yet understand the church, Matt. xviii., to be the civil magistrate. 5. There might be subjection and obedience to the heathen magistrates, although the saints should not go to law one against another before them. 6. Paul did but appeal from Cæsar's deputy to Cæsar himself. He was drawn, by the Jews, before the tribunal of Festus (wherein Paul was a sufferer), and finding Festus unjust and partial, and that he endeavoured to deliver him to the Jews, who had a mind to have him put to death, thereupon he appealeth from Festus to Cæsar. So that if Erastus had made the parallel right, all that he could conclude from Paul's example had been this: That when a Christian is drawn and compelled by his accusers and enemies (not being Christians), before the tribunal of an inferior heathen judge; if he there find himself in danger of his life, he may appeal in his just defence to an higher heathen judge. Wherefore I yet conclude that, by the Erastian principles, Christ and Paul cannot be reconciled. These three arguments do militate not only against Erastus and Bilson, but likewise against Sutlivius, de Presb., cap. 9, where he gives this sense of Matt. xviii. 15-17, that we ought to take heed we give no scandal in the pursuing of injuries, and for that end ought to give admonition first privately, then before witnesses, and in case of obstinacy in the brother that hath done the injury, to tell the rulers of the church (meaning the prelates), and if he will not hear them, then to go to law with that brother, as with an heathen or publican. The other arguments which are to follow (the lasted excepted), strike not at his interpretation, but at those other glosses of Erastus, Bilson, and Mr Prynne.

Fourthly, This Erastian exposition makes these words, "But if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican," to be applicable only to such Christians as live under unbelieving magistrates, and not to all Christians. This consequence Erastus foresaw that it would needs follow from his interpretation; therefore he plainly owneth it, thes. 47. He confesseth that the former part, concerning rebuking and seeking to gain the offending brother, belongs to all Christians. What a boldness is here, to rent asunder this passage of Scripture, which was uttered, as it were, with one breath! And why doth not the latter part also belong unto all Christians?

way

Must Christians that live under an infidel magistrate have more effectual means and ways to use towards an offending brother, and may they go a step further in putting him to shame, or in humbling him, than those Christians can do who live under a Christian magistrate? How well doth this hang together! I should have thought the balance must rather fall to this hand; but to make the condition of those who live under a Christian magistrate to be more privative, and the condition of those who live under an infidel magistrate to be more cumulative, is too great a paradox for me. Fifthly, Whereas they say that the prescribed by Christ, Matt. xviii., is such as is agreeable to the law of Moses, and they understand by "tell the church" tell the magistrate, I ask, What magistrate? If the judges and magistrates of the cities, as Bishop Bilson thinks, then he who did not hearken to those judges might appeal to the great sanhedrim at Jerusalem, or the judges themselves might refer and transmit the case thither; so that the man was not to be straightway accounted as an heathen man and a publican. But if by the church they understand the great sanhedrim itself, he that would not hearken to it, was to be put to death by the law, Deut. xvii., so that it had not been agreeable to the law of Moses to teach, that he who will not hearken to the great sanhedrim, is to be esteemed as an heathen man and a publican; for this supposeth that he shall not die, but be suffered to live.

Sixthly, The Erastian principles do plainly contradict and confute themselves, for both Erastus, Bishop Bilson, and Mr Prynne, hold that the Jewish sanhedrim, in Christ's time, was a temporal magistracy and a civil court of justice, which had power to scourge, imprison, torture, and outlaw offenders, yea, to put to death, as the first two do positively aver. How then can it be said, "If he neglect to hear the church, &c.," that is, if he neglect to hear the civil magistrate, who hath power to imprison, scourge,

1 Sutlivius de Presbyterio, cap. 9.-Deinde loquitur Christus de ecclesia, quæ cogendi potestatem non habuit, cujusque sententiam impune licuit contemnere. Nam si cogendi potestatem habuisset, frustra illa verba addita sunt, si ecclesiam audire noluerit: nam ecclesia coegisset, et sententiam suam executioni mandasset. This he objecteth against the Presbyterian interpretation; but, in truth, it helpeth us, and strongly militateth against the Erastian interpretation.

torture, outlaw, yea, to put him to death? Surely, "if he neglect to hear the church," doth intimate that the church hath not used, nor cannot use, any external coercive power. Erastus finds himself so mightily puzzled with this difficulty, that to make out his interpretation of Matt. xviii., he confesseth, thes. 53, and Confirm. Thes., lib. 2, cap. 2, the Jewish sanhedrim had no power, under the Romans, to judge of civil causes and injuries, but of things pertaining to their religion only, so that at that time, saith he, a man might impune, without punishment, contemn the judgment of the sanhedrim in civil things. And thus, while he seeketh a salvo for his gloss upon Matt. xviii., he overthroweth the great argument by which he and his followers endeavour to prove that there was no other sanhedrim in Christ's time, but a civil court of justice, because, say they, that sanhedrim had the power of the sword and other temporal punishments.

Seventhly, Observe the gradation in the text: 1. A private conviction or rebuke. 2. Conviction before two or three witnesses. 3. Conviction before the church, and the church's declaring the thing to be an offence, and commanding the offender to turn from his evil way. 4. If he will not hear the church (which implieth that the church hath spoken and required him to do somewhat which he refuseth to do), then "Let him be as an heathen man and a publican." This last is heavier than all that went before, and is the punishment of his not hearing the church. Now, this gradation is inconsistent with the interpretation which Erastus giveth; for, by his own confession, the sanhedrim of the Jews, at that time, had not power to judge of civil causes, nor to punish any man for a civil injury, but for a matter of religion only (yet they are not matters of religion, but civil trespasses which he understands to be meant, Matt. xviii.) Here is an intercision in the third step of the gradation; and if it were an offence in the matter of religion, it had not been a greater punishment, but a greater ease to the offender, to draw him before the Roman tribunals; for the Romans cared for none of those things of which the Jewish sanhedrim was most zealous. The gradation in the text is as inconsistent with Mr Prynne's

1 P. 158. Proinde impune poterat, qui volebat judicium Synedrii contemnere in civilibus rebus.

interpretation; for imagine the offender to be, after previous admonitions, publicly accused and convicted before the church (that is, in his opinion, the civil court of justice, which had power to imprison, scourge, torture, and outlaw offenders, if not to condemn and put to death), what should be done with such an one? Can we go no higher? Yes; thus it is in Mr Prynne's sense: He that will not submit to the magistrate, and cannot be reduced by stripes and imprisonment, torturing and outlawing, yea, peradventure by condemnation to die the death, let this be the last remedy for such an one, "Let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican;" that is, withdraw familiar civil company from him.

Eighthly, That interpretation of Erastus leaneth to a false supposition, namely, that the words onep o reλwvns, " as a publican," are meant universally of all publicans, good or bad, or whatever they were. To prove this he takes an argument, p. 189, 190, 195, from the article o; for, with the Grecians, saith he, the article being joined to the predicate, noteth the nature, and consequently the universality of the thing; whence he concludeth that o reúvns signifieth a publican qua publican, and so every publican. Now, what can be the sense of Christ's words in reference to every publican, saith he, unless this be it, that it was lawful to pursue any publican at a tribunal of the Romans? I answer, His argument goeth upon a most false supposition, which I clear by the like instances: Matt. vi. 7, "Use not vain repetitions as the heathens do," onep oi éorikoí. Shall we thence conclude that the heathens as heathens, and so all heathens, without exception, did use repetitions in prayer, or that they were all so devout, in their way, as to make long prayers? Luke xviii. 11, “I am not as other men are, ὥσπερ οἱ λοιποὶ Tv άvůрúжшr, extortioners, unjust," &c. Did the Pharisee mean that every man eo ipso that he was another man, and so the rest of the Pharisees, as well as others, were extortioners, &c.? John xv. 6, "He is cast forth as a branch," is rò kλñμa. If the rule of Erastus hold, then a branch, as a branch, and so every branch, is cast out. Many such instances might be given. If, in these texts, there must be a restriction of the sense, notwithstanding of the prepositive article, so that, by heathens, we must understand devout or praying heathens; by other men, vulgar men, or the common sort of

men; by a branch, a fruitless or withered branch; why shall we not also understand by o reλwrns, the profane, loose, or unjust publican, and as Grotius doth rightly expound it, i åμaprwλòs. Let him be esteemed, saith he, as an heathen man; that is, as an alien from religion or as a publican, that is, if he be a Jew, esteem him as an infamous sinner, or one of a flagitious life. Since, therefore, Erastus confesseth, p. 194, that as the office of the publicans was lawful, so likewise many publicans were honest, chaste, religious, and pious men, I may safely conclude, that "Let him be unto thee as a publican," cannot be meant universally of all publicans. For how can it be supposed that Christ would tacitly allow of alienation from, or severity to, pious publicans?

Ninthly, Whereas the Erastians lay great weight upon that form of speech, " Let him be to thee (not to the whole church) as an heathen man and a publican" (which is also one of Sutlivius's exceptions, de Presbyterio, cap. 9), in this also they do abuse the text; for, 1. The same offence which is a sufficient ground to one church member to esteem another church member as an heathen man or a publican, being a public and known scandal (such as is contumacy and disobedience to the church), must needs be a sufficient ground to all other church members, or to the whole church to esteem so of him. Surely Christ would not have contradictory judgments in his church concerning so high a point as is the esteeming of a church member to be as an heathen man and a publican. 2. The Erastians herein argue no better than the Papists. Christ said to Peter, "I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven;" therefore unto Peter alone. Peradventure Mr Hussey was so sagacious as to prevent this objection with his Popish concession: "These keys were never given to any of the apostles but to Peter," saith he, in his Plea for Christian Magistracy, p. 9. It seems he will far less stick to grant the prelatical argument,-Timothy laid on hands, and Titus ordained elders; therefore each of these had the power of ordination by himself alone. 3. It is a good observation of Luther, tom. 1, Resolv. super propos. 13, de Potest. Papæ. fol. 299, In Matt. xvi., Christ begins with all his disciples, "Whom say ye that I am?" and he endeth with one, "Unto thee will I give," &c. In Matt. xviii. he beginneth with one, "If thy brother trespass against thee," &c.; and he

There is yet another interpretation of these words invented to elude the argument for ecclesiastical government and censures, from Matt. xviii., "Tell it unto the church;" that is, if the offending brother will neither hearken to private admonition, nor to admonition before two or three witnesses, then tell it unto many or unto a greater company. This calls to mind Dr Sutcliffe's gloss upon the word presbytery,1 1 Tim. iv. 14, that it signifieth presbyters or ministers, non juris vinculo, sed utcunque collectos, as if the occasional meeting of some presbyters in Westminster Hall, or upon the Exchange, or in a journey, or at a burial, were a prebytery with power to lay on hands.

That interpretation of the word church is no better. But that I may reject nothing without reason, I desire it may be considered, 1. Whether either in Scripture, or in any Greek lexicon, or in any classic author, it can be found that the word ékkλnoia was ever used to signify merely a greater number or company than two or three, not called out or embodied together for government or worship. For my part I could never yet find where the simple majority of the numher maketh the denomination of ἐκκλησία. I find the word sometimes (yet very seldom) used of an unlawful assembly combining or joining together to evil: the reason I take to be this, because they pretended to be authorised as a lawful assembly. So Christ called Judas, "friend," when he came to betray him with a kiss. But since the word ekkλnoia, Matt. xviii. 17, doth signify a lawful assembly (as all do confess), I desire some testimony of Scripture, or approved authors, where this name is given to a lawful assembly, which was not embodied for worship or government, but had the name of exλŋola simply because of the majority of numbers.

1 Sutlivius, de Presbyt., cap. 1.

Sure I am érkλnoia is at least cœtus evocatus, an assembly called forth; and every offended brother hath not from Christ the privilege of gathering a church. 2. If by "Tell it unto the church" were meant no more but this, tell it unto a greater number, then, if the offender do not hear the church, there must be recourse unto some others distinct from the church, for the more authoritative and ultimate determination (unless it be said that there is no remedy for offences, but in a greater number which each man shall make choice of). But where is their more effectual remedy, or where will they fix the ultimate degree of proceedings? 3. When Christ saith, "Tell it unto the church, and if he neglect to hear the church," &c., whether respect be had to the form of the Hebrews, or to the form of the Grecians, the church will still have a ruling power. In the Old Testament, the original giveth the name kahal, church (which is the word used in the Hebrew evangel of Matthew, published by Munsterus, chap. xviii. 17), and the Septuagints the name exλngía, to the elders and rulers of Israel; as 1 Chron. xiii. 2, 4, and xxix.1; 2 Chron. i. 3, and in other places. And that which is said of the elders, Deut. xix. 12; Josh. xx. 4, is said of the congregation or church, Num. xxxv. 24; Josh. xx. 6; so Exod. xii. 3, compared with ver. 21. The Septuagints also render kahal by ovvédpior, Prov. xxvi. 26. It was not, therefore, to any assembly, but to an assembly of rulers, that causes were brought in the Old Testament. If we turn to the heathen Grecians, among them ekkλnoía had a power of jurisdiction to judge and determine causes, as is manifest from Acts xix. 38, 39. Their ékkλnoia was of two sorts, as Suides, Budæus, Stephanus, and others have observed: (1.) Nóμμos and opioiμévŋ ékkλŋoía, a lawful, set, fixed assembly, which met at ordinary diets (which is meant in that place of the Acts last cited). It was also called rupia ekkλŋoia, because of the jurisdiction and ruling power which was seated in it. Wherein I am confirmed by this passage of Aristotle, Polit., lib. 3, cap. 11, ÿ yàp ékkλŋoia Kupia πάντων τῶν τοιούτων ἐστί, “ For the assembly (saith he) hath the government or arbitrament of all such things;" he is speaking of the choosing of magistrates, and of craving an account of their administration. (2.) Σúyκλητος ἐκκλησία, which was indicted and called pro re nata, upon some urgent extraor

dinary cause, and it was concio magnatum sive optimatum, in which the people were not present, as in the other. It was, therefore, rightly noted by Pasor, that Demosthenes useth the word ekkλnoía pro concione magnatum. Afterward the Roman senate was called σύγκλητος βουλή, and sometimes σuykλnros without an adjective; exλnoía, therefore, among the heathen Grecians (from whom the word came) was not any assembly, but an assembly which had a jurisdiction or ruling power. It shall not be in vain to add, that erikaλeiodai, to appeal to a superior ruler cometh from the same original verb from which cometh ékkλnoia. 4. The church mentioned Matt. xviii. 17, hath a forensical or juridical power, as appeareth by that of the two or three witnesses, ver. 16, which relateth to a juridical proceeding in the trying and punishing of offences, as Mr Prynne hath observed. Peradventure some man will say, that the two or three witnesses here are brought in only to be witnesses to the admonition, or to make the admonition the more effectual, and the more to be regarded, but not as if any use were to be made of these witnesses, to prove the fact or offence itself before the church, if there be occasion,-I answer, Either it must be supposed here that the trespass was seen or known only by him that gives the first rebuke privately, or that it was also seen or known by those two or three witnesses. If the former, it is much disputed among schoolmen, whether he that rebukes his offending brother be to proceed any further than a private rebuke for a private offence, or whether he is to stop at private rebukes, and not to take witnesses with him (which divers think to be unfit and disallowed, as being an officious and unnecessary irritation of the offending brother by the spreading of his shame, a making of a private sin to become scandalous to others, as likewise an engaging of witnesses to assist in the admonition and rebuke by a blind and implicit faith). For my part I shall not need here to dispute this point; for whatever ought to be done, or ought not to be done in this case, when the trespass is known to one only, yet in the other case, when besides him that rebukes there are two or three more which can be witnesses of the fact or trespass committed (the trespass being yet not publicly divulged), it cannot be denied, that these witnesses of the fact are to be brought unto and confronted with the offender, when he

cannot be gained by private rebuke, and (if need be) prove it afterward before the church. Which I have before noted out of Durandus. And Aegidius de Coninck tells us (in whatsoever other case witnesses are to be taken, or are not to be taken), in this case all do consent that witnesses are to be taken.1

Concerning the taking of witnesses, when the trespass is known to me alone, there are three different opinions: 1. That when I have rebuked the offender privately, and cannot gain him, I am to proceed no further, but have done my duty, and must leave the event to God. 2. That when a secret admonition is not effectual, witnesses are to be taken, in case the offender so admonished continue in his sin, or in case his relapse be feared and expected, that the witnesses may observe such continuing or relapse in sin, and then assist and join in rebuking him, and if need be (that is, in case of his contumacy) to prove the fact before the church. 3. That even when his continuance or relapse in sin cannot be observed (and so cannot be afterward proved by witnesses), yet the second admonition is to be given before witnesses when the first admonition given privately hath not gained the offender. Of these let the reader judge. It is enough for the point now in hand, that when witnesses can be had to prove the trespass committed, they ought to be brought, first before the offender, and then (if he continue obstinate) before the church, to prove the fact; and they must be three, or two at the least, which I do not see how it can be thought necessary, if we suppose that the sin is not known to any but to me alone who give the first rebuke; for if there must be a witness of my second admonition, why may not one witness join with me as well as two, when I cannot have two, but one only, willing and ready to join with me. But now a necessity of precept lies on me, that I must have two witnesses at least, which can

1 De Actib. Supernat., disp. 28, dub. 9.-Item quando peccatum corripiendi præter me est uni vel alteri notum, etiam facile mihi est hos post primam correptionem adjungere mihi socios ac testes secundæ correptionis. Cum enim hi non minus quam ego ejus peccatum noverint, æqualiter poterunt ipsum de hoc corripere, illudue postea, si opus sit, coram superiore testari. Quare communiter omnes censent in eo causu testes esse adhibendos, si prima correptio non fuerit efficax. Sed tota difficultas est quando peccatum est mihi soli notum. Qua in re triplex est sententia. Prima docet quando tunc proximus non emendatur secreta me admonitione, non esse ulterius progrediendum, &c.

not be otherwise understood, but in reference to a forensical proceeding afterwards, if need be.

5. That interpretation which now I speak against, while it goeth about to avoid a power of jurisdiction and censure in this text, it doth subject him that is reproved by another to a heavier yoke, and brings him into a greater servitude; for though a man be not disobedient nor contumacious unto any court civil or ecclesiastical, yet, if he doth not hearken to such a number, as the party offended shall declare the case unto (being a greater number than two or three), he must be by and by esteemed and avoided as an heathen man and a publican.

6. This interpretation, as it is fathered upon Grotius, so it may be confuted out of Grotius upon the very place. He expounds "Tell it unto the church" by the same words which Drusius citeth, è libro Musar. declare it coram multis, before many; but is this any other than ὑπὸ τῶν πλειόνων, the many spoken of 2 Cor. ii. 6? a place cited by Grotius himself, together with évíπiov Távrwy, "before all," I Tim. v. 20. Now these were acts of ecclesiastical power and authority, not simply the acts of a greater number. He tells us also it was the manner among the Jews to refer the business ad multitudinem Tūν oμošýλwv, to the assembly of those who were of the same way, or followed the same rites, the judgments of which multitude, saith he, seniores tanquam præsides moderabantur: The elders as presidents did moderate. He further clears it out of Tertullian, Apol. cap. 39, where, speaking of the churches or assemblies of Christians, he saith, Ibidem etiam exhortationes, castigationes et censura divina, &c., præsident probati quique seniores: Where there are also exhortations, corrections, and divine censure, &c., all the approved elders do preside. And is not this the very thing we contend for?

I hope I may now conclude that "Tell the church," is neither meant of the civil magistrate, nor simply of a greater number, but of the elders, or (as others express it better) of the eldership or assembly of elders. So Stephanus, Scapula, and Pasor in the word ékkλnoía; Calvin, Bucerus, Illyricus, Beza, Hunnius, Tossanus, Pareus, Cartwright, Camero, Diodati, the Dutch Annotations, all upon the place; Marlorat in Thesauro, in the word ecclesia; Zanchius, in præc. 4, p. 741; Junius, Animad.