Aarons Rod Blossoming, Book 3 · Chapter 3
CHAP. III. A further demonstration that these words, Let him be to thee as an Heathen man and a Publican, are not meant of avoyding Civill, but Religious or Churchfellowship.
I Hope I have already made it to appeare that to draw Excommunication from Matth. 18. is not to extract water out of flint, as Mr Prynne supposeth: but that it commeth as liquidè from the Text, as water out of the fountaine. Wherein I am the more confirmed, because Mr Prynnes exposition of these words, Let him be to thee as an Heathen man and a Publican, can not stand, for he takes the sence to be no more but this, keepe not any civill fellowship or company with such a one. Now that this can not be our Saviours meaning, I prove thus.
1. If a private man shall thus at his owne hand withdraw and separate from an offending brother, as from an Heathen man and a Publican, nMartyr in 1 Cor. 5. ult. loc. de excom. Verum si hoc pro suo arbitrio cuique permittatur, ut facultatem habeat discedend… & separandi se à quibus voluerit, simultates, contentiones, & discordiae, longè graviores orientur, quàm si publicâ excommunicatione ut… remur.what order, peace, or good government can there be either in Church or State? And all the odium cast upon Excommunication (as contrary to the spirituall priviledges of Christians) will fall more heavy upon his owne way, which brings any man (be he Prince, Parliament-man, Pastor, or whoever he be) under so much slavery to the lust of any private person, that he may be by that person (and by ten thousand persons more, in case of so many civill injuries, not amended after complaint to the Magistrate) esteemed, avoyded, and abhorred, as an Heathen man and a Publican. So that in the issue it may fall out, that any man how eminent or deserving soever he be in Church or State, may be looked upon as a Heathen and a Publican by ten thousand of the people, before ever he be so judged by any Judicature. For instance, put case that a Minister be judicially convict to have wronged his parishioners in the matter of small tythes, and they conceive him to persevere in the same injury, must or may each of them flee from him as from an Heathen and a Publican? Put case a whole company thinke themselves wronged in pay or otherwise by their Captaine, or a whole Regiment by their Colonell, and after complaint made finde themselves not repaired, are they therefore free to avoyd all civill company with the Captaine or Colonell, and to flee from them as from Heathens and Publicans? And what if both the Lord Major of London and many godly Ministers who have eate at his Table, should accuse Mr. Prynne of a calumny, because of that passage in his Booke, pag. 12. where he saith of Anabaptists, Separatists, Independents, Presbyters or Divines, Neither of which make any conscience of not repairing to the Lord Majors, or any other publique City feast, where they are sure of good fare, because they were certaine there to meet and eate with some covetous or other scandalous persons, with whom St. Paul probibtes them, no not to eate? If, I say, the Lord Major should accuse Mr Prynne for slandering him and his house with the company of scandalous persons: and if many godly conscientious Ministers should accuse him for aspersing them, as having more love to good fare, then conscience of avoyding to eate with scandalous persons: And if after sentence past against Mr Prynne he should still continue impenitent and not confesse his fault in this particular? Will he allow the Lord Major, and all the godly Ministers who have eaten at the Lord Majors table to avoyd Mr Prynne as an Heathen and a Publican? Let hm take heed whether his principles will lead him.
2. Mr Prynne saith pag. 4. that Let him be to thee as an Heathen and a Publican, is interpreted by 1 Cor. 5. 10, 11, 12. 2 Thess. 3. 14. and elsewhere by Paul. Now that place of the Corinthians which he citeth, is meant of Excommunication, as shall be proved in due time. And vers. 12. (cited by himselfe) makes it plaine, that a judiciall act, not a private mans withdrawing onelyonly, is meant; for that verse speaks twice of judging, an Apostolicall judgeing, and an Ecclesiasticall judging. And the best interpreters expound 2 Thess. 3. 14. of Church censures. Its not the case of private civill injucies which the Apostle there speaks of, but the case of publique scandall, If any man be disobedient to the Apostolicall Epistle, note that man, foreign, put a marke upon him, that is, let him be publiquely censured, Let him be separated from you, saith the Syriak, and then have no company with him, and all this that he may be ashamed, which must needs be by some publique censure or blacke mark put upon him.
3. Let him be to thee as an Heathen; if it be meant of keeping no civil company, he must shew us that the Jews of old were and Christians under the new Testament are forbidden to keepe civill company with Heathens and those that are without the Church. He goeth about to prove that the phrase is taken from the practice of the Jewes in that age, pag. 4. But how doth he prove it? He citeth some places to prove that the Israelites might not marry with the Canaanites, but he doth not prove that they might not keep civill company with any of the Heathens. There was no such favour nor fellowship permitted between the Israelites and the Canaanites, as between the Israelites and other Gentiles who came among them from other Lands, as Tostatus noteth in Matth. 26. quaest. 43. The reason was because God had destinat the Canaanites to utter destruction, and that the whole Land of Canaan should be given to the children of Israel. OnelyOnly some few by speciall dispensation were spared as the Gibeonites because Ioshua and the Princes had sworne unto them, and Rahab with her kindred because she saved the spies. But such extraordinary cases excepted, the Israelites ought not to permit any of the Canaanites to live, nor receive them though they had been willing to be circumcised as Tostatus there thinketh. However that great distance and alienation in point of fellowship between the Israelites and the Canaanites, was not qua Heathens, but qua Canaanites, otherwise the children of Israel had been obliged to root out other Nations as well as the Canaanites. Yea the Law puts an expresse difference between the Nations, in so much that some of them were not to be abominate, though others were, Deut. 23. 7. Thou shalt not abhorre an Edomite, for he is thy brother: thou shalt not abhorre an Egyptian, because thou wast a stranger in his Land. The very Canaanites themselves were by the Law, Deut. 20. 10, 11. duplicate page duplicate page to have so much favour as an offer of peace, which if any of their Cities had accepted, that City was not to be cut off, but the people thereof were to be tributaries, and to serve Israel, and so permitted to live among them.
The last of his citations maketh very much against him, namely, Acts 21. 28, 29. where the Jewes of Asia doe accuse Paul for bringing Greekes into the Temple. For they had seen before with him in the City Trophimus an Ephesian, whom they supposed that Paul had brought into the Temple. Marke here Paul is not challenged for conversing familiarly with a Greeke, but onelyonly for bringing him into the Temple; and without all doubt the malice of his adversaries did catch at every advantage which they could have against him. I cannot but admire how M. Prynne could cite this place to prove that the Jewes might not converse nor keepe civill company with the Heathens, since it proveth the very contrary, that the Jewes might have civill, but no religious fellowship with Heathens. And whereas he addeth that the Jewes had no dealing or conversation with the Samaritans, Joh. 4. 9. Luke 9. 52, 53. I answer, the reason was because the Jewish Church had excommnnicated and anathematized for ever the Samaritans, who being once circumcised and having received the booke of the Law, did afterward hinder the building of the house of the Lord. This Excommunication of the Cuthites or Samaritans most solemnly performed you may finde in Pirke R. Ecclesiae, cap. 38. More of this elsewhere. Here I onelyonly touch it, to shew that this also of the Samaritans makes against him.
4. It is certaine that the Jewes had civill company and conversation with Heathens. For Solomons servants and Hirams servants were both together. 1 Kings 5. 18. 2 Chr. 2. 8. yea, 2 Chr. 2. 17, 18. Solomon numbred of strangers or heathens in the Land of Israel, a hundred fifty and three thousand and six hundred. Could there be so many of them and employed also in the building of the Temple, and yet no civill company kept with them? Nehemiah in the Court of Artaxerxes, and Daniel with his companions in the court of Nebuchadnenar had civill company with Heathens, but religious company with them they would have none. We finde the King of Edom in fellowship with Iehoshaphat and Iehoram, 2 Kings 3. And the Merchants of Tyre were permitted to come into Ierusalem, and there to fell all manner of ware unto the children of Iuda, onelyonly they were forbidden to doe it upon the Sabbath day, Nehem. 13. 16, 20, 21. L'Empereur de legibus Ebraeorum forensibus pag. 180, 181. putteth it out of controversie, that in Christs time there were many Heathens in the Land of Canaan with whom the Jewes did converse and dwell together; and that Christ found in those places where he preached both Jewes and Gentiles. Istis locis inter istos commorabantur Gentiles, qui magistrorum placitis se astringi passi non sunt. And a little after, Nec enim Israelitas ab alienigenarum urbibus abstinuisse, Iosephus Indicat. And that long before that time there was a mutuall conversing of Jewes and Gentiles, I gather from 1 Kings 20. 34. Thou shalt make streets for thee in Damascus as my father made in Samaria, meaning for trade and commerce.
I will here anticipate a great objection which may be made against me, from Acts 10. 28. Ye know that it is an unlawfull thing for a man that is a Jew to keepe company or come unto one of another Nation. This might seem to make more for Mr Prynnes exposition, then all the places cited by himselfe. But I answer, for the better understanding of that place, first of all observe what Drusius Quaest. & resp. lib. 2. quaest. 67. tels us out of Elias in Thesbite: The Jewes had an old law against drinking Wine with Gentiles or Heathens, Lata videlicet eo tempore quo gentes vinum libabant in sacris, the Law was made at that time when the Gentiles used a praelibation of Wine in their idolatrous solemnities: whereupon the wise men of the Jewes fearing lest Heathen men should give to Jewes that Wine which had been dedicated to Idols did forbid the Jewes to drinke Wine with Heathens: which (as other Statutes of their wise men) the Jewes did religiosè religiously observe. Marke we hence, 1. It was not a generall received custome among the Jewes, in no case to eate or drinke with Heathens; else it had been unnecessary and supervacaneous to forbid the drinking of Wine with Heathens, exceptio affirmat regulam in non exceptis. 2. It was for a religious and consciencious reason, propter … idololatriae, for feare of pertaking with Idolatry, and … … civill respects, that they were forbidden to drinke Wine with the Gentiles. The same I say of their shunning to eate with them, for the Heathens used also a dedicating of their meats to Idols, 1 Cor. 10. 27.
Secondly, observe Peter addeth immediately: but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or uncleane: meaning, so as not to keepe company with him because of his Gentilisme or uncircumcision, or because of his eating of meats which were uncleane by the ceremoniall Law, as Ludovicus de Dieu doth rightly give the meaning, understanding, not morall, but onelyonly ceremoniall uncleannesse to be there spoken of; for many men under the Gospell are still to be looked upon and avoyded as morally uncleane. But God had taught Peter by abrogating the ceremoniall differences of meats in the vision, that the ceremoniall Law which was the partition wall between Jewes and Gentiles, was now to be taken away: so that the Gentiles should be no longer called dogs, as Matth. 15. 26. neither were the Disciples to be forbidden any longer to goe into the way of the Gentiles, Matth. 10. 5. Henc forth no man should be called holy because of his circumcision, no man uncleane because of his uncircumcision.
This being the meaning, it followeth that the unlawfulnesse of eating and companying with an Heathen mentioned Act. 10. 28. must not be so understood, as if bare civill fellowship had been unlawfull; but it must be understood, first, in reference to the morall Law, that is for avoiding the danger of Idolatry in eating or drinking that which Idolatrous Heathens had sacrificed to Idolls, as hath been just now cleared. Secondly, in reference to the Ceremoniall Law, or of such fellowship as was contrary to the ceremoniall Law, in eating together with Heathens of meats legally unclean, such as were represented to Peter in the vision, and he commanded to eate what was formerly unclean to him. Otherwise when the Gentiles did not eat any thing which the Jewes were forbidden to eat, it was lawfull for the Jewes to eat with the Gentiles saith Tostatus in 2. Paral. 6. Quest. 21. So likewise Grotius de Jure Belli ac pacis lib. 2. cap. 15. Sect. 9. where he referreth the Jewes their not eating with the Heathens, to the Law of meats or the peculiaris victus which was prescribed to the Jewes. But otherwise the Law did not make it unlawfull for them to eat with any of another Nation: which he thinks is proved by Christs own example who took a drink of water from the woman of Samaria, being yet most observant of the Law. That the unlawfulnesse of eating with the Heathens was understood in reference to the ceremoniall Law, I prove, from Gal. 2. 12. 14. Peter having before eaten with the Gentiles, to avoid the scandall of some Jewes that came from Iames, did withdraw and separate himself from the believing Gentiles: What? to keep no more any civill company with them. I hope no man will imagine that. But the Text expounds it selfe vers. 14. If thou being a Iew, livest after the manner of the Gentiles, and not as doe the Iewes, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as doe the Iewes? This was Peters fault, that having formerly lived as the Gentiles, that is, eating with them all sorts of meats freely, thinking himself liberate from the Yoke of the ceremoniall Law, afterward he withdrew and separated himself from that manner of fellowship with the Centiles, and bound up himselfe to live as doe the Jewes, and to observe the distinction of meats according to the Law. And in so doing, whiles he avoided the scandall of the Jewes, he gave a greater scandall to the Gentiles in compelling them by the authority of his example to Judaize, and to thinke the ceremoniall Law necessary.
Thirdly, The foresaid place Act. 10. is to be understood of such fellowship as was not meerely civill, but religious and sacred: as may appear, 1. by the exposition formerly given of these words, God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean. 2. by the invitation of the men that were sent from Cornelius to Peter who did not call him to civill but to sacred fellowship Act. 10. 22. And they said, Cornelius the Conturion, a just man and one that feareth God, and of good report among all the Nation of the Jewes, was warned from God by an holy Angell, to send for thee into his house and to heare words of thee. 3. Peter calls in the men and lodgeth them; that being a civill fellowship, he doth it freely, v. 23. but when he comes to Cornelius and those that were assembled with him, to heare words from Peter, here was the case of conscience, and here Peter beginneth to apologize v. 28. ye knew how that it is an unlawfull thing, &c. The Syriak hath it thus, ye know that it is not lawfull for a man that is a Jew to joyn himself unto a man that is a stranger, who is not a sonne of his generation: as it were intimating a religious and Church fellowship. 4. That which gave offence to them of the circumcision at Ierusalem. was, that they heard Peter had so gone in to men uncircumcised, that they had also received the word of God from him Act. 11. 1. 3. And as soone as they were satisfied in that point, that God had given unto the Gentiles repentance unto life vers. 18. they held their Peace, and made no further scruple concerning eating with them.
I hope I have sufficiently answered the strongest objection which can be made against that which I did begin to prove, namely, that the Jewes might and did keep civill company and fellowship with Heathens. Which that I may now further consirme, let it be observed with Schindlerus in lexic. pentaglo p. 297. that there were two sorts of Proselytes among the Jewes. Some that were circumcised and received the Law of Moses; and such a one was even as a Jew, and was called Proselytus justitiae or faederis, a righteous or a true Proselyte, or a Proselyte of the Covenant. Others, that did onelyonly renounce ldolatry and keep the seven precepts given to the sonnes of Noah, not being circumcised nor keeping the Law of Moses, were permitted to dwell with the Jewes, and therefore such a one was called Proselytus portae or Proselytus incola, a Proselyte of the Gate, or a Proselyte indweller, who dwelt within their Gates. See for the same thing L'Empereur de legibus Ebraeorum forensibus pag. 72 Buxtorflexic. Rabbin. p. 408. 409. Grotius de Jure belli acpacis lib. 1. cap. 1. Sect. 16. Henr. Vorstius observ. ad chronol. R. Ganz. pag. 279. Georgius Genzius in annot. ad Maimon. canon. Ethic. p. 91. 92. To the same purpose, Master Ainsworth annot. in Gen. 9. 4. and on Exod. 12. 45. and on Levit. 22. 10. hath noted out of the Hebrew writers: that such of the Heathens as did observe the seven precepts given to the Sonnes of Noah, though they were not circumcised, neither did observe the Ordinances of the ceremoniall Law, nor were admitted to the holy things of the Children of Israel, yet they were permitted to cohabit and converse with the people of God in the holy Land. And that it was so, may be proved from Levit. 25. 6. 45. 47. (where the Chaldee hath an uncircumcised indweller) Deut. 14. 21. yea, such a one might dwell in the Priests house Lev. 22. 10. The Jewes receive no Proselyte now except one that undertakes to keep the whole Law to the least jote, as Doctor Buxtorf informes us in the place last cited: and so they are a great deale more strict in reference to the Gentiles then the Antient Jewes were. Notwithstanding they doe without scruple familiarly converse and keep company with Gentiles who keep not the last of the seven precepts which bind (as they think) all the Sonnes of Noah, namely that concerning the not eating of blood. How much more may we suppose that the Antient Jewes did keep civill company and fellowship with such Gentiles as did observe all these seven precepts? And this comparison the Jewes have made between themselves and the Gentiles in reference to the Law of Moses. It is our inheritance, not theirs: as for them, let them observe the seven precepts. Exc. Gem. Sanhedrin. cap. 7. Sect. 6. So that the Jewes were not scandalized at the Gentiles their not observing of the whole Law of Moses, not being circumcised, &c. but at their not keeping of those seven precepts, which were also a part of the Law of Moses. This to me appeareth to be a chief reason (if not the reason) why the Synod of the Apostles & Elders at Ierusa. did impose upon the Churches of the Gentiles no other burthen of Jewish rites & Ceremonies, but to abstain from blood & things strangled: they did not impose circumcision, nor holy dayes, nor the like: because that which was intended was, to draw together the beleevers of the Jewes & the beleevers of the Gentiles into a familiar conversation, that they might live together and eat together without scandall: and this could not be, except the beleiving Gentiles should observe the seven precepts which were given not onelyonly to the posterity of Abraham, but to the posterity of Noah; of which precepts one did forbid the eating of blood Gen. 9. 4. (and under that is comprehended also the eating of things strangled) Now there was no doubt of the beleiving Gentiles their observing of the other six precepts which the Hebrewes say were observed from Adam to Noah: the first against Idolatry, 2. against blasphemy, 3. against shedding of blood, 4. against uncleannesse or unlawfull copulations, 5. against Rapine or Robbery, 6. for executing judgement and inflicting punishment upon malefactors. All the question was of the seventh and last against eating of blood, which the beleiving Gentiles (though they knew it to be older then the ceremoniall Law or circumcision it self, and to belong to all the posterity of Noah, yet) knew to be temporary and not perpetuall, and so at the abrogation of the other ceremonies, and propagation of the Gospell to the Gentiles, thought themselves free from that, as well as other Ceremonies. On the other part, it was a principle among the Jewes, that they ought not to converse familiarly with any of the Gentiles, except such as observe the seven precepts given to the Sonnes of Noah. Wherefore the Synod of the Apostles and Elders thought good that the beleiving Gentiles should so farre condescend to the weaknesse of the Jewes (not fully instructed concerning Christian liberty, and the abrogation of the old ceremonies) as to observe for a time that precept against eating blood, as well as the other precepts given to the Sonnes of Noah; to the intent that the Jewes and Gentiles might Peaceably and familiarly cohabite and converse together: for though the Gentiles did not observe the other ordinances and ceremonies of the Jewes: yet observing those seven precepts, they were free to converse familiarly with the Jewes. Schindlerus in his Lexicon pentagl. pag. 298. land pag. 1530 seemeth to have had the same notion; for he saith the Apostles and Elders would not impose circumcision and the keeping of the Law of Moses, but they imposed some things not unlike to the precepts given to the Sonnes of Noah. I returne to that distinction of the two sorts of Proselytes. The one had the name of Ger tzedek a Proselyte of righteousnesse, and Ger berith, a Proselyte of the Covenant. The other was called Ger toschav, a Prosclyte indweller and Ger schagnar, a Proselyte of the Gate, qui intra portas, inter Judaeos scilicet habitabat, who dwelt within the Gates, to wit among the Jewes saith Matthias Martinius in Lexic. philol. pag. 2922. This Proselyte indweller was not called nor esteemed as one of the Jewes, being no Church Member, nor admitted to any religious or Church Commnnion with the Jewes, but he was still esteemed and reckoned as one of the uncircumcised Gentiles. Yet the Iewes did keep civill company and fellowship with such a one, as with a neighbour and a inhabitant of the same City, or Land.
And if the Jewes had not been free to keep civill company with Heathens or Infidells, yet Christians are expressely allowed to do so. 1 Cor. 10. 27. If any of them that beleeve not, bid you to a Feast, aud ye be disposed to go, whatsoever is set before you, eat, asking no question for conscience sake; and Ch. 5. 10. 11. 12. the Apostle permitteth Christians to company and eat with Fornicators, Covetous, Extortioners, or Idolaters, who are no ChurchMembers, but by no meanes with scandalous Brethren. I doe not dispute whether any more liberty of this kind is granted to Christians, then peradventure was granted to the Jewes. Yet I am sure a great measure of the liberty of civill fellowship with Heathens was granted to the Jewes also.
It must needs follow from that which hath been said, that, Let him be unto thee as an Heathen man and a Publican, is not a casting out from mere civill fellowship and company, but from religious and Church-fellowship. This agreeth well with that passage in Iosephus contra Appionem lib. 2. Whoever (of the Gentiles) are willing to come and live under our Law, it doth freely receive them esteeming Communion to consist not onelyonly in origination or descent, but also in choyce of life. But as for those (of the Gentiles) who come occasionally among us, our Law doth not admit them into our solemne or sacred Assemblies, but it appointeth to communicate unto them all such things as they need, as fire, water meat, also to shew them the way, and to let none of them be unburied. (So likewise Publicans noted for impiety and injustice were permitted to be City Members, but not owned for Church-Members) Grotius de Jure Belli ac pacis lib. 2. c. 15. Sect. 9. holds that it was lawfull for the Jewes, not onelyonly to have company and commerce with Heathens, but to doe them good and to enter in League and Covenant with them, such onelyonly excepted as the Law did accurse, namely the seven Nations in Canaan, the Amalekites, Ammonites and Moabites. He brings among other things the example of the Asmonites, who as they were themselves skilled in the Law, so with the approbation both of Priests and People, they made a Covenant with the Lacedemonians and Romanes: yea publikely prayed for them. Learned Master Selden de Jure nat. & Gent. lib. 2. c. 3 doth not onelyonly confirme what hath been said before of the Proselyti Domicilii, Heathens not circumcised nor keeping the Law of Moses, but observing the seven precepts given to the Sonnes of Noah, and that such were permitted to dwell together with the Children of Israel; but he further tells us out of Maimonides that though when the Jewish Republike did flourish and when they were sui Juris, no strangers were permitted to dwell among them except such as did renounce Idolatry and keep the seven precepts, yet after the captivity and under the Romans, the Jewes did allow to themselves a common commerce and civill conversing even with such Gentiles, as had not renounced the Pagan or Idolatrous worship; & as for such of the Gentiles, as the Jewes did observe to be good men whom they called ex piis è Gentibus mundi, such as Cornelius the Centurion, to whom the Jewes themselves gave a good estimony of these he saith that though they were not formally admitted and received as Proselyte indwellers were wont to be (that formall reception of Proselyti Domicilii having ceased in those later times) yet he puts it out of doubt that the Jewes were willing that such Gentiles should dwell among them.
Adde hereunto that which Gul. Vorstius annot. in Maimon. de fundam…legis cap. 5. Sect. 9. observeth ou… of Beth Joseph de Idololat. and out of aboda zara, that a Heathen man was permitted to be Phi…tian to a Jew, provided that he should not entice him to Idolatry: and that a Jew also was permitted to be Physitian to a Gentile, for which purpose they alledged the example of Moses who (as their Tradition told them) did practice medicine in Egypt.
Furthermore when Master Prynne understands nothing by those words Let him be unto thee as an Heathen man and a Publican, but avoid civill fellowship and keep no familiar company with him, and expounds it also by 1 Cor. 5. 11. with such a one not to eat (which he still conceives to be onelyonly meant of avoiding civill fellowship) and by 2. Io. 10. receive him not into thy house. He is twice out, both because the Jewes did keep civill company with Heathens which hath been proved: and also because (if we beleive the Jewish writters concerning the customes of their Nation) the Rabbies or wise men among them did not keep familiar fellowship nor civill company with the Plebeians of the Jewes themselves: they were forbidden to eat and drink with or among the Plebeians. Maimen de fundam. legis cap. 5. Sect. 13. neither might they converse in the paths nor come into the houses of the Plebeians. Ibid. Sect. 14. Gul. Vorstius in his annot. pag. 73. addeth a passage in Misua that a wise man might neither lodge with a Plebeian nor receive a Plebeian to lodge with him. Neverthelesse a wise man was permitted to converse not onelyonly civilly but frequently with an Heathen man, for which see Master Selden de Jure nat. & Gent. lib. 6. cap. 10. quoniam nihil mali ex Gentilium consuetudine viro scientiori im…inere censebant. So that in Master Pryn… sence, all the Plebeians of the Jewes themselves were as Heathens and Publicans, or civilly excommunicated by their wise men.
Wherefore we must needs distinguish a two fold communion or fellowship among the Jewes, one civill, another Ecclesiasticall; It was the shutting out from the Ecclesiasticall communion of the Jewes, which Christ alludes to Mat. 18. for beside the distinct notions of the Jewish Church and the Jew State (of which before) Is. Abrabanel de capitc fidei cap. 6. speaking of certaine fundamentall Articles which the Jewish Church did beleive, saith, they were intended to be Articles of Judaisme, so that he that should beleive these should be in the communion of Israel: and Ib. cap. 3. speaking of an Article concerning the coming of the Messiah, he moves a doubt about it, because Rabbi Hillell who denieth it, was not excluded from the communion of the Law, for the Gema…a gives him the Title of Rabbi. When he comes to the solution of this doubt cap. 14. he cleares Rabbi Hillell, as not denying that Article. But all this intimateth that for heresy there was a shutting out from Ecclesiasticall communion: Or that an hereticall apostat Jew was unto them as an Heathen man; and therefore they were permitted to take usury as from strangers or Heathens, so from an apostat Jew, quia fratris nomen exuerat saith Master Selden de Jure nat. & Gent. lib. 6 c. 10. In Tzemach David edit. Hen. Uorst. pag. 67. it is said that the chief of the Hereticks were Tzadok and Baythos, who denying rewards and punishments after this life, exiverunte communione (vel caetu Israelis) they went out from the Ecclesiasticall communion of Israel.
This is good reason to say of a sonne of Israel, if he be a sonne of Belial, let him be to thee as an Heathen, that is, esteeme him as prophane, and as lost as an Heathen; have no more Church communion with him then with an Heathen. And by this time I suppose it doth fully appeare to the intelligent Reader that some uncircumcised Heathens were admitted in to the civill fellowship, and some Israelites continued not in the Ecclesiasticall fellowship of ihe Jewes: which overturneth the whole strength of Mr Prynnes answer to our argument from Matth. 18 But once more, (for I have thought good to insist the longer upon this point, because much dependeth upon it.) Let him be to thee as an Heathen, doth forbid Ecclesia…icall communion, not civill company except secondarily & as a consequent of Excommunication, & for spirituall respects and ends (as I shall shew anon) but it is not meant of abstaining from meere civil company & fellowship: because the Jews were permitted to keep civil company and fellowship with Heathens, even any civill company which did not encroach upon Religion, or had appearance of an ensnarement into Idolatry, and in that respect (as participating of Religious fellowship) became unlawfull. This is the point I have been proving, and which I will yet further prove out of Maim mides de Idolalotria cap▪ 9. That one Chapter is sufficient to … the present question. Thus it begins. Three daies before the feasts (or holydaies) of Heathens that worship Idols, we are forbidden to buy from them, or to sell unto them any durable thing; to take or give any thing in lend; to take or make payment of that which was given in lend upon writ, or pledge; but what was given in lend upon words onelyonly, it is lawfull to exact; because this seemeth to be taken out of their hands. It is also lawfull to sell unto them, that which can not last, as green herbs or anything sodden; and that ever untill their holy day. You see it was lawfull among the Jewes to buy and sell, borrow and lend, to make contracts, with Heathens, yea with Idolatrous Heathens; onelyonly in some (not in all) things there was a restraint upon them, and that but three daies before the Heathen sestivities. Then follows Sect. 2. This hath place in the land of the Israelites: but in the other lands, it is not forbidden except upon their holy day. If any man transgresse, by having trade or commerce with them, during that space of three daies, it is lawfull (though) to use the ware: but if any man trade with them upon their holyday, the things are forbidden to be used. It is unlawfull also to send a gift to an Heathen man upon his holy day: unlesse it be known that … … n…t … the worship of Idols, neither ser…eth them. But if som… … m…n upon his Holyday send a gift to an Israelite, let him not take it from him, … it be suspected that h… will be offended. Nevertheless… he shall not use it, untill it be known that the Heathen man doth not worship Idols nor esteem them to be Gods. Observe 1. that the things mentioned in the first Section, though unlawfull to the …ewes in their own Land, three daies before the Heath…nish …, yet they held them not unlawfull in other Lands. 2. They held it lawfll for a Jew to send a gift to an Heathen man, or to receive a gift from him, so that it were not upon the Heathenish festivity. 3. Yea in some cases it was permitted to a Jew to send a gift to an Heathen man, upon the very Heathen festivity, (to wit, if he knew that Heathen man to be no worshipper of Idols) as likewise to receive a gift from him (though upon the holy day) for avoyding of offence.
Sect. 4. reckoneth among the Heathenish festivities a day set apart by them for coronation of a King, or in memory of a mans nativity, deliverance out of danger, or the like. Then it is added Sect. 5. But with those Idolaters who spend that day in mirth and gladnesse, eating and drinking, and observe that day whether for custome or for the Kings honour, neverthelesse hold it not for a holy day, it is lawfull to have commerce and trade. Wh…n conversing with Heathens did not entrench upon Religion, they could doe it without scruple, even upon the Heathens good daies or solemnities of joy. Then Sect. 8. Is Israelites dwell among Heathens with whom they have made a Cov…nt, it is lawfull to sell armes to the Kings servants and to his military forces, &c. It is unlawfull to enter into a Town in which Idolatry is practiced: it is lawfull to come out of it. But if the Idoll be without the Town, it is also lawfull to enter in it. If the Jewes might dwell among and enter into league and covenant with Heathens, yea enter into the Townes of Idolaters, when the Idoll was not in Town, then they held it not unlawfull to have any civill company with Heathens. It follows Sect. 11. It is lawfull to goe to the markets or faires of Heathens, and to buy from them beasts, men-servants, maid-servants, though they be yet Heathens: also houses fields, vineyards. Also for writing (contracts) it is permitted to goe to their judiciall courts.
If it be objected that Sect. 12. doth forbid an Israelite to come to the banquet of a Heathen, which he hath made for his sonne or for his daughter; I answer from that very place. For lest this should be taken for a prohibition of civill fellowship, Maimonides did adde these words. Now this intervall is appointed for Idolatry: for it is said, and one call thee, and thou eate of his Sacrifice, and thou take of their daughters unto thy sonnes, and they goe a wboring after their Gods: citing Exod. 34. 15, 16.
From all which I conclude, that Christs words, relating to the Jewish custome, Let him be to thee as a Heathen man, cannot be meant (as Mr Prynne would have them) of avoyding meere civill company and fellowship; for as much as it was not held unlawfull among the Jewes to have civill company and commerce with Heathens. Sure the Jewes of our age are farre from holding such a thing unlawfull.
Yea so farre I am unsatisfied with Mr Prynnes interpretation, that I verily believe (and so doe some others) a part of the intendment of these words, Let him be to thee as an Heathen man and a Publican, is to hold forth the lawfulnesse, yea the obligation of performing all naturall (and in diverse cases morall) duties to a person Excommunicated: I meane that the Text doth intimate thus much. As upon the one hand the contumacious offender who will not heare the Church, is to be used no better than an Heathen or a prophane Publican, and is not to be admitted to any Ordinance, except such as Heathens and prophane Publicans are and may be admitted unto; So upon the other hand, let him have no worse usage and entertainment, then those very Heathens and Publicans, unto whom all naturall and some morall duties are performed, notwithstanding they be Heathens and Publicans. For the Apostle commandeth Christians to be subject even to Heathen Magistrates, servants to honour and be subject to heathen and ungodly Masters, the wife not to depart from the husband because he believeth not. So that this rule of Christ, Matth. 18. 17. is so full and perfect, as to teach us, as well what fellowship is lawfull with such a one, as what fellowship is not lawfull to be kept with him. I doe not deny but that (according to the ordinary rule) fellowship with an excommunicate person in meat, drinke, familiarity, and salutations, is unlawfull, as well as in the Sacrament and prayer, according to the received rule:
Si pro delictis, anathema quis efficiatur;
Os, or are, vale, communio, mensa negatur.
And the Scripture forbidding to eate with such a one, or to have company with him, or to bid him God speed, will reach as farre. Neverthelesse there are divers excepted or reserved cases in which the performance of naturall duties unto and keeping of civill company with an excommunicate person is allowed. The exception made from the rule is this:
Haee anathema quidem faciunt, ne possit obesse:
Utile, lex, humile, res ignorata, necesse.
Utile, as when a man seeketh payment of debt from an excommunicate person. Lex, because the law alloweth husband and wife to company together, though the one of them be excommunicate. Humile, because children may and ought to doe the duties of children, and servants the duty of servants, and subjects the duty of subjects, and vassals the duty of vassals, and souldiers the duty of souldiers, in companying with submitting unto, honouring and obeying of their excommunicated Parents, Masters, Kings, Lords, Commanders. R…s ignorata, when he that companieth with an excommunicate person, doth not know that he is excommunicate. Necesse, as when a man passeth through the Land or is under the power of excommunicate persons, or some such way is drawn into a necessity of speaking and companying with them. All which is most agreeable to this expression, Let him be unto thee as an Heathen man and a Publican, and to the nature of Excommunication, which doth not breake asunder naturall or morall, but spirituall and ecclesiasticall bonds. If it be asked why then are we forbidden to eate with an excommunicate person, or to bid him God speed; I answer, these things are not forbidden but under a spirituall notion and for a spirituall end, that the offender may be ashamed and humbled, that others may not be deceived by countenancing of him or companying with him, and that our eating with him or saluting of him may not be interpreted as a conniving at, or complying with his sinnes, or as a signe of Christian fellowship with a scandalous person formerly called a brother▪ sinally that God may be the more glorified, wickednesse the more ashamed, others the more edified, the sinner the more abas…d, our selves the better kept from snares by avoyding of all appearance of evill. Otherwise setting aside these and such like spirituall considerations and respects, I doe aver that Excommunication hath nothing to doe with the avoyding of civill company qua civill, that is under a civill or politicalln otion.
Thus we have the negative part of the rule of Christ. Now to the positive part. What is it to be as an Heathen and a Publican? He must not be worse used in naturall or civill things, y…t he mu… be used in the same manner as an Heathen and a Publican, in spirituall things.
Wherefore, Let him be as an Heathen man, implieth foure things:
1. I have proved that Heathens were not permitted to come into the utter Court of the Temple, which the children of Israel did come into, onelyonly they might come and worship in the … or atrium Gentium; and when they were at any time brought into the Temple, its challenged both by God, … … …9. and by the people of the Jews, Acts 21. 28.
2. H…ns, though sojourning among the children of Israel, and dwelling within their gates might not eate of the Passeover Exod. 12. 43, 45. where the civill fellowship was allowed, partaking of the Passeover was forbidden.
3. No Heathen man, no not he that was in the Priests house, might ca…e of an offering of the holy things, Levit. 22. 10, 13.
4. A Sac…ifice was not accepted from the hand of an Heathen L…it. 22. 25. those that came from a farre Countrey to pray and worship before the Temple, if they had brought out of their owne Countrey, or had bought in the Land of Israel, beasts, or Bread, or Oyle, or Frankincence, or the like, and brought any of these for an Oblation, it was not accepted from their hand as Tostatus in 2. paral. 6. quest. 21. rightly observeth. OnelyOnly he collecteth from Ezra 6. 8, 10. that an Heathen might give to the Priests money or expences to buy Sacrifices, and to offer them in the Temple.
Fiftly, and generally, the Heathens had no part or portion with Gods people, Nehem. 2. 20. they were not within but without the Church, being aliens from the Common-wealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world, Ephes. 2. 12. So that, Let him be as an Heathen must reach thus farre, Let him no more partake in the Ordinances then an Heathen, have no more Church-communion with him then with an Heathen, let him be no more acknowledged for a Church member than an Heathen. And good reason; he hath made himselfe as an Heathen, yea worse than an Heathen, Rom. 2. 25. If thou be a breaker of the Law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision. Yea a scandalous and prophane Church member is worse then an Infidell, 1 Tim. 5. 8. 1 Cor. 5. 1.
This fivefold restraint of Heathens from the Temple, from the Passeover, from eating of an Offering, from bringing an Oblation unto the Lord, and generally from all Church fellowship, did lie even upon those Heathens who did cohabit and familiarly converse with the children of Israel, who are called proselyti domicilii: and no Heathen man was free of such restraint, except proselyti justitiae, who were circumcised and made members of the Jewish Church, and had the name of Jewes.
Finally, Let him be unto thee as an Heathen man, may have a Commentary from 1 Sam. 26. 19. where David curserh his enemies before the Lord, because they had made him as an Heathen man: they have driven me out this day from abiding in the inheritance of the Lord, saying, Goe serve other Gods. He did not reckon his banishment, want of civill liberties, cutting off from the civill fellowship and company of the children of Israel, in comparison of that which was farre worse to him, and a great deale heavier to be borne, namely, that he was rejected and repudiate from spirituall fellowship with Gods people, from partaking in the holy Ordinances, from comming to the Sanctuary, from the Church priviledges, that his persecution was materially and substantially an Excommunication, and qua Excommunication it was more grievous to him then qua persecution.
I suppose it now appeares that Let him be to thee as an Heathen man, is a shutting out not from civill, but from sacred fellowship. The other branch, Let him be to thee as a Publican, I have before said enough of it. This onelyonly I adde. There were among the Jewes two sorts of Publicans: some were good and just men, exacting no more then what was appointed them; others were unjust and extortioners, and thereby made infamous. The former sort the Hebrews have professed they were willing to converse civilly withall, as members of the same Commonwealth. See L'Empereur de legibus Ebraeorum forensibus, pag. 272. But when Christ saith, Let him be to thee as a Publican, he means the impious and unjust Publican onelyonly, as the same learned Antiquary there saith. And so when our Saviour bids us esteem such a one not onelyonly as an Heathen man, but as a Publican, he means that he is not only to be denied fellowship in the holy things, but further made infamous among the people; for the name Publican is used to signifie the worst of men, Matth. 5. 46, 47. and in the Gospell it is said, Publicans and Sinners, Publicans and Harlots, as was noted before. So Hierome upon Matth. 18. 17. understands the name of Publicans secundum Tropologiam, for such as are given to unlawfull gaines, deceits, thefts, perjuries, and such like abominable wickednesses. Wherefore we must not thinke that for civill respects of Tax-gathering or the like the Jewes refused to keepe civill company or fellowship with the Publicans. For we read in Exc. Gem. Sanbedrin cap. 3. sect. 3. that though he that was a shepheard, as such, was unfit to be a witnesse, yet he that was simply a Publican (that is, as I. Coch. saith in his Annotation, a Publican who is not convict of exacting more then is appointed by Law) or a Publican as a Publican is not forbidden to be witnesse. Where it is also added, that the father of R. Sira had the office of a Publican thirteen yeeres. Hence we see that a Publican were he a Jew or Gentile, provided he were a just Publican, his testimony had faith and credit in Judgement; How then can it be supposed that the Jewes did not so much as keep any civill company with such a one? We must therefore understand that the Jewes refused to have any fellowship with the impious and unjust Publicans, as with Church members, and this the Jewes did because of their scandalous ungodlinesse and unrighteousnesse.
Wherefore to be esteemed as a Publican was esteemed among the Jewes, comprehendeth these three things. 1. To be esteemed as the worst of men, impious, abominable, execrable, infamous, and as it were publici odii victimae, for so were the Publicans esteemed among the Jewes. Dr Buxtorf…lexic. Chald. Talm. & Rabbin. pag. 1065. tels us that where in Sanhedrin fol. 44. 2. it is said of a certaine Publican, the Glosse expounds it thus, Of a certaine wicked man. 2. Not to hold or keep with such a one, the religious Christian fellowship, which we keep with Church members; yea, and (for religious ends, and in spirituall respects, as was said before) not to keep with such a one, so much as that civill fellowship which we are permitted to keep with Pagans and unbelievers, with whom when bidden to a feast, we may goe and eate together as the Apostle expresly resolveth, but with him that is called a brother when scandalous and obstinate, (and therefore justly made as a Publican) we may not so much as eate, as the same Apostle teacheth, wherein those are ever to be excepted, who are tied by naturall relations to performe naturall and humane duties to the party excommunicate and made as a Publican, as the wife to the husband, the children to their parents.
In both these respects, Let him be as a Publican, superaddeth somewhat, and saith more then was in that other part, Let him be as an Heathen man. The third thing which I conceive to be meant by being esteemed as a Publican, is coincident with was meant by Let him be as an Heathen, that is, let him be kept that which back from communion and fellowship with the Church in the holy things. Mr Prynne brought a parabolicall argument concerning the Publicans going up to the Temple to pray. That devout and religious Publicans, whether Jewes or Gentiles did goe up into the Temple to pray, I make no question, and such a one is the Publican in the Parable; yea, if we marke the Pharisees owne words he speaketh of that Publican as one of the best and most religious Publicans Luk. 18. 11. God, I thanke thee that I am not as other men are, extortioners unjust, adulterers, foreign even as this Publican, The vulgar Latin hath it velut etiam hic publicanus, as likewise this Publican, making the publican to be one of those extortioners, unjust, adulterers. But it is a mistake of the Text, which plainly holds forth a disjunctive, not a copulative sence. The Pharisee is further declaring what himself was not, and the disjunctive … intimateth some new matter. Therefore the Syriak and Arabik hath it, neither as this publican. Erasmus, aut etiam ut hic publicanus. Arias Monntanus, aut & ut hic publicanus. and the English, or even as this publican. Many of the publicans were extortioners, unjust, adulterers, but the Pharisee thought he had not said enough when he had preferred himself to these, therefore he addeth this foreign, or even as this publican, which is a rising and heightning of his speech, as if he had said, God, I thank thee that I am more holy and righteous then the best of the publicans, who yet are not (as most of them are) extortioners, unjust, adulterers. But that prophane, unjust, scandalous, infamous, publicans whether Jewes or Gentiles, were allowed or permitted to come to the Temple, to the Worship, Prayer and Sacrifices, among the rest of the people of the Jewes, I deny it, and Master Prynne hath said nothing to prove it. These onelyonly are the publicans meant of when Christ saith, let him be unto thee as a publican. Now this sort of publicans, if they were allowed any thing in reference to the Temple, it was but to stand afarre off in the Intermurale or atrium Gentium as Heathens might doe. If the religious publican stood afarre off, how much more the prophane infamous publican? That such as were publikely scandalous, infamous for impiety, and esteemed the worst of men (which I have shewed to be meant by let him be unto thee as a publican) were admitted into the Temple as much as the rest of the people of the Jewes, or had fellowship with the Church in the holy things, I doe not beleive, I have proved the contrary from Philo and Iosephus.