any thing therein, they would do it in these ways and places, wherein it should be lawful for me both to Interpret my own words, and to defend justly, what injustly they should condemn. And although they had ever found me their most constant Friend, and most ready to serve them in all good Offices, notwithstanding I could scarcely keep them, by reason of what had passed before, that they would so deal with me, as I dealt with them. Neither was I deceived in my opinion: for of my greatest friends, as I foolishly believed, they became suddenly my enemies, in so much, that they would not any more deign to speak with me, although in my whole Life I had never hurt them in word or deed, but had ever laboured to deserve well at their hands, which I yet resolve to do. In the mean time I gave God thanks, that it so happened, that I should make proof of their faith and good will, rather in such a matter, then in any other.  
In the mean time they were not quiet: for after they did see that they had tried in vain by the Magistrate, to wring the Theses out of the hands of the Students, they wrought another way: To wit, under the show of Laws, which are not where extant: they desired, That as the Theologues did assay nothing in the professions and rights of others, so they desired that other professors might be enjoined to abstain from their Schools. If this had been desired sixty years ago, it had seemed tolerable: how at this time it can be carried, let others judge. Was it only said to them, that teach Theology for a yearly Salary of some hundred Florins, Search the Scriptures: Prove the Spirits, whether they be of God: Prove all things, hold that which is good? I thought the Doctrine of Theology had been common to all Christians, and that therefore it was every where taught publicly. What other thing do they desire, when they desire we should abstain so from their Schools, as they essay nothing in the rights & doctrines of other faculties?  
I believe they would not this, That we should not hear their Lessons, or that we should not enter that place to Learn. Chief seeing they desired that, by reason of my Theses proposed most modestly. Who I pray hath interdicted them the studies of the tongues, of Medicine, Philosophy, or of the Laws? Is it because they care not for these Studies, that we should also neglect the Study of Theology? If we got not more loss by the ignorance of holy Scripture, than we should receive by our unskillfullness in those matters, perchance we should gratify them. They will easily vanquish if it be not conceded to any, to contradict their Statutes. Of old those of the Church of Rome required these things of us, and they desired it with some more right thereto. But I cannot gratify either, whilst my Saviour Jesus Christ commandeth me otherwise.  
In the Interim it doth not move me, that they say, that it becometh not me to handle Theology: and that in so doing, I do not rightly provide for my own esteem. It may be it is, because I inquire after the truth without wages. For if I were hired by a Stipend to teach Theology; I should do nothing in this Point, according to their opinion different from my Office and Duty. But I desire nothing else then to understand the truth, to glorify God, and that I should be rather made ashamed, then that the truth should be trodden on. Christ in that place spoke not in vain, That they cannot believe, who desire glory of one another, neglecting the glory of God.  
Wherefore when even this had not fallen out according to their opinion, and that they could not contain their conceived hatred, They begun to oppugn them with Arguments: which at every opportunity they did propose not without cruel Criminations. Which albeit they were told me by divers Men; notwithstanding for Peace's sake, I easily contemned them: and I hoped it would come to pass, then when that violence of their mind should begin to languish, and their wrath was a little cooled, they would be rendered more favourable to us. Notwithstanding here I was also deceived: for after the first Month almost, they neither have remitted any thing of their wrath, neither have they forborn to impugn our writings, partly by reproaches, partly by calumnies, partly I know not by what Sophistical little reason; wherefore I brought again the hundred Theses to the forge, and reduced them to seaventy five, and placed them in their own order; which at first I had placed, not where they should have been, but where they did occur: I explained something in them more clearly: and proved something more solidly: To conclude, I laboured that I might fully satisfy the lovers of the truth, as far as could be done in so short a writing.   

The Life of that Pious and Learned Philosopher, Physician, and Divine, THOMAS ERASTUS.  
AS it is one of the most proper Attributes of that great enemy of mankind, to be an accuser of the Brethren: So it hath ever been one of the greatest Stratagems that hath been used by his chief instruments, against the Lords holy ones. For when their dazzled eyes durst no more strive against the glorious Beams of the Truth, which were ready to consume them; then their only recourse was to darken the honourers and admirers thereof, by casting a Cloud of black calumnies upon their Fame and Reputation. Which some smattering (as they call themselves) Divines have been very of towards our liberal Author: Yet could not any of his enemies in his own time find any colour or cause for the same: But he was always so admired by all men of all parties, That I thought it most fit not to present his friend's Character, but men's different from him in opinion, of him. Thomas Erastus was born in Baden in Switzer-Land the year of our Lord (as Pantaleon believeth) 1524. After he was taught the first Principles of Learning in his own Country; he went to Basill Anno. 1540 Where he most industriously learned both the Tongues, and liberal Sciences. There, in the year 1542. he was infected with the plague: but by Gods special grace, and the Physicians care, he recovered of the Malady. He so courted the sweeter muses, so that nevertheless he did not forget to acquaint himself intimately with Divinity: And his continual converse with the holy Scriptures; and his serious Meditation in Religious Matters taught him, by God's good mercy, what was to be followed in the Controversies raised then about Religion.  
And although this young man that was so much Enamoured of Learning, was by a double impediment, kept back from the attainment of his wishes; both by the disease of his body, and the means of his fortune; Yet notwithstanding he would not suffer himself, by either of these discommodities to be called away from the sweet society of the Muses. For although he had a defect in his right hand, and had not the use thereof in writing, yet he inur'd his left hand so much thereunto, that in public he received his Masters Dictates, with a more current hand, than any of his fellows; and in private, if any thing was to be committed to writing, it was all happily done by him. Besides being born of Parents, whose mean fortune inroled him amongst them, that, (haud facile emergunt, not easily swatter out to any great height; The Lord provided him with a noble Patron, whose bountiful and liberal hand sustained him, till he accomplished his studies. He went for Italy and came to Bononia, where he gave himself fully to the study of the subtlest Philosophy, in which be fare advanced, That he was not esteemed amongst the ordinary sort of that Profession. From the walks of the Philosophers, he betook himself to the Gardens of the Physicians: Where he was of such industry, that he was most acceptable to the ablest Medious; and was judged worthy to be honoured with a public testimony of his skill in that piece of Learning.  
Amongst other Masters he had D. Lucas Ghynnst, a good, learned, and experienced Man, whom he doth very much praise in divers of his Writings, it was he that wonderfully commended to him a receipt made up of Thenack and Mithredate. Camillus Franchin, was his fellow in his studies at Bononia, who afterwards became a famous Physician of that City, and ever remained his most constant friend.  
After he had spent nine years in the company of the most famous and expert Physicians of Italy, he returned to his friends in his own Country, and lived for a while in the Court of the Prince of Henneberge: and forthwith his happiness and skill in the practice of Medicine was spread in favourable reports.  
Frederick the third Prince Elector Palatine did upon honourable terms call him thence, and committed to him the public profession of Physic in his ancient University then flourishing in Heidelberg, and made him the chief Physician and Counsellor by reason of his prudence and uprightness of Life. Whilst he remained there, the Controversy about the figure in the words of the Lords Supper again broke fresh out. Erastus did assist the Trope, yea by published writings; and so was not only a Physician to the body, but soul also; and afforded most worthy help to the rising and restoring of that Church. In the year 64. Erastus the Physician was appointed by Frederick Prince Palatine, to be also together with his Divins at that conference, which was appointed betwixt the Palatinate and Wittenberg, Theologues concerning Christ's presence in the Lord's Supper in the Monestery of Mouldrun.  
After this he went from Heidenberg to Basill: And in the last part of his Life did honour that Academy with teaching and disputing; of which in the first and greenest years of his study he had been a Member. He did wonderfully extol School Disputes in respect they did exercise invention, and judgement, and confirm the same. And further, be constantly professed that he never returned from any of those disputes, but always bettered. At length in the year 1583. in the last of December, he paid his debt unto Nature, and was buried in St. Martin's Church at Basill, with his Monumental Inscription  
Luminum Doctori.  
Non Hermes hic Tris-megistus: 
 Sed 
 Acutus Philosophus, 
 Elegans Medicus, 
 Syncerus Theologus, 
 Heidelbaergensis 
 Academiae Columen, 
 Basiliensis Lumen; 
 Cui nutritia sua liberaliter 
 Rependit; 
 Doctis piisque amabilis, 
 Et quod 
 Ad Patriae splendorem 
 Faciat, 
 Helvetius Bodensis, 
 Thomas Erastus conditur 
 Sexagenarius  
An. Sal. MDXXCIII. Prid. Kal. Jan.  
He was of an unblameable Life, and was not ashamed even publicly to acknowledge any known error, if the matter so required. And was so desirous of Learning, that he would willingly have died, so that he could but have cleared those doubts, of which he could not satisfy himself. And although he thought he did not err, and that he had confirmed his own opinion very probably, yet nevertheless, he was ever ready to give place to them that offered better.  
He was most diligent in making inquest into the virtues of medicaments; and most gravely resolved, that those Physicians must be deceived, that trust without trial. Whence he was happy enough in his practice, and by the help of God's grace, cured many that were heavily diseased of Dropsies, Epilepsies, Gouts, and other Maladies accounted incurable. Neither had he any man's authority in such esteem, that it could move him to departed from what was evident to sense, or agreeable to reason: But he always judged, that truth was to be taken from the matter itself, and not from authority. He refuted judicial Astrology in divers Writings yet extant; And refused Paracelsisme in a Treatise and other Disputations: yet doth not condemn, but commend lawful Chymestry. He hath also written concerning Witches, and their power, etc. Against Mercenarius de putredine. Comes Montanus: A volume of Epistles and Disputations. Of Aurum Potabile: Of the occult power of Medicaments. Dissertations concerning Comets. And in Theologie he hath published a Treatise on the Lord's Supper without his name; against Schegkius of the one person, and two natures of Christ. Of Excommunication both Theses, and defences published as is supposed by his widow. The names of the Books which he hath written, and are not yet published, are set down by John Gregory Schenckius in his Bibliotheca Medica. And thus much is testified of his Life by Melchior Adamus a strict Protestant, according to calvin's Tenets in his Book De vitis Germanorum Medicorum.  
And a Roman-Catholick of no small note, The illustrious James Augustus Thuanus, Precedent of the Parliament of Paris, doth afford him this true and handsome Testimony in the seaventy eight Book of his Histories, in the year M. D. LXXXIII.  
This year [saith he] was shut up with the death of Thomas Erastus born at Baden in Switzer-Land, who canstantly walking in the solid truth and not so much in the principles delivered by ancients of both the Sciences, was famous in this age for his knowledge of Philosophy and Physic. Therefore with valide Arguments he refuted Astrology, which from the position of the Stars judgeth of men's fortunes, and likewise with sound reasons did refute and sharply prosecute the Paracelsian Medicine which either by its novelty or vanity had enticed so many wits in Germany and elsewhere. At last having walked out of the humane Sciences, he likewise handled Divinity, and did throughly treat of the Question concerning Discipline and Church-Censures against the opinion of them of his own party, from whence arose heavy contentions in the Helvetian Churches. Finally being above threescore years, in this year, in Basill, where he had professed as he had done long before at Heidelberg, he that had illustrated Nature by so many learned Monuments, did pay his debt to Nature on the last of December, and was buried in St. Martin's. Thus far he.  
Wherefore seeing so famous Men both of his own and other professions have publicly acknowledged his Piety and Learning, I think they must be cursedly distracted of their wits, or of a very evil nature that will rather believe the Pedantick-Machivilian calumny of his enemies, who only in these went beyond him, than the honourable reports of such Illustrious and Grave personages.   

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

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

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

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

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

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

VI  
Therefore he that is thrown out of the external Communion of the Church, that is, He that is excommunicated; Is debarred either of all these three; or of two of them; or only of one. But not any aught to be debarred of the two former, that is, from professing of the Faith, and approving the Doctrine (under which the hearing of the Word or Doctrine is comprehended) of Christians: but rather all men are to be invited, and by all means possible are to be induced thereto.  
Wherefore it remaineth, That he that is Excommunicated, is debarred from the sole (of the foresaid three) participation of the Sacrament: we will consider afterwards, whither the denial of private converse doth inseparably adhere unto this, or may be separate therefrom. But this is certain, that not any other punishment belongeth to the essence of Excommunication; for the same may be inflicted upon Persons, that are not excommunicate; and may not be inflicted upon the Excommunicate.   

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

VIII.  
It appeareth from what hath been said, that Excommunication is nothing else then a solemn and public interdiction of the Sacraments, and chief of the Lords Supper. (which the Apostle especially calleth a Communion, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as was said in the beginning,) The Elders taking notice, and voicing the same before: whereby they that sin may repent, and again be admitted to the Sacraments.   

IX.  
Here then ariseth a Question, Wither any man for committing of a sin, or living in filthiness, should be removed from the use and participation of the Sacraments, he being desirous to receive the same with other Christians?  
The Question here is moved concerning him, that professeth the same Faith with us, that hath entered the same Church by Baptism; and doth not descent therefrom in Doctrine, (as we laid it down in the fifth,) but erreth only in life and manners. This then is demanded; Wither in the holy Scriptures, there is extant either any Precept or example, whereby it is commanded or taught that such should be removed from the Sacraments?   

X.  
Our Answer is, that there is not any such extant; But rather, that contrary both Examples and Precepts are to be found every where in the Bible.  
For we find it written by Moses, Exod. 12.23, 24. Numb. 9 Deut. 16. That every Circumcised Male should appear thrice every year before the Lord: To wit, in the Feast of unleavened Bread, in the Feast of Weeks, and that of Tabernacles. For that Law commandeth strangers also, if they be Circumcised, to celebrate the Passover together with the Jews. And likewise it is commanded that the unclean; and they that are travelling, should upon the same day of the second Month, and after the same manner, eat the Passover with the Jews: And it is moreover added, that he shall be put to death, that shall neglect the Celebration of the Passover: viz. he that neither traveleth, nor is unclean. Wherefore God hath willed and commanded all the Circumcised to Celebrate the Passover. Neither hath he excluded any from this Sacrament, or from other Rites, Ceremonies, or Sacrifices except unclean Persons.   

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

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

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

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

XV.  
This uncleanness indeed was a legal Ceremony, and not the impurity of life and manners, for he was not unclean that had committed any sin or perpetrated any villainy: But he was unclean that had touched any dead Body, Excrements, bloody Issues, or such like. For this reason the Pharisees would not enter the Council-house, when they delivered Christ to Pilate, to be put to death, lest they should be hindered to eat the Passover. Certes, the Mosaical uncleanness did not so figurate out sins, that as those that were defiled with them, were forbidden the Tabernacle, and converse of others; So they that were guilty of sin, should be chastised and punished by the denying them the Sacraments, or throwing them out of the visible Church: which is clearly held forth by the reasons following.  
1. Transgressor's were not punished with the same punishment that the unclean were, whilst that legal uncleanness was in force, and together therewith there were multitudes of wicked persons. How then is it likely, that after these Ceremonies are removed and abolished, they should have signified these wickednesses ought to be so punished?  
2. Moses should have openly been opposite to himself, whilst he did really admit those persons to the Temple and Ceremonies, which by the legal Ceremonies he signified should be debarred the same. For it is certain, that not any was forbidden the Temple and company of others, for the viciousness of his manners. If he had not, according to the appointment of the Law, touched a dead body, or defiled himself by any other such like means: Therefore he should have punished them that signified the wicked, and should have left the wicked themselves (as to this punishment) unpunished: and so he should both deny and affirm the same thing.  
3. Legal impurity was a certain quality and stain of the body, when as wickednesses are operations and consist in action. For the cause and wet of wickedness is brought forth together with us, neither is it punished by man so long as it bringeth forth no fruits: Otherwise all men should be Excommunicated. For we will never be freed from this impurity of soul, so long as we shall enjoy this mortal life. But the other being only a blemish and uncleanness of body, is punished by secluding them from dyeting together with others; although it produce no fruit; that is, although the legal unclean Person do not offend in any thing against the Law. The works and transgressions of legal unclean persons; If whilst they were unclean, they offended against the Law in any thing, were punished by the Magistrate, as other transgressions were.  
4. Our Adversaries confess that all sorts of sins are not to be punished by Excommunication, whenas the Law commandeth every purity to be punished by excluding the Offender from the Tabernacle and public Sacrifices; wherefore they did not prefigurate all offences.  
5. Not any can be Excommunicate that sinneth unwillingly; when as men most frequently became unclean against their wills, and without any fault in them; yea many times to their great grief. What guilt is to be thought in him, who against his will, and whilst he was sleeping lost his seed in the night? whose Wife became menstruous before his expectation? whose Children, Wife, Parents, did die? or to whom any such thing did happen? But that these vices should be voluntary, for which men should be excluded from the Sacraments (as some are of opinion) needeth no probation.  
6. There was a fare heavier punishment appointed for one that should kill a man against and besides his will; Then a few days or week's exclusion from the Sacraments: which was almost the greatest punishment was inflicted on uncleanness. Because then, an involuntary, and therefore the most easy sin was chastised with a severer punishment, than the most unclean legal impurity, it easily appeareth that the punishment due to this is not to be transferred for the chastising of wickedness.  
7. It frequently came to pass, that the most holy and upright person was made unclean, and was debarred from entering the Temple and use of the Sacrifices; whilst the most wicked person without any impediment was admitted to both. Wherefore if in the Church of God, the punishment of both should be the same, this person should much more be debarred the use of them then the other.  
8. It is clear, That God hath not at any time or in any place absolutely forbidden all legal impurity; for then without doubt he would not have had some to attend that were dying, or that were infected with some unclean disease: yea he would not have some to bury the dead, and cleanse the unclean, by whose means they themselves became also defiled, Numb. 19 And whilst he willed this, he willed that all legal uncleanness should not be avoided. But God did forbid all sorts of wickedness to all persons at all times: neither did he permit them at any time, or in any place to do evil.  
9 God commandeth that wickedness should be repressed with fire, sword, strangling, stones, stripes, fines, imprisonment, and with other such like punishments: But he commanded the unclean to be purified by water, and with other such like means to be purged.  
10. He was not esteemed a wicked and condemned person, who was according to the sentence of the Law, made unclean, and even to the day of his death did remain such; as when Women in their courses, or Men sick of a Gonorrhaee or infected with a Leprosy did die. But he that liveth so, that even at the hour of his death, he shall be by good and upright men thought worthy of Excommunication, he cannot but be eestemed an unworthy and ungodly person.  
11. Legal impurity had no place but amongst one people and for a certain time. But vices did spring every where amongst all Nations, in all places, and at all times. Wherefore seeing vices were punished and judged fit to be punished both by Gentiles and Jews, before ever the legal impurity was introduced, it certainly signified some other thing, than this punishment of wicked persons, being much more light than that which would be satisfactory to the will of God.  
12. Every man was purified in a certain space of time, or number of days, by using certain Ceremonies, of what mind soever he was of, that is, whither he willingly, or against his will became unclean. But no man is delivered from wickedness, except he be cordially sorry, and desire truly and earnestly both to be, and be made better.  
13. Every unclean person was purged according to his own judgement, (The leprous and some few others being excepted) neither had they any need of Judges and Elders, who were to discern whither they were rightly purified or not. Our Adversaries hold another opinion concerning Excommunicate Persons. For in this point they will have us to follow the judgement of their Elders: and not to accept of their Assertion, who declare that they are penitent for their sins.  
14. He was to be declared sound and clean, who had the whole skin of his body of one colour, though from the crown of his head, to the sole of his feet he were Leprous: And on the other part he was esteemed unclean, who had his skin spotted in one or more parts. In wicked persons the case is fare different: for he that is altogether clothed with wickedness (as the Sow that hath weltered in the mire, is altogether dirty) is not better than he, who yet carrieth some shadow of honesty and godliness.  
15. The Leprouse Persons are not commanded to do any thing for their own cure; but they are only commanded to show themselves to the Priest; that he may declare whither they be, or be not purified. But wicked persons are commanded to amend their lives, and that they declared the sorrow of their souls by their upright and holy conversation.  
16. Many became unclean by touching those things, whereby others were purified, and whilst they were purifying others, Numb. 19 But not any deserve to be excommunicate for that, by which he goeth about to cure and cleanse those, that are defiled with sin and wirkedness Wherefore if you assert the figure to corespond, it behoveth you to concede, that all they, that by this means go about to bring the stray into the way, are to be excommunicate.  
17. Unclean Persons, according to the Law, were not debarred from all the Sacraments; for they were commanded to observe all the private rites of their Country, to observe the Sabbath and feast of expiation, which chief held forth the fruits of Christ's works, and that under pain of death, Leu. 16, and 23. for (as we said before) they were not judged to be condemned and forlorn Persons. Now whither the condition of excommunicate Persons, according to our Adversaries opinion, be not far different from this, is not needful further to be insisted on.  
18. Unclean Persons did defile legally the , houses, places and people, with whom they hold any converse. But wicked men do not defile the Temple or any other thing, or Persons except those that communicate with them in their vices. The Temple was not defiled so oft as Adulteresses were brought in thither, Numb. 5. and John 8. And the Publican did not defile the Temple when he went up thither together with the Pharisee to pray, Luke 18. Certainly the Pharisee who esteemed him a wicked Person in respect of himself, did not think himself defiled by his company. When Judas threw back the price of treason, we do not read that the Temple was defiled by him: neither do we find the Pharisees complained thereof, which nevertheless would not enter the Counsel-house, lest they should be defiled. But if a woman sick of her flowers or any other Ishew, or that had a care of a Burial, or had touched a dead body though unwillingly, were seen in the Temple, than all things became unclean: neither was it lawful to Sacrifice or use any other worship, till it was purified. After the same manner Judas did not defile the last Supper by his villainies: which nevertheless had come to pass, if either he or any other of the Disciples had touched any dead thing.  
To conclude, Legal uncleanness was a figure of our crooked and corrupt nature, which cannot enter Heaven, unless it be washen and cleansed by the pure blood of Christ; for as the Tabernacle signified Heaven, and the exclusion from it, the keeping out from the Heavenly Jerusalem; so the purification by common or holy water, did prefigure the changing by the death of Christ. The quality then thereof was not a figure of a work, but of a quality, or of our corrupted Nature: neither did it foreshow how offences were to be punished (for Moses had taught this in clear and plain words.) But what our condition was to be in the life to come, that is, in the Kingdom of Heaven, which the Land of Canaan did represent: which all are manifestly enough to be seen throughly from the 21. of the Revelation. Augustine in his Writing against the Donatists did believe it signified the excluding of Heretics. From the many and great differences that are found betwixt both these impurities, yea a blind man may discern that the one could not so figure the other as our Adversaries aver.   

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

XIV.  
And indeed the Sacraments of the Ancients and ours, are the same, in respect of the thing signified, as Paul cleareth in the 1 Cor. 10. wherefore except it appear that the Law of Moses is either abolished or changed in this point, it is not lawful for any man to bring in the contrary.   

XXV.  
For as we use rightly against the Anabaptists this firm Argument, because circumcision hath succeeded to Baptism, and Christ hath not in any place forbidden Infants Baptism, therefore it is not less lawful for us to Baptism our Infants, than it was for the Jews to circumcise theirs: So here likewise, we can no less sound reason after this manner. The Lord's Supper succeeded to the eating of the Passover. But vices were not punished by the denial of the Passover, neither were any for these debarred it: but rather all, especially the Male, were invited by the Law to the celebration thereof, which seeing in no place we read to be antiquate and abolished, neither are they indeed to be punished by the denial of the Lords Supper, nor upon this account ought any to be rejected. We have said enough concerning the old Testament: now it is convenient that we descend to Christ and his Apostles, that is to the new Testament.   

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

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

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

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

XXX.  
That is also to be observed, that the Disciples at the first Supper, begun to contend amongst themselves, about the eminency and dignity, nevertheless none of them were removed for that cause. But moreover he commanded and willed, that all should drink of the Cup, [in relation to this matter, the reason of the Cup and Bread is the same,] witness Matth. 26. which Mark doth testify was done: what other thing can be believed Christ willed by these words then to confirm those things, which God had of old commanded by Moses? viz. that no Baptised Person should be excluded from that public and solemn Thanksgiving, who desire to be present thereat? By which it appeareth, that not any aught to be removed from the Table of the Lord, which embraceth the Doctrine of Christ, and suffereth himself to be taught of Christ.   

XXXI.  
Christ will not have his Kingdom [I speak of the external] on this earth Circumscribed within narrower boundings amongst Christians, then in old times he would have it contained and defined amongst the Jews. Therefore as God commanded all the circumcised externally to be partakers of the same Sacraments and Ceremonies, and commanded Offenders to be coerced and punished with the Sword and other punishments: So here Christ will have all them that are Baptised, or are Christians, and have right and true belief concerning Religion, to use the same external Ceremonies and Sacraments: But will have those, that are flagitious to be chastised by the Magistrate with death, banishment, imprisonment, and other punishments; hitherto, as it seemeth belongeth these Parables of the net, marriage, and of the tares.   

XXXII.  
In the Apostles, especially in the Apostle Paul, we find no fewer, and no less plain and pithy Arguments. The first is this, That the Apostles are not found any where either to have taught or exercised the Excommunication. Which Argument seeming in itself invalide become unanswerable, if we consider, that they were even unto their death's most strict keepers of Moses' Laws, which Christ had not abolished: as every man may know even by the 21. and last Chapter of the Acts. Wherefore they never tried or would try to repel any man, which professed himself a Christian, and to believe rightly concerning that Doctrine, from our Sacraments, which only differed from them of old in the signs and time signified. For they did not in any place either do or teach any thing against Moses' commands, which were not abolished by Christ; But they observed the Law no less diligently afterwards, than they did before the death of Christ. As the chief of the Apostles in the Place newly cited do witness. For they only suffered the Nations to live without the Law of Moses, and not the converted Jews: which is diligently to be observed here, because of the things that follow. And as fare as concerns the substance of the Doctrine, they taught nothing which was different from Moses and the Prophets. For if they had taught otherwise, their Doctrine had not been judged by them of Beroea, to be consonant to the Scriptures, Acts 17.   

XXXIII.  
I will say somewhat more for the sentence of Moses, which is much the very same which we hold: That there are no reasons found in the Apostle Paul for the contrary opinion. For in the 1 to the Corinthians and 8. Chapter, he excluded not those which as yet believed Idols to be some thing: Neither those elevate and proud swelling Gnostics, who did openly with profane and ungodly worshippers of Idols, eat things offered to Idols in their very Chapels at their solemn and public Banquets: That, which God by Moses had clearly forbidden, Exod. 34. and by the Apostles Acts 15. and lastly by John, 2. Revelation, this was no less weighty sin, than if any this day should dare to be present at the Mass of the Roman-Church: which may readily be gathered by any man out of the tenth Chapter of the same Epistle. Because in this place the Apostle Paul proveth, that such men do declare by this their deed, that they are no less fellows and commonners of the Devil; Then by the receiving of the Lords Supper, they testify themselves to be members of Christ's mystical Body.   

XXXIV.  
Next, in the tenth Chapter, Paul reasoneth thus: As in old times the Lord did not spare those that coveted evil things, nor Idolaters, nor whoremongers, nor tempters, and murmurers against Christ, although they were Baptised with the same Baptism with all the rest; and did eat the same spiritual food, and drink the same spiritual drink: So neither will he spare any of you whatsomever, which are defiled with the same sins, although you eat all of the same Bread, and drink all of the same Cup with all the Saints. By these it is perceived. First, That our Sacraments and those of the Ancients were the same, in respect of the thing internal and Heavenly, otherwise the Argument of the Apostle would be of no effect. Next it is clear, That many corrupt persons, and that publicly known to be such, were admitted. Thirdly, This is likewise certain, That not any was commanded to forbear, as Excommunicate persons are commanded. The Apostle doth not say that such are to be kept back: But he foretelleth that they would be punished by God so, as the Ancients were punished. For Moses together with the Levites did kill a part of them 32. and the Lord did consume another part with fire, Serpents, with the Sword, and with the opening up of the earth: which also happened unto the Corinthians; for he affirmeth that many of them then were sick, and many of them dead.   

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

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

XXXVII.  
Even as in the celebration of the Sacraments we see no mention to be made of Excommunication; so neither do we find any such thing in their Institution. Yea the Scripture hath not made mention of it, where it explains the end and use of the same. But if they were given to this end to the Church, that they might be a kind of punishment to the wicked and wickedness, without doubt in one of the places there would have some mention been made thereof. The ends of the Lords Supper for which it was instituted are these: That we should solemnly celebrate the death of our Lord, and give public thanks to him for our delivery: That we should by our presence teach and testify that we have no other meat and drink of life, but Christ Crucified, and his Blood shed for us: That we should declare we repent of our forespent life, think of a better, embrace the Christian Doctrine, to belong to his Church, in which we should desire afterwards to live holily and godly, and die therein. Hath the Scripture in any place forbidden any man to do these things? But some, you will say, do oft return to their own Bias, and are made no better. I answer, That he who in the present thinks so, as I have said, by the motion of the holy Ghost is not repelled by the Scriptures but God knoweth whither and when at least he shall persevere in that holy Resolution. It is our part always to hope well of all men, albeit we will oft be deceived; and moreover from our hearts to beseech God, that he will confirm them and us together in good. In the mean time he that doth evil, is to be reproved and admonished, that he should prove himself, lest he eat and drink damnation, as the apposite teacheth.   

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

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

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

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

XLII.  
That this is the proper and legitimate interpretation of this place is manifestly shown by all the circumstances and whole series of the discourse, but chief by the conclusion. First Christ doth not discourse in this place of the weighty and public sins that belonged to his Country Religion, and rites, the punishing of which belonged to the Synedrium: but he speaketh of private injuries, the power of remitting of which belonged to every man: this proveth evidently that which I have said, that the whole contexture of the discourse is in the singular number. If thy Brother oeffnd against thee (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,) reprove him betwixt thee and himself alone: tell the Church if he will not hear thee, etc. After the same manner also he speaketh, Luke 17. if thy Brother (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) sin against thee, and immediately if thy Brother sin seven times in one day against thee, and return to thee, and shall say, that he is sorry, forgive him. We cannot interpret (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,) against the Church; for seeing he says afterwards, tell the Church, the sense will be, O Church, tell the Church. Neither can it signify the same, that thou being conscious: for neither the nature, nor circumstances of the word or speeches will suffer this: for presently after is added, betwixt thee and himself alone. How then if he sin, I being conscious to it, and did not sin against me only and alone, am I alone compelled to admonish him alone? am I not rather commanded to reprove him, together with them, against whom he hath properly sinned? but Christ doth not concede, that I should first go to him with others: therefore he speaketh of an injury done by my Brother against me only. As likewise how shall the words of Luke agree with this interpretation, when he saith, if thy Brother shall return to thee, forgive him? shall we likewise say here, that to thee, is put for thou knowing it? but what then will forgive him signify? Must we also say here that it is, be thou conscious to his forgiveness? did the prodigal Luke 15. sinning against Heaven, sin, Heaven being conscious there to? how we shall sin against our Brethren by doing evil is clear, 1 Cor. 8. but the nature of this place is different. Truly the speech and words do not suffer us to take them of any other but for private injuries; which you yourself may remit to the penitent; but if he will not of himself repent, you must use all means that he may repent. Secondly, The same is proved, because the Apostles did understand Christ's words any otherwise, as is manifest by Peter's Interogation on whom he asketh: Is it enough that if my Brother sin against me seven times, I forgive him seven times? Peter was not ignorant that he neither should nor could of himself alone remit those sins which belong to the Church and divers others. Thirdly, The word to the proveth this, Christ saith not let him be to us, let him be to the Church, let him be to others; but let him be to thee alone, which hath suffered, or doth suffer an injury by him, as a Publican. Albeit chief speaketh to all the Apostles alike, nevertheless he commandeth that the offender should be esteemed as a Publican to him only that was hurt by him: and that after the admonition of the Church; therefore he speaketh not of these things which belong to the whole Church, or to many others: but of these things which belong to every single man. Fourthly, He speaks of such sins as we ought so oft to forgive our Brethren, for as oft as they say they repent of them: and that this transaction or remission done betwixt two only, shall be the end of all strife, is clearly held forth in these words. Again, I say unto you if, two of you agree together, etc. Ver. 19 but a great offence which belongs to more, or to the whole Church cannot be forgiven by one alone. By the way ye are to take notice here, that the Adverb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, again, doth declare that he said the same now just before, albeit he used other words. Fifthly, Christ speaketh of such sins, whereof they are not ashamed that have committed them: or which they will not deny before any man, if he speak of other grievous sins, and of such as belong to the Church; and many other witnesses should have no place. For no man would confess that before witnesses, that he remitted such an act if it were done privately. But in all those things of which is spoken here, there is degrees set down by Christ to be kept, wherefore he speaketh of private injuries, belonging not at all to others. Sixtly, He speaketh of such, which the Church, of which Christ speaketh here, doth not punish, but sendeth away the Offender chastised only with words. For in vain should he say, if he will not hear the Church; for indeed it could punish sins with public punishment. Seaventhly, The Parable that immediately follows, doth prove the same clearly; which doth teach, that God would not forgive them their sins, that would not forgive from their heart their penitent Brothers, without pain or punishment, but the Church should not so, as they say, forgive the Offenders: but should keep them at least for a time from the Sacraments: until they should approve their penitence to Presbyters chosen for this purpose. Therefore he would have them forgiven seven times a day, that say they repent, but would see Arguments of their Repentance, of which Christ speaketh not one word here: for he will have no other Argument, than a confession of their fault; which he that doth not dissemble it, will not return seven times a day. It is then clearly demonstrate by these reasons, that Christ doth not discourse here of these sins that are to be punished by Excommunication, but of light and private injuries, and of the means to compose them: therefore it doth not belong to the business of Excommunication. If the conclusion only used by Christ in the end of the Chapter be looked unto all cause of doubting will be removed.   

XLIII.  
Those that are of opinion, that Christ in this place and Chapter did institute Excommunication, must be compelled to show in what words this command is comprehended. If they cannot demonstrate it to be contained there; and it is in vain for them to say it is commanded here. Therefore it's either in these words, tell the Church; or in these, let him be to thee as a Publican; or in these, whatsomever you shall bind, etc. But that not any of these contain any such thing, I will prove what solid Arguments: therefore seeing it cannot be sought in any other words, it is in vain sought after in this Chapter.   

XLIV.  
The words of Christ, tell the Church, prove only this; that he that is injured by his Brother, and hath endeavoured in vain to be reconciled to him, may complain of the injury to the Church, or to the moderator of the Church. Moreover that the Church hath right and power to reprove and admonish an injurious man, that he may cease to be sick. There is no more power here given to the Church, than was given before to the witnesses: if they only except this that the case was not to be brought before the Church without witnesses. Would not this then be a foolish way of reasoning, the Church hath power to reprove him that doth injury to others, therefore it hath power to Excommunicate him, and keep him back from the Sacraments? But indeed some will say, the Church hath no power to punish Offenders with corporal punishments, or with the Sword; therefore it is compelled to punish them by forbidding them the Sacraments. I answer, That this connexion doth not follow, albeit the Antecedent were true; (but that it is false, being taken of the visible Church is clearly demonstrate to our eyes and senses, by all the Old Testament, and the History of all ages,) neither can it ever be proved, that these should rightly cohere togegether: it cannot punish by the Sword, therefore it must debar from the common Sacraments, them that profess the same Religion.   

XLV.  
If he, that is of another judgement, shall answer that it is contained in those words, let him be unto thee as a Publican and a Heathen: I answer, it is false, for by no speech, by no persuasion, by no Arguments; can it ever be demonstrate, that this speech of Christ, let him be to thee as an Heathen and a Publican, is the same with this, let them excommunicate, let them be shut out from the Sacraments. For in Christ's time circumcssed Publicans, whither they were Jews or Gentiles, were not kept back from the Sacrafices, Temple, Ceremonies, and Sacraments: Truly it seems that Christ therefore joined a Publican with a Heretic, lest any should judge that the interdiction of the Sacramehts were commanded here. How could he according to the Law be kept from the Temple and divine worship, seeing it was not a sin to be a collector of the public revenues? Neither is it in any place found to be forbidden by God; and truly Christ hath not forbid it. When the Publicans demand of John what was needful for them to do that they might be saved, he doth not bid them that they should forsake their office: but he exhorteth them that they should not exact more than was imposed, Luke 3. Christ likewise doth not bid Zacheus the chief of the Publicans to forsake this Office; Neither doth he reprehend him for it, Luke 19 Neither do we read of him who went up to the Temple to pray and returned home justified by Christ's sentence, that he left of to be a Publican, Luke 18. neither these that praise God, Luke 7.15. and was most dear to Christ and his Apostles, to change their condition, as we find. In brief I will say it, that the holy Scriptures, that is, that God did at no time and in no place condemn and dispraise the Publicans upon the account that they were Publicans, that is, Collectors of the revenues; which all wise men will freely confess with me. Which being laid down I argument thus, God doth condemn no Publican because as Publican in the holy Scriptures; but he that God doth condemn cannot be excommunicate by the Law of God; therefore no Publican could by divine right be forbidden from the Temple and divine Worship: Now I go on concluding this no Publican by the Law, could be condemned or Excommunicated, but Christ commandeth him that will not hear that Church of which he speaketh, there to be esteemed as a Publican, therefore he commands him to be esteemed such a one, as by the Law of God could not be esteemed acceptable, to wait upon this account because he was a Publican. When the Excommunicators affirm that these words let him be unto thee as a Publican, doth signify also much as if he had said, let him be to thee such an one, as a Publican is to a Pharisee, they speak what is absurd, false, and impossible; for it is not credible that Christ would in that place in which he resolved to institute (as our adversaries affirm) a thing of so great moment, and therefore so profitable and necessary in the Church, take his rule which afterward was to be kept by all, from the impious facts of most wicked men: and moreover I proved before that no man was ever excommunicate by the Jews, after that manner that now we dispute of. To conclude, all the words of Christ do oppose their interpretation, for Christ doth not here speak of the Pharisees, or with them, but he hath to do with his Disciples, and centres of the way to avoid scandals, he saith this, if an injurious man will not hear the Church let him be unto thee as a Publican, viz. to thee, not as he is to the Pharisees; but it is known that Publicans were not hateful to Christ and his Disciples, and to all other Religious: Truly they did not esteem them as persons worthy of Excommunication, but they did eat and drink with them daily. But that he joins a Heathenick and a Publican together, it compels us to confess that Christ speaketh of something which should be common to them both; but the Publicans could enter the Temple, the Heathen could not. Wherefore Christ speaketh here nothing of Excommunication, therefore these words, let him be to thee as a Publican, signifieth for another thing then these, let him be to thee as an Excommunicate person. Thesense then of this place is this. If he hear not the Church, you may in this cease without the offence of any man so we with him, as if he had business to do with an Heathenick and a Publican, he that had any controversy with such men, was compelled to dispute his cause before the Roman Magistrate: This is clear concerning the Hethenicks; concerning the Publican, it appeare●● hence that they were Ministers sworn to the Romans against their own Nation: and that they could respect no justice from the Pharisees, and the chief men of the Jews who esteemed them Knaves and forlorn persons. This is not permitted by Christ to any person against his Brother Jew, before he seek reconciliation after that manner, that he hath proposed and was prescribed before in the Law. To this belongs the excuse of Paul in the last of the Acts, to wit, that he did not appeal to Caesar, but being compelled; neither that he might accuse the Jews, but that he might defend himself from wrong and violence. If a Christian had any thing against his Brother, the Apostle in the Corinthians commands that he may try to transact with him, before some chosen Arbitrators; and that he should not immediately go to Law before a Heathen Magistrate, but if a Christian had to do with a Heathen, who doubteth but that he might pursue his right before a Heathen Magistrate? After the same manner, if any should contemn the judgement and sentence of the Elders of the Church; he that was wronged and injured, might pursue the other before the Heathen Magistrate without any offence to his Neighbour.   

XLVI.  
The handling hereof will be more clear, if we shall consider which was, and what an one that Church was, which he commanded us to tell it to: In the declaring of which matter in the beginning I laid down this as a fundament, which I am confident will be approved by all, and I know will not be denied by any: viz, that Christ speaketh of that Church, which was then. For how should he command them to tell to the Church which was not to be found in any place? of whose constitution at that time they had not heard any thing? If he would lay the foundation of a new Church, or of a new form of Government, unknown to the Apostles, he should have delivered the institution thereof very lame and defective. For he neither taught who were that Church, neither of whom, nor how it should be gathered, neither the way of judgement and punishing therein: neither did he speak of all sins, as I have now proved, and they themselves, which out of this place build up Excommunication, are compelled to confess the same with us: while they affirm openly that here only hid errors are handled. Where Christ institutes any new thing, he omits nothing of those things without which that matter cannot consist, here only he commands us to tell it to the Church: which if he hear not, he permitteth the accuser to esteem him as a Publican: therefore he addeth no punishment. Luke when he fell upon this place, doth not set down all these things particularly, which St Matthew relates: the rest of the Evangelists make no mention thereof at all; they would not have been silent in so great and necessary matter, if they had known it was then first done by Christ: add, that the Apostles were certainly persuaded that Christ would not die, nor change the Religion of the Jews: and that they did in no token, no word, no sign declare that they understood not well enough the Doctrine of Christ: or if as they had heard something unknown and unusual, they neither did question, we admire thereat. Peter only did wonder at this, that he was so oft commanded to forgive his Brother, therefore they did not understand these words of Christ of a new form of government unknown to them: but they believed, and that rightly that they were taught when it should be lawful for them without offence to accuse their Brother Jew, before a profane Magistrate. And at this very day ye will not easily see a Jew going to Law with a Jew, before the Christian Magistrate.   

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

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

XLIX.  
But it appears out of the holy Scriptures and Histories that that Synedrium was a lawful Magistrate: and that in the time of Christ it did yet return and exerce the power of this word. Those things that are read in the History of Christ's Passion do first demonstrate this, and the next this other testimonies also. This sendeth forth armed men to apprehend Jesus: it examineth witnesses against him, as it would have it to seem, commandeth Christ to be brought be brought before it, and delivereth him bound to Pilate, having condemned him first publicly: It condemneth Stephen openly, and commandeth him to be killed: It commandeth the Apostles to be shut up in public Prisons; it commandeth them to be beaten, holding a public counsel concerning that matter: it giveth to Paul a commission and power to draw from other Towns the godly being bound to Jerusalem, that they miuht be killed there, Acts 24. The Jews themselves and the Judges or Synedrium, in plain terms affirm this by Tertullus the Orator, when they accused Paul to Faelix, Tertellus saith, According to our Law we would have condemned him, except Lysias had by force taken him out of our hands, Acts 23. Paul says to the chief Priest, dost thou sit to judge me here according to the Law? and yet against the mind of the Law commands me to besmitten? Afterwards Acts 26. he confesseth before Agrippa and Festus, that he put many Saints at Jerusalem and other places in Prison, having received power for this purpose from the chief Priests: and that he likewise killed them with the sentence and voice, and that he compelled them with torments and punishments to blaspheme through all the Synagogues: and he received power from the chief Priests likewise, to handle the Saints in foreign Towns, and among these in Damascus, I believe Agrippa and Festus knew whither it was lawful for the Synedrium or not to do these things. Except it had had this power they would not have absolved Paul by their votes as immediately they do. For Paul's sins should have been no less against Caesar, than the Pharisees; for he offends no less who doth unlawful things by the permission and command of them, to whom it doth not belong to permit or command it; then he who doth command such things, but neither of them are accused: and Paul is clearly absolved as one that hath done nothing worthy of bonds. Neither would  have said John 18. take the him away, and according to your Law judge him: if they had not had thts power, therefore when they say it is not lawful to kill any body, this is to be understood of the feast day for fear of the people; as Augustin expoundeth it: or of the sort of death to which they desired Christ to be put: as chrysostom interpreteth it; to this opinion the words of John fitly agrees these things was done, saith he, that it might be fulfilled which Christ had spoken signifying what death he should die. Hither also it belongs, that in the 26. of Matthew Christ saith, That he could not be taken at other times by them, when he sat in the Temple and taught: because the Scriptures might have been fulfilled, therefore than they took him, when for fear of the people and the feast instant they could not kill him, Matthew 26. Mark 14.  
Wherefore seeing they could endure him no longer, neither was it safe for them to put him to death; it followed that he should be delivered up to the Romans: that so all things might might come to pass as he had foretold should come to pass unto his Disciples, Mat. 20. which are first insinuate by John's words, and after by Augustins and Chrysostoms'. To this likewise belongs that crying out of the people, Cruci●e him, crucify him, Matthew 27. Mark 15. Luke 23. John 19   

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

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

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

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

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

LV.  
I wonder above measure how in this present place some interpret to bind and to lose by keeping back, and admitting men to the Sacraments: seeing in the whole Bible there is not a place where those words are put for this matter: neither did ever the Apostles show by any word or sign that they so understood the words of Christ. Christ's command is extant, that they should go out from them who would not receive the Gospel: But first should shake off the dust of their feet, Matthew, and Luke 10. which we know to have been done, Acts 13. and 18. but that they should deny the Sacraments to them who believe in the word, or Baptised in Christ, and embrace his Religion and Doctrine, because their life is not answerable to the Doctrine, we find it in no place either commanded unto them, or done by them. But here it will suffice to admonish, that it will never come to pass, that it can be shown in the holy Scriptures, that to bind is put for that, which is to keep back believers from receiving of the Sacraments: and to lose signifies the same that is again to admit him to the Sacraments, which for his wickedness was debarred thereof, and by this means to be insert again as it were into the Church.   

LVI.  
So than it is firmly and truly proved; that Christ in the 18. of Mat. did not discourse of excluding men from the Sacraments, but of the private transaction and composing of private injuries. Other men likewise have seen this, as Angustin in his 16. Sermon upon the words of the Lord upon Matthew. And Theophylact that compilator of chrysostom, which no man doubteth to have had this opinion, as he hath almost all other things from chrysostom. Amongst the late Divines Mr. John Brentius hath written many things in his Exposition on this Chapter, which are very agreeable to our purpose.   

LVII.  
Now the matter requireth that we come to that fact of the Apostle Paul set down in the 1 Cor. and 5. and that we demonstrate that it belongeth not to this Excommunication. First, It is known that the Apostle was a strict observer of Moses' Law: And to have done nothing against the same, as he witnesseth of himself Acts 25. Yea it appeareth, Acts 18. and 21. that he together with the rest of the Apostles did observe some Ceremonies also of the Law: and therefore to have been evil reported of by the Jews, not that he had taught unto the Gentiles, that observation of the Law was not necessary: but that he went about to persuade this to the Jews: when all the faithful in Judea did observe the Law nevertheless. But who knows not that Christ did not change the Law of M●ses, concerning the celebration of the Passover, in that part in which it is commanded, that all the circumcised should be present thereat? Therefore he neither commanded this man that had committed incest, neither any other that desire to be accounted amongst the Christians to be debarred from the Lords Supper; Of the Jews it is certain, because they would not suffer any thing to be done against the Law, or against their own inveterate custom: and who would believe that the Gentiles in this business were in a worse condition?   

LVIII.  
If to deliver over to Satan, was no other thing then to interdict him the Sacraments till he repent, why with such study and with such exquisite words, did the Apostle Paul excuse himself to the Corinthians, and as it were deprecate them in the 2. and 7. Chapter of the last Epistle? Then why should the Corinthians be taken with so much sadness, seeing they now know that this way of restraining the wicked, was to remain and aught to be exercised in the Church? they ought rather to have rejoiced for the example that was given to them which they afterwards ought to follow. If it was no other thing then an invitation to Repentance, and a wholesome remedy against damnation, why were they made sad and did not rather rejoice? Christ saith, that the Angels of Heaven rejoice more at the conversion of one sinner, then for ninety nine just; from whom it followeth, that the Corinthians were not endued with the Spirit of Christ, that they saw the Apostle do that one and sole thing which would recall an erring Brother unto the way: and save him that was in danger, who doth not clearly see, that it was another thing that the Apostle was framing. Thirdly, What needed the Apostle to write, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, I repent not, though I did repent, or how could he repent any way of this fact, if he would have the same observed every where, and in all Churches? And if it was nothing else then a removing from the Sacraments for a time, or only until his Repentance. Fourthly, What need was there that the Corinthians should intercede with the Apostle with so much diligence, for that miserable person, which they knew would be received again immediately unto their society so soon as he had repent? now that they entreated seriously for him, is evident by these words of the Apostle: to whom ye forgive I forgive also: for if I forgive any thing, I forgave him for your sakes in the sight of Christ. Fifthly. We read in the 2. Chapter, that he excuseth himself thus, that he would take a trial of their obedience, and the 7. Chapter, that so he would make manifest their good will towards him: how could he have said these words, or written them, except he had commanded some greater matter, then to keep back that wicked person from the Sacraments? Sixtly, By what means will we show that these words agree to it, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, For ye sorrowed to God, so that in nothing ye were hurt, by us. He saith, that they received no loss by their sadness, because they obtained by their sorrow forgiveness, to that unhappy and miserable person. If this had not been done, they would have suffered loss: to wit, they would have left him, if he had only been to have been kept from the Sacrament, till he had repent, what less pray you could they have suffered? Seaventhly, Paul doth not there speak of the Supper, but of the whole Christian life. Therefore he will not have him excluded from the Supper: but he will have him taken out of the middle of them, lest a little Leaven should Leaven the whole lump. This agrees with the Apostles words, and with the figure of Leaven; Excommunication can neither be easily fitted to the Apostles words, nor those of Moses. Eightly, It is to be marked, that he doth not simply write that they being gathered together should deliver him to Satan in the name of the Lord, or according to the Commandment of Christ, or that they should keep him back from the Sacraments: but saith he, I absent in body, but present in spirit have decreed in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, you being gathered together in my spirit, and in the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, to deliver this man to Satan, etc. Manifestly declaring, that the power of our Lord Jesus Christ was needful to this business: and therefore that it was a greater matter then to be removed for a while from the Sacraments. Add this, That he writes that he hath decreed to do this, (albeit he resolved not to do it without them: because perchance he was absent) but he doth not command it to the Church, that it alone should do this: as if this power had not been the power of the Church, but of the Apostle. Lastly, We do not read in any place that the Apostle gave command either to one or more, that whither he was dead or alive, they should deliver any to Satan, for the destruction of the flesh, because he knew this was proper to the Apostolic power, and that it agreed in Noun else: for as they had the gift of healing, so they had the gift of striking: as appeareth in the 5.13. of the Acts, for this cause we do not read that the Apostle ordained any men who were commanded to exercise this power. Wherefore the Apostle writes in divers places that he would come with authority: that he would become sharp and rigid: that he would act according to the power given him of God: that he would come with a rod: he commandeth that the sinners may be signified to him by an Epistle: But he commandeth in no place this to the Presbyters: that is, no doubt that this power was then given to the Apostles and to none other. Hitherto it belongeth that which he writeth 1 Tim. 1. of Hymeneus and Alexander, that he (not the Church, not the Presbytery, not any other) had delivered them to Satan.   

LIX.  
By circumstances and arguments I have evidently shown, that to deliver to Satan was another thing, then to keep back from the Sacraments: which now I shall more clearly demonstrate from the words themselves also, and from the propriety and nature of the speech. First, The Apostle doth not say, why have ye not interdicted this wicked man the use of the Supper? but he saith this, why have ye not sorrowed, that is, why have ye not besought God by your sorrow and Prayers, that he would take away by whatsomever means, this man from amongst you? Augustin in his 3. Book against Parmen. so interpreteth this place, but (saith he) that he may be taken away with sorrow, that is, that the sorrow of the lamenters might ascend unto God, and he might take away this work from the midst of them as he thought fit; he expoundeth after the same manner of way those words, which the same Apostle hath in the 12. Chap. concerning sorrow, they agree likewise with Augustin, and with the truth, who thinks the Apostle alludes to the place, 1 King. 21. out of which place we conjecture, that this custom was kept by the Ancient Jews, that they should search out enormeous crimes, by Fasting, Praying, and public sorrow, and being found out, they did not punish them according to the Law. Wherefore seeing the Church wanted the Sword, he did exhort them that they should obtain from God, that they should be taken out of the middle of them: which is fare different from that which we call to Excomunicate any man. Moreover by what fit Author will they ever show unto us, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to be taken o●t from the middle of you, is the same, that to be debarred from the Sacrament is? he is only properly to be said to be taken out of the middle, that is put to death. For albeit he that is banished may be said to be cast out of the middle of others, nevertheless this is neither usual nor a proper speech amongst the Grecians: or at least it is not sound to be set down in the holy Scriptures? but if he commanded him to be thrust out of the society of the faithful, what needed public sorrow, and besides he should have been sent unto the Gentiles. But that which is added is against this, that his soul may be safe, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: which could not be safe out of the Church. If you say that he was only removed from the Sacraments and private commerce, he was not taken out of the middle of them, for I believe that no man will ever demonstrate, that the Apostle commanded him only to be kept from the use of the Sacraments, and from the private diet and society of the Christians. Therefore this is stitched to the Apostles words, which can be shown he never thought of; indeed I believe that there is not any that is acquainted with the holy Scriptures, and their more ancient Interpreters, that would doubt but that the Apostle borrowed this sentence, and therefore these words from Moses in Deutronomy, for it is put by Moses for killing, and for no other thing in the 17, 19, 21, 22, 24, Chapters of that book; in all these places the same words are found, when in the 13. Chap. for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he hath put on the same sense and meaning, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; it is impossible then that to take out of the middle, should signify in this place Excommunication, as now Excommunication is taken. Thirdly, It seems by the Text, that that miserable man did not persevere in that wickedness, for he saith, hath done this deed: And concerning him that hath so done this deed, which prove that he hath done it, but does not show that he doth it still. So he seemeth to desire that he may be punished for the crime that is already committed; as God hath commanded to be done, and a good Magistrate useth to do. Indeed when he saith that his soul may be safe, he seemeth to have known that he was penitent for the fact. For how could he have written this else of him of whose mind concerning the crime he was not yet informed of? Fourthly, He faith, that he hath resolved to deliver such an one unto Satan, for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of Jesus. Is it not yet known what the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, doth signify, who ever found this Verb put either in profane Writers, or in the holy Scriptures as it is put here, and that it did not signify the same, that to concede, to permit, to give over doth signify? the person that gives doth precede, the person to whom it is given doth follow? and that which is given is also a person: and last this is added also, for which and for what end it was given: the Speech is such as if I should say I would deliver my son to a Master for instruction or correction, what man will doubt but he that heareth a man speak thus, doth think but that he delivereth his son to the power of the Master, that he may instruct him, or chastise him? he that desires to see examples, let him look to thee, 1 Tim. 1. Acts 27.28. Matth. 5.18, 27. Mark 13. John 19 and is most like to that that is contained Matth. 24. they shall deliver you up to be afflicted, and Mark 13. the Brother shall deliver up the Brother to death, and 2 Pet. 2. delivered them unto chains of darkness to be reserved unto judgement, and in the Book of Job. 2. God speaketh to Satan in these words, Behold I have delivered him up to thee, but only save thou his life. Doth not these places teach that they were delivered up to be afflicted, to be killed, to be condemned? the sum is, not any shall ever be able to show that such a phrase is put for that which is to be debarred from the Sacraments: except the perishing of the flesh and the forbidding of the Sacraments be the same thing. Fifthly, It is impossible that this Noun 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, can be shown to be put in the New Testament, for the punishing of the lust of the flesh, for wheresomever it is found it is found to be written either for the death of the body, or of the soul, whither the name of flesh be added or not. I may likewise say that on Greek Author is extant, that so hath used it as I have been told some do expound it: but our discourse is of holy things. The Apostle hath used it, 1 Thes. 5. and 2 Thes. 1. and 1 Tim. the last. The verbal Noun 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is found written in the 1 of Crinth. 10. and the Participle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 11. of the Heb. even the Compound 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, taken out of Deuteronomy is found in the 3. of the Acts, and every where they all either signify perishing or death, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is frequently used by the 70. Interpreters, and Pagnin every where translateth it by the word exscindendi, of cutting off: this is certainly that they always used to signify death. I know that in the Apostle the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and Rom. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and Colos. 13. To conclude, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and Gal. 5, and 6. that they are put for the kill of the lusts of the flesh, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, are neither found in holy, or profane Authors to be taken so. Yea I do not remember, that I read in the New Testament this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to be taken in this signification in the new Testament, therefore it is frivolous when they say Paul contradistinguishes here the lusts of the flesh, from the spirit: seeing the death of the flesh or of the body is opposed to the safety of the soul, or of the spirit: as the native signification of the words to the purpose of Paul, the series and circumstances of the discourse, and the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, do prove that the lovers of the truth can desire no more. Sixtly, These words that the spirit may be safe in the day of Jesus, that is, in the day of judgement. For they clearly demonstrate, that he speaketh of that wretch as of one that was to die. Seaventhly, and lastly, The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, proveth that he was not rejected from the Sacraments. For in his own native signification it seems to be put for rebuke, correction, threatening, and upbraiding, as the Interpreters have turned it, but not for a punishment or pain; and besides this there is a double reason for it. The first is, That in holy writs you never find the interdiction of the Sacraments to be put for a punishment: The other is, That the words of themselves do teach well enough, that it's put for an upbraiding; wherewith not any one, but many did rebuke him; for Paul in this 2. Epistle writeth sufficient to such a man is this rebuke which is of many. He absolves him only from that threatening, which had it proceeded from the Church, or from any that it should come to pass, that he should be delivered over to Satan, to be tormented, therefore he had only as yet endured this, for he doth not only absolve him in part, but altogether; therefore while he saith that this rebuke and threatening was sufficient; he together with it declareth, that he had suffered no more. We find the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in the 16, 17, 19, 20. of Matthew, and in the other Evangelists, and in the 2 of Paul to Tim. 4. in all which places it is ever put for rebuke, but never for punishment.   

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

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

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

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

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

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

LXVI.  
The Apostle say they commandeth us to avoid wicked men insomuch that he doth not permit us to take common meat with them: and fare less would he have us to celebrate the Lords Supper with them. I deny this connexion; for the forbidding of private familiarity, doth altogether much differ from the denying of the Sacraments: neither doth he that forbiddeth that: also deny this, for that is a kind of politic punishment, but this a holy one that is commanded to us, but this is not, both the end and cause of that is told by the Apostle Paul, but we find neither the end nor the cause of this expressed: yea we do not find the thing itself either commanded, or named in holy Scriptures. And that the one was and may be without the other, the Pharisees have proved by their own fact who as they would seem holier than other, so they had no commerce in their life with Publicans, (I do not remember now that I have read whither all the rest did so) but now shall ever show us that they were excluded from the Temple, from the Sacrifices, from the Passover, and from the other Sacraments: for they were circumcised and had not revolted from Judaisme. And at this day in many places some evil men are kept back from private commerce, which nevertheless no man keepeth back from the use of the Sacrament. From which likewise this followeth, that this denial of private eating together, is rather a politic than an ecclesiastic punishment: and that it cannot be esteemed for to deliver up to Satan, which some men think Excommunication to be. The Apostle commandeth good men to avoid the company of evil men, that they may be ashamed and repent: but he doth not forbid evil men the society of the good if any will admit them unto their familiatity. At private Tables men discourse of any thing whatsomever: neither is he not only corrected that hath sineed, if he think that he is also dear unto all after his sin as before; but likewise others are more easily corrupted. But if he see himself to be avoided and fled, he cannot but think for what that is done: and resolve to live a new life, lest he should be desparaged by those who loved him before. Therefore as the denial of private commerce doth fright us from uncleanness and vices, so familiar living together doth cherish and nurse the same in us. But the receiving and denying of the Sacraments is a thing of a far different nature from this, for the frequent receiving of them doth not at all so confirm and nurse vice as private familiarity, for in the Temples where they are administered, there is no conferences of private and vain things, but the Word of the Lord is Preached. Therefore when men hear that Christ hath died for them, and that he requireth for that benefit, public thanksgiving, and that he is not a worthy guest that hath not tried himself rightly, but that they all have judgement to themselves, that unworthily eat thereof. Then he that hath resolved with himself to come unto the Lord's Table, whatsomever a man he was before, will be compelled to think with himself, what God would have done, and how afterwards he may so lead his life, that it may be acceptable unto God. He that is deprived of this invitation, becomes always worse but never becomes better: for which cause nevertheless it seems that God appointed and commanded so many Sacrifices, Ceremonies, and Oblations. Truly the Apostle never commanded those men to be debarred of the Sacraments, with whom good men were not suffered to live familiarly. And when in another place he desireth that such men should be signified to him by an Epistle, he doth not lay this upon the Elders, that they should Excommunicate them, or keep them back from the Sacraments, all which do manifestly prove that they are in a gross mistake, that do think the Apostle doth either appoint or approve of Excommunication in this place.   

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

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

LXIX.  
Therefore some men will say, Will you then condemn so many holy Bishops, which immediately after the Apostles times began to Excommunicate vile persons? I answer, It is one thing to improve the Doctrine, and another thing to improve the man. Many learned and godly men of our age have pondered and confuted the Catholic errors as I may call them of the Ancients, as limbum patrum in Hell, the fire of Purgatory, the intercession of Saints, Exorcism and Baptism, the single life of Priests, unction in Baptism and death, Prayers for the dead, and in this present cause satisfactions: Notwithstanding I do not remember that any of them have been accused, therefore because they condemn the Ancients. If they would have had this Excommunication thrust upon the Churches as a Law published by God, I do not praise it; Albeit I do much praise and approve of their study and good will, in the mean while. For by this means they studied, seeing they could meet with no other better means, hereby to bridle the wantonness of wicked men. And most part also as we see to be done even this day did follow that public custom received by all: neither came it ever in their mind to inquire whither it was a thing agreeing to Scriptures or no.   

LXX.  
Concerning the original of this Excommunication I can bring nothing now that is certain, except the 200. years after Christ, that I find some such thing first to have been asseyed and done for more than 100 and 50. years. I find not any to have been excluded from the Sacraments, for the uncleanness of their life. These that are versed in reading of the Fathers, and in History, perchance can affirm something more certain. He that will attentively read those things which are left written by Socrates, in the 5. Book and 19 Chapter of this Ecclesiastic History, will I believe suffer themselves easily to be persuaded, that this custom of Excommunication was introduced into the Church about Novatus time. Notwithstanding Sozomenus in his 7. Book and 16. Chap. relateth another cause of the institution hereof. But we also read that Victor Bishop of Rome about the 200. year of our Lord, forbidden them the use of the Supper that would not forgive injuries. I have observed, that before this time the communion was denied only to Heretics, and to such as was averse from Religion, but however this be, yet that is certainly known, that excommunication was therefore brought into the Church, that there might be in it some bridle to; and punishment of vice. Afterwards when the Church now had gotten the Sword, that is, when the Magistrates were made Christians, nevertheless this power remains still in the Bishops: Partly because it was believed to be a divine ordination, and partly because they would hardly lay down this spiritual Sword, for which they were feared by the greatest Princes. For they easily persuaded others, which they more easily and willingly believed themselves, to wit, that Christ was the Author of this business. Superstition confirmed the opinion by ascribing safety to the Sacraments, for it was written and believed, that some men could not die before they had been made partakers of the Sacraments. Therefore either by reason of this error, men did very much fear Excommunication: or from Excommunication this error did spring among the unlearneder People, that life was put in receiving of the Sacraments, and death in denial of the same, when they saw wicked men punished with the denial of them as with the last and greatest punishment.   

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

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

LXXIII.  
I see not why the Christian Magistrate ought not to do the same at this time in the Jewish Commonwealth, he was commanded by God to do. Do we think that we can constitute a better form of Church and Commonwealth? In the 4. Chapter of Deutronomy, we read that for the judgement and statutes which God had given to the people of Israel, that all Nations should admire and praise their wisdom and understanding, but they wanted this Excommunication: And the power of restraining unclean and criminal persons was in the Magistrate, whose duty it was not only to punish these men according to the Law of God, but likewise to constitute all the external Religion, for not Aaron but Moses did this: God so commanding. Which power afterwards we know was translated to Joshua and not to Eleazar: for God commandeth Joshua, not Eliazer, that he should have a care that the Israelites the second time should be Circumcised, neither commanded he to except any, albeit many amongst them were most wicked: and he commanded him likewise to celebrate the Passover, so soon as they had passed Jordan: neither do we read that he repulsed any because they had not lived religiously and honestly enough. At the command of this man the Ark of God was carried and things belonging to religion were done, as is manifest by the whole Book of Joshua, Samuel, and Eli, when they did discharge both the Offices; they did offer as Priests; and as Judges, they put in order things belonging to the Commonwealth together with Religion. And indeed it was lawful for the high Priests in the Old Testament, to govern also civil business: because they were Types of Christ as King and Priest: but to our Priests it is said, but you shall not do so, 1 Pet. 5. which belongeth likewise to this place.   

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

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

Appendix.  
PErchance it will not be besides the purpose, if in place of an addition or corollary, I add, what was decreed by all the Orders of the Laics belonging to the Empire, in their meeting at Nurenberge, Anno. 1523. concerning this matter, and were offered to the Pope of Rome: For by this meanes-will appear, that before about 46. years ago, the Divines begun to think of this Dispute: neither are we the first that move the same. Indeed I believe there is not any that is but in a mean measure acquainted with the German affairs, which either thinketh or believeth, that any of these things were decreed or desired from the Pope, without the knowledge of the Divines. But that the matter might be more clear, it pleased me to confer the Dutch examples, which was writ in the writing itself, with the Latin one; which was sent to the Pope, which Illyricus Printed with this Book of the Sects and Schisms of Popery at Basil, 1565. and out of the collation of both is set down the whole Decree. Therefore amongst the one hundred grievances, which were two years before done at Worms, but were now set down more distinctly at Nurenberg; the Thirty fourth pronounce thus.  
Item. Many Christians at Rome, and in other places also are Excommunicated by Arch-Bishops Bishops and their Ecclesiastic Judges for profane causes, and temporal goods: And many infirm consciences are afflicted therewith, and led into despair. So for many and for transitory things, and very oft for very light causes: some besides, that they lose their honour and their fortunes, are thrown into the danger both of soul and body. When notwithstanding no man ought to be Excommunicate, or aught to be esteemed for an Excommunicate person, as the holy Scriptures witnesseth, except he that is convict of Heresy. Wherefore the Laic orders of the holy Empire, beseecheth the Pope's holiness, as becometh him, and appears in a Religious Father, that he would altogether abrogate this burden of Excommunication at Rome, or in the Roman Court: and that he would have a care, that it should be taken away every where in all other places, from Arch-Bishops, Bishops, and their Judges. And to conclude, That he would command; that no man should be Excommunicate, or holden for an Excommunicate Person, for any other cause, but for the manifest and convicted sin of Heresy belonging to Religion. For men ought altogether otherwise, either for temporal goods, or for any other humane offences, be removed or separate from God and his Church, except for Infidelity and Heresy.  
Hitherto likewise belongeth that which John Stiumfius in his Chronicle of Helvetia, Book 2. of Germany, Chap. 29. That the Priests through Swablan, about the year of our Lord, 1245. (when by the instigation of the Pope Hendric Landgrave of Turengia, and after his death, William Earl of Holland was chosen against the Emperor, Frethrick the second and his Son Conrade,) did constantly amongst other things teach, That it was not granted to any mortal man under the Sun, to forbid Christians spiritual duties, and the worship of God. For this cause they continually say a Mass, as he relateth, albeit the Pope did interdict them, and pronounce them Excommunicate Persons.   
FINIS.   

Courteous Reader The●●●ooks following, are Printed, for, or, Sold by Simon Miller, at the Star in St. Paul Church-yard.  

S●all Folio.  
DOctor Lightfoot his Harmony on the New Testament, which will shortly be reprinted with large Additions.  
The civil Wars of Spain in the Reign of Charles the fifth, Emperor of Germany, and King of that Nation, wherein our late unhappy differences are paralleled in many particulars.  
A general History of Scotland, from the year 767. to the death of King James, containing the principal Revolutions and Tranfactions of Church and State, with Political Observations, and reflections upon the same: by David Hume of Godscroft.  
The History of this Iron Age.  
Mr Paul Baine on the Ephesians.  
The Queen of Arragon, a Play: In fol.   

In Quarto large.  
Jo. Barklay his Argenis, Translated by Sir Robert le Grise Knight, by his Late Majesty's special Command.   

Quarto Small.  
An Eperimental Treatise of Surgery, by Felix Wortz.  
Abraham's Faith, or the good Old Religion, proving the Doctrine of the Church of England to be the only true Faith of Gods Elect. By John Nicholson Minister of the Gospel.  
The Anatomy of Mortality: By George Stroad.  
Three Treatises: 1. The Conversion of Nineuch, touching Prayer and Fasting. 2. God's Trumpet sounding to Repentance. 3. Sovereign preservatives against distrust full Thoughts and Cares: By Will. Attersoll Minister of God's Word at Isfield in Sussex.  
Aynsworth on the Canticles.  
Paul Baine, his Diocesans Trial  
Gr●lle against Appolonius.  
A Treatise of Civil policy, being a clear Decision of 43. Queries, concerning prerogative, right and privilege, in reference to the supreme Prince and people: By Samuel Rutherford Professor of Divinity of Sr Andrews in Scotland.  
Politic and Military Observations of Civil and Military Government, containing the Birth, Increase, Decay of Monarchies, the carriage of Princes and Magistrates.  
Mr Pinchin his Meritorious price of man's Redemption, cleared.  
A astrology Theologised, showing what nature and influence the Stars and Planets have over men, and how the same may be diverted and avoided.  
Wells his Soul's Progress.  
Christ tempted, the Devils Conquered; Being a plain Exposition on the fourth Chapter of Sr Mathews Gospel: By John Gumbledon, Minister of the Gospel.  
The Saint's Society.  
Dr Stoughtous thirteen choice Sermons, with his Body of Divinity.  
The Reasons of the diffenting Brethren concerning the Presbyterian Government, together with the answer of the Assembly of Divines.  
Camden's Remains.  
The Harmonious Consent and Confession of Faith, of all the Protestant Reform Churches in Christendom.  
The description of the Universal Quadrant, by which is performed with great Expedition, the whole Doctrine of Triangles, both plain and Spherical: Also the Resolution of such Propositions as are most useful in stronomy, Navigation, and Dialling: By which is performed the proportioning of Lines for measuring of all manner of Land, Board, Glass, Timber, Stone, etc. by Tho. Stirrup Mathemat.   

Large Octavo.  
Florus Anglicus, with the lively Effigies of all the Kings and Queens since the Conquest, cut in Brass.  
The Reconciler of the Bible, wherein above two thousand seeming Contradictions are fully and plainly Reconciled.  
Evidences for Heaven, containing infallible Signs and real Demonstrations for assurance of Salvation: published by Edm. Calamy Minister of Aldermanburic, Lond.  
The Life and Reign of King Charles from his Birth to his Death, By Lambert Wood  
The Night-Search, the second part: By H. Mill.  
A view of the Jewish Religion, with their Rites, Customs and Ceremonies.  
Useful Instructions for these Evil times; held forth in 22. Sermons, by Nicholas Lockyer, Provost of Eton College.  
The Nullity of Church-Censures, or Excommunication, not of Divine Institution, but a mere humane Invention: Written by the famous Tho. Erastus, and never before Englished.   

Small Octavo.  
Ed Waterhouse Esq His Discourse of Piety and Charity.  
Panacca, or the Universal Medicine; being a Discourse of the Admittable Nature and Virtues of Tobacco: By Dr. Everard, and Others.  
A view and Defence of the Reformation of the Church of England, very useful in these times.  
Daphnis and Chloe, A most sweet and pastoral Romance for young Ladies, by Geo. Thornhill, Gent.  
Mr. Pet. du Moulin, his Antidote against Popery; published on purpose to prevent the Delusions of the priest's and Jesuits who are now very busy amongst us.  
Herbert's Devotions, or a Companion for a Christian, containing Meditations and prayers useful upon all occasions,  
Ovid de Ponto, in English.  
The spiritual Seaman, or the Matriners' Companion, being a Compendium of the Principles of Religion by Jo. Durant, formerly in the Navy, now at Christ-Church in Cant.  
The Loves of Clerio and Lozio a Romance.  
Mr. Knowles, his Rudiment of the Hebrew Tongue.  
A Book of Schemes or Figures of Heaven, ready set for every four Minutes of times, and very useful for all Astrologers.  
Florus Anglicus, or an exact History of England, from the Reign of William the Conqueror to the death of the Late King.  
Lingua, or the Combat of the Tongue, and five Senses for Superiority: a serious Comedy.  
Venus' Cabinet unlocked, and her Secrets laid open.  
The Spirits Touchstone; being a clear discovery how a man may certainly know whether he be truly taught by the Spirit of God, or not.  
The poor man's Physician and Chirurgeon.  
Physical Rarities, containing the most choice Receipts in Physic and Chirurgery, for the cure of all Diseases Incident to man's body: By R Williams. To which is added the physical Mathematics: By Hermes, Tres. Magistus.  
The Idol of Clowns, or the Relation of Wat Tiler's Rebellion.  
Historical Collections or Ecclesiastic affairs in Scotland, including the murder of the Cardinal of St. Andrews, and the beheading of their Queen Mary in England, by R. Watson.  
The Christian Moderator, in 3 parts.  
The Golden Fleece, or a Discourse of the clothing of England.  
Dr. Sibbs his Divine Meditations.   

Vigerius Precepts of Idiotismes. Grotij Poemata.  
Three Books of Mr. Mathews Minister at Swansey in Southwales.  
1 The Messiah Magnified by the mouths of Babes in America; or Gaius and Gamaliel, a helpful Father and his hopeful Son, discoursing of the three most considerable points: 1. The great want of Christ. 2. The great worth that is in Christ. 3. The good way that is chalked out by Christ  
2. The New congregational Church, proved to be the old Christian Church, by Scripture, Reason, and History.  
3. The Rending Church-member Regularly called back to Christ and his Church.  
A physical Dictionary, or an Interpretation of all the terms of Art, and marks used in Physic, Anatomy, Chirurgery, and Chemistry.   

Duodecim.  
A Collection of Proverbs, English, French, Dutch, Italian, and Spanish, all Englished and Alphabetically Digested, by N. R. Gent.  
Doctor Smith's practice of physic.  
The Grammar War.  
Possellius Apothegms.  
Fasciculus Florum.  
Crashaw's Visions.  
The Juniper Lecture.  
Helvicus Colloquies.  
The Christian Soldier, his Combat with the three arch-enemies of mankind, the world, the flesh, and the devil.  
Hensius de Crepundiis.  
The History of Russia, or the Government of the Emperor of Muscovia, with the manner and fashions of the people of that Country.  
Drexeliu's school of Patience.  
Drexelius his right Intention of every one's Action.   

Viginti Quat.  
The New Testament.  
The third part of the Bible.  
Sir Richard Baker's Med. and Prayers for every day of the Week.   

Plays.  
The Ball.  
Chawbut.  
Conspiracy.  
Obstinate Lady.  
The London Chanticlers; a Comedy full of various and delightful Mirth, never before published.    

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