Aarons Rod Blossoming, Book 1 · Chapter 6
CHAP. VI. Of the casting out of the Synagogue.
WE read of a casting out of the Church, which was pretended to be a matter of conscience and religion, and such as did more especially concerne the glory of God, Isa. 66. 5. Your brethren that hated you, that cast you out for my names sake, said, let the Lord be glorified. Such was the casting out of the Synagogue, mentioned in the Gospell Ioh. 9. 22. & 12. 42. & 16. 2. Arias Montanus de arcano Sermone cap. 47. expounds it of excommunication from Church Assemblies. So the Magdeburgians cent. 1. lib. 1. cap. 7. and Corn. Bertramus de repub. Ebraeor. cap. 7. Godwyn in his Moses and Aaron, lib. 3. cap. 4. & lib. 5. cap. 2. Wherein the interpreters also upon the places cited doe generally agree, Erasmus, Brentius, Tossanus, Diodati, Cartwright in his harmony, Gerhard, &c. So likewise M. Leigh out of Paulus Tarnovius, foreign dicitur▪ ejectus e … sacro Ecclesiae, excommunicatus. See Critica Sacra of the new Test. pag. 391. So doth Aretius, Theol. Probel. loc. 133. (though cited by our Opposites againstus) he saith, though it was abused by the Pharisees, yet it sheweth the Antient use of the the thing it self, that there was such a discipline in the Jewish Church. It is not much materiall, to dispute which of the degrees of the Jewish Excommunication, or whether all the three were meant by that casting out of the Synagogue. Drusius, and Grotius expound, Io. 9. 22. of Niddui. Gerhard expounds Io. 16. 2. of all the three Niddui, Cherem, and Shammata. It is enough for this present argument, if it was a spirituall, or Ecclesiasticall Censure, not a civill punishment. Master Prynne, Vindic. pag. 48, 49. tels us. First, this casting▪ out of the Synagogue, was not warranted by Gods Word, but was onelyonly a humane invention. Secondly, as it was practiced by the Jewes, it was a diabolicall institution. Thirdly, that it was meerly a civill Excommunication, like to an Outlary, whereby the party cast out, was separate from civill conversation onelyonly, or from all company with any man, but was not suspended from any Divine Ordinance. Fourthly, that it was inflicted by the Temporall Magistrate. Fifthly, that in the Jewish Synagogues at that time, there was neither Sacrament nor Sacrifice, but onelyonly Reading, Expounding, Preaching, Disputing, and Prayer, so that it cannot prove suspension from the Sacrament. To the first, I answer, it was not onelyonly warranted by the cutting off mentioned in the Law, but Erastus himselfe gives a warrant for it from Gods word. He saith, pag. 315. the casting out of the Synagogue, was vel idem vel simile quidpiam with that separating from the congregation Ez…a. 10. 8. To the second Aretius hath answered. The best things in the world may be abused. To the third, I offer these eight considerations to prove that it was an Ecclesiasticall, not a civill Censure.
First, the causes for which men were put out of the Synagogues, were matters of scandall, offences in point of Religion, and we read of none cast out of the Synagogue for a civill injury or crime; It was for confessing Christ Io. 9. 22. & 12. 42. then counted heresie: and for Preaching of the Gospell Io. 16. 2.
Secondly, The Synagogicall Assembly or Court, was Spirituall and Ecclesiasticall, as Ludoviens de Dieu noteth upon Matth 10. 17. we read of the Rulers of the Synagogue, Act. 13. 15. among whom he that did pre…de and moderate, was called the chiefe Ruler of the Synagogue Act. 18. 8. 17. names never given to civill Magistates or Judges. Therefore Brughton makes this of the Rulers of the Synagogue, to be one of the paralells betweene the Jewish, and the Christian Church. Se… his exposition of the Lords Prayer pag. 14. 16. As for that Assembly of the Pharisees, which did cast out, or excommunicate the blind man, Io. 9. Tossanus upon the place calls it Senatus Ecclesiasticus; and Brentius argueth from this example against the infallibility of Councells, because this Councell of the Pharisees call'd Christ himselfe a finner.
3 The Court of civill Judgement, was in the Gates of the City, not in the Synagogue.
4 Such as the Communion and fellowship was in the Synagogue, such was the casting out of the Synagogue. But the Communion or fellowship, which one enjoyed in the Synagogue, was a Church-Communion and Sacred fellowship, in acts of Divine worship. Therefore the casting out of the Synagogue was also Ecclesiasticall and Spirituall, not civill or temporall.
4 The end was Sacred and Spirituall, to glorifie God Is. 66. 5. to doe God good service Io. 16. 2. in that which did more immediately and neerly touch his name and his glory, Though the Pharisees did falsely pretend that end, their error was not in mistaking the nature of the Censure, but in misapplying it where they had no just cause.
5 Master Prynne himself tells us pag. 49. That this excommunication from the Synagogue was of force forty dayes (though I beleeve he hath added ten more then enough, and if he look over his Bookes better, he will find he should have said thirty,) yet so as that it might be shortned upon repentance. But I pray, are civill punishments shortned or lengthened according to the parties repentance? I know Church Censures are so. But I had thought, the end of civill punishments, is not to reclaime a mans soule by repentance, and then to be taken off: but to guard the Lawes of the Land, to preserve Justice, Peace, and good order, to make others feare to doe evill, to uphold the publike good. The Magistrate must both punish and continue punishments, as long as is necessary for those ends, whether the party be penitent or not.
6 How is it credible, that the holy Ghost meaning to expresse a casting out from civill company or conversation onelyonly, (which was not within, but without the Synagogue) would choose such a word as signifieth the casting out from an Ecclesiasticall or Sacred Assembly? (for such were the Synagogues, in which the Jewes had Reading, Expounding, Preaching and Prayer, as Master Prynne tells us) Christ himselfe distinguisheth the Court or Judicatory, which was in the Synagogue, from civill Magistracy Luk. 12. 11. And when they bring you unto the Synagogues, and unto Magistrates and Powers. Magistrates and Powers are civill Rulers, supreame and subordinate, but the Synagogues are distinct Courts from both these.
7 Our Opposites cannot give any other rationall interpretation of the word foreign. Erastus pag. 315. confesseth, it is very hard to tell what it was. He gives three conjectures. First, that it was some ignominy put upon a man: which I thinke no body denies, and it may well stand with our interpretation. Secondly, he saith not that it was a separating of the party from all company, or society with any man. (for which Master Prynne citeth Erastus with others) but a pulling away, or casting out of a man from some particular Towne onelyonly; for instance, from Nazareth. Thirdly, He saith, it seemes also to have been a refusall of the priviledges of Jewish Citizens▪ or the esteeming of one no longer for a true Jew, but for a Proselyte. But that a Proselyte, who was free to come both to Temple and Synagogue (for of such a Proselyte he speaketh expressely) should be said to be made foreign it may well weaken, it cannot strengthen his cause.
8. In Tzemach David edit. Hen. Vorst. pag, 89. We read, that when the Sanhedrin did remove from Hierusalem, 40. yeeres before the destruction of the Temple, there was a Prayer composed against the Hereticks. Hen. Vorstius in his observ. pag. 285▪ sheweth out of Maimon▪ that it was a maledictory Prayer appointed to be used against the Hereticks of that time, who encreased mightily: and that R. Sol. Jarchi addeth this explanation of the word foreign Minim, the Disciples of Jesus of Nazareth. D. Buxtorf. Lexic. Chald. Talm. & rab. pag. 1201. collecteth that this maledictory Prayer was composed in Christs time, and against his Disciples. Surely it suteth no story so well, as that of the decree of casting out of the Synagogue Io. 12. 42.
After all these eight considerations, this I must adde, that I doe not a little admire, how Master Prynne could cite Godwyns Jewish Antiquities lib. 5. cap. 2. for that opinion, that the casting out of the Synagogue was not an Ecclesiasticall but onelyonly a civill censure. If he had but looked upon the page immediately preceding, he had found this distinction between the Ecclesiasticall and civill courts of the Jewes; The office of the Ecclesiasticall Court, was to put a difference between things holy and unholy, &c. It was a representative Church. Hence is that, di… Ecclesiae. Matt. 18. 17. Tell the Church because unto them, belonged the power of excommunication, the severall sorts of which censure follow; and so he beginneth with the casting out of the Synagogue, as the first or lesser Excommunication o… Niddui, and tells us among other effects of it, that the male Children of one thus cast out were not circumcised.
To Master Prynnes fourth exception, the Answer may be collected from what is already said. We never find the temporall Magistrate called the Ruler of the Synagogue, nor yet that he sate in Judgement in the Synagogue. The beating or scourging in the Synagogues, was a tumultuous disorderly act; we read of no sentence given, but onelyonly to be put out of the Synagogue, which sentence was given by the Synagogicall consistory, made up of the Priest or Priests and Jewish Elders. For the power of judging in things and causes Ecclesiasticall, did belong to the Priests and Levites, together with the Elders of Israel. 1 Chro. 23. 4. & 26. 30. 32. 2. Chro. 19. 8. And therefore what reason Master Prynne had to exclude the Priests from this corrective power, and from being Rulers of the Synagogue, I know not. Sure I am the Scriptures cited make Priests and Levites to be Judges and Rulers Ecclesiasticall; of which before. As for the chief Ruler of the Synagogue: Archysynagogus erat primarius in Synagoga Doctor, say the Centurists Cent. 1. lib. 1. cap 7. and if so, then not a civill Magistrate.
To the fifth I Answer, 1. If there was an exclusion from Reading, Expounding, Preaching, and Prayer, then much more from Sacraments, in which there is more of the communion of Saints. 2. He that was cast out of the Synagogue might not enter in the Synagogue, saith Menochius in Io. 9. 22. therefore he did not communicate in Prayer with the Congregation, nor in other acts of Divine Worship, (which how farre it is applicable to excommunication in the Christian Church, I do not now dispute, nor are all of one opinion, concerning excommunicate persons, their admission unto some, or exclusion from all publike Ordinances, hearing of the word and all) I know Erastus answereth the word Synagogue may signifie either the materiall house, the place of Assembling; or the people, the congregation which did Assemble; and some who differ in Judgement from us in this particular, hold that when we read of putting out of the Synagogue, the word Synagogue doth not signifie the house or place of publike worship (which yet it doth signifie in other places, as Luk. 7. 5. Act. 18. 7.) but the Church or Assembly it selfe. But I take it to signifie both joyntly; and that it was a casting out, even from the place it selfe, such as that Io. 9. 34. foreign. and they cast him out, or excommunicated him, as the English Translators adde in the Margine. Besides, I take what it is granted. It was a casting out from the Assembly, or Congregation it selfe. But how could a man be cast out from the Congregation, and yet be free to come where the Congregation was Assembled together? O but he must keepe off foure cubites distance, from all other men. And was there so much roome to reele to and fro in the Synagogue? I doe not understand how a man shall satisfie himselfe in that notion. But I rather thinke Bertramus speakes rationally, that he that was excommunicate by Niddui was shut out ab hominum contubernio atque ade… ab ipsius Tabernaculi aditu. de Rep. Jud. cap. 7. which Niddui he takes to be the same with casting out of the Synagogue. He that was cast out from mens society, must needs be excluded from the publike holy Assemblies, and from the place where these Assemblies are. Whereunto agreeth that which we read in Exc. Gem. Sanhedrin cap. 3. Sect. 9. a certaine Disciple, having after two and twenty yeeres divulged that which had been said in the Schoole of R. Ammi, he was brought out of the Synagogue, and the said Rabbi caused it to be proclaimed, this is a revealer of secrets.
3 It is more then Mr. Prynne can prove that the Sacrament of Circumcision was not then administred in the Synagogues. The Jewes do administer it in their Synagogues; and that Iohn was Circumcised in the Synagogue, some gather from Luk. 1. 59. Venerunt, they came (to wit to the Synagogue) to Circumcise the Child; for my part I lay no weight upon that argument. But I see l…sse ground for Mr. Prynnes Assertion.
As for that which M. Prynne addeth in the close, that those who were cast out of the Synagogue might yet resort to the Temple, he hath said nothing to prove it. I find the same thing affirmed by Sutlivius de Presbyt. pag. 25. (though I had thought Master Prynnes Tenen…s of this kind, should never have complyed with those of Episcopall men, against the Anti-Episcopall party) But neither doth Sutlivius prove it; onelyonly he holds that the casting out of the Synagogue was meerely a civill Excommunication, and his reason is that which he had to prove, that Christ and his Disciples, when they were cast out of the Synagogues, had notwithstanding a free accesse to the Temple. To my best observation, I can find no Instance of any admitted to the Temple, while cast out of the Synagogue. I turn again to Erastus pag. 314. to see whether he proves it. He gives us two instances, first of Christ himselfe who was cast out of the Synagogues, and yet came into the Temple. But how proves he that Christ was foreign? for this, he tells us onelyonly Quis dubitat? who makes Question of it? I am one who make a great Question of it…, or rather put it out of Question, that Christ was not cast out of the Synagogues; for what saith he himselfe Io. 18. 20. I ever taught in the Synagogue, and in the Temple, whether the Iewes alwayes resort. Christ was cast out of the City of Nazareth in the tumult by the people Luk. 4. but here was no consistoriall sentence, it was not the casting out of the Synagogue of which our Question is. The other Instance which Erastus gives, helps him as little. The Apostles saith he, were cast out of the Synagogue, and yet immediately went to the Temple, and taught the people Act. 4. & 5. And how many Synagogues was Paul cast out of? 2 Cor. 11. Yet he is not reprehended for coming into the Temple. Answ. I find nothing of the Synagogue in those places which he citeth. It was the Councell, not the Synagogue which the Apostles had to doe with Act. 4. v 5.
But what have they gained if they could prove that Christ or his Apostles, while knowne to be excommunicate from the Synagogues, were admitted into the Temple? How often did they come into the Temple, when the Priests, and Elders, and Scribes, would gladly have cast them out, but they feared the people, and so were restrained? Nay, what if they could give other Instances, that such as were cast out of the Synagogue, were permitted to come into the Temple; what gaine they thereby? If we understand the casting out of the Synagogue to be meant of Niddui, of the lesser Excommunication as Drusius, Bertramus, Grotius, and Godwyne understand it, we are not at all pinched or straitned. Nay, though we should also comprehend the Cherem or greater excommunication under this casting out of the Synagogue, all that will follow upon the admission of such into the Temple, will be this, that excommunicate persons when they desired to make atonement for their sinne by Sacrifice, were for that end admitted into the Temple (which who denies?) but still with a marke of Ignominy upon them as long as they were excommunicated, as I have shewed before. Chap. 4. Finally whereas Master Prynne concludeth his Discourse of this point, that we may as well prove excommunication from Diotrephes 3. Io. 10, as from the casting out of the Synagogue, I admit the paralell thus. The Pharisees did cast out from the Synagogue such as professed Christ; Diotrephes did cast out of the Church (as Iohn saith) such as received the Brethren. Both clave errante: the Ecclesiasticall censure was abused and misapplyed; yet from both it appeareth▪ that Ecclesiasticall Censures were used in the Church. There was a casting out of the Synagogue used among the Jewes, which the Pharisees did abuse. There was a casting out of the Church used among Christians, which Diotrephes did abuse. I remember I heard Master Coleman once draw an argument against excommunication from that Text in Iohn concerning Diotrephes. Which is as if we should argue thus, the Scripture tells us it is a sinne to condemne the righteous, Ergo it is a sinne to condemne. It is a sinne to cast out of the Church godly persons who love and receive the Brethren, Ergo it is a sinne to cast out of the Church. A fallacy à dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter. The weight is laid upon the application of such a Censure to such persons: An unju… Excommunication is not imitable, but a just Excommunication is imitable▪ according to the warning given us in the words immediately added, follow not that which is evill, but that which is good.