Aarons Rod Blossoming, Book 1 · Appendix
AN APPENDIX To the First Booke: Containing an additionall debate concerning the Jewish Church-Government and Censures.
I Have said enough (as I suppose) of a Church-Government and Church-Censures distinct from Magistracy and civill Justice among the Jewes, whereby the seeming Old Testament strength of the Erastians, is sufficiently yea abundantly broken; And now it appeareth how ill grounded that Assertion is which did lately come abroad in the Discourse entituled, The difference about Church-government ended Pag. 8. Moses was first the sole Ruler, &c. Afterwards when Kings reigned in Israel, King Solomon put Abiathar the high Priest from his Office, setting up Zadok, and David distinguished the courses of the Priests, and other godly Kings from time to time ruled in things Ecclesiasticall, and Priests never; till that after their returne from the Babylonish captivity, &c. And no better grounded are the first five questions in Mr Prynne his Diotrephes catechised, in which he doth intimate that there was no distinct Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction among the Jewes, and that all scandalous sinnes and offences now pretended to be of Ecclesiasticall cognisance, were by Gods owne institution throughout the old Testament, inquireable, examinable, determinable, and punishable onelyonly by the temporall Magistrates or …ivill powers, not by any Ecclesiasticall persons or Officers. But when he should prove that there was no Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction distinct from the civill, he brings many Scriptures to prove that there was a civill jurisdiction and civill or temporall punishments in the Old Testament. How cold the consequence from hence will be, against Church-Government, the intelligent Reader cannot but perceive.
The most of that strength which doth militate against these Erastian Principles, is presented and drawn up in this preceding Booke. That which I now intend is onelyonly an additionall debate.
And first of all it is to be observed that the same point of Controversie is debatedaS…e A…psiagius Di…p: adv. Anabapt. pag. 276. Ioh. Cloppenburg. in Gangraena Theol. Anabapt. part. 3. Disp. 11. citeth these words out of a booke of the Anabaptists de Censur. Eccles. Ante adventum Christi tempore veteris Testamenti, unicum tantum institutum suisse regimen, ac non nisi unicam punitionem, videlicet d m…gistratu exercendam secundum scriptam lagem à Mose traditam: quâ luendum erat vel in bonis vel in corpore, …c sustinenda aut Mors, aut carcer, aut muleta pecuniaria: quae omnia politici …, non Ecclesiastici judicii. In opposition hereunto he addeth. In Ecclesiis reformatis creditur ex verbo Dei, fuisse à Deo jam olim in U. T. … duplex regimen, duplici officio gubernátionis, qua politicae, qua Ecclesiasticae; distinctum. with the Anabaptists, they holding as the Erastians doe, that in the old Testament, there was but one kind of government, one kind of jurisdiction, one kind of punishment, and that it was Civill or Temporall; but an Ecclesiasticall Judicature or censure in the old Testament they deny. Wherein they are contradicted by those that writ against them.
Secondly, we must distinguish with great caution, and (as they say) cum grano salis, between that which was ordinary and that which was extraordinary in the Jewish Government. We can not, from extraordinary cases collect and conclude that which was the fixed, setled, ordinary rule. The examples which have been alledged for the administration of Church-Government, the purging away of scandals, the ordering of the Ministery in the old Testament, by the Temporall Magistrate or civill powers onelyonly, and by their owne immediate authority, how truly alledged or how rightly apprehended shall appeare by and by: this I say for the present, diverse of them were extraordinary cases, and are recorded as presidents for godly Magistrates their duty and authority,bD. … in Deut. 17. Judicia ecclesiastica ad Ecclesiam pertinent secundum verbum Dei. Magistratus nihil ominus est custos utriusque Tabulae, & ces…antibus Sacerdotibus vel degenerantibus, debet reformare secundum legem. not in a reformed and constituted Church, but in a Church which is full of disorders, and wholly out of course, needing reformation. So that the Erastian Arguments drawn from those examples, for investing the Magistrate with the whole and sole power of Government and jurisdiction in Ecclesiasticall affaires, are no whit better than the Popish and Prelaticall Arguments, for the lawfulnesse of the civill power and places of Clergymen (as they called them) drawne from some extraordinary examples of Aaron his joyning with Moses, and Eleazer with Ioshua, in civill businesse of greatest consequence; of the administration and Government of the Commonwealth by Eli the Priest, and by Samuel the Prophet; of the anointing of Iehu to be King by Elisha; of the killing of Athaliah, and the making of Ioash King by the authority of Iebojada the Priest; of the withstanding and thrusting out of King Uzziah, by fourscore valiant men of the Priests, and such like cases. Master Prynne himself in his Diotrephes catechised pag. 4. noteth that Ezra the Priest received a speciall commission from Artaxerxes, to set Magistrates and Judges which might judge all the people Ezra 7. 11, 25. from all which it appeareth that as Priests did extraordinary some things which ordinarily belonged to Magistracy, so Magistrats did extraordinarily that which ordinarily did not belong to their administration. I conclude this point with a passage in the second book of the Discipline of the Church of Scotland Chap. 10. And although Kings and Princes that be godly, sometimes by their own authority, when the Church is corrupted, and all things out of order, place Ministers, and restore the true service of the Lord, after the example of some godly Kings of Judah and divers godly Emperours and Kings also in the light of the new Testament: yet where the Ministery of the Church is once lawfully constituted, and they that are placed doe their Office faithfully, all godly Princes and Magistrates ought to beare and obey their voyce, and reverence the Majesty of the Sonne of God speaking in them.
In the third place, let us take a particular survey of such Objections, from which the Erastians doe conclude that the power of Church-gov…rnment in the old Testament was onelyonly in the hand of the Magistrate.
And first concerning Moses, it is objected that he being the supreme Magistrate did give Lawes and Ordinances for ordering the Church in things pertaining to God.
Answ. This he did as a Prophet from the mouth of the Lord, yea as a type of Jesus Chri…t the great Prophet, Deut. 18. 15. 18. not as civill Magistrate.
2. Object. We read not of an Ecclesiasticall Sanhedrin adjoyned with Moses, but onelyonly of a civill Sanhedrin Num. 11. Neither doth the Talmud mention any supreme Sanhedrin but one.
Answ. 1. If those 70 Elders, Num. 11. be understood onelyonly of the civill Sanhedrin, (which some doe not admit, though for my part I doe not gainsay it) yet we read of the con…itution of another Sanhedrin or Assembly of 70 before them. Which I have before proved from Exod. 24. 1.
2. And if there had been no dis…inct Ecclesiasticall Sanhedrin in Moses his time, yet by the Law, Deut. 17. when the people came into the Land of promise, they were to have two distinct Courts in the place which the Lord should choose. Of which also before. And whereas Mr Prynne in his Diotrephes catechised quaest. 2. intimateth, that by the Law Deut. 17. the Priests were onelyonly …oyntly and together with the temporall Judges, to resolve hard civill cases or controversies: this sence can neither agree with the dis…unction in the Text verse 12. the man that will not hearken unto the Priest, or unto the Judge: nor yet with the received interpretation of those words between stroke and stroke, that is, between leprosie and leprosie, the decision whereof, is no where in Scripture found to be either committed unto or assumed by the civill Judge. As for the Talmud, that of Babylon was not begun to be compiled before the yeere of … 367, nor finished before the yeere of Christ 500. The Ierusalem Talmud can pretend to no greater antiquity than the yeere of Christ 230. So that both were collected long after the dissolution of the Sanhedrin and government of the Jewes. No marvell therefore, if these declining times did weare out the memory of some part of their former government.
3. Object. The King was by Gods appointment entrusted with the custody of the booke of the Law, Deut. 17. 18. 2 King. 11. 12.
Answ. 1. The principall charge of the custody of the Law was committed to the Priests and Levites, Deut. 31. 9, 24, 25 26. Of the King it is onelyonly said Deut. 17. 18. That he shall write him a coppy of this law in a Booke, out of that which is before the Priests and Levites.
2. I heartily yeeld that a lawfull Magistrate, whether Christian or Heathen, ought to be a keeper or guardian of both Tables, and as Gods V…cegerent hath authority to punish haynous sinnes against either Table, by civill or corporall punishments which proves nothing against a … Church-government for keeping pure the Ordinances of Christ.
4. Object. King David did appoint the Offices of the Levites and divided their courses 1 Chr…. 23. So likewise did Solomon appoint the courses and charges of the Priests, Levites and Porters in the Temple.
Answ. David did not this thing as a King, but as a Prophet, 2 …. 8. 14. For so bad David the man of God commanded; the same thing being also commanded by other Prophets of the Lord, 2 hro. 29. 25. According to the commandement of David, and of G…d the Kings seer, and Nathan the Prophet, for so was the commandement of the Lord by his Prophets. Which cleareth also Solomons part, for (beside that himselfe also was a Prophet) he received from David the man of God, a patterne of that which he was to doe in the worke of the house of the Lord, and directions concerning the courses of the Levites, 1 Chro. 28. 11, 12, 13. 2 Chro. 8. 14.
5 Object. King Solomon deposed Abiathar from his Priesthood, and did put … in his place.
Answ. Abiathar was guilty of high treason for assis…ing and ayding Adonijah, against Solomon, whom not onelyonly his father David but God himselfe had designed to the Crowne. So that the crime was of civill cognizance, and Abiathar deserved to die for it. That which Solomon did was an foreign, a moderation of the punishment, as Strigelius cals it; when Solomon might justly have put him to death, he onelyonly banisheth him from Hierusalem to Anathoth, there to enjoy his owne inheritance, to live a private life, and no more to intermeddle in State affaires. Wherefore this example doth belong to the case of a capitall crime committed by a Minister, but not to the case of scandall or mal-administration in his Ministery.
2. Neither did Solomon directly or intentionally put Abiathar from the Priesthood for that offence, but by consequence it followed upon his banishment from Hierusalem, the place where the high Priest was to exercise his calling, 1 King. 2. 27. So (that is, in respect of banishment from Ierusalem mentioned in the verse immediately preceding) Solomon thrust out Abiathar from being Priest unto the Lord. A Minister now banished is not thereby thrust out from all exercise of his Ministery, for he may exercise it in another place; but Abiathar being thrust out from Hierusalem was eo ipso thrust from the calling of the high Priest, which was necessarily to be exercised in that place.
3. Solomon being a Prophet, who knowes what warrants he had more then ordinary for that which he did to Abiathar? that it was not without an extrordinary divine instinct, some collect from the next words; that he (Solomon) might fulfill the word of the Lord which he spake cencerning the house of Eli in Shilo.
4. As for the investing of Zadok with the place and authority of the high Priest, it doth not prove that the Magistrate hath a constitutive power to make or authorize Church officers: for Zadok had been formerly chosen by the congregation of Israel, and anointed to be high Priest, 1 Chro. 29. 22. yea he did fall to the place Iure divino: for the high Priesthood was given to Eleazar the eldest sonne of Aaron, and was to remaine in the family of Eleazar, from whom Zadok had lineally descended: Whereas Abiathar was not of the family of Eleazar, but of the family of I…hamar.
6. Object. Hezekiah did apply his regall power to the reformation of the Levites and to the purging of the Temple, 2 Chr. 29. 5. and did also appoint the courses of the Priests and Levites every man according to his service, 2 Chro. 31. So likewise did King Iosiah, 2 Chro. 35.
Answ. Hezekiah in exhorting the Levites to sanctifie themselves and to cleanse the Temple, doth require no other thing than the Law of God did require, Num. 8. 6. 11. 15. & 18. 32. which Hezekiah himselfe pointeth at, 2 Chro. 29. 11. And why should not the Magistrate command Ministers to do the duties of their calling according to the Word of God? As for his appointing of the courses of the P…iests and Levites, he did nothing therein, but what the Lord had commanded by his Prophets, 2 Chro. 29. 25. The like I answer concerning King Iosiah, for it is recorded, that what hee did, was after the writing of David and Solomon, 2 Chro. 35. 4. and according to the Commandement of David and Asaph, and Heman, and Jeduthun, the Kings seer, Verse 15. as it is written in the booke of Moses, v. 12.
7. Object. King Ioash while hee yet did right in the dayes of Iebojada the Priest, sent the Priests and Levites to gather from all Israel, a collection for repairing the house of the Lord, and when they dealt negligently in this businesse he discharged them to receive any more money so collected.
Ans. Joash did impose no other collections, but those quae divino jure debebantur, which were due by divine right, saith Wolphius, in 2 Kings 12. The thing was expressely commanded in the Law of Moses, compare 2 Chro. 24. 6. Exo. 30, 12, 13, 14. As for the Kings prohibition afterwards laid upon the Priests, 1. the Priests had still neglected the worke till the three and twentieth yeare of his raigne was come, 2. The Priests themselves consented to receive no more money, 3. The high Priest had still a chiefe hand in the managing of that businesse, in which also the Priests that kept the doore had an interest. All which is plaine from 2 Kings 12. 6. 8, 9, 10. And beside all this, it was a money matter, concerning the hyring and paying of workemen, and so did belong to foreign, to the extrinsecall, not to the intrinsecall things of the Church.
8. Object. The Kings of the Jewes have purged the Land from Idolatry and Superstition, have broken downe Altars, cut down Groves, destroyed high places, and such like Idolatrous Monuments.
Ans. This was nothing but what was commanded in the Law of Moses, whereunto also the secular coercivepower was necessary.
Let it be remembled concerning those godly reforming Kings of … 1. The case was extraordinary, no matter of ordinary Government. 2 Their reformation was Iure divino. The Law of God was the rule, and Ius Divinum was not then startled at, but embraced. 3. Sometime also the reformation was not without an assembly of the Prophets, Priests and Elders, as 2 Kings 23. 1.
9. Object. Mr. Prynne in his Diotrephes Catechised, Quest. 2. … another objection from 2 Chr. 19. asking, whether it be not clearly meant, that as King Josiah himselfe (he should have said Iehoshaphat) did by his owne regall authority, appoint Iudges in the Land and in Jerusalem, in the preceeding 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. & 10. Verses, to d…termine all controversies and punish all offences whatsoever, acco…ding to the Lawes of God and that Kingdome, so hee did by the selfe same regall authority appoint Amariah then chiefe Priest, over the Priests and Levites onelyonly. (implyed in the word you, not over the people of the Land) in all matters of the Lord, that is, to Order, direct the Priests and Levites, under him in their severall courses, and all matters whatsoever concerning the Worship, &c.
Ans. 1. Mr. Prynne will never prove from that Text, That Iehoshaphat by his regall authority did appoint, or set Amariah the chiefe Priest to be over the rest; The English translators expresse the sence by interlacing the word is Verse 11. And behold Amariah the chiefe Priest is over you in all matters of the Lord. 2. To restrict the word you to the Priests and Levites onelyonly, is an intolerable wresting of the Text; for all these relatives, Verse 9, 10, 11. them, ye, you, must needs repeat the antecedent Verse 8. and so relate to the chiefe of the Fathers of Israel, as well as to the Priests and Levites. So that these words, Amariah the chiefe Priest is over you, are spoken to the Sanhedrin; and the plaine meaning is, that Amariah the chiefe Priest was at that time the Nasi, or princeps Senatus, the Prince or chiefe Ruler of the Senat, as Grotius expounds it. 3. That the high Priest was a Ruler of the People, as well as of the Priests and Levites, is manifest from, Acts 23. 5. where Paul applieth to the high Priest, that Law, Thou shalt not speake evill of the Ruler of thy people. 4. Wherefore to retort the Objection, Mr. Prynne doth here acknowledge upon the matter two distinct Governments to have beene at that time, one civill, another Ecclesiasticall: distinct I say both objectively, and subjectively: objectively, for hee expounds the Lords matters to be meant of the sacrifices and other services in the Temple, The Kings matters hee takes to be the Kings Househould, Lands, Revenues: Subjectively also, for hee yeeldeth upon the matter both Amariah and Zebadiah to have had a certaine ruling or governing power in ordering and directing these over whom they were set, which well agreeth both with the version of the 70 (giving the name of foreign both to the one and to the other) and with the Originall; for he that is over the Sanhedrin it selfe must needs be a Ruler.
10. Object. The causes of Leprosy, Lev. 13. & 14. and jealousie Num. 5. are the onelyonly cases wherein the Priests were appointed to be as Judges in the Old Testament. So Mr. Prynne in his Diotrephes catechised quest. 3.
Ans. 1. If the Priests were Judges in these cases, then (so farre at least) there was a judging, decisive, binding sentence of the Priests, distinct from and not subordinate unto the civill Magistracy. 2. But that these two were the onelyonly cases wherein the Priests were appointed to be as Judges, is easily confuted, being an assertion contrary to diverse Texts of Scripture, as first Deut. 21. 5. in the triall of secret murther the Law appointeth thus: And the Priests the sonnes of Levi shall come neare, &c. and by their word shall every controversy and every stroke bee tried, that is, every controversy which was to be ended by purgations or purifications, Oathes or confession, as Pelargus noteth upon the place. There is also a generall comprehensive expression concerning the Priests their judging and deciding of controversies forensically, Ezech. 44. 24. And in controversy they shall stand in judgement, and they shall judge it according to my judgements. Likewise Deut. 17. 8, 9, 12. the Priest as well as the Judge hath authority to give forth a binding decree concerning hard matters, brought from inferior Courts to Ierusalem. Againe 2 Chron. 23. 19. the Porters of the Temple (that is, the Priests that kept the doore as they are designed 2 Kings 12. 9. of whom also it is said, that I…hojadah the high Priest, appointed Officers over the house of the Lord, 2 Kings 11. 18. which Text Grotius following Iosephus doth parallell wi…h 2 Chro. 23. 19.) had this charge, that none which was unclean in any thing should enter in.
11. Object. If the Priests power of judging reached further than the cases of Leprosie, and Jealousie, the most was to judge of such as were uncleane in any thing, and that according to their sentence the uncleane were to be excluded.
Ans. Not to insist now upon these Texts, Deut. 17. 9. 12. & 21. 5. Ez…. 44. 24. which hold forth the juridicall power of the Priests more generally and comprehensively, without restricting it to cases of cleane and uncleane only; nor yet to repeat diverse other answers before given, in answer to Erastus and M. Prynne, concerning legall and morall uncleannesse; I shal here only give this one answer out of that Text 2 Chro. 23. 19. none which was unclean in any thing. What cogent argument can now restrict this Text concerning the exclusion of uncleane persons from the Temple, to such only who were legally or ceremonially unclean? If we should suppose and grant that it is meant onelyonly of the legall uncleannesse, yet both by Analogy and à fortiori, that Text affoordeth an argument against the Erastians, and I have accordingly made use of it before; Yet neverthelesse I believe it will puzle them to prove that this Text doth not comprehend those also that were morally uncleane, that is, scandalous prophane persons. For my part I doe believe that it is meant of keeping back those that were morally unclean, as well as those that were ceremonially such. And my reasons are these, 1. The Text saith generally, none which was uncleane in any thing, or as the 70 have it, foreign, such as were uncleane in every or any word, or (if you will) against any word, that is, against any Commandement of the Law, 2. Because impiety, profannesse, and wickednesse hath the name of uncleannesse, even in the old Testament; & such as commit sin and ungodlinesse are called unclean, and are said to defile themselves, as wel as those that were legally uncleane. I shall not neede to expound, Lev. 5. 3. if he touch the uncleannesse of man, whatsoever uncleannesse it be that a man shall be defiled withall; as if it were meant of fellowship with scandalous sinners; which is Origens Interpretation, Hom. 3. in Levit. who also taketh a commentary to that Text from, 1 Cor. 5. 11. It will have more weight in it, to observe Targum Onkel…s, Deut. 23. 2. Where the Law concerning Mamzer a bastard or whoores son, is thus explained, A bastard shall not be clean that he may enter into the Congregation of the Lord: even unto the tenth Generation his sons shall not be clean that they may enter into the Congregation of the Lord. But I will give yet surer warrants for what I say. Iob. 36. 14. their life is among the uncleane, that is, (as Pagnin following the Chaldee paraphrase expresseth it) inter scortatores; Hierome, inter effaeminatos: others, inter impudicos; the same word is rendered Sodomites, 1 Kings 14. 24. It commeth from foreign which foreign or per Antiphrasin signifieth to be impure or unclean, and it is used of the legall uncleannesse, Deut. 22. 9. lest the fruit of thy Vineyard be defiled. So Hag. 2. 13, 14. both he that touched a dead body, and he that trespassed against the morall Law, is foreign uncleane; for after the resolution concerning that which was legally uncleane, it is added, So is this people, and so is this nation before me saith the Lord, and so is every w…rke of their hands, and that which they offer there is unclean. The same name is given to an ungodly person, Eccle. 9. 2. where the godly person is called the cleane, the notorious scandalous prophane person is called the unclean. So wickednesse is frequently called uncleannesse as, Ezra. 9. 11. Ezec. 36. 25. Zech. 13. 1. I wil here adde a Testimony of Maimonides in More Nevochim part 3. cap. 47. Hence also the transgression of the Commandement is called uncleannesse or pollution, and it is said of the principall and fundamentall Commandements, of Idolatry, of uncovering the nakednesse, of the shedding of bloud. Of Idolatry it is said cLev. 20. 3…: Because he hath given of his seed unto Molech, to defile my Sanctuary, and to prophane my holy Name. Of the uncovering of the nakednesse; dLev. 18. 24▪defile not your selves in any of these things. Of the shedding of bloud, eNum. 35. 33, 34.defile not therefore the Land wherein ye dwell. Wherefore this word uncleannesse or defilement is said of three sorts of things, first of a mans qualities and of his transgressions of the Commandements, whether theoricall or practicall (that is, which concerne either Doctrine, or his conversation.) Secondly of externall filthinesse and defilements, &c. Thirdly, of these imaginary things, that is, the touching or carrying upon the shoulders some uncleane thing, &c. Adde hereunto the observation of Drusius de tribus sect. Judaeor. lib. 2. num. 82. 83. 84. The Pharisees did account sinners and prophane persons to be uncleane, and thought themselves polluted by the company of such persons, for which reason also they used to wash when they came from the mercate. Though there was a superstition in this Ceremony, yet the opinion that prophane persons are uncleane persons, and to be avoided for uncleannesse, had come from the purest antiquities of the Jewes, even from Moses and the Prophets. Since therefore both in the old Testament phrase, and in the usuall language of the Jewes themselves, a scandalous prophane person was called an unclean person, it is to me more then probable that where I read, none which was uncleane in any thing should enter in it is meant of those that were morally uncleane by a scandalous wicked conversation, no lesse yea much more than of those that were onelyonly ceremonially uncleane. 3. Especially considering that the Sanctuary was prophaned and polluted by the morall uncleannesse of sinne, and by prophane persons their entring into it, as is manifest from Lev. 20. 3. Eze. 23. 39. How can it then be imagined that those Priests whose charge it was to keepe back those that were uncleane in any thing, would admit and receive such as were not onelyonly unclean persons in the language of Scripture and of the Jewes themselves, but were also by expresse Scriptures declared to be defilers or polluters of the Sanctuary? 4. It is said of the high Priest, Lev 16. 16. and he shall make atonement for the holy place, because of the uncleannesse of the children of Israel, and because of their transgressions in all their sins: or from their uncleannesse and from their transgressions, as the Chaldee and the LXX have it: the sence is the same: and it sheweth that the holy place was made uncleane by the transgressions and sinnes of the children of Israel: which uncleannesse of transgression, if it were visible, publik and notorious, then the Priests had failed in admitting such to the holy place.
12. Object. Throughout the old Testament we read onelyonly of temporall punishments, as burning, hanging, stoning, fines, stripes, and the like, but never of Excommunication or any Church censure. Neither did the Jewes know the distinction of Lawes Ecclesiasticall and Lawes civill, causes Ecclesiasticall and causes civill, for the Church of the Jewes was th…ir CommonWealth, and their Common-Wealth was their Church, and the Government of Church and State among them was one and the same. Their civill Lawyers were also Expositors or Doctors of the Law of God.
Ans. That in the Jewish Church, there was an Ecclesiasticall censure or punishment distinct from the civill, I have proved in this preceeding booke, both from Scripture and from the Jewish antiquities. And if there were no more but the sequestration or separation from the Temple or from the passeover, for such legall uncleannesse as did not separat a man from his house, nor from all company of men, even that alone proves a kinde of censure distinct from all civill punishment: neither did it belong to the Magistrate or civill Judge, but to the Priests to examine, judge, and determine concerning cleannesse or uncleannesse, and consequently concerning admission to or separation from the Temple, Passeover, and sacrifices.
That the Jewish Church and the Jewish State were formally distinct, see before Chap. 2. Where it hath beene observed that some Proselytes had the full priviledges of the Jewish Church, though none of them had the full priviledges of the Jewish common-wealth. The like I have read of the Spaniards, who admit the Moores or inhabitants of Morisco to turne Christians, and receive them into Ecclesiasticall Membership and Communion, but by no meanes into their civill liberties. That the causes of Excommunication among them were lookt upon as scandalls, and not as civill in…uries, see Chap. 4. This onelyonly I adde that More Nevochim part. 2. Chap. 40. doth distinguish civill Lawes from sacred Lawes, even among the people of God, making the scope of the civill Lawes to be the good safety and prosperity of the Common-wealth; the Sacred or Divine Lawes to concerne properly Religion and mens soules. He that will compare the civill Lawes and panall Statutes of the Jewes mentioned in Baba Kama, with their ceremoniall Lawes concerning the holy Ordinances of God, and who should have communion therein, who not, cannot but looke upon their Church and … Lawes, as formally distinct from their State and civill Lawes. Again, he that will consider who were the viri synagogae magnae, the men of the great synagogue, and what their power and acts were, (as Dr. Buxtorf describeth the same in his Tyberi…t Cap. 10, 11.) and their authoritative determinations, concerning the right writing, reading, and expounding of the holy Scripture, &c. must needs acknowledge that it was Senatus ecclesiasticus magnus (as Buxtorf cals it) and that such power and acts were incompetent to the civill Magistrate. As for their Doctors of Law and Scribes, they were of the sons of Aaron, yet some way diversified in their administrations. Scaliger in elench. Trihaeres. Nic. Serar. cap. 11. distinguisheth between the foreign and the foreign,fQuum foreign legem interpretarentur, quod proprium foreign verò formulas juris praescriberent, & actiones civiles docerent, & forensia magis tractarent. that the former were the wisemen or chief of the Scribes who did interpret the Law, and declare the sence of it; the latter did attend civill forensicall matters. Drusius de tribus sect. Jud. lib. 2. cap. 13. noteth from Luke. 11. 45. 46. that there was some distinction between the foreign and the foreign, between the Scribes and the Lawyers, for when Christ had spoken of the Scribes and Pharises, then answered one of the Lawyers and said unto him, Master, thus saying thou reproachest us also. And he said, Wo unto you also ye Lawyers: This will be more plaine by that other distinction observed by Lud. de dieu. in Mat. 22. 35. and diverse others, between foreign, and foreign, between the Scribes of the Law of God who did interpret the Law, such as Ezra the Priest; and the Scribes of the people who were Actuarii publici, publick Notaries or Clerks. Whence it appeareth that the Offices of Scribes and Lawyers (although the persons themselves were of the Tribe of Levi) were so ordered, as that civill and sacred affaires might not be confounded. Yea, the Scriveners or Notaries were of two sorts; for besides those which did attend civill Courts of Justice, &c. There was a chiefe Scribe who waited upon the King and wrote unto him a coppy of the Book of the Law, according to that Deut. 17. 18. Such a Scribe was Sheva, 2 Sam. 20. 25. Shaphan 2 Kings 22. 3. 8. Baruch Jer. 36. Such a Scribe had Joash 2 Kings 12. 10. There were divers other Scribes for the house of the Lord and for the people, whose office it was to write and to read the Law, 1 Chro. 2. 55, Psal. 45. 1. Ier. 8. 8.
13. Object. But neither in the old Testament nor in the Talmudists can there be found any Ecclesiasticall Excommunication properly so called.
Answ. I deny both, yea I have disproved both. Moreover, as touching the Excommunication used in the Jewish Church I shall adde here these following Testimonies of M…imonides. In libro foreign Tract. Talmud Torah Cap. 6. sect. 10. He that revileth a wiseman, though after his death, shall be excommunicated by the Sanhedrin, by whom also after repentance he shall be absolved. Ib. sect. 11. He who is excommunicated in his own Town, ought also to be esteemed in all other Cities and Towns, as a person excommunicated. Answerable hereunto were the ancient Canons, which did appoint that a person excommunicated in his own Church should not be received to communion in another Church. The 24. causes of excommunication (above mentioned) he there reckoneth forth from sect. 13. to the end of that Chapter. Again, Cap. 7. sect. 2. What is the manner of a simple excommunication or Niddui? He that doth excommunicate saith: Let that person N. be in (or under) an excommunication or separation. If the person excommunicated be present, they who doe excommunicate say unto him, Let this person N. be separated or excommunicated. And when Cherem or the greater excommunication is inflicted, what is the manner? They say, Let N. be devoted and accursed, let an execration, adjuration and separation be upon him. But how doe they loose the person excommunicated, and how doe they free him from the separation or the curse? they say, Be thou loosed, be thou pardoned. If the guilty party be absent, they say. Let N. be loosed, and let him be pardoned. In the same Chapter sect. 8. Neither is there any certain space of time predetermined, before which the bond of the excommunication inflicted may not be loosed. For immediately and at the same time when excommunication is inflicted, it may be loosed if the guilty party doe immediately repe…t, and come to himselfe. Which doth further set forth the great difference between the nature and scope of Excommunication, and the nature and scope of corporall or civill punishments. For how soon soever an excommunicat person giveth good signes of true repentance, he is to be loosed from the bond of excommunication. But he that is punished in his body or estate for any crime, is not freed from the punishment, because he is known to be penitent; The repentance of a criminall person is no supersedeas to civill Justice. Thereafter Maimonides proceedeth thus. Yet if it seem good to the Sanhedrin that any man shall be left in the state of excommunication, for how many yeeres shall be be left in excommunication? The Sanhedrin will determine the number of yeers and space of time, according to the haynousnesse of the trespasse. So likewise if the Sanhedrin will, it may devote and subject to a curse, first the party himself who is guilty of the crime, and then also every other person whosoever eateth or drinketh with him, or sitteth neere unto him unlesse at foure cubits distance: that so by this means the heavier correction may fall upon the sinner, and there may be as it were a hedge put about the law, which may restrain wicked men from transgressing it. Whence observe 1. It was from the Jewish Church, that the ancient Councels of the Christian Church, took a pattern for determining and fixing a certaine number of yeeres to the separation of some haynous offenders from the Sacrament, and sometimes from other Ordinances also. Though I doe not approve this thing, either in the Jewish or Christian Church; for at what time soever a scandalous sinner doth give evident signes of repentance, the Church ought to receive him againe into her bosome and fellowship. 2. From the Jewish Church also was the patterne taken, for that ancient Discipline in the Christian Church, that he who keepeth company and communion with an excommunicated person, should fall under the same censure of excommunication. Which thing must be well explained and qualified before it can be approved. 3. Compare also this passage of Maimonides with 1 Cor. 5. 11. with such a one no not to eate, 2 Thes. 3. 14. have no company with him, that he may be ashamed. Which Texts doe fitly answer to that which the Hebrew writers say of a person excommunicated. 4. The excommunication of an offender among the Jewes, was intended not onelyonly for the offenders humiliation and amendment, but for an ensample to others, that they might heare and feare and do no more any such thing: it was therefore a publique and exemplary censure. And so much of Sect. 8.
In the 9. and 10. Sections Maimonides sheweth us, that though a wise man was allowed to prosecute unto the sentence of excommunication one that did revile or calumniat him, yet it was more praise-worthy and more agreeable to the example of the holy men of God to passe in silence and to endure patiently such injuries. Then followeth Sect. 11. These things which have been said, are to be understood of such reproaches and contumelies as are clandestine. For if railers doe put a publike infamy upon a wise man, it is not lawfull to him to use indulgence or to neglect his honour: and if he shall pardon (as to the punishment) him who hath hurt his fame, he himselfe is to be punished, because that is a contempt of the law. He shall therefore avenge the contumely, & not suffer himselfe to be satisfied, before the guilty party hath craved merey. Here is the true object, or (if you will) the procuring and meritorious cause of Excommunication, viz. not a private personall or civill injury, which a man may passe by or pardon if he will, but a scandalous sinne the scandall whereof must be removed and healed, by some Testimony or Declaration of the sinners repentance, otherwise he must fall under the censure and publique shame.
These Testimonies of Maimonides, and the observations made thereupon, beside all that hath been said in this preceding Book, will make it manifest that the Spirituall censure of excommunication was translated and taken from the Jewish Church into the Christian Church.
Furthermore, beside all the Scriptural proofs already brought, I shall desire another Text, Nehem. 13. 1, 3. to be wel weighed. After the reading of the law (Deut. 23. 3.) that the Amm…nite and the Moabite should not come into the congregation of God for ever, it came to passe, saith the Text, when they heard the law, that they separated from Israel all the mixed multitude. I conceive that this separation was a casting out of the Church of Israel, and is not meant here of a civill separation from honours and priviledges, nor yet onelyonly in reference to the dissolution of unlawfull marriages. I understand also by the prohibition of entring into the congregation of the Lord Deut. 23. 1, 2, 3. that such were not to be received into Church communion. Ostendit autem qui a caetibus fidelium debeant excludi. He sheweth who ought to be excluded from the assemblies of the faithfull, saith Aretius upon Deut. 23. 1. Hic dicitur Ecclesia Dei atrium mundorum, quod non debebant tales ingredi. Here that Court of the Temple which was appointed only for the clean, is called the Congregation of God, whereunto such persons ought not to enter, saith Hugo Cardinalis upon the same place. Audita lege de duabus inimicis gentibus anathematizandis, &c. Having heard the law concerning the two hostile Nations, to be anathematized or accursed, saith Beda on Nehem. 13. thereupon they separated the mixed multitude. Pelargus on Deut. 23. citeth Theodoret, Procpius, and Rabanus, besides the Canonills, for this sence, that the not entring into the Congregation of the Lord, is meant of refusing Ecclesiasticall not civill priviledges. I know that divers others understand Deut. 23. 1, 2, 3. of not admitting unto, and Nehem. 13. 3. of separating from marriages with the Jewes, and civill dignities or places of Magistrates or Rulers in that Commonwealth, such a one shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord, that is, shall not be received into the Assembly or Court of Judges. But there are some reasons which diswade me from this and incline me to the other interpretation.
First, the Law Deut. 23. being read to the people Nebem. 13. 3. upon the hearing of that law they separated from Israel all the mixed multitude. It is not to be imagined that all this mixed multitude was married to Jewes, muchlesse that they were all Magistrats, Rulers, or members of Courts and Judicatures in Israel. But by the mixed multitude are meant all such as were in Israel but not of Israel, or such as conversed and dwelt among the Jewes and had civill fellowship with them, but had no part nor portion (by right) in Church-membership and Communion: in which sence also the mixed multitude is mentioned Exod. 12. 38. Num. 11. 4.
Secondly, that this separation from Israel is to be understood in a spirituall and ecclesiasticall sence, it appeareth by the instance and application immediately added Neb. 13. 4. to vers. 10. And before this, that is, before this separation, Eliashih the Priest being allied unto Tobiah had prepared for him a chamber in the Courts of the house of God, but now when the separation of the mixed multitude was made; Nehemiah did east out the stuffe of Tobiah, and commanded to cleanse the chambers of the Temple which had been defiled by Tobiah. Behold an instance of the separation in reference to the Temple or holy place, not to any civill Court.
Thirdly, the Chaldee paraphrase helpeth me Deut. 23. 1, 2, 3. for instead of these words, shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord, Onkelos readeth shall not be clean to enter into the congregation of the Lord; having respect to the law which did forbid uncleane persons to enter into the Temple. Ita isti mundi reputabantur; so likewise were these (Ammonites, Moabites, bastards, &c.) esteemed as unclean, saith Tostatus in Deut. 23. quaest. 1.
Fourthly, Edomites and Egytians might enter into the congregregation of the Lord in the third generation Deut. 22. 7, 8. Was the meaning, that Edomites and Egyptians should in the third generation marry with the Jewes, or be Magistrates in Israel, members of the Sanhedrin, or Judges? He that will thinke so, will hardly prove that it was so. To me it is not at all probable, that God would allow his people either to marry with the Edomites and Egyptians, or to prefer them to be Magistrates and Judges in Israel, no not in the third generation. But it is very probable, that when an Edomite or Egyptian came to dwell in the Land of Israel, as a proselyte indweller, ob erving the seven precepts given to the sonnes of Noah, the children of that Egyptian or Edomite in the third generation, mi…ht enter into the congregation of the Lord, that is, might upon their desire and submission to the whole law of Moses, be received as proselytes of righteousnesse or of the Covenant, and so free to come to the Court of Israel, and in all Church relations to be as one of the Israelites themselves.
Fifthly, Philo the Jew lib. de victimas offerentibus towards the end, tels us that their Law did prohibit all unworthy persons from their sacred Assemblies, foreign. From the same sacred Assemblies of the Church, he saith that their law did also exclude Eunuohs, and bastards, or such as were borne foreign (the word used by the LXX in Deut. 23. 2.) where Philo most certainly hath respect to that Law, Deut. 23. understanding by the congregation of the Lord in that pla…e, neither a civill Court nor liberty of marriage, but the sacred or Church Assembly.
There are but two objections which I finde brought against that which I have been now proving. One is from Exod. 12. 48. a law which admitteth strangers to the Church and Passeover of the Jewes, provided they were willing to be circumcised. The other objection is from the example of Ruth the Moabitesse, who was a member of the Church of Israel.
To the first I answer, that Exod. 12. 48. will not prove that every stranger who desired to be circumcised, and to eate the Passeover, was to be immediately admitted upon that desire, without any more adoe: onelyonly it proves that before any stranger should eate of the Passeover, he must first be circumcised. A stranger might not be Gertsedek, a proselyte of righteousnesse, when he pleased, but he was first to be so and so qualified. Besides this, it may be justly doubted whether Deut. 23. 3. be not an exception from the rule Exod. 12. 48. for all strangers were not to be alike soon and readily received to be proselytes of righteousnesse: but a great difference there was between those Nations which God had expressely and particularly devoted and accursed, and others not so accursed.
To the other objection concerning Ruth, Rabanus cited by Pelargus on Deut. 23. answereth that the tenth generation of the Moabites was past, before Ruth did enter into the congregation of the Lord. And if it had not, yet the case was extraordinary, and one Swallow makes not Summer.
14. Object. But is there any patterne or president in the Jewish Church, for keeping backe scandalous sinners from the Sacrament?
Ans. There is; for I have proved a keeping back of notorious sinners both from the Passeover, and from the Temple it selfe which had a Sacramentall signification and was a Type of Christ and Communion with him. It is worthy of observation that by the Chaldee paraphrase, Exod. 12. 43. Any Israelite who was foreign an apostate, might not eate of the Passeover. Againe, verse 48. foreign & omnis prophanus. So the Latine Interpreter of Onkelos: And no prophane person shall eate of it. The word is used not onelyonly of a Heathen, but of any prophane person, as Prov. 2. 16. where the Chaldee expresseth the whorish woman (though a Jewesse) by the name of foreign. It commeth from foreign to be prophaned, è sancto prophanum fieri. Surely Onkelos had not thus paraphrased upon Exod. 12. if it had not been the Law of the Jewes, that notorious prophane persons should be kept backe from the Passeover.