tation, both in his Queries and in his Vindication thereof, for the most part, runneth along against excommunication and suspension from the sacrament, as the titles like wise do promise, which is a fallacy a conjunctis ad divisa. And when he debateth so much concerning excommunication and suspension, his and is either copulative or exegetical. If copulative, he opposeth nobody, that I know, so much as himself; for I know none that would have all scandalous sinners suspended, to be excommunicated also, except himself. If exegetical, even so he is contrary to himself, who confesseth that one may be suspended from the sacrament before he be excommunicated, Vindic. p. 50, 51. And whereas, in the latter part of his first Query, he would drive us to this hard choice, that either a scandalous person must be excommunicated, or not suspended from the sacrament. He saith it is evident, by Tertullian's Apology, cap. 39, et Lib. de Poenit., that scandalous persons were ever excommunicate and wholly cast out of the church, not barely sequestered from the sacrament. Whence (saith he) all the canonists and schoolmen determine that an excommunicate person is excluded from the church and all public ordinances. Let the prudent reader observe, that instead of proving that scandalous persons were wholly cast out of the church, he tells us out of the canonists and schoolmen, that excommunicate persons were wholly cast out of the church; that is, that those who were cast out of the church, were cast out of the church. And, for his antiquity, he hath given here no small wound to the reputation of his skill in antiquities, which will more fully appear, chap. 17. Meanwhile, how can any that hath read Tertullian or Cyprian, not know that some failings and falls in time of persecution, and other smaller offences, were not punished by excommunication, but by suspension from the sacrament, till, after public declaration of repentance and confession of the offence, the offender was admitted to the sacrament? And for the places he citeth, I find in Tertullian's book, de Pœnitentia, much of that exomologesis and public declaration of repentance, but that all scandalous persons brought under church censures were wholly cast out of the church, I find not. In the thirty-ninth chapter of his Apologetic, there is no such thing as is alleged, but the contrary plainly intimated concerning several degrees of ecclesiastical discipline; and that if any man's offence was so great as to deserve excommunication, then he was excommunicate and wholly cast out of the church.1 And as, in the ancient churches, there were, and, in the reformed churches, there now are, different degrees of censures, according to the different degrees of offences, so, in the Jewish church, the like may be observed, both concerning ceremonial uncleanness and moral offences. Touching the former, that law, Num. v. 2, " Command the children of Israel that they put out of the camp every leper, and every one that hath an issue, and whosoever is defiled by the dead," hath been understood by the Jewish doctors respective; that is, that the leper was put out of all the three camps, the camp of Israel, the camp of the Levites, and the camp of divine majesty, which was the tabernacle: he that an issue might be in the camp of Israel, but was put out of the other two. He that was defiled by the dead, was only restrained from the camp of divine majesty, for which also see before, book i. chap. 10. And touching moral offences, there were several steps and degrees in the Jewish excommunication, as Mr Selden hath observed from the Talmudists; for, first, a man was separate from the congregation for thirty days, and if thereafter he was found obstinate, he was separate for other thirty days, and if after sixty days he did not repent, then they passed from the lesser excommunication to the greater; that is, from niddui and shammatta (as he thinketh) to cherem or anathema. The author of the Queries, while he argueth in that first query, against the suspending, from the sacrament, of a person not excommunicated, nor wholly cast out of the church, closeth in this particular, with them of the separation (which I believe he did it not intended to do); for they, in one of their letters in answer to the second letter of Fr. Junius, written to them, where they bring eleven exceptions against the Dutch churches, one of these exceptions was that "they use a new censure of suspension, which Christ hath not appointed.” They do hold excommunication to be an ordinance of Christ, but do reject the distinction of suspension and excommunication, as Mr Prynne doth. 1 Ibidem etiam exhortationes, castigationes, et censura divina. Nam et judicatur magno cum pon dere ut apud certos de Dei conspectu: summumque futuri judicii præjudicium est, si quis ita deliquerit, ut a communicatione orationis, et conventus, et om nis sancti commercii relegetur. tions and in the preface before his Vindication, and in divers other passages, that his scope is to expedite a regular settlement of church discipline, without such a power of suspending the scandalous as now is desired to be settled in the new elderships, and manifestly reflecteth upon one of the Assembly's petitions concerning that business, as hath been said; yea, the first words of his Queries tell us, he spoke to the point in present public agitation, the case standing thus: I must put him in mind (under favour) that he hath not been a little out of the way, nor a little wide from the mark. Tenthly, The true state of the present question is not, Whether the parliament should establish the power of suspending scandalous persons from the sacrament, as jure divino (nay, let divines assert that, and satisfy people's consciences in it; but let the parliament speak in an authoritative and legislative way, in adding their civil sanction). Nor, whether there ought to be any suspension from the sacrament of scandalous persons, not yet excommunicated and cast out of the church; and that the eldership should do it; for the ordinance of parliament hath so far satisfied the desires of the reverend Assembly, and of the generality of And if the question were, Which of these godly people, that there is to be a suspen- tenets (Mr Prynne's or ours) concerning sion of scandalous persons (not excommu- suspension, doth best agree with the mind nicated) from the sacrament, and power is of the parliament? let us hear their own ordigranted to the eldership to suspend from the nance, dated March 14, 1645,-the words are sacrament for such scandals as are enu- these "Yet were the fundamentals and merate in the ordinances of Oct. 20, 1645, substantial parts of that government long and March 14, 1645. Which ordinances do since settled in persons by and over whom it appoint, that all persons, or any person, that was to be exercised, and the nature, extent, shall commit such or such an offence, shall and respective subordination of their power be by the eldership suspended from the sa- was limited and defined; only concerning crament, upon confession of the party, or the administration of the sacrament of the upon the testimony of two credible wit- Lord's supper-how all such persons as were nesses. So that in truth the stream of Mr guilty of notorious and scandalous offences Prynne's exceptions runneth against that might be suspended from it-some difficulty which is agreed and resolved upon in parlia- arising, not so much in the matter itself, as ment; and his arguments (if they prove in the manner,-how it should be done, and anything) must necessarily conclude against who should be the judges of the offence; the that power already granted by parliament lords and commons having it always in their to elderships. And now if he will speak to purpose and intention, and it being accordthat point which is in present public agi-ingly declared and resolved by them that tation, he must lay aside his Queries and his Vindication thereof, and write another book to prove that the Assembly, and other godly ministers and people, ought to rest satisfied (in point of conscience) with the power granted to elderships to suspend from the sacrament in the enumerate cases, and that there is not the like reason to keep off scandalous persons from the sacrament for other scandals beside these enumerate in the ordinance of parliament. Nay, and he must confine himself within a narrower circle than so; for the parliament hath been pleased to think of some course for new emergent cases, that the door may not be shut for the future upon the remonstrances of elderships concerning cases not expressed. I know the gentleman is free to choose his own theme to treat of, and he may handle what cases of conscience he shall think fit for the church's edification. But since he professeth in the conclusion of his Four Ques all sorts of notorious scandalous offenders should be suspended from the sacrament:" which is the very point so much opposed by Mr Prynne; for the controversy moved by him is not so much concerning the manner, or who should be the judges, as concerning the matter itself; he contending that all sorts of notorious scandalous offenders should not be suspended from the sacrament, but only such as are excommunicated and excluded from the hearing of the word, prayer, and all other public ordinances. Having now removed so many mistakes of the true state of the question, that which is in controversy is plainly this: Whether, according to the word of God, there ought to be in the elderships of churches a spiritual power and authority, by which they that are called brethren, that is, church members, or officers, for the public scandal of a profane life, or of pernicious doctrine, or for a private offence obstinately continued in after ad monitions, and so growing to a public scandal, are, upon proof of such scandal, to be suspended from the Lord's table until signs of repentance appear in them; and if they continue contumacious, are in the name of Jesus Christ to be excommunicate and cut off from all membership and communion with the church, and their sins pronounced to be bound on earth, and by consequence in heaven, until by true and sincere repentance they turn to God, and by the declaration of such repentance be reconciled unto the church. The affirmative is the received doctrine of the reformed churches, whereunto I adhere. The first part of it, concerning suspension, is utterly denied by Mr Prynne, which breaketh the concatenation and order of church discipline held forth in the question now stated. Whether he denieth also excommunication by elderships to be an ordinance and institution of Christ, and only holdeth it to be lawful and warrantable by the word of God, I am not certain. If he do, then he holds the total negative of this present question. However, I am sure he hath gone about to take away some of the principal scriptural foundations and pillars upon which excommunication is built. As touching the gradation and order in the question as now stated,1 it is meant positively and exclusively, that such a gradation not only may, but ought to be observed ordinarily (which Mr Prynne denieth), although I deny not that for some public, enormous, heinous abominations, there may be (without such degrees of proceeding) a present cutting off by excommunication. But this belongs not to the present controversy. CHAPTER II. WHETHER MATT. XVIII. 15-17, PROVE EX COMMUNICATION. The second point of difference is concerning Matt. xviii. Mr Prynne, in the first of his Four Questions, told us that the words, Matt. xviii. 17, "Let him be to thee as an heathen man and a publican," are meant only of personal private trespasses between man and man, not public scandalous sins 1 Yea, now also, it appeareth by his Diotrophes nication itself, at least under a Christian magistrate. Catechised, that he denieth and opposeth excommu against the congregation; and that it is not said, "Let him be to the whole church, but let him be to thee," &c. This I did in my Sermon retort; for if to thee, for a personal private trespass, much more to the whole church, for a public scandalous sin, whereby he trespasseth against the whole congregation. Yea, it followeth upon his interpretation, that he may account the whole church as heathens and publicans, if all the members of the church do him a personal injury; whereupon I left this to be considered by every man of understanding, Whether, if a private man may account the whole church as heathens and publicans for a personal injury done to himself alone, it will not follow, that much more the whole church may account a man as an heathen and publican for a public scandalous sin against the whole church. Mr Prynne, in his Vindication, p. 3, glanceth at this objection; but he takes notice only of the half of it; and he is so far from turning off my retortion, that he confirmeth it; for p. 4, he confesseth that every Christian hath free power, by God's word, to esteem not only a particular brother, but all the members of a congregation, as heathens and publicans, if he or they continue impenitent in the case of private injuries, after admonition. Now my exception against his Query remains unanswered. If I may esteem the whole church as heathens and publicans, when they do me an injury and continue impenitent therein, may not the whole church esteem me as an heathen man and a publican, when I commit a public and scandalous trespass against the whole church, and continue impenitent therein? Shall a private man have power to cast off the whole church as heathens and publicans, and shall not the whole church have power to cast off one man as an heathen and publican? I know he understands those words, "Let him be to thee as an heathen man and a publican," in another sense than either the reformed churches do or the ancient churches did, and takes the meaning to be of avoiding fellowship and familiarity with him, before any sentence of excommunication passed against the offender. But, however, my argument from proportion will hold if civil fellowship must be refused, because of obstinacy in a civil injury, why shall not spiritual or church fellowship be refused to him that hath committed a spiritual injury or trespass against the church? If private fellowship ought to be denied unto him that will not repent of a private injury, why shall not public fellowship, in eating and drinking with the church at the Lord's table, be denied unto him that will not repent of a public scandal given to the congregation? Are the rules of church fellowship looser and wider than the rules of civil fellowship, or are they straiter? Is the way of communion of saints broader than the way of civil communion, or is it narrower? Peradventure he will say, that the whole church, that is, all the members of the church, have power to withdraw from an obstinate scandalous brother; that is, to have no fraternal converse or private Christian fellowship with him. Well then, if thus far he be as an heathen and a publican to the whole church distributively, how shall he be as a Christian brother to the whole church collectively? If all the members of the church severally withdraw fellowship from him, even before he be excommunicated, how shall the whole church together be bound to keep fellowship with him till he be excommunicated? Instead of loosing such knots, Mr Prynne undertakes to prove another thing,-that this text of Matthew is not meant of excommunication or church censures, and that the church in this text was not any ecclesiastical consistory (here he citeth Josephus, as if he had spoken of that text), but only the sanhedrim or court of civil justice. But though all this were true which he saith, yet there may be a good argument drawn by necessary consequence from this text, to prove excommunication; which Grotius did well perceive; for in his annotations upon the place, after he hath told his opinion that excommunication is not meant in this text, he addeth, that he hath elsewhere spoken of the antiquity and necessity of excommunication: Quanquam ad eam ex hoc etiam loco non absurde argumentum duci posse, non negaverim: though I will not deny, saith he, that even from this place, the argument may be drawn to excommunication without any absurdity. My argument afore-mentioned will hold good even from Mr Prynne's own exposition. Thus far I have gone upon a concession; now to the confutation. Before I come to his reasons, I observe in his margin, a double mistake of the testimony of Scapula. First, he sends us to Scapula to learn that ekkλnoia signifieth any civil assembly or council, as well as an ecclesiastical presbytery. Yes: Scapula tells us it hath, in heathen writers, a general sig nification, to express any assembly called forth; but he added immediately, that in the writings of Christians, it signifieth the assembly of such as are called to eternal life, and do profess Christian religion. Since, therefore, it hath not the same signification in heathen writings, and in the New Testament, he should have showed us where the word ékkλnoia in the New Testament doth signify a civil court of justice. I hope the Holy Ghost did speak so in this place as he might be understood, and to take the word church here, in that sense which it hath nowhere else in the New Testament, doth not agree with that received maxim,-that Scripture is to be expounded by Scripture. I find, indeed, the word ékkλnoia used for a civil assembly, Acts xix. 39, 41; but as that is an heathen assembly, so it is not the evangelist Luke's expression otherwise than recitative; that is, he mentioneth an heathen assembly under that name by which heathens themselves called it. His other mistake of Scapula is, the citing of him for that assertion, that the church in this text is not an ecclesiastical consistory; whereas Scapula doth expound the church, Matt. xviii., to be meant of the presbytery or college of elders (as Stephani Thesaurus doth also);1 and having told that the word signifieth the whole Christian church, also particular congregations, he addeth two more restricted significations: sometimes it signifieth a Christian family, sometimes the presbytery; for this last he citeth Matt. xviii. Now I proceed to Mr Prynne's reasons: First, saith he, This text "speaks not at all of public scandalous sin against the church or congregation, the proper object of church censures, but only of private civil trespasses between man and man, as is evident by the words, If thy brother trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between him and thee,' ""&c. Ans. We have ever understood that place of such trespasses which grow public afterwards by the offender's obstinacy after admonition. Yet the trespass here meant, may be often such as even at first is scandalous to more than one. Such a case falleth under Christ's rule here, and is not excluded. Wherein observe Durand upon the fourth book of the Master of Sen 1 Steph. Restringitur et alio modo ixxanría ad synedrium seu presbyterium, id est seniorum collegium, ut Matt. xviii. So Marlorat in Thesauro saith, that the word ecclesia is taken pro senatu ecclesiastico, Matt. xviii. 17. tences, dist. 19, quest. 4, " But if (saith he) the sin be not altogether secret, nor altogether known; that is, such as is known to many by whom he may be convicted, or he is ill reported of among grave persons, though the public fame be not against him, so the procedure which Christ hath set us in the gospel, seemeth to have place, to wit, that first he may be secretly admonished concerning his amendment; which if it profit not, that he may be admonished concerning his amendment before those who know the fact; but if that also do not profit, that then he may be declared to the church." But if we should grant that no other trespass is meant here but a private trespass, yet I ask, is there no trespass but that which is civil? The schoolmen writing de scandalo will tell him that one brother trespasseth against another when he scandaliseth him by any sinful example, though without any civil injury. Nay, it is the greatest trespass which is committed against the soul of our neighbour: scandal is soul-murder. It is a breach of the law of love, not only by omission, but by commission. He that is commanded to edify his brother, and then giveth scandal to him, doth he not trespass against his brother? The like answer I return to that which he addeth, that "Luke, relating the same thing without any die ecclesiæ, Luke xviii. 3, 4, puts it out of question, if compared with Gen. lii. 31 (there is no such scripture) 1 Sam. xxv. 28." What out of question? Doth he not find scandalous sins in the two verses immediately preceding in Luke, and thereupon it is immediately added, "Take heed to yourselves, if thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him, and if he repent, forgive him." Cannot a Christian rebuke his brother who scandaliseth him, and if he repent, forgive him? Luke needed not add dic ecclesia, because he speaks of a repenting brother, not of an impenitent brother, after private admonition. And that scandalous trespasses are understood, Matt. xviii. 19 (as Augustine, Tostatus, and many others have observed), may thus appear: 1. Scandals are the greatest and worst trespasses, as hath been said, and "Woe unto the world because of offences." Surely Jesus Christ did intend to provide a remedy against the greatest evils rather than against the lesser. 2. Christ would not be judge of civil injuries, Luke xii. 14, how can it be then supposed that he giveth here laws concerning civil rather than spiritual injuries? 3. Christ saith," If he shall hear (not repair) thee, thou hast gained (not thy goods, or thy good name, or the like, but) thy brother." Intimating, that it is not a man's own interest, but the rescuing of his brother's soul from sin and scandal, which is here sought. Mr Prynne himself confirmeth it not a little; for he takes the meaning to be of avoiding a brother's company, in the case of a civil or private injury, if he "continue impenitent after admonition." Now, what if he that hath done the injury make full reparation, and all real satisfaction to the brother injured, and yet continue impenitent, showing no symptom at all of repentance, must he not, by Mr Prynne's exposition, be esteemed as an heathen man and a publican, because of his visible and scandalous impenitency? How often hath it been seen, that a man was compelled by law, or persuaded by friends to make a real restitution and full satisfaction for a civil or personal injury, and yet hath given very great scandal by his impenitency, not so much as confessing, but still defending and justifying his sinful act, in his discourses? 4. The dependency upon the preceding parts of that chapter confirmeth it. From the beginning of the chapter to this very text, ver. 15, Christ hath been upon the doctrine of scandals, warning us not to offend so much as one of his little ones, which he presseth by divers arguments. 5. The Erastians and we do both agree in this, that Christ here hath a respect to the Jewish government. Now, the trespasses for which men were excommunicated by the Jewish sanhedrim were scandalous trespasses, such as the despising of any of the precepts of the law of Moses, or statutes of the scribes; the doing of servile work upon Easter eve; the mentioning of the name of God rashly, or by a vain oath; the inducing of others to profane the name of God, or to eat holy things without the holy place, and the like. More of this elsewhere, in the twenty-four causes of the Jewish excommunication. 6. Mr Prynne expoundeth this text in Matthew by 1 Cor. v. 9-12, but there the Apostle intends the purging of the church from scandals, whether those scandals have any private injury in them or not. Instance in idolatry and drunkenness there mentioned. 7. I can also (without yielding the least advantage to the Erastian cause) admit and suppose that which is so much pressed both by Erastus, Mr Prynne, and others, viz., that these words, "If thy |