should forgive another seventy times in a day, if the offending brother do so oft turn again and crave pardon; therefore so should the church do to a sinner that craveth pardon, even as often as he doth crave pardon.1 For, saith he, there can be no just reason given wherefore the whole church ought not to do herein what church members ought to do severally. If this be a good argument when Christ saith, " If thy brother repent, forgive him," Luke xvii. 3, 4 (by which place Mr Prynne expoundeth Matt. xviii. 15), will it not be as good an argument, " Let him be to thee as an heathen and a publican," therefore let him be such to the whole church, when the whole church is offended by his obstinacy and impenitence?

2. Those words, "Let him be to thee," cannot be restrictive. It must be at least extended to all such as are commanded to rebuke their brother, and if, he continue obstinate, to tell the church. Now, the commandment for rebuking our brother that falls into a scandalous sin, is not restricted to him that is personally or particularly wronged, but it is a common law of spiritual love, Lev. xix. 17. Yea, saith Mr Hildersham, lect. 36 on Psal. li., "Every man hath received a commandment from Christ, to inform the governors of the church of such a brother as cannot otherwise be reformed;" Matt. xviii. 17, "Tell the church." If it belong to every church member to reprove a scandalous sin, which his brother committeth in his sight or hearing, or to his knowledge, and, if he repent not, to tell the church, then it also belongs to every church member to esteem him as an heathen man and a publican if he hear not the church.

3. The next words, "Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven," being spoken to the apostles, and in them to other ministers of Jesus Christ, do expound the former words, "Let him be unto thee," &c., to be meant not of private withdrawing of fellowship, but of a public church censure. 4. The reason why Christ will have such an offender to be esteemed as an heathen man and a publican, is not the offence and fault first committed, but his obstinacy and

1 Erast. Confirm. Thes., lib. 2, p. 158.-Quod uni dictum est, dictum toti est ecclesiæ. At uni dictum est ut septuagies in die culpam deprecanti remittat. Ergo tota ecclesia deprecanti ignoscere debet, quotiescunque in die sibi ignosci petet. Nulla enim justa causa proferri poterit, curtota ecclesia non debeat facere in hac causa, quod singulis ejus membris præceptum est.

contumacy in that offence, and his neglecting to hear the church. So that, suppose the offence had been a private or personal injury, yet that for which the offender is to be esteemed as an heathen and a publican toucheth the whole church, and is a general scandal to them all, namely, his contumacy and not hearing the church. How can it then be imagined, that Christ would only have one church member to esteem a man as an heathen and a publican, for that which is a common general scandal to the whole church? Munsterus, in his Annotations upon Matt. xviii.,1 doth better hit the meaning, that the offender is to be esteemed as an heathen man and a publican by those who did before admonish him, but were despised; that is, by the church, whose admonitions being despised, they ought to cast out him who had despised them.

5. And how can it be supposed that Christ would have one and the same person to be as an heathen man and a publican to one member of the church, and yet not to be as an heathen man and a publican, but as a brother received in fellowship, with the whole church? Sure this were a repugnancy between the judgment of the whole church, and the judgment of one member of the church; and two things which are repugnant cannot be both of them agreeable to the will of Christ.

A FARTHER

WORDS, LET HIM BE TO THEE AS AN HEATHEN MAN AND A PUBLICAN," ARE NOT MEANT OF AVOIDING CIVIL, BUT RELIGIOUS, OR CHURCH-FELLOWSHIP.

I hope I have already made it to appear that, to draw excommunication from Matt. xviii., is not to extract water out of flint, as Mr Prynne supposeth, but that it cometh as liquide from the text, as water out of the fountain; wherein I am the more confirmed, because Mr Prynne's exposition of these words, "Let him be to thee as an heathen man and a publican," cannot stand; for he

1 Quod si hos contemnat, indicetur ecclesiæ ejus pervicatia. Et si ne ecclesiam audierit, monitus scilicet a multis, habeatur ab eis veluti ethnicus et publicanus. Et quæcunque illi sic ligaverint, ligata habebuntur in cælis, hoc est, quos ita monitos ejecerint e suo consortio, ii etiam apud patrem ejecti habebuntur.

takes the sense to be no more but this, Keep not any civil fellowship or company with such a one. Now, that this cannot be our Saviour's meaning, I prove thus:

per

1. If a private man shall thus, at his own hand, withdraw and separate from an offending brother, as from an heathen man and a publican, what order, peace, or good government, can there be either in church or state? And all the odium cast upon excommunication (as contrary to the spiritual privileges of Christians) will fall more heavy his upon own way, which brings any man (be he prince, parliament man, pastor, or whoever he be) under so much slavery to the lust of any private person, that he may be, by that person (and by ten thousand sons more, in case of so many civil injuries, not amended after complaint to the magistrate) esteemed, avoided, and abhorred, as an heathen man and a publican. So that, in the issue, it may fall out that any man, how eminent or deserving soever he be in church or state, may be looked upon as an heathen man and a publican, by ten thousand of the people, before ever he be so judged by any judicature. For instance, put the case, that a minister be judicially convicted to have wronged his parishioners in the matter of small tithes, and they conceive him to persevere in the same injury, must, or may, each of them fly from him, as from an heathen and a publican? Put the case: A whole company think themselves wronged in pay or otherwise by their captain, or a whole regiment by their colonel, and, after complaint, find themselves not repaired, are they therefore free to avoid all civil company with the captain or colonel, and to fly from them as from heathens and publicans? And what if both the Lord Mayor of London, and many godly ministers who have eaten at his table, should accuse Mr Prynne of a calumny, because of that passage in his book, p. 12, where he saith of Anabaptists, Separatists, Independents, Presbyters or Divines, "Neither of which make any conscience of not repairing to the Lord Mayor's, or any other public city feast, where they are sure of good fare, because they were certain there to meet and eat with some covetous or other scandalous

1 Martyr in 1 Cor. v., ult. loc. de excom.-Verum si hoc pro suo arbitrio cuique permittatur, ut facultatem habeat discedendi et separandi se a quibus voluerit, simultates, contentiones, et discordiæ, longe graviores orientur, quam si publica excommunicatione uteremur.

persons, with whom St Paul prohibits them, no, not to eat?" If, I say, the Lord Mayor should accuse Mr Prynne for slandering him and his house, with the company of scandalous persons; and if many godly conscientious ministers should accuse him for aspersing them, as having more love to good fare than conscience of avoiding to eat with scandalous persons; and if, after sentence passed against Mr Prynne, he should still continue impenitent, and not confess his fault in this particular, will he allow the Lord Mayor, and all the godly ministers who have eaten at the Lord Mayor's table, to avoid Mr Prynne as an heathen and a publican? Let him take heed whither his principles will lead him.

2. Mr Prynne saith, p. 4, that, "Let him be to thee as an heathen and a publican," is interpreted by 1 Cor. v. 10-12; 2 Thes. iii. 14; and elsewhere, by Paul. Now, that place of the Corinthians which he citeth is meant of excommunication, as shall be proved in due time. And ver. 12 (cited by himself) makes it plain, that a judicial act, not a private man's withdrawing only, is meant; for that verse speaks twice of judging,—an apostolical judging, and an ecclesiastical judging. And the best interpreters expound 2 Thes. iii. 14, of church censures. It is not the case of private civil injuries which the Apostle there speaks of, but the case of public scandal: "If any man be disobedient," to the apostolical epistle, "note that man," oneouote, put a mark upon him; that is, let him be publicly censured, "Let him be separated from you," saith the Syriac, and then, "have no company with him," and all this, "that he may be ashamed," which must needs be by some public censure or black mark put upon him.

he

3. "Let him be to thee as an heathen," if it be meant of keeping no civil company, must show us that the Jews of old were, and Christians under the New Testament are, forbidden to keep civil company with heathens and those that are without the church. He goeth about to prove that the phrase is taken from the practice of the Jews in that age, p. 4. But how doth he prove it? He citeth some places to prove that the Israelites might not marry with the Canaanites, but he doth not prove that they with company might not keep civil of any the heathens. There was no such favour nor fellowship permitted between the Israelites and the Canaanites, as between Israelites and other Gentiles who came among them from

other lands, as Tostatus noteth in Matt. xxvi. quest. 43. The reason was, because God had destined the Canaanites to utter destruction, and that the whole land of Canaan should be given to the children of Israel. Only some few, by special dispensation, were spared, as the Gibeonites, because Joshua and the princes had sworn unto them, and Rahab with her kindred, because she saved the spies. But, such extraordinary cases excepted, the Israelites ought not to permit any of the Canaanites to live, nor receive them, though they had been willing to be circumcised, as Tostatus there thinketh. However, that great distance and alienation in point of fellowship between the Israelites and the Canaanites, was not qua heathens, but qua Canaanites, otherwise the children of Israel had been obliged to root out other nations as well as the Canaanites. Yea, the law puts an express difference between the nations, insomuch that some of them were not to be abominate, though others were; Deut. xxiii. 7, "Thou shalt not abhor an Edomite, for he is thy brother: thou shalt not abhor an Egyptian, because thou wast a stranger in his land." The very Canaanites themselves were, by the law, Deut. xx. 10, 11, to have so much favour as an offer of peace, which, if any of their cities had accepted, that city was not to be cut off, but the people thereof were to be tributaries, and to serve Israel, and so permitted to live among them.

The last of his citations maketh very much against him, namely, Acts xxi. 28, 29, where the Jews of Asia do accuse Paul for bringing Greeks into the temple: "For they had seen before with him in the city Trophimus, an Ephesian, whom they supposed that Paul had brought into the temple." Mark here, Paul is not challenged for conversing familiarly with a Greek, but only for bringing him into the temple; and, without all doubt, the malice of his adversaries did catch at every advantage which they could have against him. I cannot but admire how Mr Prynne could cite this place to prove that the Jews might not converse nor keep civil company with the heathens, since it proveth the very contrary, that the Jews might have civil, but no religious fellowship with heathens. And whereas he addeth, that the Jews had no dealing or conversation with the Samaritans, John iv. 9; Luke ix. 52, 53; I answer, The reason was, because the Jewish church had excommunicated and anathematised for ever the Samaritans, who, being

once circumcised, and having received the book of the law, did afterward hinder the building of the house of the Lord. This excommunication of the Cuthites or Samaritans, most solemnly performed, you may find in Pirke R. Ecclesiæ, cap. 38. More of this elsewhere. Here I only touch it, to show that this also of the Samaritans makes against him.

4. It is certain that the Jews had civil company and conversation with heathens; for Solomon's servants and Hiram's servants were both together, 1 Kings v. 18; 2 Chron. ii. 8, yea, 2 Chron. ii. 17, 18. Solomon numbered of strangers or heathens in the land of Israel, a hundred fifty and three thousand and six hundred. Could there be so many of them, and employed also in the building of the temple, and yet no civil company kept with them? Nehemiah in the court of Artaxerxes, and Daniel, with his companions, in the court of Nebuchadnezzar, had civil company with heathens, but religious company with them they would have none. We find the king of Edom in fellowship with Jehoshaphat and Jehoram, 2 Kings iii.; and the merchants of Tyre were permitted to come into Jerusalem, and there to sell all manner of ware unto the children of Judah, only they were forbidden to do it upon the Sabbathday, Neh. xiii. 16, 20, 21. L'Empereur, de Legibus Ebræorum Forensibus, p. 180, 181, putteth it out of controversy that, in Christ's time, there were many heathens in the land of Canaan with whom the Jews did converse and dwell together; and that Christ found, in those places where he preached, both Jews and Gentiles: Istis locis inter istos commorabantur Gentiles, qui magistrorum placitis se astringi passi non sunt. And a little after: Nec enim Israelitas ab alienigenarum urbibus abstinuisse, Josephus Indicat. And that long before that time there was a mutual conversing of Jews and Gentiles, I gather from 1 Kings xx. 34, "Thou shalt make streets for thee in Damacus as my father made in Samaria,” meaning for trade and commerce.

I will here anticipate a great objection which may be made against me, from Acts x. 28, "Ye know that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company or come unto one of another nation." This might seem to make more for Mr Prynne's exposition than all the places cited by himself. But I answer, for the better understanding of that place, first of all observe what Dru

sius, Quæst. et Resp., lib. 2., quest. 67, tells us out of Elias in Tishbite: The Jews had an old law against drinking wine with Gentiles or heathens, Lata videlicet eo tempore quo gentes vinum libabant in sacris, the law was made at that time when the Gentiles used a prelibation of wine in their idolatrous solemnities; whereupon the wise men of the Jews, fearing lest heathen men should give to Jews that wine which had been dedicated to idols, did forbid the Jews to drink wine with heathens: which (as other statutes of their wise men) the Jews did religiosè religiously observe. Mark we hence, 1. It was not a generally received custom among the Jews in no case to eat or drink with heathens, else it had been unnecessary and supervacaneous to forbid the drinking of wine with heathens, exceptio affirmat regulam in non exceptis. 2. It was for a religious and conscientious reason, propter periculum idololatriæ, for fear of partaking with idolatry, and not for civil respects, that they were forbidden to drink wine with the Gentiles. The same I say of their shunning to eat with them; for the heathens used also a dedicating of their meats to idols, 1 Cor. x. 27.

Secondly, Observe Peter addeth immediately, "But God hath showed me that I should not call any man common or unclean;" meaning, so as not to keep company with him because of his Gentilism or uncircumcision, or because of his eating of meats which were unclean by the ceremonial law, as Ludovicus de Dieu doth rightly give the meaning, understanding not moral, but only ceremonial uncleanness to be there spoken of; for many men under the gospel are still to be looked upon and avoided as morally unclean. But God hath taught Peter, by abrogating the ceremonial difference of meats in the vision, that the ceremonial law, which was the partition-wall between Jews and Gentiles, was now to be taken away; so that the Gentiles should no longer be called dogs, as Matt. xv. 26; neither were the disciples to be forbidden any longer to go into the way of the Gentiles, Matt. x. 5. Henceforth no man should be called holy because of his circumcision, no man unclean because of his uncircumcision.

This being the meaning, it followeth that the unlawfulness of eating and companying with an heathen, mentioned Acts x. 28, must not be so understood, as if bare civil fellowship had been unlawful; but it must be understood, first, in reference to the moral

law; that is, for avoiding the danger of idolatry, in eating or drinking that which idolatrous heathens had sacrificed to idols, as hath been just now cleared. Secondly, In reference to the ceremonial law, or of such fellowship as was contrary to the ceremonial law, in eating together with heathens of meats legally unclean, such as were represented to Peter in the vision, and he commanded to eat what was formerly unclean to him. Otherwise, when the Gentiles did not eat anything which the Jews were forbidden to eat, it was lawful for the Jews to eat with the Gentiles, saith Tostatus in 2, Paral. 6, quest. 21. So likewise Grotius, de Jure Belli ac Pacis, lib. 2, cap. 15, sect. 9, where he referreth the Jews' not eating with the heathens to the laws of meats, or the peculiaris victus which was prescribed to the Jews. But otherwise the law did not make it unlawful for them to eat with any of another nation; which he thinks is proved by Christ's own example, who took a drink of water from the woman of Samaria, being yet most observant of the law. That the unlawfulness of eating with the heathens was understood in reference to the ceremonial law, I prove from Gal. ii. 12, 14. Peter having before eaten with the Gentiles, to avoid the scandal of some Jews that came from James, did withdraw and separate himself from the believing Gentiles. What! to keep no more any civil company with them? I hope no man will imagine that. But the text expounds itself, ver. 14, "If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of the Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?" This was Peter's fault, that, having formerly lived as the Gentiles, that is, eating with them all sorts of meats freely, thinking himself liberated from the yoke of the ceremonial law, afterward he withdrew and separated himself from that manner of fellowship with the Gentiles, and bound up himself to live as do the Jews, and to observe the distinction of meats according to the law. And in so doing, whilst he avoided the scandal of the Jews, he gave a greater scandal to the Gentiles, in compelling them, by the authority of his example, to Judaise, and to think the ceremonial law necessary.

Thirdly, The foresaid place, Acts x., is to be understood of such fellowship as was not merely civil, but religious and sacred, as may appear, 1. By the exposition formerly given of these words, "God hath showed me that

I should not call any man common or unclean." 2. By the invitation of the men that were sent from Cornelius to Peter, who did not call him to civil but to sacred fellowship; Acts x. 22, " And they said, Cornelius the centurion, a just man and one that feareth God, and of good report among all the nation of the Jews, was warned from God by an holy angel, to send for thee into his house, and to hear words of thee." 3. Peter calls in the men and lodgeth them; that being a civil fellowship, he doth it freely, ver. 23; but when he comes to Cornelius and those that were assembled with him, to hear words from Peter, here was the case of conscience, and here Peter beginneth to apologise, ver. 28, "Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing," &c. The Syriac hath it thus; "Ye know that it is not lawful for a man that is a Jew to join himself unto a man that is a stranger, who is not a son of his generation," as it were, intimating a religious and church fellowship. 4. That which gave offence to them of the circumcision at Jerusalem, was, that they heard Peter had so gone into men uncircumcised, that they had also received the word of God from him, Acts xi. 1, 3. And as soon as they were satisfied in that point, that God had given unto the Gentiles repentance unto life, ver. 18, they held their peace, and made no further scruple concerning eating with them.

I hope I have sufficiently answered the strongest objection which can be made against that which I did begin to prove, namely, that the Jews might, and did, keep civil company and fellowship with heathens. Which, that I may now further confirm, let it be observed, with Schindlerus in Lexic. Pentaglo., p. 297, that there were two sorts of proselytes among the Jews: some that were circumcised and received the law of Moses; and such an one was even as a Jew, and was called proselytus justitiæ or fœderis, a righteous or a true proselyte, or a proselyte of the covenant. Others that did only renounce idolatry and keep the seven precepts given to the sons of Noah, not being circumcised nor keeping the law of Moses, were permitted to dwell with the Jews, and, therefore, such a one was called proselytus portæ or proselytus incola, a proselyte of the gate, or a proselyte indweller, who dwelt within their gates. See for the same thing L'Empereur, de Legibus Ebræorum Forensibus, p. 72; Buxtorff, Lexic. Rabbin. p. 408, 409; Grotius, de Jure Belli. ac

Pacis, lib. 1, cap. 1, sect. 16; Hen. Vorstius, Observ. ad Chronol.; R. Ganz, p. 279; Georgius Genzius, in Annot. ad Maimon. Canon. Ethic., p. 91, 92. To the same purpose, Mr Ainsworth, Annot. in Gen. ix. 4, and on Exod. xii. 45, and on Lev. xxii. 10, hath noted out of the Hebrew writers, that such of the heathens as did observe the seven precepts given to the sons of Noah, though they were not circumcised, neither did observe the ordinances of the ceremonial law, nor were admitted to the holy things of the children of Israel, yet they were admitted to cohabit and converse with the people of God in the Holy Land. And that it was so, may be proved from Lev. xxv. 6, 45, 47 (where the Chaldee hath, an uncircumcised indweller); Deut. xiv. 21; yea, such a one might dwell in the priest's house, Lev. xxii. 10. The Jews receive no proselyte now except one that undertakes to keep the whole law to the least jot, as Dr Buxtorff informs us in the place last cited; and so they are a great deal more strict in reference to the Gentiles than the ancient Jews were. Notwithstanding they do, without scruple, familiarly converse and keep company with Gentiles who keep not the last of the seven precepts which bind (as they think) all the sons of Noah, namely, that concerning the not eating of blood. How much more may we suppose that the ancient Jews did keep civil company and fellowship with such Gentiles as did observe all these seven precepts? And this comparison the Jews have made between themselves and the Gentiles in reference to the law of Moses: "It is our inheritance, not theirs; as for them, let them observe the seven precepts," Exc. Gem. Sanhedrim, cap. 7, sect. 6. So that the Jews were not scandalised at the Gentiles' not observing of the whole law of Moses, not being circumcised, &c., but at their not keeping of those seven precepts, which were also a part of the law of Moses. This to me appeareth to be a chief reason (if not the reason) why the synod of the apostles and elders at Jerusalem did impose upon the churches of the Gentiles no other burden of Jewish rites and ceremonies, but to abstain from blood and things strangled. They did not impose circumcision, nor holidays, nor the like, because that which was intended was, to draw together the believers of the Jews and the believers of the Gentiles into a familiar conversation, that they might live together and eat together