Aarons Rod Blossoming, Book 3 · Chapter 7
CHAP. VII. That 1 Cor. 5. proveth Excommunication and (by a necessary consequence even from the Erastian Interpretation) Suspension from the Sacrament of a person unexcommunicated.
MAster Prynne in his first Quaere did aske whether that phrase 1 Cor. 5. To deliver such a one to Sathan, be properly meant of excommunication or suspension from the Sacrament onelyonly. This, he saith, I did in my Sermon wave with a rhetoricall preterition. I answer for the latter part of the Quaere, I know not the least ground, for who did ever expound it of suspension from the Sacrament onelyonly? for the former part of it, its not necessary to be debated, therefore for husbanding time and not to multiply Questions unnecessarily, I said in my Sermon, that the Question ought to be whether that Chapter (not whether that phrase) prove excommunication; and that we have a shorter way to prove excommunication from the last words of that Chapter as Doctor Moulin doth in his Vates lib. 2. cap. 11. And if I should grant that delivering such a one to Sathan signifieth either of those things which Master Prynne conceiveth, that is, a bodily possession, torture, or vexation by Sathan, inflicted either by the apostolicall power of miracles, or by Gods immediate permission: yet that will not prove that it signifieth no more. Therefore Peter Martyr upon the place, thinks that the Apostles delivering of the man to Sathan by a miraculous act, and the Churches delivering of him to Sathan by Excommunication, doe very well stand together. So Synop. pur. Theol. disp. 48. Thes. 40▪ and he alloweth of both these expositions; and afterward in his common place of excommunication he speaketh of Gods cooperating with the Church censure, by punishing the Excommunicate person with diabolicall vexations. Sure I am an excommunicate person may truly be said to be delivered to Sathan, who is the God and Prince of this world and reigneth in the Children of disobedience. But Master Prynne will find himself difficulted to prove that tradere Satanae 1 Cor. 5. is onelyonly meant of a miraculous or extraordinary act, or to shew how or why the Apostle requireth the Assembling of the Church and their consent to the working of a miracle. Which (if there were no more) may discover the weaknesse of Master Prynnes notions concerning delivering to Sathan 6, 7, 8. But as the full debate were long, so it were not necessary, since Master Prynne doth now himself acknowledge that the last verse of that Chapter proveth excommunication, vindic. pag. 2. I come therefore to the next, which he calls the fourth difference, whether 1 Cor. 5. 11. with such an one no not to eat, be properly meant of excommunication or suspension from the Sacrament. But (whatsoever be properly meant by that phrase) that which his debate driveth at, is, that this verse doth neither prove excommunication nor suspension from the Sacrament so much as by necessary consequence.
But let us see whether his reasons can weaken the proof of Suspension from vers. 11. first he saith there is not one syllable of receiving or eating of the Lords Supper in this Chapter. I answer, the question is neither of syllables nor words but of things, and how will he prove that vers. 8. Let us keep the feast, not with old leavon, &c. is not applicable to the Lords Supper, I say not to it onelyonly, yet surely it cannot be excluded, but must needs becomprehended as one part, yea, a principall part of the meaning, the better to answer the Analogy of the passeover, (there much insisted upon.) He may be pleased also to remember that he himself pag. 24. proving the passeover and the Lords Supper to be the same for the substance, for proof hereof citeth 1 Cor. 5. 7. and that Aretius Theol probl. loc. 80. expoundeth our Feast of the Passeover 1 Cor. 5. to be meant of the Lords Supper.
But he further objecteth from 1 Cor. 10. 16, 17. We are all partakers of that one Bread; if all were then partakers of this Bread, certainly none were excluded from it in the Church of Corinth; but at the Israelites under the Law, did all eat the same spirituall Meat, and all Drinke the same spirituall Drinke though God were displeased with many of them who were Idolaters, tempters of God, fornicators, murmurers, and were destroyed in the wildernesse. 1 Cor. 10. 1. to 12. so all under the Gospell who were visible members of …he Church of Corinth, did eat and drink the Lords Supper to which some drunkards whiles drunken did then resort, as is clear by 1 Cor. 11. 20. 21. Which Paul indeed reprehends vers. 22.
Answ. 1 When Paul saith, we being many are one bread and one body, for we are all partakers of that one bread, he speaketh of the communion of Saints, & the word all can be of no larger extent then visible Saints, to whom the Epistle is directed 1 Cor. 1. 2. and cannot be applyed to visible workers of iniquity, who continue impenitent and obstinate in so doing. As we may joyn in communion with a visible Church, which hath the externall markes of a Church, though it be not a true invisible Church; so we joyne with visible Saints to become one body with them in externall Church communion and to be partakers of one bread with them, though they be not true or invisible Saints in the hid man of the heart. But if these be visibly no Church, we cannot joyne in Church Communion; and if a man be visibly no Saint, he ought not to be admitted to the communion of Saints. I shall never be perswaded, that the Apostle Paul would say of himselfe and the Saints at Corinth, We are one body with known Idolaters, Fornicators, Drunkards and the like.
2 If all in the Church of Corinth, (none excluded) even drunkards whiles drunken, and if all under the Gospell who are visible members of the Church ought to be admitted to eat the same spirituall meat and drinke the same spirituall drink at the Lords Table, as he supposeth that in the wildernesse all the Israelites did the like, who were Idolaters, Fornicators, &c. Then I beseech you observe how Master Prynne doth by all this overthrow his owne rules; for pag. 2. and elsewhere he tells us he would have notorious scandalous sinners who after admonition persevere in their iniquities without remorse of conscience or amendment to be excommunicated from the Church and from the society of the faithfull in all publike Ordinances? If both in the Church of Israel and in the Church of Corinth, all were admitted and none excluded, even those who were Idolaters or drunkards, whiles actually such without repentance or amendment; how can Master Prynne straiten Christians, now more then Moses did the Jewes, or Paul the Corinthians? Since therefore his Arguments drive at it, its best he should speak it out, that all manner of persons who professe themselves to be Christians, be they never so scandalous, never so obstinate, though they persevere in their iniquity after admonition without amendment, yet ought to be admitted to the Lords Table.
3 He shall never be able to prove either that those drunken persons 1 Cor. 11. 21. were drunken when they did resort to the Church, (for it was in the Church and in eating and drinking there, that they made themselves drunke) nor yet that the Idolaters and Fornic…tors in the wildernesse their eating of the spirituall meat and drinking of the spirituall drinke mentioned by the Apostle 1 Cor. 10. was after their Idolat…ies and Fornications: But of this latter, I have elsewhere spoken distinctly and by it self.
4 To say that all who were visible members of the Church of Corinth were admitted, and none excluded, and to say it with a certainly is to make too bold with Scripture. And the contrary will sooner be proved from 1 Cor. 10. 21. ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of Devills: ye cannot be partakers of the Lords Table and of the Table of Devills. So much for his first exception.
His second is concerning persons (but not to the purpose) that if we looke upon the catalogue of those with whom we are forbidden to eat, not onelyonly shall most of the Anabaptisticall and Independent Congregations, but too many Presbyterian ministers and Elders, who are most foreward to excommunicate others for Idolatry, Fornication, Drunkennesse, must first be excommunicated themselves for their owne covetousnesse. Answ. Let it light where it may, Ministers doe not stand nor fall to his Judgement▪ but where just proof can fasten either covetousnesse or any other scandalous sinne upon them, its all the reason in the world they be censured with the first. If I had fallen upon this passage of his book without knowing the author, I had presently imagined it to be a peece from Oxford, it calls to my thoughts so many expressions in Pamphlets from thence, aspersing London and Westminster, as more full of covetousnesse, lying, hypocrisie, then Oxford of bloody Oathes, Masses and the like.
Thirdly, saith he, it is as clear as the noone day sunne, that, no not to e…t, in this Text is no more, then not to keep company, or hold civill familiarity with such. What? as cleare as the noon day sun? let us open our eyes then to see this meridian light; first saith he, no not to eat, is interpreted in the Text it self by not to keep company, which we find twice in the preceding words, eating together being one of the highest expressions of outward friendship and familiarity. Had the Apostle said simply, not to eat▪ this Argument had been the more colourable, but after he had twice said, not to keep company, to adde no not to eat, bM…gdeb. Cent. 1 lib. 2. cap. 4. pag. 275. edit. 1624 giving the sence of this very place, they say. At que ita excludantur a communione Ecclesiae, ut non modo arceantur ab usu sacramen: orum, sed etiam à commerció, ne cibus quidem cum iis capiatur. Novariuus upon the place expreseth the Apostles meaning in these words of Ambrose. Cum fraire in quo vi…ia haec reperiuntur, non solùm Sacramenta non edenda, sed nec communem escam docet, ut erubescat quum vitatur & se currigat.doth plainly intimate that the Apostle argueth from the lesse to the greater▪ and that there is some other fellowship and company with such a one, which is more than eating together and so much lesse permitted: and what is that? (eating together being as Master Prynne saith one of the highest expressions of outward friendship and familiarity.) Must it not be communion in the holy things, and especially the receiving such a one to the Lords Table? as if he had said, If scandalous brethren be spots in your common, how much more in your sacred Feasts? for which cause the mixture of scandalous persons in Church fellowship is extreamly blamed 2 Pet. 2. 13. Iude v. 12. Put case that a Parliament man or a Divine of the Assembly were known (as God forbid) to be an Incendiary, an active malignant, a traytor, a blasphemer, so that no raher Parliament man or Member of the Assembly would eat or company with him, were it not strange, if for all that such a one should be permitted to sit in Parliament or in Assembly? Is it not as strange if the whole Church distributively shall not so much as eat with a scandalous person, and yet the whole Church Collectively shall eat with him, in that very action which is a symbole of the communion of Saints? So that if I should now admit that sence, that these words no not to eat, amount to no more then not to keep company, or hold civill familiarity with such, (as Mr. Prynne expresseth it) yet the Argument will stand firme and strong in regard of this necessary consequence. If a private Christian ought not to hold so much as civill fellowship with a scandalous brother not excommunicated, much lesse ought the Church to admit him to Church communion in all publike Ordinances; (there being lesse latitude, & the rule much stricter in this Communion than in private civill fellowship,) & if we be forbidden to do so much as to eat with such a one at a common meal, quanto magis convictu sacro saith Pareus upon the place, how much more is the Church forbidden to receive him to the Lords Table? for if the end of avoiding private company with such a one be to make him ashamed, as the Erastians themselves doe confesse from 2 Thes. 3. 14. were it not contrary to that end to countenance and embolden him by receiving him to publike Church communion at the Lords Table? Surely the refusing of the private could not so much put him to shame, as the admission to the publike should put respects upon him. Wherefore 1 Cor. 5. 11. as it is interpreted by Master Prynne proveth by a necessary consequence the Suspension from the Sacrament of a scandalous Church-Member not excommunicated.
If his next reason help him not, surely his sun will go down at noon, He citeth some paralell Texts, which interpret not to eat here, of avoiding them, turning away from and rejecting them, &c. which are no judiciall acts of the Presbytery, but morall or prudentiall acts of particular Christians. Answ. There is a judiciall Presbyteriall act, (as very many conceive) in some of those paralell Texts cited by him 2 Thess. 3. 14. Tit. 3. 10. and so his proof is no lesse questionable, then the thing he would prove by it. And here the Apostle intendeth more then a voluntary prudentiall withdrawing of particular Christians, even a judiciall act, in the very next words, What have I to doe to judge them also that are without? doe not ye judge them that are within? where he gives the reason of what he had said before, that he had written to them not to be mixed with scandalous brethren, permitting them to keep company with Pagans though guity of the same faults. The reason, because Churchcensures are onelyonly for those that are Church-members not for aliens.
After Mr Prynne hath put forth his strength to prove that Excommunication or Suspension from the Sacrament is not meant 1 Cor. 5. 11. he comes in the next place to answer the argument drawn by consequence▪ If we may not so much as eate with such a one at our owne Tables, farre lesse at the Lords Table. Whereunto his answer is, The argument is fallacions, saith he, because it varieth in the kinde of eating, the one being civill, the other spirituall; the one private in ones owne house, or anothers, where he hath absolute freedome or liberty to eate or not to eate with another, the other publike in the Church, &c. But all this (say I) maketh our argument the stronger; for if it be sinne to a private man to eate in his owne house with a scandalous brother, though this be but a civill fellowship in which there is more liberty and lesse latitude than in religious fellowship; how much more sinfull is it for Church-officers to admit such a one to Sacramentall eating with the Church?
And for that first rule of his, that arguments from the lesse t the greater are not conclusive, except in the same kind of action, its utterly untrue. For the holy Scripture it selfe hath divers arguments from the lesse to the greater, where the kind is no lesse different, if not more, than private civill eating together is from publique eating together at the Table of the Lord, as Numb. 12. 14. If Miriams father had spit in her face, should she not be ashamed seven daies? how much more when God hath smitten her with leprosie for speaking against his servant Moses? H…g. 1. 4. you have built to your selves ceiled houses, how much more ought ye to have built the house of the Lord? Ioh. 3. 12. If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe if I tell you of Heavenly things? 1 Cor. 6. 3. Know ye not that we shall judge Angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?
His second exception is, that they fall not b…th under the selfsame precept. If this be a just exception against our argument, then one cannot argue thus, Its a sinne to steale a mans private goods, how much more to steale that which is holy? Its a sinne to reproach a mans name, how much more to reproach Gods Name? These doe not fall under the selfesame precept? shall such arguments be therefore inconcludent? Whence comes all this new logick which the world never knew before?
His third condition (let it be remembred he saith, if either of these three conditions faile, the argument is inconseqent) is, that it must be within the compasse of the same power. If it be so, how shall that hold universally true? H…w much better is it to get wisdome then Gold? and to get understanding rather to be chosen then Silver? By Mr Prynnes rule it must onelyonly hold true in this case, when it fals within the compasse of the same power to get both Wisdome and Gold? However if he had apprehended out argument aright, he had perceived that the Iesser thing, and the greater thing are both within the compasse of the same power. The Church of Corinth ought not to eate with such a one at common Tables: therefore not at the Lords Table. For this refusing to eate with such a one at common Tables, was by vertue of a judiciall Ecclesiasticall sentence passed against the scandalous person. So that when Mr Prynne saith We have free power not to eate Bread with those at our own Tables, with whom we have no power or liberty left us by Christ, to refuse to eate with them at the Lords Table, and thereupon supposeth that our argumentation from that Text is one principall cause and prop of Independency, yea of separation, not onelyonly from Sacraments, but from Churches: he doth altogether misapprehend the businesse. For 1. Separation from Churches is properly a renouncing of membership as unlawfull: our argument concerneth the unlawfulnesse of a particular act, not of a membership in such a Church. 2. The causes and motives of separation suppose either an unlawfull constitution of Churches, or an unlawfull government of Churches, or both, so farre, that they who separate hold it unlawfnll to continue their membership in Churches so constituted and governed, or so much as to communicate and partake in the Sacrament with such Churches, though they know no scandalous person admitted to the Sacrament. 3. The great mistake lieth in this, that our present controversie is apprehended to be whether every particular Christian hath power or liberty from Christ to withdraw from the Sacrament, because of the admission of a scandalous person. Whereas our Question is onelyonly of the Churches power to suspend a scandalous person from the Sacrament, and when the Apostle vers. 9. 10, 11. forbiddeth to be mixed or so much as to eate with such and such scandalous members of the Church, he meaneth of Church-discipline and Excommunication, which he had begun to speak of, and so he comes to shew them what kinde of personscGualther archel. in 1 Cor. 5. 11. Catalogus eorum qui debent excommunica…i. Tossanus ibid. Quod cibum non vult sumi cum iis, pertinet id quidem ad disciplinam excommunica…ionis. Martyr ibid. Notandum praeterea, non esse privatorum hominum ut quisque pro sus libidine ab hoc vel ab illo, quem peccasse fortè suspicatus fuerit, sese disjungere velit. Ad commune judicium Ecclesiae pertinet. Angust. Hom. 50 joyneth 1 Cor. 5. v. 11. with v. 12, 13. and then saith, Quibus … … oftendit non …emerè aut quomodolibet, sed per judicium …uferondos esse … ab Ecclesiae communione, ut si per judicium auferri non possunt, tolerentur potius, ne perverse malos quisque evitando, ab Ecclesia ipse discedens, eos quos fugere videtur vinci…t ad gehennam. The same hath Bed… upon the place out of Augustine▪ So likewise Ambr…se and the Centurists before cited▪ he would have to be excommunicated, and used like that incestuous man. So Beza, Bullinger, Hunnius, Gualther, Martyr, Tossanus, and others upon the place. And long before all these Augustine and Beda plainly expound the Apostles words of a publique Ecclesiasticall Judgement, past upon one who hath either confessed his offence or is formally accused and convict thereof; and as they conceive, that Text doth not at all justifie but doth rather condemne private Christians their separating from the Church, because of a mixture of scandalons persons. I know we ought prudently and cautiously to endeavour the avoyding of the company and fellowship of scandalous brethren, though not yet censured in the Church, (which may be proved from other Scriptures) but that is not the point the Apostle is here upon: he meanes by no not to eate synecdochically, the whole casting off of an excommunicate person, and all that separation or withdrawing which is commanded to be made from him, or if you will (by a metonimy of the effect for the cause) he meanes excommunication it selfe: and however, the words immediately following prove that a publique judiciall act is intended as hath been said before.
These things considered, I shall not need to be led out of my way by Mr Prynnes descanting upon the meaning of 1 Cor. 5. 11. how farre it prohibits civill communion and eating with a scandalous Christian, being a railer or fornicator or Idolater, &c. I confesse some of his limitations, as namely, that we may eate with such a…one in cases of expediency or when we can not avoyd it in civility nor without offence, are very lubricke, unsafe, and ensnaring, and at best its but like that in Martials Epigramme
Difficilis, facilis, jucundus, acerbus es idem;
Nec tecum possum vivere, nec sine te.
But to treat of that case of conscience in generall is not hujus loci; for this Text speaks of not eating with an excommunicate person. Neither yet shall I need here to examine Mr Prynnes six considerations p. 12, 13, 14. which he wisheth to be pondered by Separatists and Independents misled, (as he thinks) by our fallacious argument: I hope he doth not mistake our Question so farre as to comprehend the sinfulnesse of any private Christian his receiving of the Sacrament, when and where some scandalous sinners are admitted to the Sacrament, that private Christian not being accessary to the sinne of the Minister and Eldership in admitting those scandalous sinners.
Wherefore I will adde eight counterballancing considerations to prove from 1 Cor. 5.*The 13 verse he yeeldeth to be a warrant for Excommunication: yet he … concerning that also, in Diotre… catechised. the first twelve verses thereof (all which Mr Prynne conceiveth can not prove Excommunication) compared with 2 Cor. 2. an Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction or power of censures, and particularly of Excommunication.
1. There was a censure inflicted upon the incestuous man by the Eldership of the Church of Corinth, being assembled together 1 Cor. 5. 4, 5. Where read we that ever the Church was intentionally gathered together, to cooperate with an Apostle in the exercise of his miraculous apostolicall power? But we doe read that this mans punishment or censure was inflicted upon him not by the Apostle alone but by Many, 2 Cor. 2. 6. Erastus pag. 214▪ thinks that foreign (in our bookes rendered punishment, and in the margent censure) was not excommunication, but onelyonly sharpe objurgation or reproofe. To this I have abundantly answered Book 2. chap. 9. and in Male audis pag. 12, 13, 14. And if it should be granted that the man was not then excommunicate but sharply and publiquely rebuked (which indeed is the opinion of some) yet the Church of Corinth had proceeded to excommunication, had not written to disswade them, if the Apostle and take them off with a Sufficit, which he neither needed nor would have done, if they had power to doe no more …o the offender then to rebuke him sharply. To conclude this point, M Prynne granteth that 1 Cor. 5. 13. proveth excommunication; and why the gathering together, vers. 4. should not be intended for the same worke, I cannot imagine? Some question there was of old whether the Apostles meaning vers. 13. were not that the Corinthians should put away every man out of himselfe the evill of sinne. Which Augustine having somewhere left in medio, doth in his Retractations correct, (and Beda upon the place out of him tels us the very same) and expound it of the taking away of the evill man from the Church by Excommunication, because saith he, the Greeke can not be rendered hoc malum, but hunc malum.
2. They who had power to receive him and forgive him, and to confirme their love towards him, had power to cast him out and censure him; but those foreign, the Church officers of the Church of Corinth had power of the former; Therefore of the latter. See 2 Cor. 2. 7, 8. The Apostle adviseth them to forgive the offender. How to forgive him? not as man forgives a private injury: that was not the case. Nor onelyonly by the doctrine of remission of sinnes applied to him in foro conscientiae, upon evidence of his repentance: that any one Minister might doe. But the Apostle will have those many who had censured him consistorially and judicially, to forgive him in the same manner. Which is yet further confirmed by that foreign, that confirming of their love towards him vers. 8. foreign is ratum facere, thence commeth not onelyonly foreign but foreign. When the Apostle will expresse a ratified or confirmed testament Galat. 3. 15. he cals it foreign. From the same word Erasmus doth collect that the Apostle speaketh to them as the ordinary Judges who have power to confirme their love to that penitent sinner in an authoritative manner. And why doth the Apostle choose a word which properly signifi…th an authoritative confirming or ratifying of a thing, if he were not speaking of a jurisdiction and power of inflicting and taking off againe censures?
3. The Apostle upon occasion of that offenders case, puts the Corinthians in remembrance, that they ought likewise to purge the Church from the mixture of other scandalous sinners, 1 Cor. 5. 9, 10, 11, 12. The Chapter both begins and ends with the case of the incestuous man and his punishment; which makes interpreters conceive, that what is enterlaced concerning other scandalous sinners in the Church, is to be understood of such as the Apostle would have to be censured in the same manner as that incestuous man.
4. He instanceth in six cases, (not intending an enumeration of all the particular cases of Excommunication) fornication, covetousnesse, (meaning covetousnesse scandalously and grossely manifested, or practicall covetousnesse, for of the heart God onelyonly judgeth) idolatry, railing, drunkennesse, extortion. His instancing in these, tels us he intends not the case of private civill injuries, but of scandals, yea though the scandall be without the mixture of any civill or private injury, as in the case of an Idolater or a drunkard.
5. And even where there is a private injury wrapt up in the bosome of the scandall, as in railing and extortion, yet the Apostle there looketh upon them not qua injuries, but qua scandals; and in that notion, he will have not onelyonly the party particularly interrested and injured, but the other members of the Church also to withdraw communion from the offender; for he writeth to the whole Church of Corinth, not to keepe company with such.
6. When he saith, with such a one no not to …ate, he intimates by No not some further and greater punishment than not eating with him, as hath been said before: If not so much as eating with him, then muchlesse Church communion with him at the Lords Table.
7. He meanes not of that withdrawing whereby each Christian may and ought to withdraw familiarity and fellowship from such a notorious scandalous sinner, whose sinne is manifest before hand, that he may keep himselfe pure, and not partake of another mans sinne: In which case a member of one Church may withdraw familiar conversing with a scandalous member of another Church. But he speakes of such a withdrawing from and avoyding of the fellowship of a scandalous Brother, as is done not by one or some few private Christians, but by the whole Church (for hee writeth to the whole Church of Corinth, not to company nor eate with such a one) I say, by the whole Church, whereof the offender was a member: and that not without a judiciall or consistoriall sentence, vers. 12. Doe not ye judge them that are within? which can not be restricted to the judgement of Christian discretion and prudence (for so both the Apostles and they did judge those that were without, to walke circumspectly toward them, Col. 4. 5. and to beware of their evill.) But tis meant of censures and punishments inflicted by many, that is, by the Presbyters of that Church, 2 Cor. 2. 6.
8. And so I have touched upon the last consideration, which is this. That as the fault was a scandall given to the Church, and the judgement and censure was Ecclesiasticall, not civill, so that censure for that offence was inflicted onelyonly upon Church members, not upon unbelievers. If an unbeliever did a civill injury to a Christian, the Christian was free to accuse the unbeliever (if he saw it good) before the civill Magistrate, and there to seeke judgement and justice. Or the Christian was free to withdraw civill fellowship from the unbeliever, which did him a civill injury, which I suppose Mr Prynne will easily grant. But this way of censuring and punishing a scandalous Church member, did not agree to an Heathen who was an Idolater, or drunkard, or extortioner, &c. Vers. 10, 11, 12, 13. Thus I have proved Church censure from 1 Cor. 5. compared with 2 Cor. 2. without laying the weight of any argument upon Tradere Sathanae. Which I would not have to be understood, as if I yeelded to our opposites, that the delivering to Satan is not meant of Excommunication. My meaning is onelyonly to make the shorter worke of the Erastian Antithesis. The weight of their arguments, not of ours, is laid upon Tradere Sathanae. But for my sence of the word, I am of their opinion who interpret it of Excommunication; and so doth Gualther himselfe. So doth the Syriack, which readeth, That you (Corinthians) may deliver such a one to Satan. If it was an an act of the Church of Corinth, then it was a Church censure, not a miracle. The Greeke doth also carry it to be an act of the Church of Corinth assembled together. We have also some (though not all) of the Ancients for us in this particular: as Balsamon in Canon. epist. Basilii ad Amphilo…. C…n. …. observeth. Basil speaketh of some who at that time had been delivered to Satan for 30 yeeres, that they might learn not to carry thnmselves filthily, yea unnaturally, as they had done formerly: concerning whom he adviseth that now after so long a time, they might be (upon their spontaneous confession of their hainous offence) received againe into the Church. Hereupon Balsamonn oteth, Those are said to be delivered to Satan, who are separated from the communion of Christians.