Of the Power of the Keys, Chapter 4 (2 of 3)
To the rTh. 4. Membra quidem Chriſti efficimu…, i. e. internae ſpiritual… que Chriſti ſocietati conjungimu▪ per ſolam fidem, quae per charitatem eſt efficax, & …âdem hâc per ſolam infidelitatem excidimus, pro…nde non poteſt nos huic inſercre, aut câdem excludere, niſi qui fidem donare, eandemque nobis iterum au…erre potest.fourth Theſis we ſay, that No man thinks, or according Sect. 40 to our principles, hath any need to think, that any but God can joyn any to that internal Communion of Chriſt and the faithful, i. e. beget faith in any (nor conſequently cut off any from it) unleſſe miniſterially, as foreign and foreign, workers under, and with Chriſt, and ſo only by power d…rived from him, we pretend to do what in the cenſures is done toward it.
Sect. 41 To ſTh. 5. Externae verò viſibiliſ que Eccleſiae conſo…tes reddimur ejuſdem fidei profeſſione ejuſdemque doctrinae approbatione, denique corundam ſacramento…um uſurpatione; in quo tria haec inſunt, in tantiſper dum ei inſunt, inter membra externi fidelium coelus computatur, etiamſi ad eternam ſpiritus & mentis communionem non pertingat.the fifth Theſis, we anſwer that there is a miſtake, for we are made conſortes externae & viſibilis Eccleſiae, Partakers of the external and viſible Church, not onelyonly by thoſe three as they are the acts of the man who is ſo partaker, but to thoſe three muſt be added a ſecond notion of the third of theſe, which ſeems not here to be taken notice of, (though alſo the words are ſo ſet, that 'tis not excluded) and that is the act of the Church, firſt according to Chriſt's commiſſion to the Apoſtles, in receiving them into the Church by Baptiſme, and when for lapſes and returns into ſin they are excommunicate, reſtoring them by abſolution, and at all fit times allowing them the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, in charity ſuppoſing them (as long as they are in the Church) ſuch members as ought not to be denied that priviledge, and if they be not unworthy, effectually ſealing to them the benefits of Chriſtianity. From whence 'tis clear that ſuch the uſurpatio Sacramentorum may be, (viz. if he receive the Sacrament of the Lords Supper that is vThough Sacramentorum uſurpatio, in proper ſpeaking, ſuppoſe Baptiſme, which is one of thoſe Sacraments; yet Sacramentorum participatio, Theſ. 6. ſignifying only receiving the Lords Supper, I have reaſon to ſuppoſe it may do ſo here too, and therefore I put in this.not baptized, or that is juſtly excommunicate) that 'twill be perfectly an uſurpation, and not ſufficient to give him right to be reckon'd inter membra externi fidelium coetus, among the members of a viſible Church.
Sect. 42 Th. 6. uTh. 6. Ergo qui ex Eccleſiae communione extern… ejicitur (i. e. qui excommunicatur) vel ab omnibus hiſ…e tribus, vel à duobus, vel ab uno tantùm removetur, ſed à duobus primis, nempe à confeſſione fidei, & à Christianae doctrinae app…obatione (ſub qua volo verbi & doctrinae auditionem comprehendi) repelli nullus debet, quin potiùs hùc invitandi & quavis ratione adducendi ſunt omnes. Quocirca relinquitur, ut qui excommunicatur, à ſolâ (ex tribus commemoratis) ſacramento…um participatione prohibeatur. Huic, utrùm inſeparab…l…ter cohaereat privati commercii negatio, an ſeparari poſſit, poſtea conſiderabitur. Alias poenas non pertinere ad ſubſtantiam excommunicationis hujus certum eſt▪ Etenim poſſit eadem etiam non excommunicat… infligi, & excommunicatis non infligi.In the firſt part there is need of a diſtinction: for the Confeſſion of Faith, and approbation of Chriſtian Doctrine may be 1. Either Cordial, or Hypocritical. 2. Either Private or Publike. If it be Cordial, then 1. it makes me partaker of the inward Communion with Chriſt and his members, and ſuppoſes a man to be in that ſtate, in which he that is, ought not to be Excommunicate, and ſo 'tis not foreign it belongs not to this matter. If it be Hypocritical (as it will appear, if he that acknowledges Chriſt, & approves his doctrine with his mouth, denies it with his actions) then is it fit to bring the cenſure upon him, which he moſt hates and fears, to caſt him out of the Church, which is onelyonly his diſguiſe and vizard, or turn him out of that hypocriticall confeſſion of Chriſt, to diſplay and lay open his hypocriſie, that he may be aſham'd, and think good to reform, and to that end, to deny him the publick hearing of the Word, which it ſeems hath wrought ſo little good upon him, and to aſſure him that he ſhall not be accounted a Chriſtian, unleſſe his actions accord with his profeſſion; All which you may mark is ſo far from deterring him from the cordiall Profeſſion, that 'tis the moſt probable means to invite him to it. So again for private confeſſion and approbation, (which belongs more to the internall communion again, then to the externall) we drive no man from that by Excommunicatio… ▪ but onelyonly from publick performance of it in the Congregation (under which, and which only, the publick hearing of the Word read or preach'd is contained.) And by ſo doing we ſeparate him from that viſible Church on that charitable one purpoſe, that he may ſee how he hath abuſed that benefit, and timely learn to make better uſe of it, though again we do not invite him to that bare empty oral publick or private confeſſion, or that oral approbation, which his hands, i. e. his actions confute, or that unprofitable hearing, which will onelyonly heap judgement on him; yet on the other ſide are f…r from deterring him from the real publick confeſſion, &c. but by thus dealing with him we ſhew him the neceſſity of it, and ſo by beating him out of his falſe holds, which will do him no good, drive (which is more then inviting) him to the true refuge or Sanctuary, the reall confeſſion, the effectuall approbation, & profitable hearing. To which head I muſt add, that I much wonder why all this while in the number of the conſtitutives of external communion, publick prayer is not mentioned (not ſo much as reductively, as here hearing of the Word is:) This ought to have been added, and then I ſhall add of it, that though that be a duty that men would be invited to, as vehemently as to any, yet 'tis lawfull to exclude any from this benefit in publick, when that excluſion may be a means moſt probable to awake a lethargick ſinner.
By this it appears how groundleſſe the laſt part of the ſixt Sect. 43 Th. is, That excommunication is only excluding from the Sacrament; for 'tis alſo from prayer, and hearing, (viz. in publike) as well as from the Sacrament: when that is thought expedient to reform any. Thus Tertul. mentions excluſion à communicatione orationis, & conventus, & omnis ſancti commercii, Apol. c. 39. from partaking of Prayer and all ſacred commerce: and generally the foreign antiently was from all: (though the manner of receiving in penitents being firſt by admitting them to hearing, and then to partaking in the prayers, which were before thoſe that are joyn'd with the communion; and after, to thoſe prayers alſo, and in time to the Communion it ſelf) it was after thought fit that ſome of the cenſures ſhould not be totall to the excluding from all, but only ſetting them inter audientes, or Catechumenos, which were not yet admitted to the Sacrament, of which only the practiſe which he ſets himſelf againſt ſeems to be an imitation. What follows therefore in the concluſion of that Theſis, that, [quod aliae poenae non pertinent ad ſubſtantiam excommunicationis certum eſt. 'Tis certain that other penalties belong not to the ſubſtance of excommunication] is very falſe, and proceeds from an ignorance, or willingneſſe to deceive, as if the word Excommunication denoted only the keeping from the Sacrament of the Lords Supper (to which end, it now ſeems, it was, that the firſt Theſis was deſigned, and againſt whatſoever it is argumentative 'twill not be againſt us) whereas it denotes the exciſion from all, or any degree of Communion in ſacris, and is a generical word, of which there be different ſpecies according to the ſeveral kinds of holy things (the Word, the Prayers, the Sacraments) from which one may be excommunicate; And that of excluſion from the Sacrament is one degree of excluſion, and the excluſion from either or both of the other alſo is an addition to that, never inflicted upon any but thoſe to whom the Sacrament was denied. So far from truth is that which is added, that thoſe other puniſhments poſſunt non excommunicatis infligi, may be inflicted upon thoſe that are not excommunicate in his ſenſe of excommunicatus, for one excluded from the Sacrament: for no man was denyed prayers and hearing, that was admitted to the Sacrament, (nor is it rationall that one ſhould, for ſure he that is thought worthy of the higheſt dignity and benefit in a Church, muſt be wronged i… he be denied and thought uncapable of the loweſt) though the other part upon this reaſon be confeſt to be true, that theſe puniſhments of excluſion from prayers & hearing, may ſometimes excommunicatis non infligi, be not inflicted upon them that are excommunicate; as he that is thought unworthy the Prieſts office, may yet be allowed to be one of the Nethinim or door-keepers, as in the antient Church, he that was ſuſpended from the ſacerdotal function was yet ſuffer'd to communicate, ut Laicus, as a Laick.
By which the anſwer is clear to the xTh. 7. Malè Pontificii propter hanc excommunicationem (quam ipſi minore appellârunt, ac ſolâ ſacramentorum negatione rectè definierunt) aliam inſuper addiderunt, quam majorem & anathema vocârunt: at que contra apertam Scripturam interdictione templorum, privati, comercii, & actus cujuſvis lici. i definierunt, quoniam Apoſtolus 1 Cor. 14. palàm oſtendit ne que ethnicos, ne que alios quoſlibet, à divini verbi auditione, lectione, gratiarū actionibus, ac precibus Chriſtianorū prohibites fuiſſe.next Theſis as far as Sect. 44 concerns the interdictio templorum, excluſion out of the Church (and for the other two, that of the private commerce, & actus cujuſvis liciti, of doing any lawful act, we interpoſe not) i. e. from all the parts of the publick ſervice, which that it was brought into the Church by the Pontificians, or that it is contra apertam Scripturam, againſt manifeſt Scripture, is certainly ſo very far from truth, that no man that hath read any part of antiquity, can doubt of this practiſe and uſage, before the tyranny of Popery is affirm'd by any to have come into the world; and for the ſecond, what that aperta Scriptura is, I ſhall not divine, but reſolve that if it be that which is named in the end of the Theſis, 1 Cor. 14. there is nothing at all conc…uding from thence. The verſe that ſeems to be referred to (for we are left to divine) is v. 23. or 24. where the ſpeaking in the Church, praying or prophecying, &c. in an unknown tongue, is by St Paul proved to be improper, and not to tend to edification, becauſe propheſying, i. e. explaining of Scripture, praying, ſinging of Pſalmes, &c. being deſigned for the uſe of the beleevers, and no others, are in any reaſon to be in a known tongue, that they may underſtand. and joyn in them, v. 16. the unknown tongues being deſigned, either only as a ſign, v. 22. i. e. a miracle to convert unbeleevers to the faith, when they ſ…e illiterate men all Jews ſpeak all kinds of languages, or as a means of preaching to men of every country in their own language, from whence, ſaith the Apoſtle, 'tis conſequent that if unknown tongues were uſed in a congregation of beleevers, unlearned men that underſtand not thoſe tongues, or unbelievers that have no reverence to the Congregation, & do not at all diſcern any miracle in their ſpeaking with divers tongues, but look only upon the ridiculouſneſſe of the action, as of a gabbling of that which no man underſtands, wil reſolve that this is a direct madneſſe thus to do. Whereas on the other ſide that of Propheſying, interpreting of the doctrine of Chriſt intelligibly, and the other parts of the Church-Service in a known language, will be apt to convince, or inſtruct thoſe unbeleevers or ignorants; This, and no more but this, is the direct rationall importance of thoſe verſes; wherein though there be mention of unbeleevers coming in, yet that being only by way of ſuppoſition [if they come in, &c.] I might juſtly ſay, that that is no plain affirmation of Scripture, that heathens, & alii quilibet, any others that will, are not prohibited the hearing of Gods word, &c. For, 1. 'tis an old rule, that ſuppoſitio non ponit, the ſuppoſing (if they do) doth not ſuppoſe they do, much leſſe that lawfully they may: and 2. that text names only ethnicks and ignorants, and belongs not at all to the alii quivis, any other that will, as that contains the impenitent Chriſtians, which are the only perſons, to which our Excommunication belongs; and of them the Apoſtle is far from affirming or ſuppoſing, that they might not be ſo excluded, and if they ſhould by way of reduction be forced into that verſe, the Apoſtles reaſons would be ſpoiled, for they being ſuppoſeable to underſtand that unknown tongue (as they may do for all their impenitence) at leaſt to know what belongs to the gift of tongues, and to what uſe they were deſigned, would not think them mad preſently that uſed it; which being ſaid, I may further add, that thoſe heathens coming into the Church, or the not prohibiting them to enter, is a very diſtinct thing from the admiſſion of the impenitent Chriſtians, when they are by Church cenſures prohibited, becauſe the Apoſtle himſelf which prohibits Communion with the brother (that is, the Chriſtian) which is a fornicator, doth yet not prohibit it with an heathen or fornicator of this world; and the end of Excommunication being only on deſign of charity, to make the Chriſtian offender by that means aſhamed, and reformable, would be utterly caſt away upon an heathen, who would rather be made obdurate by that means; and indeed 'twere ridiculous to turn out them who are not ſo forward to come in, and are not by St Paul here ſuppoſed ſo, unleſſe tanquam exploratores, to ſee how Chriſtians behave themſelves there, and if they can finde any ſuch madneſſe amongſt them, as he there mentions, would be likely to charge it home upon them; though on the other ſide if they finde ſuch a regular frame, and beauty of all things there, they may poſſibly be convinced, and wrought on by that admirable order, & doctrine, as St Auſtin was by St Ambroſes Sermon, though he came thither on a quite d…ſtant arrant. And ſo ſure all this while this is a feeble text to be relyed on, as the only argument to conclude Apoſtolicall practiſe to be contrary to the excluding of any à Verbi Divini auditione, &c. from prayer, or from hearing the Word in publick, the place being quite extrinſecal to this matter, and ſaying nothing at all to it.
That which hath been ſaid, ſufficiently arms us againſt the Sect. 45 concludency of that which yTh. 8. Ex dictis liquet excommunicationem nihil aliud eſſe, quàm publicam & ſolennem ſacramentorum, p…aeſertim coenae dominicae (quam privatim Apoſtolus communionem (foreign) appellat, ut de principio dictum fuit) interdictionem, praeeunte ſeniorem cognitione: quo peccantes reſipiſcant, rurſuſque ad ſacramentorum perceptionem admittantur.Th. 8. is inferr'd from the premiſes, and therefore there is no need of ſaying more to it; ſave onelyonly this, that in this Theſis there are ſome little miſtakes committed, which I ſhall only name, 1. (that which is to the matter in hand, and on which his concluſion ſtands, or falls, and had been mentioned and is by us anſwered before in the 1. Th.) that (foreign) 1 Cor. 10. ſignifies Communion, whereas, I ſay, it ſignifies indeed (from foreign communico) communicatio, and ſo belongs there (quite to another matter then that, to which it is here applyed) only to the affirming the wine, &c. in the Sacrament to be the communication, or the making us partakers of the bloud of Chriſt, not to our Communion one with another in ſacris, which is the thing from which excommunication cuts us off, as is noted by that definition of it, which Theſ. 1. is by the author produced, that 'tis excluſio à ſocietate & communione fidelium, an excluſion from the ſociety of beleevers. A ſecond miſtake (beſides that which is conſequent to the former, a new definition of it by only Sacramentorum interdictio, Interdiction of, or excluſion from the Sacraments, which ſhould more unlimitedly have been Sacrorum, from holy things) that Sacramentorum is put in the plurall number, which muſt needs be either not like a Divine, or not like a Proteſtant; for if it note Baptiſme as well as the Lords Supper, then 'tis not like a Divine, for no Divine would ſay that Excommunication is an Interdiction of Baptiſme; for till they are once baptized, they are out of the Church, are not capable of Excommunication; and when they are once baptized, though they were not excommunicate, they ſhould be baptized no more. But if by that plurall, he mean any other Sacraments beſides theſe two, that is not like a Proteſtant, for ſuch acknowledge no more. Having mention'd theſe two miſtakes, I ſhall not add a third, that in this interdiction, the perſons to whom this cognizance belongs, are not rightly named, becauſe though it be true, that they are not, yet the men againſt whom he wrote were of that opinion; and I am a little perſwaded, that if it had been an Epiſcopall audience, that ſhould have had this cognizance, he had never written this book, nor been put upon thoſe arts to evacuate the Church-cenſures. One thing only I may have leaſure to commend in that Theſis, that he defines Excommunication by publica & ſolennis interdictio, a publick ſolemne Interdiction, & praeeunte cognitione (I ſuppoſe he means legitimâ) with a legall cognizance preceding it, and ſhall add, that they quite deform the Primitive Inſtitution, who deny the Sacrament to whole Congregations at once without any charge laid to all or any part of them, (ſave only that they are a mixt Congregation, wherein there are ſome evil men, which yet is not legally proved neither) and they alſo who deny it to particular men ſufficiently catechiſed, without any publick cognizance of their crime, or proceſſe of admonition firſt, and ſecond, or that deſign that excluſion to any other end, then ut peccantes reſipiſcant, the reducing ſinners to repentance: and therefore no ſmall petty trifle is a ſufficient matter for this, but contumacious continuing in ſome ſcandalous ſin after admonitions, from which when they return again by a ſincere a…proved repentance, they are to be abſolved.
Sect. 46 zTh. 9. Hìcjam o…itus quaeſtio, u…rum aliquis propter commiſſum peccatum aut vitam impurè actam, ſiquidem uſurpare Sacramenta cum cae…eris Christianis cupiat, ab eorundem uſu & perceptione ſit r…vendus? quaestio de …o p…oponitur, qui candem fidem nobiſcum profitetur, Eccleſiae per baptiſmum inſertus est, at que doctrinà ab ead…m non diſſentit (ut in Th. 5. poſuimus) ſed in ſolâ …itâ & moribus errat. Hoc ergo quaeritur, utrum in S. literis vel mandatum vel exemplū aliquod extet, quo tales jubeantur aut doceantur à Sacramentis ſubmoveri?Th. 9. is the propoſing of the queſtion in the termes, wherein it is to be handled, wherein I ſhal only interpoſe for perſpicuity ſake, that the phraſe [an removendus ſit?] may have a little ambiguity in it, for perhaps it may (though leſſe properly) be ſet to ſignifie this, Whether it be lawfull to remove ſuch an one? (for if it be but ſo, then he that pretends to write againſt excommunication, and to pretend it unlawfull, will be ſufficiently concluded) and then I anſwer, that for any but for the Governor of the Church, to whom the cognizance of his ill life belongs, and who hath had a legal cognizance of it, and proceeded legally by the ſeverall degrees of Eccleſiaſtical proceſſe againſt him, it is not lawfull: but for the Biſhop, or Praefect, or lawfull Governour ſucceeding to that power which Chriſt gave his Apoſtles with the Keyes of the Kingdome of heaven, it is lawfull, and by the commiſſion of [Ego dabo] and afterwards [ego mitto] they are ſufficiently authorized to do this: and upon this iſſue, if this be it, we will joyn moſt willingly. But then ſecondly, the (An ſit removendus) may perhaps (and to that the words more incline) denote a neceſſity of doing it, and then the queſtion will be, whether he muſt be removed? To which I then anſwer, that there lies not any ſuch neceſſity on this, as ariſes from any pollution that will accrue to others that communicate with him, if he be not prohibited, any further then the example of his ſin, and the impunity may extend, and this the Fathers maintained againſt the Nova…ians. Nor thirdly, any neceſſity lying on the Miniſter that adminiſters, for he having admoniſhed (according to our Church Orders in our Liturgy) every ſuch ſinner to go home, and repent, and not to approach to that table, is in charity to believe (being not able to ſearch the heart) that he, that after that ſo comes, is a true penitent. Only if in prudence he think it unlikely, and therefore out of care to a poor mans ſoul, and for the preventing of the ſin of unworthy receiving, he think fit to admoniſh him more privately, or particularly to that end, or to do any thing elſe, which in prudence may contribute to it, this is but his duty to an erring brother, and when that is done, any farther emergent guilt lies upon the receiver, and he is not (in caſe of the mans unworthy receiving) partaker of that ſin.
All the neceſſity then that is in this matter, lies firſt upon the Sect. 47 receiver himſelf, that he be wary, that he come not till he be prepared (and that belongs not to our preſent conſideraton) and upon the Biſhops, or Governours of the Church, that when charity to ſouls requires it of them, they fail not thus to proceed, that when mercy and friendly admonitions prevail not, they then take in ſeverity, the Apoſtles rod in the ſeaſon for a rod, in ſtead of his Spirit of mercy, and meekneſſe, and to that end be watchfull over the flock, that they fall not into ſuch dangers, and infections, by their neglect or mercifulneſſe.
Sect. 48 As for the qualifying of the perſons, of whom this queſtion is ask'd, I ſhall not differ with the Propoſer, but reſolve, as anon we ſhall ſhew, that he that is thus, may (and ought in the ſenſe that I mention) be thus dealt with, and we ſhall joyn iſſue with him for the precept and examples of Scripture commanding and teaching us to do ſo.
Sect. 49 And having now, as I conceive, ſo eaſie a task before me, and ſuch an army of ſeconds on my ſide (the conſent and practiſe of the whole Chriſtian world for 1500 years) againſt one ſingle combetant, walking in a melancholy poſture by himſelf (till after ſo many years, the concurrence of ſome accidentall conceived conveniences have at laſt helpt him to ſome company) And him again not very much uſed to the weapon (I mean Divinity) which he hath undertaken to truſt to, and beſide having an advantage againſt him, which he did not foreſee, we of this Church being not the men againſt whom his reaſons were framed, and ſo not ſo like to be preſt by them, (the arguments deſigned againſt Beza and his Presbyterians being utterly unconcludent againſt us) I muſt confeſſe my ſelf to be under a temptation to make uſe of the preſent advantage, and to proſecute this triall to the uttermoſt; but I muſt in juſtice conſider, what a chaſme and rent it would make in this diſcourſe, what an unweildy bulk it would ſwell it to, and therefore muſt recover ſo much conſtancy of minde, as not to be thus paſſionately hurried out of my reſolution, but leave it, till I have a louder call to it, being ready to give any man an account of what I now ſay in this matter.
Sect. 50 It will be a more moderate excurſion, and more reconcileable with my deſigned brevity, to mention one opinion or pretenſion more in this matter,p. 369. that of another Gentleman, who though he ſtrive not to take Excommunication out of the Church any more then Baptiſme, but moreover acknowledges alſo,p. 363. that it belongs to the future Paſtors as well as to the then preſent Apoſtles; yet having firſt reſolved,p. 357. that Eccleſia & civitas Chriſtianorum are all one, he then concludes that the cognizance, and judgment of any fault, whether it be ſuch or no,p. 367. belongs to the Church in that notion of his, i. e. to the City or Commonwealth, (which with him alſo ſignifies the civil Magiſtrate, or, as he ſaith, judicem ſummum, the ſupreme judge;) and that the power of binding and looſing (as that alſo of baptizing, which ſaith he,p. 369. is all one with it) is no farther in the Paſtor, then that he eject thoſe out of the Church, whom the Church in his notion hath condemned; and receive into it, whom the Church judges worthy of abſolution. I ſhall not labour to multiply differences, but at this time make my exceptions onelyonly to one part of this Scheme, viz. that the Church in his notion, i. e. the judex ſummus, the civil Magiſtrate, hath the power of judging who are to be excommunicated, who abſolved. The proofs that I can collect from him of that aſſertion, are only two; Firſt, that Mat. 18. Chriſt bids,p. 367. in caſe the treſpaſſer hear not the two or three, (i. e. ſaith he, either deny the fact, or confeſſing it deny it to be a treſpaſſe) then dic Eccleſiae, that it ſhould be told the Church; [Quare autem Eccleſiae, niſi ut ipſa judicet an peccatum ſit, necne? Why ſhould the Church be told it, but that that may judge whether that be a ſin or no?] and if he obeyed not, then let him be to thee a Publican, &c. Non dicit, Dic Apoſtolis, It is not, ſaith he, Tell the Apoſtles, to note that the ſentence or judgement, whether it be a ſinne or no, belongs not to them, but to the Church; and conſequently that this power was no more, then to bind thoſe whom the Church had before judged impenitent.p. 368. His ſecond argument is from the practiſe and words of St Paul, who asks the Corinthians [Do you not judge them that are within?] yet himſelf pronounces the fornicator excommunicate. To the former of theſe, I ſhall anſwer only this one thing, that there are other reaſons very prompt, & pertinent, why the matter ſhould be told the Church, though the Church be taken in a notion wherein it is not ſuppoſed to judge of it: as either, 1. the [denſare inculcationibus] in Tertullians phraſe, the fortifying the former ſucceſsleſſe reprehenſions with this addition of authority from the number, that as the two or three might be more likely to work upon the offender, then the injur'd perſon alone, ſo now the foreign or the foreign, the many, or the Church in the looſeſt notion of it, for any aſſembly or meeting of many Chriſtians together, (ſuppoſing that it do not ſignifie the Governors of the Church, as the Antients yet ſay it doth, and is far more probable, and aſſerted on ſtronger grounds, then that it ſhould ſignifie the Civitas or ſummus judex) might probably be more effectuall; or 2. The [pudefacere coram multis] formerly cited out of the Rabbins, the making the offender aſhamed when his fact is thus publiſht, and to do that is by us acknowledged the end of the admonitions, and cenſures; or 3. If there be need, the uſing the multitude as a cloud of witneſſes to convince him of the fact, or ſinfulneſſe of it, which the text refers to before, (that in the mouth of two or three witneſſes every word may be eſtabliſhed) and in all reaſon may be a commodious ſenſe here alſo, this third being but the aſcending to an higher, and more probable convincing courſe, when the former had miſcarried. Either of theſe three, much more altogether, will be a ſufficient ground of Telling it to the Church, and ſo from thence there is no neceſſity to conclude that the judgement is the act of the Church, or Civil Magiſtrate in that place. And indeed it will be hard to ſuppoſe that poſſible at that time, when 'tis clear the Civil Magiſtrate was not Chriſtian, and therefore unfit not only for the title of the Church, but much more to be appealed to as the judge by Chriſtians, who, 'tis certain, are bound by Chriſt to uſe all other means poſſible (and telling it to the Church in our notion is one of thoſe poſſibles) to get ſatisfaction for treſpaſſes, before they proceed to any heathen tribunal, to implead their fellow-Chriſtian there. Nor will it, I conceive, be reaſonable to reply, that Chriſts ſpeech belongs to aftertimes, when the Magiſtrate ſhould be Chriſtian; For then, 1. he muſt acknowledge that till then, it was to be in the Church in our notion, and conſequently that the Eccleſiaſtical Governors were the Judge at that time, and then by his own doctrine (that data eſt poteſtas ligandi, p. 363.&c. futuris paſtoribus eodem modo quo praeſentibus Apoſtolis) it will ſtill belong to the Eccleſiaſtical Superior. And 2. though it may very juſtly be extended to that future ſtate, (as what was ſaid to the Apoſtles was not perſonal, but belonged to their ſucceſſors alſo) yet there will be no probable argument that the Apoſtles then preſent ſhould be themſelves excluded. For, beſides that this muſt lie on him to prove, if he wil aſſert it againſt all antiquity, it will alſo be a little unreaſonable to affirm; for that were for our Saviour to give all the power, and direct all the ſpeech to the Succeſſors, not to the Apoſtles, as a Propheſie only, or a prediction, no Evangelical inſtating on theſe to whom he ſpake. This I ſuppoſe a ſufficient anſwer to this proof, without proceeding to any deeper ſearch or examination of that which in the argument is taken for granted, viz. that the Church ſignifies the Summus judex, which yet is as far from being formerly convincingly inferred, as it is from the ſound of the words, or the notion, wherein all the antient Church have uniformly taken it, (which will, I hope, be conſiderable in this matter) for that Chriſt did not take upon him to be a Judge, or introduce any change in civil Government, as it is by us acknowledged moſt true, ſo will it not belong to this of binding, &c. which is but a ſpiritual, not civil puniſhment, only a denying them that, which Chriſt brought into the world, and gave thoſe Meſſengers of his the ſole power of diſpoſing it, and indow'd them with power from on high, particularly for the exerciſe of it. As for the ſecond argument, 'tis certainly a miſtake, if it be thought to conclude that the Apoſtle did but pronounce the judgement of the Church in that matter of the inceſtuous, or that the judgement of the civil ſtate was preparative to his. For ſure the Apoſtle had, (before the uſing of thoſe words of [Do not you judge them that are within? 1 Cor. 5.12.] in the end of that Chapt.) paſt his ſentence definitive on that inceſtuous in the beginning of it, ver. 3. For I have already (not ego autem, but foreign as abſent in body, but preſent in ſpirit, judg'd him that hath thus done this thing foreign, I have judg'd this evil doer: Judg'd, I ſay, and what is the ſentence? Why, In the Name of our Lord Jeſus Chriſt, you and my ſpirit being met together (the Apoſtle and his Presbytery, or he in the face of the Church) with the power of our Lord Jeſus Chriſt, to deliver ſuch an one to Satan, &c. And this at a time when 'tis clear, the Church had not paſs'd ſentence on him, for v. 2. They were puft up, as he complains, and through an opinion of their own deeper wiſdome (a leaven, v. 6. i. e. a doctrine either of the heathen philoſophers, or of the Gnoſticks among them) took it for an indifferent thing, and did not mourn for him that had done it, The ceremony uſed by the Church, when any was to be excommunicate, and notes that they ſhould have ſo joyn'd together in mourning, in complaining to the Apoſtle, and prayer to Chriſt, that this cenſure might paſſe on ſuch an one, but that they did not do it, nay, it ſeems proceeded not ſo far as to fraternal correption which was infallibly their duty toward him. As for the words cited, [Nonne vos judicatis?] they come in no another incidental occaſion (not directly to this firſt matter) to make the diſtinction betwixt the dealing with the Chriſtian and heathen fornicators; the Apoſtle reſtraining his preſcription of not converſing with fornicators, v. 9. to the Chriſtian fornicator, whom, ſaith he being within the Church, 'tis reaſonable to conclude within the Churches cenſures, foreign ▪ Do you not judge them that are within? not you emphatically or in oppoſition to the Apoſtle, but you foreign as a general title of Chriſtians, who uſe not to judge any but Chriſtians, all other being left to Gods judgement, the Church having nothing to do with them. It is clear enough, that the context looketh wholly that w…y, and conſequently there will be little reaſon to extend theſe words any farther then this, that the Church judgeth, Chriſtian not heathens; and the Church in the notion only wherein 'tis oppoſed to God, not in which 'tis oppoſed to St Paul, but in which in any reaſon it includes the Apoſtle or Governor of it; For ſure he may judge them that are foreign, within the Church, (for ſo he doth, v. 3. and no part of the context of that Ch. ſeems to ſay any thing to the contrary) though them that are without he cannot; which is the only thing the Apoſtle had in hand to ſay at that time.
Having briefly anſwered the reaſons, I ſhall by way of compounding the Controverſie with this Gentleman, moſt willingly acknowledge, that ſomewhat the Church in his notion, or more clearly the ſupreme Magiſtrate, being ſuppoſed Chriſtian, may have to do in this buſineſſe of Cenſures, praecedaneous to the judgement of the Apoſtle, or before the Paſtor or Eccleſiaſtical Governor proceed to them, As 1. in the chooſing or nominating him to that office; 2. In the ſetting of rules, or laws by which he ought to proceed in hearing or judging: No queſtion, this may and in Chriſtian Common-wealths very reaſonably ought to belong to the Civil Magiſtrate; and truly this diſcouſe doth not pretend to, or deſire any unlimited, or arbitrary power in the Biſhop, but only that, the rules being prudently ſet by thoſe to whom the power of making laws belongs in every Common-wealth, he ſhould have the cognizance in ſuch cauſes, as regularly belong to his audience, and according to that rule, & not otherwiſe, give ſentence on the offender▪ and that only thus far, that he ſhall be turn'd out of Chriſtian ſociety, or received into it again: (which, beſide that this is, and hath alwayes been taken for an inſtitution of Chriſts, which 'tis reaſonable we ſhould obey, and not diſpute, is alſo in it ſelf ſimply conſidered, far from any degree of unreaſonable, no man in ordinary reaſon being more fit to judge who is fit to enjoy the privileges of the Church, who likely to be reformed by being deprived of them, then he that hath ſtudied that great skill of winning ſouls, and is intruſted by Chriſt with the charge of them.) Again 3. it will be granted that the Church in the ordinary notion, as it ſignifies the whole diffuſive Chriſtian Society in any place, may ſo far be intereſſed in this matter, as that theſe only ſhall be liable to theſe Cenſures, who have offended others by their notorious ſins, and are by the Proxyes, as it were of thoſe others, I mean, by their choſen officers, or by the publick fame, the voyce again and interpreter of their ſenſe, delated, or complain'd of to the Governours of the Church, as thoſe that have wrong'd the Church, and defamed that Chriſtian Profeſſion, to which they had given up their names; and this is a kind of judging (in large or looſe ſpeaking, as to be infamous offenders ſignifies to be conceiv'd and judg'd ſuch by the community among whom they live, for otherwiſe they are not infamous) but yet in ſtrict propriety, is only a preparative to the ſentence of the Judge, and an accuſing or impleading rather, and is not, I ſuppoſe, the thing for which this Author doth pretend, or if it were, would not to us be matter of contention with him.
The truth is, the power of binding, &c. which we contend for, as the office more then privilege of Biſhops, (in the careful exerciſe of which they miniſter moſt charitably to the good of the ſouls intruſted to them) is another manner of thing, then what this Gentleman ſeems to have conceived it (both here, and eſpecially when of it he concludes, Ʋnuſquiſque ſi mentis compos ſit obediat in omnibus ſimpliciter ei, p. 407.cujus arbitrio credit ſe ſalvandum aut damnandum eſſe.) God knows they pretend to no ſuch arbitrium in the ſaving or damning of any man; It is only an engine of Chriſts invention to make a battery and an impreſſion on the obdurate ſinner to win him to himſelf to aAct. 3.26.bleſſe, not to triumph over him, (which very thing he hath in one place excellently expreſt, bFinis hujuſmodi diſciplinae erat ut deſtituti ad tempus gratiá & privilegiis Eccleſiae ſpiritualibus, humiliarentur ad ſalutem. p. 407.The end of this diſcipline, ſaith he, is by depriving men for a time of the favour and ſpiritual privileges of the Church, to humble them to ſalvation,) much leſſe to invade any part of civil Judicature, or looſen the bands thereof by theſe ſpiritual pretences, but to leave the Government of the world juſt in the poſture that it was before Chriſts coming, or as it would be ſuppoſed to be, if he had never left any Keyes in his Church. And therefore, when in an Annotation affixt to his laſt Edition he was pleaſed to extend his obſervation of the cDoctrinae quaedam quibus imbuti cives obedientiam civitati negari, & contra Principes ſummos, ſummaſque poteſtates pugnare, idque jure poſſe, imo oporte…e arbitrantur. p. 101.Doctrines that might diſturb Government, not only to that power which many attribute to the Pope of Rome in other mens dominions, and to the liberty uſurpt by the cives infimi, under pretence of Religion, but alſo to that which alicubi extra Eccleſiam Romanam Epiſcopi in civitate ſuâ ſibi poſtulant, I muſt hope that it was a miſtake, or which I rather think (being perſwaded of the uprightneſs of his affections to our eſtabliſht Government) that his [alicubi] did not in any wiſe refer (as I was apt to fear it did) to the conſtitution of Epiſcopacy in this native Kingdome of his and mine. For that this, ſince it departed from the Roman Church, hath been perfectly free from any degree of that guilt, is that of which we are ſo far perſwaded, that we neither fear, nor deprecate any Hiſtorians inſtance, nor can imagine what one particle of the doctrine, or conſtitution of our Church there is, on which a rational man can by any conſequence build ſuch a dNam quod bellum civ…le in O…be Chriſtiano unquam extuit, quod ab … ortum atque alitum non fuerit? p. 102.charge; Of which nothing can make Ʋs capable, but leaving the [non] out of it; and that makes me a little confident, that either [Epiſcopi] in that place ſignifies not in the known vulgar Chriſtian ſenſe, or that the [alicubi] lookt not on this Kingdome or Church of ours (as it hath long ſtood eſtabliſht by Law) which moſt cheerfully acknowledges the truth of his many other obſervations, (particularly that of Obedience due to the Moſes's,p. 190. not Aarons chair, of Abi…thar the High-prieſt being no way exempt from the command of Solomon, p. 192. p. 371 372.of his three axioms alſo concerning Excommunication, that neither the Common-wealth, nor the ſupreme Magiſtrate, nor all the perſons in any Common-wealth can be excommunicate) and reſolves that no man ſhall ever deprive her of this glorying, that ſhe is pure from the bloud of all men, hath entertain'd no one principle, or doctrine in any degree incompetible with the civil power, or peace in the utmoſt extent, in which the moſt loyal author ha…h deſign'd to eſtabliſh it. And if it muſt be Arminianiſm (as one hath lately confuted it under that title) to teach eErrant primò Arminian. qui Magiſtratus Politico Eccleſiaſticum regimen ſubjectum eſſe docebant.that the Eccleſiaſtical power is ſubjected to the Civil Magiſtrate, who in all cauſes over all perſons is acknowledged by us ſupreme under Chriſt, we muſt be content to lye down under that envie, and not excuſe or renounce that piece of Loyal Arminianiſm.
I have thus far proceeded in this matter for the removing of Sect. 51 prejudices, and vindicating our propoſition from three ſorts of objecters: 'tis now time to advance a little toward the poſitive aſſertive part, and to that end (the knowledge of looſing depending wholly from the conſideration of binding) I ſhall in the firſt place examine what images of binding we have in the Scripture, and thoſe we ſhall refer to two heads: firſt, thoſe that belong to the power, and practiſe Apoſtolical, (in the time and perſons of the Apoſtles;) ſecondly, thoſe that after the Apoſtles perſons, (and ever ſince) were to continue in the Church, which we ſhall call Eccleſiaſtical Diſcipline (as diſtant from Apoſtolical) exerciſed (the one, as the other) upon offenders either publick and ſcandalous, or whoſe crimes otherwiſe came unto their cognizance, and conſiſting either in ſeparating and removing to ſome diſtance, or in caſting them totally out of the Church, or Congregation of viſible Profeſſors here on earth; anſwerable unto which, [looſing] muſt conſequently be a delivering from thoſe cenſures, the abſolving of him, who was formerly ſeparated, or excommunicated, reſtoring him to the viſible Church; or any part thereof (to the privileges of a Chriſtian, and the comforts of the Word, and Services, and Sacraments) who was before legally caſt ou… of it, and deprived of them.
For the underſtanding of which, and ſpecially of the former, the Apoſtolical power and practiſe (or as it was diſcernable among the Apoſtles) it will not be amiſſe to do theſe three things: 1. To give you a view of the ſeveral ſorts of Excommunication among the Jews, to which ſome phraſes in the New Teſtament refer: (becauſe I ſee there is ſome controverſie raiſed concerning them.) 2. To mention ſome of thoſe places in the New Teſtament, which ſeem to refer to theſe; And then 3. to obſerve the phraſes in the New Teſtament, which are more purely Chriſtian, i. e. which more diſtinctly and peculiarly reſpect the uſe of theſe Cenſures among Chriſtians.
Sect. 52 For the firſt, I am ſure, 'twill be no news to ſay that there were three degrees of Excommunication among the Jews; the firſt called foreign remotion or ſeparation; the ſecond, foreign Execration, a more ſolemn Excommunication (with curſes out of Moſes Law and execrations added to it, a foreign of which we have Act. 8.20.) inflicted on him who after the foreign firſt for 30 dayes, and then being allowed 30 dayes more (which is doubling of the foreign) ſtill continued in that contumacy, for then, ſay the Jews foreign, they anathematize him without defining any limited …ime, as before in Niddui they did. The third is foreign a kind of Proſcription and delivering to deſolation and deſtruction; or to the coming of the Lord in judgement againſt him, noted by foreign (added to the anathema) foreign in the Oriental tongues ſignifying Dominus; whence in Etruria the Kings are called Murani, ſaith Servius in Aen. 12. and the Syrians now Maranitae, becauſe they call Chriſt foreign our Lord Agreeable to which it is, that in Epiphanius, GOD is by the Gazari call'd Marnas, and by the Cretians their virgins foreign, i. e foreign Ladies, as among the Spaniards the form hath been uſed, Sit anathema Marano, & excommunicatus, or foreign Let him be excommunicate from the hope of the Lord: (and though he that loves not the Lord Jeſus Chriſt be not 1 Cor. 16.22. appointed to be excommunicated by that phraſe, yet doth it referre to the uſe of the phraſe among the Jews, though there it be by way of accommodation ſet to ſignifie another matter, that higher more direful ſentence of (Go you curſed, &c.) Of theſe three ſpecies thus ſet down foreign, I ſhould not add much more, but that again I ſee two things reſolved on by a fore-mentioned learned Author, contrary to what hath been generally received in this matter, and the latter of them apt, if believed, to diveſt the Church of all kinde of diſcipline, even of ſuch as was inſtituted on no other deſign but to bring ſinners to heaven, and which we deſire ſhould be uſed onelyonly to that end. They are theſe, 1. That there are but two ſpecies of Excommunication among the Jews, Niddui and Cherem, and that Schammatha is all one with Niddui. 2. That theſe puniſhments among the Jews belonged not to excluſion from ſacred, but only from civil ſociety.
For the firſt of theſe, that which I find produced to diſprove Sect. 53 thoſe three ſpecies, is, 1. The promiſcuous uſe of Niddui and Schammatha among the Talmudical writings. Secondly, the derivation of Schammatha from foreign which among them ſignifies no more then to ſeparate and to abdicate: and thirdly, that Elias Levita, and David de Pomis, which are for theſe three ſpecies, were not Lawyers, but Grammarians, and ſo did oſcitanter negligently and drowſily make three ſpecies of Excommunication, when they ſhould have made but two. To all which I anſwer, that thoſe learned men which maintain the three ſpecies may very well do it for ought theſe objections enforce to the contrary. For it will not be neceſſary for us to affirm that the Talmudiſts ſhould uſe theſe ſeveral words conſtantly according to their diſtinct, proper, peculiar, critical importance; there is nothing more ordinary then for words that are uſed in foro to loſe their native proper ſignifications, and to be uſed foreign, for ſomewhat elſe of affinity, and near ſignification with them; and therefore it will be worth obſerving, that as Schammatha in the Talmud is ſometimes taken only for ſeparation (which is the reaſon that they which are againſt the three ſpecies make Schammatha to be all one with Niddui, and to ſet down Niddui and Cherem for the two:) So in other places Niddui is ſet to denote Schammatha as a higher degree then Cherem, p. 2467.as will appear (to any that cannot otherwiſe paſſe judgement on it) by the places which Buxtorf hath produced in his Rabbinical Lexicon, which ſhew clearly that Schammatha is a heavier degree of Excommunication, and yet that Niddui is by them put for Schammatha, which indeed will be a proof that Niddui and Schammatha are uſed promiſcuouſly, & ſine diſcrimine among thoſe writers, but not at all, that there are but two degrees or ſpecies, Niddui and Cherem, but clearly the contrary, that Cherem is a middle ſpecies, beyond which there is Schamatha, (which they ſometimes improperly cal Niddui) as wel as below it Niddui, which they ſometimes call Schammatha; and therefore Jo. Coch which is cited to prove that Niddui & Schammatha are all one, ſaith withall, that foreign and foreign, non tantum de leviori, ſed & de graviori indifferenter uſurpantur, ex…. Gem. San. p. 146. both uſed for the greater, as well as both for the lighter Excommunication. To which I ſhall add, that the Hebr. writers are ſo far from ſpeaking conſtantly, and exactly, & critically in this matter, that they ſometimes put Cherem, or anathema loweſt, and ad Schammatha to that, and then ſet Niddui as the laſt of the three, as in Jelammedenu ſect. foreign ſpeaking of the Samaritans ▪ the ſpecies of Excommunication are thus enumerated, foreign and they anathematized, and ſchammatized and excommunicated him, by which it will appear, how promiſcuouſly thoſe words have been uſed among Hebr. writers, (to which purpoſe may be again remembred, what was even now produced of the phraſe in Spain, Sit anathema marano, & excommunicatus, excommunicatus after the higheſt anathema) but it will not be a proof of any validity, againſt the three ſpecies of Excommunication, or the order or difference of them, when they do ſpeak exactly.
Sect. 54 For the ſecond proof taken from the derivation of Schammatha from foreign, which, ſaith he, ſignifies no more then to ſeparate or abdicate, I deſire this may be noted, that there is no ſuch ancient Hebrew word as foreign but only of later uſe among the Rabbins, and Talmudiſts, which to me is an argument convincing that that verb may come from Schammatha, and not Schammatha from the verb; and therefore Buxtorf, when he meets with it, renders it Schammatizare, as a verbal from that noun, not willing to affix any other Interpretation to it, but this, that ſo he might leave it to ſignifie in the ſame latitude (as a verb) that belongs to ſchammatha, as a ſubſtan…ive, i. e ſomtimes to be taken properly and ſtrictly to denote the third ſpecies, ſometimes improperly, to be all one with Niddui, or the firſt ſpecies.
Sect. 55 For the confirming of what I now ſay, I ſhal premiſe what ſuppoſe will be eaſily granted me, that every compound or derivative Hebrew word, is to be reduced to ſome original Hebrew root or roots, from which it is derived, or of which compounded conſequently that the ſame muſt be reſolved of foreign which that it is not a derivative from foreign I conceive is ſufficiently evinc'd, becauſe foreign is no primitive Hebrew word to be found in the Bible, or other authentick Hebrew writing (which he that will not truſt his own obſervation, but ſurvey Schindler and Buxtorf, will acknowledge with me) but only among the Rabbins and Talmudiſts, and may rather be thought to come from foreign then Schammatha from that; this is not my conjecture, but the direct words of the learned Buxtorf, in his inſtitution of Hebrew Epiſtles p. 58. in theſe words, Talmudiei ex nomine foreign verbum faciunt foreign proſ…ribere, proſcriptionis poenam in aliquem fer…e the Talmudiſts from the noun Schammatha make the verb Schammeth, to proſcribe, &c. and though Buxtorf in his Rabbinical Lexicon place the verb before the noun, yet is that no argument of diſagreement between theſe two writings, but is only cauſed by a care of obſerving his wonted litteral method of ſetting the verb of the three letters before the noun of one letter more.
If it be demanded of me from whence then the noun comes, Sect. 56 (ſeeing I make the verb come from that) I anſwer that learned Jews have given it ſeveral originations, ſome bringing it from foreign Dominus venit, the Lord comes, making it all one with foreign, 1 Cor. 16.22. (but the dageſh in foreign makes me that I cannot conſent to that Etymology) others from foreign ibi mors, there is death; others from foreign deſolatio erit, there ſhall be deſolation. Of theſe two latter I know not which to chooſe, 1. having little objection aginſt either of them, and 2. finding them both avowed in the Gemara Moed Katon, in theſe words, what is Schammatha? Rab anſwered foreign there is death, and Samuel ſaid, foreign there ſhall be deſolation, &c. and 3. finding the ſenſe of both thoſe originations to come to the ſame purpoſe of death, or deſolation, or deſtruction, noting that kinde of offender to be by that cenſure given up to divine vengeance, which is generally the notion of that 3 degree of Excommunication, which makes it to be taken for the ſame with Ma…anatha in the Apoſtle, that God comes as a judge or avenger to ſuch an one. For let me add to this matter this one thing, that this third degree of cenſure among the Jews at Chriſts time, was proper to him, that under Moſes Law had deſerved death, but by reaſon that the power of capital puniſhments was taken from the Jews, could not by them be ſo puniſhed, and therefore was by this way thus delivered up to Gods hands, to inflict vengeance upon him, which they ſay did very frequently befall them in a remarkable manner; and S. Auſtins obſervation is to this purpoſe, quaeſt. ſuper Deu. l. 5. c. 38. Hoc nunc agit in Eccleſiâ excommunicatio, quod agebat tunc interfectio. Excommunication doth the ſame among Chriſtians, that killing did among the Jews. As for the third proof of the objection, taken from the leſſening of the authority of Elias Levita, and David de Pomis, it will be ſufficient to ſay, 1. That to make that argumentative, it ought to have been (but is not) proved, that others which have call'd the three ſpecies in queſtion, are of greater authority then theſe. 2. That Grammarians (if they be ſuch indeed, as thoſe have been allowed that reputation) are fforeign. Moſc.Criticks alſo, and ſo as fit to be hearkned unto in ſuch a matter of ancient cuſtome among the Jews, as if they had been Lawyers, they would have been; more, I am ſure, then any other Lawyers, which had not been ſo good Grammarians; and yet that any Jewiſh Lawyer hath avowed the contrary opinion, is not, that I know of, as yet pretended: And 3. For the negligence or oſcitance of theſe Grammarians, that hath not with any proof or confirmation been laid to their charge, and if it were, 'tis as poſſible that Jewiſh Lawyers might have been guilty of it as they, nay it were more reaſonable to accuſe them of oſcitancy, that make but two, and them of double diligence that have diſcerned one ſpecies more then they. To this Topick ab authoritate I ſhall add only, that Aloyſius (whom the Reader is by this Gentleman adviſed to turn to Sched. ſacro prof. l. 7. c. 10.) doth affirm in theſe direct words, Sunt apud Hebraeos plures excommunicationis gradus, Niddui, Cherem, Schamatha; there are ſeveral degrees of excommmunication among the Hebrews, thoſe three by name, though he inlarge not to explain the third, as he doth theſe two former: and ſo much for the firſt particular.
Now for the ſecond thing, that theſe ſpecies of excommunication Sect. 57 among the Jews were only to exclude from civil ſociety, and had nothing to do with ſacred, I ſhal venture it to the judgment of intelligent indifferent men, who ſhall but examine what they meet with on this ſubject, if it be but at ſecond hand in gInſtit. ep. he…. p. 55.Buxtorf, &c. out of the Hebrew writers. It is his obſervation of Niddui the loweſt ſpecies, that it is remotio ab aliorum congreſſu quàm ſacro, quàm politico, & domeſtico, ad 4 paſſus; ſeparation not onelyonly from civil commerce, but from ſacred alſo. Now that which I conceive hath cauſed this miſtake in this firſt kind (& from thence perhaps without any new cauſe extended it to the reſt) is that ſuch an one that was ſeparated by Niddui, was allowed to come to the ſacred meetings, to be preſent at Common-prayers, to teach others▪ and to be taught with others, as the ſame author affirms; but then this concludeth not againſt us, for the ſame Buxtorf ſtill adds, ſed ſemper ſub dictâ lege remotionis, alwayes under the forementioned law of remotion, and diſtance. And ſo theſe two foreign, it ſeems are reconcileable thus: Niddui is not a totall remotion or ſeparation neither from ſacred, nor from civil ſociety, (being you know but the firſt degree or ſpecies) but onelyonly ad 4 paſſus, that none can come within the diſtance of foure paces of him that is under the cenſure; and this degree of ſeparation being extended to ſacred as well as civil aſſemblies, yet excluded him not either from praying with the Congregation, or learning, or (if he were a Doctor) teaching in it; onelyonly a mark was ſet upon him, to diſcriminate him from others, which were under no cenſure; this is deſcribed in R. Eliezer, c. 17. King Solomon, ſaith he, when he built the houſe of the Sanctuary, made two gates, one for bridegrooms, another for mourners and excommunicate perſons, by which they went into the Temple.
And to theſe two gates and ſorts of men the Apoſtle may ſeem Sect. 58 to allude Rom. 12.15. & 1 Cor. 7.30. when he ſpeaks of weeping with them that weep, & rejoycing with them that rejoyce; and no queſtion the foreign which we render bewayling, 1 Cor. 5.2. refers to that ſtile of mourners, and denotes the ſolemnity uſual among the Jews of putting on mourning habit, and wailing over them that were excommunicate, according to that of the author of the Conſtitutions under Clements name, foreign, l. 2. Let the incurable be put out of the Church with ſorrow and wailing. Theſe mourners, or excommunicate in that Rabbi were thoſe under Niddui, who it ſeems were admitted to the temple, but appointed to come in at a doore peculiar to them, and with ſome ſuch mark of diſcrimination, that they that ſaw them might pray for them in this form, Qui inhabitat domum hanc, conſoletur te, indátque animo tuo ut obtemperes, &c. He that dwels in this houſe, comfort thee, and give thee a heart to obey; by which I am forced to confeſſe, that Niddui did not ſeparate from all ſociety in ſacris, but only remove to ſuch a diſtance; and yet the Reader will be forced to confeſſe alſo, that this ſeparation or rather remotion belonged ad ſacra, as well as ad politica, and in the ſame degree that it reſtrain'd the one kind of ſociety, it reſtrain'd the other alſo; and ſo ſaith Jo. Mich. Dilherr. Elector. l. 2. c. 10. having premiſed that Niddui eſt hominis ab aliorum conventu tam ſacro, quam politico, & domeſtico, ad 4 uſque cubitus ſive paſſus per dies 30 remotio, &c. A remotion from ſacred, civil, domeſtick commerce, to the diſtance of foure paces for 30 dayes, a deprivation of the marriage bed, of ſhaving, and waſhing, and ſuch other commodities, he adds that foreign he that is under this cenſure, may be preſent at ſacred meetings, but ſo many paces off from the reſt of the company.
Sect. 59 And therefore whereas this author affirmeth that by Niddui is not meant an ejection out of the Church, but only a deprivation of that liberty of civil ſociety within four paces, & applies to it that ſenſe, wherein the Poet cals the Britains, toto diviſos orbe, divided from the whol world, not that they are totally divided from the reſt of the world, but to denote a peculiar ſituation of thoſe Iſlands in the Ocean, I ſhal acknowledge the obſervation ſo far as it denies a totall ſeparation, but not as it intimates a greater ſeparation in civilibus, then in ſacris, as the words [peculiari illâ civilis inter ſuos conſortii libertatis deprivation?] would ſeem to import, and as the intention of the writer is by himſelf demonſtrated to be. The matter is ſufficiently clear that Niddui is but a lighter cenſure, remotion or reſtraint for ſuch a degree, but not a total ſeparation either from ſacred, or civil ſociety, yet ſtil as much from ſacred as from civil, in both limitedly 30 dayes, and for the diſtance of four Cubits.
Sect. 60 But then for Cherem the ſecond degree, that is defin'd by hLexicon Rab. p. 827.Buxtorf, excluſion from the ſacred aſſemblies, caſting out of the Synagogue with all the curſes of Deut. 28. (to which, ſay iDilherr. elect· l. 2.others, was added the Ceremony of putting out the Candles, to ſignifie him deprived of the light of heaven) and he hath proof for it out of Maimonides in Madda, c. 7. Muchram non docet néque diſcit cum aliis. He that is under the ſecond cenſure, is excluded from hearing the law in publick; And, as kEp. Hebr. inſtit. p. 56.Buxtorf elſwhere adds, ò Synagogâ, conventibus, negotiis, publicis, ſacris, & politicis omnibus excluſus, donec reſipiſcat; which may further appear by the form of this anathema, which he brings out of an antient Hebr. manuſcript. Sit in anathemate ſanctorum excelſorum, in anathemate, Seraphim, & Ophunnim, in anathemate totius Eccleſiae, &c. Now from this, the third ſpecies differs onelyonly in this, that as that was a total ſeparation, donec reſipiſcat, til he repent, but reverſible upon repentance, total for the preſent, but not irremiſſible, ſo this was both total and final too, & ſo undoubtedly (not remitting of the ſeverity of the ſecond but adding to it) extended to the ſeparation in ſacris alſo; and therefore whatſoever may be ſaid of Schammatha in the wide Rabbinical acception of it, as it goes indifferently for Niddui, there wil be little doubt, but the Schammatha peculiarly ſo called, or that which is call'd foreign & foreign, the Schammatha of the Lord, or of the God of Iſrael, is, as the learned define it, Ea quâ quis totaliter & finaliter ab Eccleſiâ (as that notes coetum ſacrum, as well as civilem) ſegregatus, divino judicio ſit devotus, & cum eâ mors & exitium; ſo Dilherr. l. 2. of Maranatha (which he ſuppoſes to be al one with it) Eſt proſcriptio extrema, & abſque ſpe veniae irrogata, quâ reus omnibus humanae ſocietatis juribus, legibus, & officiis excluſus, judicio divino committitur, & ad extremam deſolationem condemnatur. A perfect proſcription, without hope of pardon, by which the offender is excluded from all privileges, and offices of humane ſociety, and committed to the judgement of God, and condemned to extream deſolation. I ſhal abſtain from adding more to the proof of this truth in the ſeveral ſpecies, conceiving that I have ſufficiently proved or vindicated in the loweſt, & ſhewed the foreign, the cauſe or the occaſion of their miſtake, who deny it; and then there will be little need to confirm it any further in the other two degrees, which do adde to that loweſt, but cannot be thought to come ſhort of it.
And having thus clear'd the firſt thing which we propoſed, Sect. 61 view'd the ſeveral ſorts of Excommunication among the Jews, I proceed now to the ſecond, to thoſe places of the New Teſtament which ſeem to refer to them: In which matter I ſhall not be confident or dogmatical, but deliver my thoughts as for the preſent it ſeems to me, & ſhew you the grounds of my ſo ſeeming. And 1. that place Luk. 6.22. doth appear to belong to Excommunication among the Jews, but whether to one only or more ſpecies of it, I am uncertain; foreign ſurely belongs to the firſt kind, that of Niddui, which cannot be more literally rendred in Greek then by foreign, ſeparation, or remotion, 4 paces off, and perhaps that with foreign added to it, ſignifies to do it contumeliouſly; But yet becauſe 'tis poſſible, that foreign may have a greater force in it, and be a notation of curſing and execration, not only in this but in other places of the Goſpel, therefore I conceive that word (ſet immediately after foreign) may denote the ſecond degree, that of Cherem, & then to the ſame wil belong that third phraſe alſo of foreign to caſt out your name as evil, for an Hebraiſm there is in theſe words, which though a very learned man conceive to conſiſt in this; 1. that foreign ſhall be all one with foreign (as indeed ſometimes it is) 2. that as foreign is to bring up an evil report, foreign ſhal ſignifie the ſame thing; yet I ſhal take leave to interpoſe, 1. that the phraſe uſed for bringing up an evil report, Num. 14.36. is, foreign not foreign, but foreign, nor foreign, but foreign, and in brief, that I canot find any where foreign or foreign in the tranſlators of the old, or writers of the new Teſtament, for bringing up an evil report. 2. That foreign, to caſt out your name as evil; 1. [foreign yours] then [foreign as] added, wil be ſomewhat another kind of phraſe then foreign or foreign as [to bring up an evil name or report] is in our language a very intelligible phraſe for defaming, but [to bring up your name or report as evil] is not ſo; and therefore I ſhall venture to propoſe my conjecture, that the Hebraiſm is not in the word [foreign] but in the [foreign] & [foreign:] ſo that 1. foreign ſhall ſignifie no more then your perſons, or you (as Mat. 1.23. [foreign] is no more then he (as foreign, Act. 1.15. ſignifies perſons of men) ſhall be (not he ſhall be named by that name) a God with us, or God incarnate) and then foreign ſhall ſignifie [as ſcandalous] or offenſive, or abominable, as foreign is by the 72. ſometimes rendred foreign being aſhamed (whence perhaps our Engliſh baſhful and abaſh) ſometimes foreign, to abominate, ſometimes foreign to be evil or wicked, Gen. 34.24. Eſd. 4.12. and ſo [to caſt out your names as evil] will clearly ſignifie to caſt you out as wicked, ſhameful, abominable perſons, a denotation of the foreign which was not onelyonly ſeparating or removing to a diſtance, but total caſting out, and that with reproaches, curſes, and execrations, ſuch as in Moſes are denounced againſt greater malefactors; whether theſe circumſtances of this text do thus denote, I am not confident, and therefore have onelyonly propoſed a conjecture, but that the foreign, and foreign do referre to the Niddui and Cherem I doubt not, nor if you marke it, doth H. Grotius who hath enlarged on that ſubject of Excommunication, in his Annotations on that verſe.
No more do I find my ſelf moved by the arguments of that Sect. 62 learned Gentleman to doubt, but that foreign to be turned out of the Synagogue, Joh. 9.22.12.42.16.2. refers to the ſecond of theſe ſpecies among the Jewes, for that foreign and foreign do ſometime ſignifie a civil Congregation or aſſembly, and not alwayes a ſacred (as when the hypocrite is ſaid to pray ſtanding, foreign in places of publike concourſe and corners of the ſtreets, as the moſt viſible places, Matth. 6.) I ſhall eaſily grant, & yet not think my ſelf thereby concluded, or obliged to yeeld, but that it may alſo, at other times, note the holy aſſembly, or meeting for the performance of ſacred duties, out of which it was ſure no news for the Jews (after that capital judgements were taken away from them) to eject notorious malefactors, particularly hereticks, falſe prophets, or their ſectators, and diſciples, as theſe here for preaching of Chriſt, whom the Jews acknowledged not; in like manner as in the time of the Captivity, Eſd. 10.8. the order is given, that whoſo…ver appears not upon ſummons foreign, all his eſtate ſhall be (forfeited we render, the word is foreign noting the Cherem which we now ſpeak of) devoted, anathematized, as an evidence of that kinde of Excommunication which followes in the next words, foreign, he ſhall be ſeparated from the Church or Congregation of the captivity, not only from Civil, but Eccleſiaſtical ſociety with them, for ſo Cherem was formerly demonſtrated to ſignifie; nay, it may with ſome reaſon be conceived in that place from Eccleſiaſtical only, in caſe of Cherem or total ejection; for 'tis more probable, that the King under whom they were captive, allowing them ſome liberty for the exerciſe of their religion, but in civil matters keeping them as captives and ſervants, ſhould permit them to puniſh one another by that way of caſting out of their Eccleſiaſtical Aſſemblies, then by that other of civil interdict, eſpecially if it be conceiv'd to extend to baniſhment, &c. which would intrench upon his Prerogative, and be a kind of turning the captive out of his captivity.
Sect. 63 That foreign belongs to this ſecond ſpecies, and ſo to caſting out of the ſociety in ſacris, is the diſtinct affirmation of the learned lInſtit. Ep. He. p. 56.Buxtorf in theſe words, Haec eſt illa excommunicatio (ſpeaking of Cherem) de qua in Evangelio Iohannis, cap. 9.22.12.42. etſi ab eo tempore Rabbini quaedam ipſi adjecerint: and the intimation of mExc. Gem. Sanhedr. c. 1. p. 149.John Coch alſo in theſe words, Qui ſimpliciter excommunicatus eſt, foreign eſt ille quidem ſeparatus à coetu, ita ut pro vero membro Eccleſiae non habeatur, non tamen videtur eſſe foreign quia doctrinae particeps eſt. From which words of that very learned man, I obſerve theſe two things contrary to what I ſee lately affirm'd. 1. That foreign doth not belong to Niddui, but to Cherem. 2. That it is an ejection not only ab Eccleſiâ, Synagogâ, as that notes rempublicam Judaicam, but from ſacred Aſſemblies, noted by doctrinae particeps, according to that rule in Maimonides. Devotus nec docet nee docetur, ſuch an one is excluded from both, it ſeems, and ſo from thoſe holy Aſſemblies, where that was wont to be done.
Sect. 64 To this phraſe of [foreign] is ſubjoyned Jo. 16.2. foreign, &c. but (or yea) the hour cometh that every man that killeth you ſhall ſeem, or be thought to do God ſervice, or to offer a ſacrifice to him; whereon I ſhall interpoſe a conjecture, that thoſe words may poſſibly denote the third degree, that of Schammatha, at leaſt a conſequent of it, for ſo ſaith nEp. Heb. inſti. p. 58.Buxtorf of that ſpecies, Mortem dicit, quia cujuſvis manibus ejus vita expoſita eſt, & euilibet eum interficiendi libera poteſtas: It is ſo call'd, becauſe ſuch a mans life is expoſed to any ones hands, every one having a free power of killing him: & ſo to that he applies the Maranatha which is added to Anathema, 1 Cor. 16.22. a forme of extreme proſcription, delivering up the ſinner to divine revenge, in which caſe whoſoever kill'd him, conceived himſelf to perform an act of execution of juſtice, and ſervice to God.
Some other places there are in the New Teſtament belonging Sect. 65 to theſe Judaical cenſures, fit to be explained; but I have choſen to inſiſt onelyonly on thoſe becauſe, I lately find them otherwiſe rendred, but yet diſcern no reaſon to recede from what I have now delivered, that they do belong to thoſe ſpecies of Excommunication not only from civil but from ſacred aſſemblies, though one in an higher degree then another. To which I ſhall onelyonly adde, that they which have applied theſe places to Chriſtian excommunication, any otherwiſe then only by way of accommodation, ſhall not be pleaded for by me, who acknowledge that they belong to the Jews, and to their uſage of Chriſtians, and not to ſome Chriſtians dealing with others; but then ſure there is as little reaſon on their ſide who will not allow that way of accommodation, which would not be at all unreaſonable, though thoſe phraſes among the Jewes were ſuppoſed to belong only to civil commerce; It being ordinary for Chriſt to ordain ſome things in his Church, which were anſwerable to civil not ſacred cuſtomes among the Jews (as the Lords Supper, ſure an Eccleſiaſtical rite among us, was to their poſt-coenium, which was not ſo, and many the like,) to tranſplant from their forum to our Church, and therefore no way unfit for the Apoſtles and following Church to appropriate thoſe words to Eccleſiaſtical ſenſes, though they were ſuppoſed to be among the Jewes of a greater latitude: Of which ſort, becauſe I formerly promiſed it, I ſhall now ſpecifie in ſome inſtances.
This may be diſcern'd in the word foreign, which if Sect. 66 any man ſhould prove to have no other ſenſe among Chriſtians, then that of a meeting together in a Town hall, upon no other way of probation, but that the Hebrew words anſwerable to that, are by the Talmudiſts, yea even in the Scripture of the Old Teſtament taken in this ſenſe, this would be a little ſtrange; the matter of fact being moſt evident to the contrary, and it being moſt prompt and proper, that words uſed either among the Greeks or Hebrewes in forinſecal ſenſes, may be bent by Chriſtian Writers to a ſacred.
Sect. 67 So in like manner, the word foreign, it is acknowledged, is anſwerable to the foreign among the Jewes, and that word denoted among them ſome offices, which if they may in any reſpect be counted Eccleſiaſtical, are yet very diſtant from the Chriſtian uſe of it: ſuch was that of the Meſſengers ſent out to demand and bring in the dues to the Temple, which cannot without the helpe of accommodation be applyed to the Chriſtian acception of the word; and ſuch againe was the proxy in contracting or marrying two perſons, for he was call'd foreign i. e. Apoſtolus alſo, an interceſſor or internunce betwixt them, which as a ſponſor, undertook for one to the other, the foreign, ſuch as Samſon had Judg. 14.20. i. e. in Varinus his definition foreign, of whom he ſaith that when the Bridegroome himſelfe muſt not goe into the Fathers houſe, (viz. in a oforeign, Phavor.ſecond marriage, ſuch as that was of God with the Gentiles, who had before eſpouſed the Jewes) foreign, hee ſends one of his friends: To which m…tion of the word (according to one punctation of the place) the Apoſtle may ſeem to referre, 2 Cor. 11.2. when he expreſſes his Apoſtleſhip by foreign, I have eſpouſed you to one husband, according to that ſenſe of foreign acknowledged by pforeign. 3. c. foreignJulius Pollux, foreign, making the foreign, or ſponſor all one with foreign, and foreign to ſignifie the interceding or mediating a marriage, all one with that word foreign there uſed by St. Paul, agreeable to which the word foreign is by Pollux further extended to the mediators of any kinde of league, foreign;foreign. 1. c. foreign. and then according to that notion alſo, is the Apoſtles pacifick office, praying and beſeeching us in Chriſts ſtead to be reconciled to God, all which are very convenient accommodations, but farre from requiring the Chriſtian word to the very kinde of ſenſe that the Hebrew foreign did import.
So againe, foreign, Biſhops in the Chriſtian Church, doe in Sect. 68 reſpect of their office, particularly that of impoſition of hands, (peculiar to them above the Presbyters even in St. Jeromes confeſſion) referre to the foreign the Princeps Synedrii, who impoſed hands upon thoſe that were elected into the Sanhedrim, but in reſpect of the name they referre to the uſe of the word foreign among the Jewes, and accordingly the very word foreign is both 1 Mac. 1.53. and in Joſephus, ſet to ſignifie them that are ſet over any publike buſineſſe, the foreign that ſet men a worke, and require an account of the performance, and yet are by way of accommodation brought both in the New Teſtament, and in all Sacred Writers ſince, to ſignifie an office parallel to this, but purely Eccleſiaſtick.
So the word foreign, though in the Old Teſtament Sect. 69 it belong properly to the Elders of the people either in a common notion, or as members of their Sanhedrim, not any body, or ſingle perſons peculiarly Eccleſiaſticke, (though by the way 'tis moſt cleare, that the high Prieſts were not onelyonly of that number, part of their Sanhedrim, or foreign or foreign, but alſo the chiefe of them, and therefore in the New Teſtament the mention of the high Prieſts and Elders comes oft together in point of judicature; and the buſineſſe of that Court, being all kinde of affaires, Civil as well as Eccleſiaſticke, it was moſt reaſonable that ſome perſons of both conditions ſhould be intruſted with them, and there being ſo, no wonder that there was no other Court, or Tribunal meerly Eccleſiaſtical) yet doth it unqueſtionably belong, both in many places of the New Teſtament, and in the conſtant acception of primitive and after-writers, to an order of Eccleſiaſticks, as is moſt apparent both by Clemens, and Ignatius, and is confeſt by them, which aſſert the foreign of Biſhops, and Presbyters: which makes it not very reaſonable to conſent to the way of arguing, twice uſed by that learned Writer, who from the Talmudical writings of the Creation of the Jewiſh Elders, would conclude how little, or how nothing there is in the Creation of a Presbyter among Chriſtians, more then of a Doctor of Law, &c. But this by the way.