Aarons Rod Blossoming, Book 3 · Chapter 2
CHAP. II. Whether Matth. 18. 15, 16, 17. prove Excommunication.
THe second point of difference is concerning Matth. 18. Mr Prynne in the first of his foure questions told us that the words Matth. 18. 17. Let him be to thee as an Heathen man and a Publican, are meant onelyonly of personall private trespasses between man and man, not publique scandalous sinnes against the Congregation: and that tis not said, Let him be to the whole Church, but let him be to Thee, &c. This I did in my Sermon retort. For if to thee, for a personall private trespasse; much more to the whole Church, for a publique scandalous sinne, whereby he trespasseth against the whole Congregation. Yea, it followeth upon his interpretation, that he may account the whole Church as Heathens and Publicans, if all the members of the Church doe him a personall injury, whereupon I left this to be considered by every man of understanding, whether if a private man may account the whole Church as Heathens and Publicans for a personall injury done to himselfe alone, it will not follow that much more the whole Church may account a man as a Heathen and Publican, for a publique scandalous sinne against the whole Church. Mr Prynne in his Vindication, pag. 3. glanceth at this objection, but he takes notice onelyonly of the halfe of it, and he is so farre from turning off my retortion, that he confirmeth it; for pag. 4. he confesseth that every Christian hath free power by Gods word to esteeme not onelyonly a particular brother, but all the members of a Congregation, as Heathens and Publicans, if he or they continue impenitent in the case of private injuries, after admonition. Now my exception against his Quere remains unanswered. If I may esteem the whole Church as Heathens and Publicans, when they doe me an injury and continue impenitent therein: may not the whole Church esteem me as an Heathen man and a Publican, when I commit a publique and scandalous trespasse against the whole Church, and continues impenitent therein? Shall a private man have power to cast off the whole Church as Heathens and Publicans? and shall not the whole Church have power to cast off one man as an Heathen and Publican? I know he understands those words, Let him be to thee as a Heathen man and a Publican, in another sence then either the reformed Churches doe, or the ancient Churches did, and takes the meaning to be of avoyding fellowship and familiarity with him, before any sentence of Excommunication passed against the offender. But however my argument from proportion will hold. If civill fellowship must be refused, because of obstinacy in a civill injury, why shall not spirituall or Church-fellowship be refused to him that hath committed a spirituall injury or trespasse against the Church? If private fellowship ought to be denied unto him that will not repent of a private injury, why shall not publique fellowship in eating and drinking with the Church at the Lords Table be denied unto him that will not repent of a publique scandall given to the Congregation? Are the rules of Church fellowship looser and wider than the rules of civill fellowship? or are they straiter? Is the way of communion of Saints broader than the way of civill communion? or is it narrower? Peradventure he will say, that the whole Church, that is, all the members of the Church, have power to withdraw from an obstinate scandalous brother, that is, to have no fraternall converse or private Christian fellowship with him. Well then: If thus farre he be as a Heathen and a Publican to the whole Church distributively, how shall he be as a Christian brother to the whole Church collectively; If all the members of the Church severally withdraw fellowship from him even before he be excommunicated, how shall the whole Church together be bound to keepe fellowship with him till he be excommunicated? Instead of loosing such knots, Mr Prynne undertakes to prove another thing, that this Text of Matthew is not meane of Excommunication or Church censures, and that the Church in this Text was not any Ecclesiasticall Consistory (here he citeth Iosephus, as if he had spoken of that Text) but onelyonly the Sanhedrin or Court of civill Justice. But though all this were true which he saith, yet there may be a good argument drawn by necessary consequence from this Text to prove Excommunication. Which Grotius did well perceive: for in his annotations upon the place, after he hath told his opinion that excommunication is not meant in this Text, he addeth, that he hath elsewhere spoken of the antiquity and necessity of Excommunication: quanquam ad eam ex hoc etiam loco non absurde argumentum duci p…sse, non negaverim: though I will not deny, saith he, that even from this place, the argument may be drawn to excommunication without any absurdity. My argument afore-mentioned will hold good even from Master Prynnes owne exposition. Thus farre I have gone upon a consession: now to the confutation. Before I come to his reasons, I observe in his margent a double mistake of the testimony of Scapula. First, he sends us to Scapula to learn that foreign signifieth any civill assembly or councell, as well as an Ecclesiasticall Presbytery. Yes: Scapula tels us, it hath in Heathen writers a generall signification, to expresse any Assembly called forth. But he addeth immediately, that in the writing of Christians it signifieth the assembly of such as are called to eternall life and doe professe Christian Religion. Since therefore it hath not the same signification in Heathen writings, and in the New Testament, he should have shewed us where the word foreign in the new Testament doth signifie a civill Court of Justice. I hope the holy Ghost did speake so in this place as he might be understood, and to take the word Church here, in that sence which it hath nowhere else in the new Testament, doth not agree with that received maxime, That Scripture is to be expounded by Scripture. I finde indeed the word foreign used for a Civill assembly, Acts 19. 39, 41. But as that is an Heathen assembly, so it is not the Evangelist Luke his expression otherwise then recitative: that is, he mentioneth an Heathen assembly under that name by which Heathens themselves called it. His other mistake of Scapula, is, the citing of him for that assertion, that the Church in this Text is not an Ecclesiasticall Con sistory. Whereas Scapula doth expound the Church Matth. 18. to be meant of the Presbytery or Colledge of Elders, (as gSteph. Restringitur & … m…do foreign ad synedrium seu Presbyterium, id est seniorum collegium, ut Matth. 18. So Marlora… in Thesaur… saith that the word Ecclesia is taken prosenatu Ecclesiastico Matth. 18. 17.Stephani Thesaurus doth also) and having told that the word signifieth the whole Christian Church: also particular Congregations: he addeth two more restricted significations: sometimes it signifieth a Christian family: sometimes the Presbytery; for this last he citeth Matth. 18. Now I proceed to Mr Prynnes Reasons. First, saith he, this Text speakes not at all of any publique scandalous sinne against the Church or Congregation, the proper object of Church censures, but onelyonly of private civill trespasses between man and man, as is evident by the words, If thy brother trespasse against thee, goe and tell him his fault between him and thee, &c. Answ. We have ever understood that place of such trespasses, which grow publique afterwards by the offenders obstinacy after admonition. Yet the trespasse here meant, may be often such as even at first is scandalous to more then one. Such a case falleth under Christs rule here, and is not excluded. Wherein observe Durand upon the fourth Book of the Master of Sentences Dist. 19. Quest. 4. But if, saith he, the sinne be not altogether secret, nor altogether knowne, that is, such as is known to many by whom he may be convict, or be is ill reported of among grave persons, though the publique fame be not against him, so the procedor which Christ hath set us in the Gospell, seemeth to have place, to wit, that first he may be secretly admonished, concerning his amendment; which if it profit not, that he may be admonished concerning his amendment before those who know the fact; but if that also doe not profit, that then he may be declared to the Church. But if we should grant that no other trespasse is meant here, but a private trespasse, yet I aske, is there no private trespasse but that which is civill? The Schoolmen writing de scandalo will tell him that one brother trespasseth against another when he scandalizeth him by any sinfull example, though without any civill injury. Nay its the greatest trespasse which is committed against the soule of our neighbour: scandall is soule murther. It is a breach of the Law of love, not onelyonly by omission, but by commission. He that is commanded to edifie his brother, and then giveth scandall to him, doth he not trespasse against his brother? The like answer I return to that which he addeth, that Luke relating the same thing without any Dic Ecclesiae, Luk. 17. 3, 4 puts it out of question, if compared with Gen. 52. 31. (there is no such Scripture) 1 Sam. 25. 28. What? out of question. Doth he not find scandalous sins in the two verses immediately preceding in Luke, and thereupon its immediatly added, Take heed to your selves, if thy brother trespasse against thee, rebuke him, and if he repent, forgive him. Can not a Christian rebuke his brother who scandalizeth him, and if he repent forgive him? Luke needed not adde Dic Ecclesiae, because he speaks of a repenting brother, not of an impenitent brother, after private admonition. And that scandalous trespasses are understood Matth. 18. 19. (as Augustine, Tostatus, and many others have observed) may thus appeare. 1. Scandals are the greatest and worst trespasses, as hath been said, and woe unto the world because of offences. Surely Jesus Christ did intend to provide a remedy against the greatest evils, rather than against the lesser. 2. Christ would not be Judge of civill injuries, Luke 12. 14. How can it be then supposed that he giveth here Lawes concerning civill rather then spirituall injuries? 3. Christ saith, If be shall heare (not repaire) thee, thou hast gained (not thy goods or thy good name, or the like, but) thy brother. Intimating, that its not a mans owne interest, but the rescuing of his brothers soule from sinne and scandall, which is here sought. Mr Prynne himselfe confirmeth it not a little, for he takes the meaning to be of avoyding a brothers company, in the case of a civill or private injury, if he continue impenitent after admonition. Now what if he that hath done the injury make full reparation, and all reall satisfaction to the brother injured, and yet continue impenient shewing no symptome at all of repentance, must he not by Mr Prynnes exposition be esteemed as an heathen man and a Publican, because of his visible and scandalous impenitency? How often hath it been seen that a man was compelled by Law, or perswaded by friends to make a reall restitution and full satisfaction for a civill or personall injury; and yet hath given very great scandall by his impenitency, not so much as confessing, but still defending and justifying his sinfull act, in his discourses? 4. The dependency upon the preceding parts of that Chapter confirmeth it: from the beginning of the Chapter to this very Text, vers. 15. Christ hath been upon the doctrine of scandals, warning us not to offend so much as one of his little ones, which he presseth by divers arguments. 5. The Erastians and we doe both agree in this, that Christ here hath a respect to the Jewish Government. Now the trespasses for which men were excommunicate by the Jewish Sanhedrin were scandalous trespasses, such as the despising of any of the precepts of the law of Moses, or Statutes of the Scribes: The doing of servile worke upon Easter Eve: The mentioning of the Name of God rashly, or by a vaine oath: The inducing of others to prophane the Name of God, or to eate holy things without the holy place; and the like; More of this elsewhere, in the 24 causes of the Jewish Excommunication. 6. Mr Prynne expoundeth this Text in Matthew by 1 Cor. 5. 9, 10, 11, 12. but there the Apostle intends the purging of the Church from scandals, whether those scandals have any private injury in them or not. Instance in Idolatry and drunkennesse, there mentioned. 7. I can also (without yeelding the least advantage to the Erastian cause) admit and suppose that which is so much pressed both by Erastus, Mr Prynne, and others, viz. that these words, If thy brother trespasse against thee, are spoken of a personall injury between man and man, Though I doe not grant the thing, yet I am content, even upon their own supposition, to argue from this Text. And first, it may be answered with Aegi dius de Coninck. de actib. supernat. Disp. 28. Dub. 8. that Christ doth not speake of the case of personall injuries, as if he meant to restrict unto such cases the order of proceeding for gaining of the offenders soule from sinne; hSed solùm exempli causa attulit tale genu… peccati, de quò maximè poterat dubitari, an in ejus correptione hic ordo servandus sit, & in quò difficillimè servetur, ob innatam multis cupiditatem vindictae.but onelyonly for examples sake he brought such kind of sinne, of which it might have been most doubted, whether in the reproofe thereof this order be to be kept, and in which it can be most hardly observed, in respect of the innate desire of revenge in many. 2. Let our opposites themselves say, whether we ought not in conscience and duty, endeavour the gaining of an offending brothers soule, when we see him commit a trespasse against God, which is no personall injury to our selves, as well as when the trespasse is a personall injury. 3. As this order of proceeding here prescribed by Christ, is (in the case of a personall injury) the greatest triall of Christian love in the person offended, so it may (by Gods blessing) be the stronger and more efficacious upon the person offending, to conquer and overcome his spirit, while he that might prosecute him in a legall and criminall way, commeth in meeknesse and love to admonish him, and to endeavour the gaining of him from sin by repentance. Which is the observation of Chrysostome upon the place, for if he that might demand punishment upon him, even that man be seen to be taking care of his salvation, this most of all other things is able to make him ashamed, and to yeeld. 4. If it be a civill and personall injury matterially, yet it comes not in here under that formall consideration, but partly as a scandall to him that hath received the injury (so that Chrysostome doth rightly make this Text to hang together with that which was said before in the same Chapter concerning scandals) partly as a soul-destroying sinne upon him that doth the wrong, which doth endanger his salvation: And if under such a notion private injuries be here spoken of, then what have our opposites gained? 5. The scope also is not civill but wholly spirituall; which Chrysostome doth very well explaine. Hom. 60. in Matth. What is it, if he shall heare thee? if he shall be perswaded to condemne himselfe of sinne. Thou hast gained thy brother, he saith not thou bast a sufficient punishment or satisfaction, but thou hast gained thy brother. And after, He saith not accuse, nor censure, nor demand punishments, but convince, saith he. The Context confirmeth it; for these words are added immediately after the parable of bringing home the lost sheep. Which parable we have also Luke 15. (where it is not applied to the reducing of such as have done private injuries, but of Publicans and sinners who were publiquely scandalous: this I thought good to note by the way) Ammonius Alexandrinus de Quatuor Evang. consonantia, cap. 96, 97. doth together with the parable of the lost sheep, adde also the other two, of the lost penny, and the lost sonne, immediately before these words, If thy brother trespasse against thee &c. 6. And suppose that the businesse hath its rise and beginning from a personall injury, verse 15. yet the trespasse for which the man is to be held as a Heathen and Publican, is a publique scandalous sinne against the Church or Congregation, namely his neglecting to heare the Church vers. 17. for it is not his first trespasse, but his contumacy against the Church, which by this Text is to make him esteemed as an Heathen and a Publican.
Before I leave this point, I will answer the chief Argument by which Eràstus would prove that this Text is meant only of private civill injuries: because (saith he) the trespasse here spoken of is no other then what one brother may forgive to another. I answer, both he and Master Prynne doe suppose this Text Mat. 15, 16, 17. to be parallell to that in Luk. 17. 3. 4. which they take for granted, without proof or reason. Certainly there is a great difference between the purpose and scope of the one place and of the other. It will be replyed that even in this very Chapter Matth. 18. the next thing which follows vers. 21. is concerning personall injuries which one brother can and ought to forgive to another. Then came Peter to him and said, Lord how oft shall my Brother sinne against me, and I forgive him? &c. To that I answer. 1. We cannot gather from the Text that Peter did propound this question immediately after or upon occasion of that which went before vers. 15, 16, 17, &c. where nothing is spoken of one Brothers forgiving another. We read Luk. 8. 19. Then came to him his Mother and his Brethren, &c. yet the meaning is not that his Mother and his Brethren came to him immediately after his speaking of the words before mentioned by Luke in that place; for that it was not after these, but after other words, is plain from the Harmony of the other Evangelists Matthew and Mark. So here these words Then came Peter, may very well relate to a new businesse and to another time. 2. Or if it was the same time, it might be said, Then came Peter, that is, Peter being absent, and not having heard that which Christ had been before speaking, he came immediatly after, & did propound a new Question. 3. Suppose also that Peter was present and heard all which had been before spoken, yet it is much doubted among Interpreters, whence Peter had the rise and occasion of that Question. Some think it was upon his calling to minde those words in the rule of Prayer, even as we forgive those who trespasse against us. Others conceive the occasion of his Question was that which was said vers. 19. Againe I say unto you if two of you shall agree on earth, supposing that agreement (and consequently forgiving of injuries) is necessary to make our Prayers the more effectuall; for my part, I think it not improbable that whatever the occasion of the Question was, vers. 21 beginneth a new and distinct purpose. Which I take to be the reason why the Arabik here makes an intercision, and beginneth the eight and fiftieth Section of Matthew at those words, Then came Peter and said, Lord how oft, &c. 4. And if vers. 21. have a dependence upon that which went before, it may be conceived thus: Christ had said, If thy Brother trespasse against thee, goe & tell him his fault betweene thee and him alone, which supposeth a continuance of the former Christian fellowship and fraternall familiarity, and that we must not cast off a scandalous Brother as lost, or as an Enemy, but admonish him as a Brother. This might give occasion to Peter to aske, Lord how oft shall my Brother sinne against me, that is, scandalize me by his sinne against God, (for even in Luk. 17. 3. 4. that of forgiving one that trespasseth against us, is added immediately after a Doctrine of scandals;) and I forgive him, that is, as Grotius expounds it, restore him to the former degree of friendship and intimate familiarity, to deale with him thus as with a Brother; Which he well distinguisheth from that other forgiving which is a not revenging. And so much of Master Prynnes first reason.
His second reason is because the Mention of two or three witnesses vers. 16. relateth onelyonly to the manner of trying civill capitall crimes (as murders and the like) before the civill Magistrates of the Jewes, &c. not to any proceedings in Ecclesiasticall causes, in their Ecclesiasticall Consistories, of which we find no president.
Answ. 1. If this hold, then the Text must not be expounded indefinitely of civill injuries (as he did before) but of civill capitall injuries, whereas Erastus takes the meaning to be of smaller offences onelyonly, and not of Capitall crimes. 2. The Law concerning two or three witnesses is neither restricted to Capitall crimes, nor to civill Judicatories. I appeale to the Ordinance of Parliament dated Octo. 20. 1645. The Elder-ship of every Congregation shall judge the matter of scandall aforesaid, being not Capitall, upon the Testmiony of two credible Witnesses, at the least. That Law therefore of witnesses is alike applicable to all causes and Courts Ecclesiasticall and civill Deut. 19. 30. One witnesse shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sinne, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses or at the mouth of three witnesses shall the matter be established. 3. And the same Law is in the new Testament clearly applied to proceedings in Ecclesiasticall causes 2 Cor. 13. 1. & again 1 Tim. 5. 19. Against the Elder receive not an accusation but before two or three witnesses, which is not spoken to any civill Magistrate, but to Timothy and others joyned with him in Church Government.
His third reason doth onelyonly begge what is in Question, that by the Church is not meant any Ecclesiasticall but a civill Court of the Jewes. He needed not to cite so many places to prove that the Jewes had civill Courts. If he could but cite one place, to prove that they had no Ecclesiasticall Courts, this were to the purpose. Not that I grant that at this time the Jewes had any civill Jurisdiction or Jewish Court of Justice; for after that Herod the great did kill Hircanus and the Sanhedrin, (in the opinion of many learned men) the Jewes had no more any civill Jurisdiction. Now Herod the great was dead before the time of Christs Ministery. Others think they had some civill Jurisdiction a while after Hircanus death. How ever he cannot prove, that at this time when Christ said Tell the Church, the Jewes had any civill Court of Justice, which did exercise either Criminall or Capitall Judgements. I have in the first Book shewed out of Buxtorf, L'Empereur, Casauhon, and I. Coch. (who prove what they say from the Talmudicall writers) that 40 yeeres before the destruction of the Temple (and so before Christ said Tell the Church) the Court of civill Justice at Hierusalem did cease. If Master Prynne make any thing of this Glosse of his, he must prove 1. That there was no Ecclesiasticall Court among the Jewes. (I have before proved that that Councell of the Jewes in Christs time was an Ecclesiasticall Court, though he conceives it was meerely civill) 2. That a private civill injury might not then, nor may not now, be brought before a civill Court, except after severall previous admonitions despised. 3. That Chists Rule, Tell the Church was antiquated and ceased, when a civill Court of Justice among the Jewes ceased. If he say that the same rule continueth for telling the civill Magistrate in case the offender prove obstinate after admonition, then I aske. …. how will he reconcile himself? for pag. 4. he saith the Church in this Text is onelyonly the Sanhedrin or Court of civill Justice among the Jewes. 2. If this Text Mat. 18. was applicable to the primitive Church after the destruction of Ierusalem, and when there was no Jewish Sanhedrin to goe to, then the Pagan Magistracy must passe under the name of the Church, for they had no other civill Court of Justice to goe to.
One thing I must needs take notice of, that whereas he would prove here that Tell the Church, is nothing, but, tell the civill Court of Justice among the Jewes, commonly called the Councell saith he, or Sanhedrin, he doth hereby overthrow all that he hath been building for the Jewish Sanhedrin at that time, had not power to judge civill, nor criminall, and least of all Capitall offences, but onelyonly causes Ecclesiasticall: The Romans having taken from them their civill Government, and left them no Government nor Jurisdiction except in matters of Religion. I hope Master Prynne will not in this contradict iConsirm. Thesium lib. 2. cap. 2. Quis nescit illo tempore Judaeos sub Romanis vixisse, ac praesidem eorum p…rentibus omnibus jus dicere solitum suisse? Civilem potentiam ad se omnem f…rè per…raxerant, relicta potestate ipsis de rebus sacris judicandi, & secundum legis ceremonias vivendi. Idem lib. 3. cap. 1. In…erim tamen pa…ebant Romanis: neque in aliis rebus potestatem servaverant integram, quàm in rebus ad religionem morésque patrios pertinentibus.Erastus. And if so, how shall his Glosse stand, that this Text is to be understood of civill injuries yea, and of these onelyonly, for remedy whereof he conceives that Christ sends his Disciples to the Jewish Sanhedrin? How sweetly doe his Tenents agree together?
His fourth reason is, that those words, let him be to thee as an Heathen man and a Publican, cannot signifie excommunication, because Heathen men being never members of the Church, could never be excommunicated or cast out of it, being uncapable of such a censure. As for publicans, those of them who were members of the Jewish Church, though they were execrable to the Jewes, by reason of their Tax-gatherings and oppressions, yet we never read in Scripture, that they were excommunicated or cast out of their Synagogues, but contrarily, that they went up into the Temple to pray, as well as the Pharisees, and were more acceptable to Christ himself, &c. So likewise Sutlivius (against Beza) de pres…yt. Cap. 9. pag. 57. I answer 1. by a retortion. Master Prynne p. 4. expounds these words, let him be unto thee as an Heathen man and a publican, to be meant of avoiding familiar fellowship with the Brother that hath committed a civill trespasse, and keeping no more civill company with him. Now I argue thus ad hominem. This cannot be the meaning which he gives, because Heathens being never admitted into familiar fellowship and company with the Jewes (who might not marry nor familiarly converse with them, as himself proveth pag. 4.) could never be cast out of their fellowship and company, being uncapable of any such thing. If our exposition of excommunication must drive us to acknowledge that Heathens were formerly members of the Jewish Church, his exposition of avoiding familiar fellowship, must drive him to acknowledge that formerly the Heathens were admitted into familiar fellowship with the Jewes.
2. Those words foreign, let him be unto thee, &c. do not look backward but foreward; neither is the matching and comparing of the scandalous impenitent Brother, with an heathen, à priori, but à posteriori, so that no comparison is to be made between the praeterite Estate of an offending Brother, and the praeterite Estate of an Heathen man, but between the future Estate of an offending obstinate Brother, and the present Estate of an Heathen man.
3. Let him be unto thee as an Heathen, is as much as have no communion nor fellowship with him in the holy Assemblies nor in the Temple; for Heathens were not permitted to come into the Temple Ezek. 44. 7. 9. Act. 21. 28. whereupon Paul is accused for bringing Greeks into the Temple and so polluting that holy place Act. 21. 28. Heathens were excluded from Atrium Israelis, the Court of Israel, which was without the Court of the Priests. There was without the Court of Israel, Atrium Gentium, the Court of the Heathen, otherwise called Intermurale, because it lay between the Temple and the utter wall mentioned Ezek. 42. 20. Into this utmost Court or intermurale Heathen men were admitted to come and worship there, according to that 1 Kings. 8. 41. 2 Chro. 6. 32. They might not onelyonly come into the holy Land, but to the holy City, and not onelyonly to the holy City, but to the mountain of the house of the Lord, yea, not onelyonly to the mountaine of the Temple, but within the utter Wall: yet into the Court of Israel which was properly the first or utter Court of the Temple, they were forbidden to enter. He that would be further satisfied that these things were so, let him read Ioseph. antiq. lib. 15. cap. 14. T…status in 1. Reg. 8. quaest. 21. Arias Montanus de saer. fabric. pag. 15. Azorius Instit. moral Tom. 1. lib. 6 Chap. 53. L'Empereur Annot. in Cod Middoth cap. 2. Sect. 3. Peradventure you will say, if it was thus, then an excommunicate person being esteemed as an Heathen, must not g…t leave to heare the word, nor at all to enter into the places of publike Ass…molies where the word was Preached. Answ. I will not now debate that point. Others have debated it with the Anabaptists who hold that excommunicate persons ought not be admitted to the Hearing of the word. Luc. Osiand. Enchirid. contra Anab. c. 6. quest. 2. but however it doth not follow upon what I have said, that excommunicate persons must be wholly excluded from hearing of the word. First, because the places of our publike worship have no Sacramentall significancy or holinesse as the Temple and Tabernacle had of old: therefore say the professors of Leyden there is not the like reason to exclude excommunicate persons wholly from our Temples, as there was excluding them from the Temple of Ierusalem. 2. because both Christ Io. 10. 23. and the Apostles Acts 5. 12. did use to Preach in Solomons Porch, (bIosephus an-tiq. lib. 20. cap. 8. Suasit (popu lus) regi ut orientalem instauraret porticum. Ea templi extima claudebat, profundae valli & augustae imminens, &c. Opus Solomonis, regis, qui primus integrum Templum condi…it.) This Porch so called was the great east Porch in the Intermurale, whether Heathens were admitted, and so they did hear the word, though they had no leave to come into the Court of Israel, there to have fellowship with or to be esteemed and reputed among the people of God. Yea, as Master Selden tells us de Jure nat. & Gent. lib. 3. cap. 6. some understand by Solomons Porch act. 3. 11. & 5. 12. the very Court of the Gentiles, into which they came to worship, which Gentiles were not withstanding forbidden by a superscription under paine of death to enter into the Court of Israel, or into that which Iosephus calls the second Temple. Iosephus doth also make mention of foure Porches of the Temple; into the utmost of which (& this is certainly meant of Solomons porch) it was lawful for heathens to come. contra appron. l. 2.
4. For the other part, let him be unto thee as a publican, if the meaning were no more but this avoid all fellowship and familiarity with him, it doth not hurt our Exposition: exclusion from the Temple being clearly signified by his being as an Heathen: and avoiding of fellowship with him being in the most emphaticall manner further expressed by his being as a publicans both these put together do the more fully hold forth excommunication. And in this sence some resolve the words.
5. Yet let us see how Master Prynne proves that the Publicans were admitted into the Temple or Synagogues. He tells us that Christ received them or conversed with them, as if the meaning had been to compare an impenitent Brother with penitent publicans, Luk. 18. 13. who drew neer to Christ to heare him Luk. 15. 2. who left all and followed Christ to be among his disciples Matth. 10. 3. Luk. 5. 27, 28. Mark. 2. 15. who justified God Luk. 7. 29. who knew themselves to be sick of soule-diseases Matth. 9. 12, 13. These very places cited by himself make against him. However the Question is how Publicans were esteemed of in the Jewish Church (for that is the thing pointed at in those words, let him be unto thee as a Publican) for that, he objecteth that Publicans went up into the Temple to pray. If he meane that Publicans who were neither devout Jewes nor Proselytes, went up into the Temple to pray, had accesse to and fellowship in the Sacrifices and Temple worship, as well as the Jewes themselves, its more than he can prove. If he mean that publicans who were Jewes or Proselytes, went up into the Temple to pray, it helpeth him not, except he can prove that when Christ saith, let him be unto thee as an Heathen man and a publican, the meaning is of such a publican as was a devout Jew or proselyte. And if so, then he had to prove that the Jewes did not keep civill company or fellowship, so much as with the religious publicans with whom they went together to the Temple to pray and worship. This also he hath to prove, not that religious publicans (of whom Christ means not) but that impious infamous Publicans came to the Temple.
6. That passage Luke 18. 10. concerning the Publicans goe ing up to the Temple to pray; first, it is expressely declared to be a parable Vers. 9. and therefore can not prove the reality of the thing according to the letter, no more than an audible conference between Abraham and the rich man in Hell can be proved from Luke 16. 24. to the end of the Chapter, (though I believe that be a History related parabolically, as V…ssius proveth in his Theses:) farre lesse can a parable properly so called prove an historicall narration. The meaning may be no other but this, that if such a Publican and such a Pharisee should goe up to the Temple to pray, then the one should depart justified, and the other not.
7. I can also grant without any prejudice to the businesse of Excommunication that the Publican, yea an execrable Publican did goe up to the Temple to pray. For an excommunicate person among the Jewes (as many thinke) so long as there was hope of his repentance, had leave to come into the utter Court of the Temple, yet so that they came in at the gate of the mourners, and excommunicate persons were known by all that saw them, to be excommunicate persons. More of this Booke 1. cap. 4.
8. This very Text Luke 18. helpes us. For tis said Vers. 13. The Publican stood afarre off, that is, (in the opinion of Diodati) in some remote part of the first Court of the Temple, 1 Kings 8. 41. It is very probable (whereof see Book 1. chap. 9. that the Intermurale or atrium Gentium is meant, which sometime hath the name of the Temple. To the Publicans standing afarre off is opposed the Pharisees standing by himselfe, Vers. 11. where I construct foreign with foreign as Camero doth: So Camerarius and Beza following the Syriack and some old Greek copies: he stood apart by himselfe, the very custome making it so, that the Publican should not come neere him, but stand in atrio Gentium.
9. The reason why Publicans are named as hatefull and execrable persons, was not for civill respects, nor because Publicans, (for the Jewes themselves did not refuse to keep company with good and just Publicans, as I shall prove afterwards:) particularly, it was not for their Tax-gathering (a particular mentioned by Mr Prynne, it seems to strengthen his exposition of civill injuries) but for divers scandalous sinnes and abominable prophanesse, therefore publicans and sinners, publicans and harlots, publicans and gluttons, and wine-bibbers are almost synonyma's in the Gospell, Matth. 9. 11. & 11. 19. & 21. 32. Murke 2. 16. Luke 5. 30. and Publicans are named as the worst of men, Matth. 5. 46, 47. the most of them being so reputed. From all this which hath been said in answer to his fourth reason it appeareth that let him be to thee as an Heathen and a Publican, is more than he would make it, keepe not any familar company, or have no civill fellowship with him. And whereas page 4. he saith that Paul expresly interprets it so, 1 Cor. 5. 10, 11, 12. 2 Thess 3. 4. Ephes. 5. 11. Rom. 16. 17. I answer out of himselfe, in that same place, and pag. 5. Let him be to thee as an Heathen, &c. is a phrase never used elsewhere in Scripture. How then, saith he, that Paul doth expresly interpret it? Paul commandeth to withdraw fellowship, (and that for any scandalous sin in a Church-member, although it be no private injury to us, as the places quoted by himselfe make it manifest) Therefore Paul doth expresly interpret that phrase Mat. 18. to be meant of withdrawing civill fellowship only. What consequence is there here?
I come to his fifth and last reason, the words runue only, Let him be to thee as an Heathen man and a Publican, not to the whole Church. Answ. 1. This is the very thing he said in his first Quaere, which is answered before. I shall onelyonly adde here another answer out of lErast Cousirm. Thes. lib. 2. pag. 158. Quod uni dictum est, dictum toti est ecclesiae. At uni dictum est ut septuagies in die culpam deprecanti remit…at. Ergo tota Ecclesia deprecanti ignoscore debet, quo…iescunque in die sibi ignosci petot Nulla enim justa causa proferri poterit, cur tota Ecclesia non debeat facere in hac causa, quod singulis ejus membris praeceptum est.Erastus, who argueth thus: One brother should forgive another seventy times in a day, if the offending brother doe so oft turn againe and crave pardon: Therefore so should the Church doe to a sinner that craveth pardon, even as often as he doth crave pardon. For (saith he) there can be no just reason given wherefore the whole Church ought not to doe herein, what Church members ought to doe severally. If this be a good argument when Christ saith, If thy brother repent, forgive him, Luke 17. 334. (by which place Mr Prynne expoundeth Matth. 18. 15.) will it not be as good an argument, Let him be to thee as an Heathen and a Publican, therefore let him be such to the whole Church, when the whole Church is offended by his obstinacy and impenitency?
2. Those words, Let him be to thee, cannot be restrictive. It must be at least extended to all such as are commanded to rebuke their brother, and if he continue obstinate to tell the Church. Now the commandement for rebuking our brother that fals into a scandalous sinne, is not restricted to him that is personally or particularly wronged, but it is a common Law of spirituall love, Levit. 19. 17. Yea, saith Mr Hildersham, lect. 36. on Psal. 51. Every man hath received … commandement from Christ, to inform… the governours of the Church of such a brother as cannot otherwise be reformed, Matth. 18. 17. Tell the Church. If it belong to every Church member to reprove a scandalous sinne which his brother committeth in his …ight or hearing, or to his knowledge, and if he repent not, to tell the Church, then it also belongs to every Church member to esteeme him as an Heathen man and a Publican, if he heare not the Church.
3. The next words, Whatsoever ye shall bind on Earth shall be bound in Hraven, being spoken to the Apo les, and in them to other Mini…ers of Jesus Christ, doe expound the former words Let him be unto thee, &c. to be meant not of private withdrawing of fellowship, but of a publique Church censure.
4. The reason why Chri… will have such an offender to be esteemed as an Heathen man and a Publican, is not the offence and fault first committed, but his obstinacy and contumacy in that offence, and his neglecting to heare the Church. So that suppose the offence had been a private or personall injury; yet that for which thē offender is to be esteemed as an Heathen and a Publican, toucheth the whole Church, and is a generall scandall to them all, namely his contumacy and not hearing the Church. How can it then be imagined, that Christ would onelyonly have one Church member to esteem a man as an Heathen and a Publican, for that which is a common generall scandall to the whole Church? mQuod si hos contemn…t, indicetur Ecclesiae ejus pervicatia. Et si ne Ecclesiam au dierit, monitus scilicet à multis, habeatur ab eis veluti ethnicus & publicanus. Et quaecunque illi sic ligave int, ligata habebuntur in caelis, hoc est, quos ita monitos ejecerint è suo consortio, …i etiam apud patrem ejecti habebuntur.Munsterus in his Annotations upon Matth. 18. doth better hit the meaning, that the offender is to be esteemed as an Heathen man and a Publiean, by those who did before admonish him but were despised, that is, by the Church, whose admonitions being despised, they ought to cast out him who had despised them.
5. And how can it be supposed, that Christ would have one and the same person to be as a Heathen man and a Publican to one member of the Church, and yet not to be as … Heathen man and a Publican, but as a brother received in fellowship by the whole Church? Sure this were a repugnancy between the judgement of the whole Church, and the judgement of one member of the Church: and two things which are repugnant can not be both of them agreeable to the will of Christ.