A brief refutation of the sophisms by which certain persons attempted to overthrow ecclesiastical discipline in a public discussion held in Heidelberg, (Dr. Perer Boquin presiding and George Withers, an Englishman, replying) on the 10th of June, Anno Domini, 1568; taken word for word as delivered by Dr. Z. Ursinus, at the repetition of this discussion which took place the next day privately in “Collegium Sapientae,” in which the two following theses wee proposed with reference to church discipline.

I. In connection with the sincere preaching of the word, and the lawful administration of the sacraments, the office of government or discipline in the church must be maintained.

II. This office I thus state: That the ministers in connection with the elders should both have and exercise the power of convicting, reproving, excommunicating, and of executing any thing else that pertains to ecclesiastical discipline, upon any that offend, not even excepting Princes themselves.

Obj. 1. Where the word and sacraments are rightly administered, there the office of discipline must be maintained. But in the” primitive church, and in many well ordered churches at the present, the authority of discipline is not maintained. Therefore the word and sacraments are not rightly administered in these churches, which is absurd. In replying to the major proposition we make the following distinction. The phrase to administer rightly, may be understood differently. It may signify, or be understood as referring to that administration which agrees perfectly with the prescript of our Lord. Then it may again be understood of that administration which is not in perfect accordance with the rule which our Lord has laid down, but which is, nevertheless, administered in such a way as is pleasing to God, and profitable to the church. The sacraments are no where rightly administered according to the former signification; but according to the latter signification they may be and are. For although there may be some irregularities or faults which cannot at once be corrected on account of human infirmity, yet the administration may, nevertheless, be pleasing to God, and profitable to the church; for, “blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness. * Unless these things be granted there will not be a single pure church in the world. This may be regarded as a sufficient refutation of the major proposition. We, in like manner, deny the minor proposition; for the authority of Christian discipline was maintained in the primitive church, and will remain in the church, even where it is imperfectly constituted, although with great abuse, as with the Papists. To this it is objected, that in our, as well as in the Helvetic churches, which are properly constituted churches, excommunication is not attended to, so that what is affirmed in the minor proposition of the above syllogism remains true. But we would reply, that although we may grant that in some churches discipline is not put in force, or badly exercised, yet still that which is affirmed by our opponents cannot be maintained, because the word and sacraments are rightly administered in these churches, according to the other signification of which we have spoken. Here Ursinus quoted a saying of Chrysostom: “If any wicked person come to the table of the Lord, do not give unto him the body and blood of the Lord. If he will not believe, declare it unto me: I would rather lose my life than admit him.” Hence Christian discipline was maintained in the early church several centuries after Christ.

Obj. 2. That doctrine which is neither established by the word of God nor proven by examples, must not be forced upon the church. This doc trine respecting excommunication is neither established by the word of God, nor proven by examples. Therefore it must not be forced upon the church. Ans. We deny the minor proposition: for the word of God expressly declares, in Matt. 18:17, “Tell it unto the church: and if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.” The same thing is also confirmed by examples, for proof of which see 1 Cor. 5:5: “Deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh.” Also, 1 Tim. 1:20: “Whom I have delivered unto Satan.”

Objections against the Word, or those portions of Scripture brought for ward in support of the position here assumed.

Obj. 1. No mention is made in the 18th chapter of Matthew of the eldership, nor of excommunication. Therefore this passage proves nothing.
Ans. We deny the antecedent, because although the very same words are not used, yet the thing itself is taught in the passage referred to. The eldership is introduced where it is said, Tell it unto the church; and excommunication where it is said, Let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

Obj. 2. The eldership is not the church. Christ now commands that information be communicated to the church, and that admonition be given by the church. Therefore no mention is made of elders in the case. Ans. We deny the major proposition, although the whole argument may be con ceded, viz: that Christ did not mean the eldership, but uses the term church in its proper sense, whether we refer it to the Jewish or Christian church. But yet there must be some order for the government of the church: there must be certain persons appointed and ordained by the church, who may have the management of its affaire, or else there will be confusion.

Obj. 3. It is true, indeed, that information cannot be communicated to the whole church, but to a certain class of persons, whose office is not ecclesiastical, but civil, so that the sense is: Tell it unto the church; by which is meant the senate of the city. Ans. It is here confessed that information cannot be communicated to the whole church, but to a certain class of rulers, which, notwithstanding, is not ecclesiastical, but civil. The question now is, whether this is to be understood of a civil council. This our opponents must prove, which they endeavor to do in this way: That council which punishes with temporal punishments is civil. The council which gave Paul power to put Christians to death inflicted temporal punishments. Therefore it was a civil council. Ans. We reply to the major, that that council which inflicts temporal punishments according to right is civil. But the high priests who gave this power to Paul did it wrongfully, because they had not the right which they usurped and arrogated to them selves. The same thing may also be said in reference to the death of Stephen: for he was slain by a tumult; whilst the priests themselves were consenting to it, but wrongfully.

Obj. 4. Augustin says: The Jews lied when they said, “It is not lawful for us to put any man to death.” (John 18:81.) Ans. These are the words of Augustin: “We must not, however, understand them as saying that they might not put any to death on account of the sacredness of the day, which they now began to celebrate. Are ye so hard-hearted, ye treacherous Israelites? Have ye lost all sense by your inveterate malice, as to believe that ye are clear from the blood of the innocent, because ye delivered him into the hands of another for the purpose of being slain” Augustin, therefore, did not say that they lied, but only that they did that which they said it was not lawful for them to do.

Obj. 5. Chrysostom understands the words just referred to, to mean, i is not lawful for us, viz., on account of the nearness of the feast. Ans This is not true, even though it may be thus understood by Chrysostom; because history testifies that their civil jurisdiction and laws were taken from them by Herod the Great; and Josephus says that the council (excepting one Sameas) was put to death by him and Hyrcanus. The Jews therefore designed to say this to Pilate: “Thou hast the right, or power of the sword: it is not lawful for us to put any man to death;” which Pilate also bore testimony to when he said, u Knowest thou not that I have power to crucify thee, and have power to release thee?” (John 19:10.)

Obj. 6. But Pilate himself said: “Take ye him, and judge him according to your law.” (John 18:81.) Ans. But he meant the law of Moses, as if he would say: If he is a blasphemer, stone him to death; I give my consent thereto.

Obj. 7. But Josephus testifies that Claudius gave the Jews their laws. Ans. Then they had them not before. And still more, Claudius is said to have granted them their ecclesiastical laws, by which nothing more ia meant, than that he gave them permission to observe their own laws and rites as it respects religion. “desire (says he) that their laws, which were violated by the folly of Caias, be no longer infringed upon, and that they be permitted to enjoy the rites of their fathers.”

Obj. 8. The right of the sword was taken from them by Herod the Great. Therefore they possessed this right before; and still further: at the time when Christ gave command to tell it unto the church, there was only the civil council; from which we may infer that he gave command to tell it unto this council. There were only three councils among the Jews. There was, 1. The great council, which was the senate of the entire nation. 2. The smaller council, which was the senate of the city of Jerusalem. 3. The triumvirate. These were all civil. Hence the council of which Christ speaks must have been a civil council. In reply to this objection we may turn the argument of our opponents, and say, that if the Jews lost their political power under Herod the Great, then they did not possess it in the time of Christ; for it is evident that Herod the Great died before Christ began to teach. And as to the argument that the council of which Christ speaks was civil, we reply that it was not only civil; for it also had ecclesiastical power, and took cognizance of matters pertaining to religion. It consisted of Pharisees and Scribes, of divines and lawyers: for they had moral and judicial laws. Hence the smaller council of which Christ speaks was not merely political, but also ecclesiastical. The question now is, did Christ command to tell it to the council as to its civil or ecclesiastical character? We hold that it was in its ecclesiastical character, and prove it from the text itself: because we are commanded, in the first place, to regard the excommunicated person as an heathen man and publican; that is, as an alien from the kingdom of God. But to declare a man a publican, and an alien from the kingdom of God, does not belong to the civil magistrate, but to the church; because a publican may be a member of the state, but not of the church of Christ. And besides, Christ adds: “Verily I say unto you, whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven,” &c. In these words Christ replies to him who may object as follows: What does it affect me, even though the church may regard me as an infidel or publican. I will nevertheless eat and drink. To such an one, Christ replies: The judgment of the church shall not be in vain, for I myself will execute it. He had said in the sixteenth chapter of Matthew, “I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven,” where he speaks of the common authority of the magistrate; but in the passage now under consideration, he speaks particularly of the authority of the church in this case. To bind and loose, therefore, does not belong to the civil magistrate, but to the church.

Thus far we have spoken of the first member, or part of the proposition assumed, that the eldership is included in the term church; we must now proceed to speak of the other part, which is to show that the idea of excommunication is likewise contained in the declaration of Christ, Let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

Obj. 1. But to be regarded as an heathen, and a publican, is not the name thing as to be excommunicated. Therefore, excommunication is not included in the language which Christ employs. Ans. We deny the antecedent. But, say our opponents, in proof of the antecedent which we deny, let him be unto thee as an heathen, does not refer to the public judgment of the church, but to the private judgment of each man. Therefore, he who is regarded as a heathen, by persons privately, is not at once excommunicated by the whole church. But it is sufficient to reply, that he who is regarded as a heathen by persons privately, is looked upon in the same light by the church. Hence Christ speaks of the public judgment of the church.

Obj. 2. But the passage under consideration does not say whom the church regards as an heathen; but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man, and a publican. Therefore, every one regards him as an heathen man according to his own judgment, and riot according to the judgment of the church. Ans. True; I regard him in this light, because he neglects to hear the church; but not to hear the church and be a publican, or an alien from the church, do not mean one and the same thing. We also add the following remark, less objectionable:

Christ does not speak this of every man privately, but of the whole church; for to thee and to the church are equivalent; because, when Christ commands that I shall regard any one as an heathen, he does not, by any means, desire that the church shall in the mean time look upon him as a Christian; for then he would desire contradictory things he would will contrary judgments to be given at the same time by the same individual. Therefore, to be regarded as a publican by one, is to be regarded as such by all, and so by the whole church; and if that denunciation were not made in particular, no one would be accounted as a publican. Hence, to be accounted by the church as a publican, is to be excommunicated, and to be without the communion of the church; so that what we have affirmed re mains true, that mention is made in the Scriptures of excommunication, and that it is committed to the church.

Obj. 3. The wicked may be regarded as publicans, and heathens, with out the infliction of excommunication. Therefore, a publican and an excommunicated person are not the same. Ans. We deny the antecedent; because to regard any one as being without the communion of the church, and as being excommunicated, are the same.

Obj. 4. But we may regard any one a publican, that is, we may think in our minds that he is such. Ans. Christ does not, however, speak of the thoughts, but of the actions of the church. If he neglect to hear the church, it is necessary for thee to know that; and that thou inayest regard him as an heathen man, and a publican, it is necessary for thee to know, not what the church thinks of him privately, but what it resolves concern ing him publicly. Paul, moreover, forbids us to eat, or drink, with the wicked. “With such an one, no not to eat.” (1 Cor. 5: II.) No one now can avoid connection with the wicked as it respects secret meditation.

Hence it must be according to the public decision of the church, from which it is easy to see that the Apostle does not allude to the thoughts which we may secretly entertain. The Apostle also, in the same chapter, commands the Corinthians “to put away from among themselves that: wicked person;” by which he means, declare him no longer a member of the church. Hence to look upon any one as a publican is not only to think him such in the mind, but it is also to declare him to be such, and to ex communicate him.

Objections against the examples of excommunication as referred to by the apostle Paul in 1 Cor. 5:5. 2. Cor. 2:6. 2. Thes. 3:14. 1 Tim. 1:20.

Those who at this day oppose the exercise of discipline on the part of the church, endeavor to evade the force of the examples recorded by the Apostle Paul in two ways. Some positively deny that the Apostle speaks of excommunication when he says: He that has acted thus, let him be de livered unto Satan; for, say they, to deliver unto Satan is not to excommunicate, but to remove from their midst by a miraculous punishment^ inflicted by the ministry of Satan, or it is to utter direful imprecations, and to deliver to Satan to be punished, yet in such a manner that he remain a member of the church. Others, again, admit that Paul speaks of excommunication, but deny that his example has any force as far as we are concerned, inasmuch as we now have Christian magistrates persons whose- duty it is to maintain order, whilst the church was destitute of such guardians in the time of the Apostles. But as it respects the former class of persons who deny that the Apostle speaks of excommunication, they are evidently condemned by what he says: Put away from among yourselves that wicked man. With such an one, no not to eat. These declarations now cannot be understood of any miraculous punishment by death, such as that which was inflicted upon Ananias and Sapphira; but they speak of the ordinary duty and judgment of the church, as is evident:1. Because he recommends them to put him away from their midst, and reproves them cause they had not already cut him off, saying, “Ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you.” (1 Cor. 5:2.) 2. Because he requires the consent of the church: “When ye are gathered together, and my spirit.” (1 Cor. 5:4.) But there was no need of such a solemnity, or gathering for the working of a miracle. 3. Because he desired that the incestuous man “be delivered unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus;” (1 Cor. 5:5) that is, he desired him to be dealt with in such a manner, that notwithstanding his life might be prolonged, and he repent, his flesh might be subdued by sincere contrition, the old man mortified, and the new man quickened. Hence he did not desire that he should be put to death. 4. The Apostle speaks of separation and exclusion from the church when he says: “Purge out the old leaven.” “Keep no company with fornicators.” “With such an one, no not to eat.” (1 Cor. 5:7, 11.) All these expressions allude to separation, and not to punishment by death. 5. A comparison of different passages of Scripture will show, that all those who deny the doctrine of Christ, whether in word or deed, ought not to be regarded as Christians. Ambrose says, that this incestuous man, referred to in the fifth chapter of first Corinthians, when his offence was known, was to be separated from the assembly of the brotherhood, or church. All those now who are excluded from the church, are deservedly said to be delivered unto Satan, inasmuch as they are in his kingdom, and led by him, as long as they do not repent.

As it respects those who admit that the Apostle speaks of excommunications in the places above referred to, they evidently reason falsely when they assign as a reason why he would have the incestuous man excommunicated, that there was then no Christian magistrate; for Paul adduces very different reasons, even such as are of force until this present time, among which we may mention the following:1. The command of Christ, “In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit;” that is, by the authority and command of Christ: “Tell it unto the church:” “Let him be unto thee as an heathen man, and a publican. 2. That the excommunicated person might repent, and be saved. “Deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.” 8. That other members of the church might not become infected thereby. “Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump? For Christ, our passover, is sacrificed for us,” that we may live with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. And that we may now be made a new lump, let us cast out the old leaven of malice and wickedness; or if we cannot altogether purge it out, let us not, at least, professedly tolerate it.

These are the reasons on account of which Paul commanded the incestuous man to be cast out of the church. And the Scriptures no where teach that the early church, did ever excommunicate any wicked persons, be cause there were no magistrates. The duties of the church and of the- magistrate always have been, and still remain distinct. It is plain, there fore, that the Apostle speaks of excommunication, when he says, Deliver him unto Satan Pat away that wicked person from among you: and gives command in respect to the ordinary power of the church against the disobedient and obstinate, whether it be accompanied with any miracle, or not.

Obj. 1. Nathan did not excommunicate David, who was guilty of the sin of adultery. Therefore, Paul did not excommunicate the incestuous man. Ans. David repented upon the first admonition. Hence excommunication was not inflicted in this case. Paul also speaks with reference to the condition of repentance, saying, Put him away, that is, if he does not repent, or has not already repented of his sin, upon the presence of which condition, he commands him to be received again into the bosom of the church. This condition must be understood, because Christ commanded that certain steps, or degrees of admonition should first precede, and God at all times receives those who are penitent. The thief upon the cross was riot disregarded, but received by Christ as soon as he gave evidence of true repentance. “If thy brother shall sin against thee until seventy times seven, thou shalt forgive him.” (Matt. 18:21, 22.) Therefore, not sinners, but such as are obstinate and continue impenitent, are to be excommunicated, in which number David cannot be included.

Obj. 2. Christ did not excommunicate any one. Therefore, Paul did not do it, neither ought the church now to excommunicate any one. Ans. The consequence which is here drawn is not proper, because it proceeds from the denial of the fact to the denial of the right, or lawfulness of the thing itself. It is the same, as if any one were to argue; Christ did not baptize: therefore, Paul did not baptize, neither ought the church to baptize. Christ baptized none, but he gave command to his disciples to baptize all nations. So likewise he excommunicated none, but commanded the church to ex communicate obstinate offenders. “Let him be unto thee as a heathen man.” “Leave thy gift before the altar,” &c. Philip said to the eunuch, “If thou believest with all thy heart thou mayest be baptized.” Therefore, Philip would not have baptized him had he not believed.

Obj. 3. Paul says, “Ye have not mourned that he which hath done this deed might be taken away from among you.” (1 Cor. 5:2.) There fore they should have prayed that God would, through Satan, remove the incestuous man in some miraculous way. Ans. The words which are translated, Ye have not mourned, mean, according to the original, Ye have not been earnest in removing that scandal which ought not to be found in your midst; from among you, I say, because, in the thirteenth verse, the Apostle says, Put away from among yourselves that wicked person. Hence the words, That he ought to be taken from among yon, signify that he was to be removed by the church, and not by Satan. To this it is objected, that Paul uses the same word in reference to himself, in 2 Cor. 12:21, where he says, “I shall bewail many which have sinned already, and have not repented,” &c. In this passage, the word bewail, does not mean an anxiety to remove a scandal from the church. Therefore, neither does it in the above reference. But it is sufficient to reply that the Apostle says, 13th ch. and 2nd v., “If I come again, I will not spare,” where he expresses the cause of his grief, that he might feel himself constrained to punish more severely the obstinate and impenitent even to expel them from the church.

Obj. 4. Paul explains what he means, in that he declares that he did not command the Corinthian church to excommunicate the incestuous man, when he says, “Sufficient to such a man is the punishment which was inflicted of many.” (2 Cor. 2:6.) Therefore, the declarations, “Let him be unto you as a heathen man and a publican,” and “Put him away from among you,” mean nothing more than to rebuke. Ans. The consequence which is here drawn is false, because it seeks to establish a rule by one single instance. A reproof was all that was needed in the present case, because he repent ed. But it does not follow from this, that nothing more is required in other instances of a different character. To this it is objected: That which the Corinthians did, the Apostle commanded. But they did nothing more than rebuke. Therefore the Apostle meant nothing more than a rebuke, when he commanded them to put him away from among them, and to deliver him unto Satan. We reply to the major proposition, that the Apostle did in deed command them to reprove him; but not only to reprove; for he commanded them also to cast him out of their midst if he would not repent of his sin. If he would, however, repent, a reproof would be sufficient in his case. It does not then follow: they merely reproved him. Therefore the Apostle commanded them to reprove him. This may be regarded as a sufficient reply. Yet we may add still further that the Greek word which is here used, does not merely mean to disapprove of a thing or to reprove, but also to excommunicate, because excommunication is by word only. And that it may not only, but must be so understood, is evident, 1. Because, he says, “So that contrariwise ye ought to forgive him.” (2 Cor. 2:7.)

Therefore he was now excommunicated and not jet received, but to be received: not only was he reproved, but he was also cast out. 2. It was inflicted of many. This is a confirmation of the explanation which we have given of the words of Christ, viz., that by the church we are to understand, not the confused multitude, but the elders of the church: for the reproof was given by the elders and chief men of the church. 3. The Apostle also says, 2 Cor. 2:9, “To this end also did I write, that I might know the proof of you.” He praises them, therefore, because they were obedient. 4. The Apostle likewise says, in v. 8, “I beseech you that ye would confirm your love towards him.” The Greek word here translated, to confirm, means to declare pardon publicly. Therefore pardon had not been as yet granted unto him. It is used in this sense in Gal. 3:15, where it is said, “Though it be a man s covenant, yet if it be confirmed,” that is, ratified by public authority. The Apostle s meaning then is, that they should declare their love towards that man by public testimony. Hence to forgive, as the Apostle here uses it, is to receive the excommunicated person into favor. This he often repeats. There was also some considerable time between the writing of the first and second epistles to the Corinthians. Therefore he stood excommunicated during that time. In the first epistle he says, that he hears there were certain wicked persons amongst their number. These he commands to be excommunicated. It is probable that the Corinthians obeyed this command, excommunicated them, and wrote to the Apostle that they had obeyed him; for, in the second chapter of his second Epistle, he commends them for their obedience; and commands them to receive again the incestuous person, if he would repent.

Obj. 5. Excommunication does not require any excuse. But Paul excuses himself that he had commanded him to be delivered unto Satan. Therefore he did not command that he should be excommunicated, but that a more grievous punishment should be inflicted. Ans. We deny the major proposition, because exclusion from the church and kingdom of Christ, being the heaviest punishment, requires an excuse more than any punishment which may be inflicted upon the body.

Obj. 6. Ministers cannot exclude any one from the kingdom of God. Therefore Paul did not command the Corinthians to do this. We reply to the antecedent, that ministers cannot, by their own authority, exclude any from the kingdom of God; but they can, in the name of Christ, according to the command of the Apostle, 1 Cor. 5:4, “When ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of the Lord Jesus Christ.” Again, they cannot cast any out of the kingdom of God, but they can and ought to declare the rejection of those whom God declares in his word that he has rejected. For, to excommunicate is nothing else than to subscribe to the divine judgment, by denouncing upon incorrigable offenders the judgment which God inflicts. This the church may not only do, but even ought to do. It is for this reason that the Apostle reproves the Corinthians, be cause they did not excommunicate the incestuous man; but waited until they were admonished. Hence he reprimands them because they had de parted from the ordinary course which they ought to have pursued they did not exercise the known and ordinary power of the church, and declare him, according to the command of Christ, a heathen man and publican.

Obj. 7. The Apostle commands that the incestuous man should be delivered unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh. (1 Cor. 5:5.) But the word which is here translated destruction, signifies, as it is used in the Scriptures, a violent death. Therefore it means, in this place, some miraculous death inflicted upon the body by Satan, that the soul might be saved. Ans. A careful examination of the circumstances connected with this case, will show that we are to understand by the word destruction, as it is here used, the mortification of the old man; for the opposition of the flesh to the Spirit; and indeed this phrase itself is frequently used by Paul in this sense. The scope or design of the passage teaches the same thing: for the Apostle desired that the man might be delivered unto Satan, that the flesh might be mortified and the spirit saved, or that he might be converted, and saved in the life to come. Hence he did not desire him to be removed from this life by some miraculous agency of Satan. To this it is objected, that no one can be delivered unto Satan for the conversion, or mortification of the old man: to which we may reply, that it is true that to be de livered unto Satan does not of itself produce such a result, but it accomplishes this by accident, by which we mean that it brings it to pass by the mercy of God, that the faithful are reclaimed by these chastisements. We may also rebut the argument of our opponents by the same reason with which they hope to refute us, by saying that Satan puts no one to death, that he might save his soul.

Obj. 8. But if the Apostle had willed the incestuous man to be excommunicated, he would have declared his desire more expressly. Ans. We must, however, not only have respect to the clearness, but also to the force and power of the language which is used in reference to any particular subject. Here there was no need of greater clearness, inasmuch as the Corinthians understood what he desired, or else he would have re proved them unjustly.

Obj. 9. A brother is not to be excommunicated. Paul desired him whom he gave command by letter to be noted, to be counted as a brother. (2 Thes. 8:15.) Therefore he did not desire that he should be excommunicated. The major proposition is proven thus: Things that are contrary cannot be regarded as synonymous. To excommunicate any one, and to regard him as a brother, are contrary things: for to excommunicate, is not to count as a brother. Therefore, to count the same person as a brother, and not as a brother, is absurd. Ans. The phrase, to count as a brother, admits of different interpretations, on account of the various degrees of brotherhood, so that the contrariety here spoken of, has no force. All men are our brethren and neighbors, both Christians and Turks. Yet Christians, although they regard the Turks as brethren, and desire their salvation, do nevertheless not count them as Christian brethren. If the Turks are, therefore, to be regarded as brethren, much more ought we to regard those who were formerly Christians, as our brethren, and desire their salvation. There is also here a fallacy in understanding that to be true in general which is so only in part. Count him as a brother, viz., in love, desire, and hope of saving him; but not so as to enumerate him among the sons of God and members of the church, until he repent. And still more, the Apostle does not say, count him as a brother, but admonish him as a brother; that is, as one who was a brother, and who, if he repent, must again be viewed as a brother. For those who are excommunicated are not so entirely cut off from all hope of salvation, but that they may return to repentance, and again be included in the fold of Christ. Paul uses this phrase, because he desired that love, and a hope of amendment might be the rule of all the reproofs given; for one brother admonishes another with the feelings of a friend, and with a view to promote his well-being.

Obj. 10. We are not to follow the example of the apostle Paul in what he did. Paul excommunicated Hymeneus and Alexander, without the consent of the church. Therefore no one must be excommunicated. Ans. The major proposition is false, if understood generally. But, say our opponents, it is proven from the fact that what the Apostle did, he did by apostolic authority, which we are not required to follow. And the minor, say they, is proven from what the Apostle says: “Whom I have delivered unto Satan.” (1 Tim. 1:20.) But our ministers and pastors cannot do this. Therefore it must needs be that the Apostle did this by some special authority. Ans. We grant the whole argument, that we ought not to imitate the Apostle if he did it alone. But admitting this argument, it nevertheless does not follow; therefore, it is not lawful to excommunicate any one: for if this were true, there would be more in the conclusion than in the premises. What was lawful for the Apostle to do by apostolic authority, that is also lawful for the ministers of the church to do by ordinary power and authority. We may also deny the minor proposition, because this passage declares nothing more, than what the Apostle did. It says nothing as to the manner in which he did it, whether alone, or in connection with others.