sometimes meant of captivity, Amos i. 5; sometimes of the decay and dissolution of a monarchy, Ezek. xxxi. 12; sometimes of the deposition or repudiating of priests, 1 Sam. ii. 33, "The man of thine whom I shall not cut off from mine altar;" sometimes generally for a judgment, or punishment, Isa. xxii. 25. The English translators in some places where it is in the original, and igoλgú, render it to fail, 1 Kings ii. 4; to loose, 1 Kings xviii. 5; sometime they render the same original word to hew, 1 Kings v. 6; "to hew timber," Jer. lxvi. ; sometime simply to cut, Ezek. xvi. 4, "Thy navel was not cut." In other places where the Septuagints have aige aufero, the English hath to fail, 1 Kings viii. 25; ix. 5; 2 Chron. vii. 18. This age is the word used by the Apostle in the case of excommunication, 1 Cor. v. 13.

There are five different opinions concerning that cutting off mentioned in the law.

1. Augustine in divers places understands the meaning to be of the second death, or eternal condemnation. But this is not suitable to the infancy of the Jewish church, for while they were bred under the pædagogy of the law, things eternal and invisible were not immediately and nakedly propounded unto them, but under the shadows and figures of temporal and visible things; so that if eternal death were the ultimate intendment of that commination (as I verily believe it was), yet it must needs be acknowledged that there was some other punishment in this life comprehended under that phrase, to resemble in some sort, and to shadow forth that everlasting cutting off.

2. Some understand that cutting off to be when a man dieth ärsavos, without children, having no offspring or posterity behind him to preserve the memory of him; for he that left children behind him was esteemed to live in some sort after he was dead. But the cutting off in the law is privative, not negative; it is a depriving of a man of what he hath, not the denial of what he would have; neither was that of the preserving of one's name in the posterity applicable to women, but to their husbands only, whereas their cutting off was threatened to all who were guilty, whether men or women. Finally, if that were the sense, then the cutting off did neither belong to such as chose voluntarily to live unmarried, nor to men who, being married, had children to preserve their memory after their death,

but all that committed such or such a sin were to be cut off whether married or unmarried, whether having children or wanting children.

3. Others understand capital punishment to be inflicted by the civil magistrate. But if all the offences for which cutting off was threatened in the law had been punished by death, the Mosaical laws no less than those of Draco might have been said to be written in blood, saith Gersomus Bucerus.1 Is it credible that all and every one who did by any chance eat the fat or the blood, or did make a perfume for smell like to the holy perfume, or did touch a dead body, or a grave, or a tent wherein a man had died, or anything that an unclean person had touched, and had not been thereafter sprinkled with the water of separation, were without mercy to die for any of these things? Yet these were cut off from among their people, Exod. xxx. 38; Lev. vii. 15, 17; Num. xix. 13, 20. Another reason I take from Mercerus on Gen. xvii. 14. We nowhere find, either in Scripture or in the Jewish writings, that such of the seed of Abraham as did neglect circumcision were punished by the sword of the magistrate, yet by the law such were to be cut off. Now, without all controversy, such were excluded from communion with the church of Israel, and being so excluded, they were said properly to be cut off from among their people, saith Mercerus; and moreover the cutting off in the law is expressed by such a word as doth not necessarily signify that the person cut off ceaseth to have any being, but it is used to signify a cutting off from a benefit, relation, or fellowship, when the being remains, as was noted in the beginning.

4. Many of the Hebrews, whom Mr Ainsworth (Annot. in Gen. xvii. 14; Exod. xxxi. 14; Num. xv. 30) followeth, understand by that cutting off untimely death, or the shortening of life before the natural period. This interpretation I also dislike upon these rea

sons 1. That which is taken for a foundation of that opinion, namely, that the cutting off in the law is meant only as a punishment of private sins known to God alone, and which could not be proved by witnesses, this, I say, is taken for granted, which is to be proved. 2. Yea, the contrary appeareth from Lev. xvii. 4, 5, the end of that cutting off was, that the children of Israel might

1 De Gubern. Eccl. p. 57.

fear to do that thing which they saw so punished; but how could they make this use of a divine judgment inflicted for some private sin, they knew not for what. 3. The commination of divine judgments is added in a more proper place, Deut. xxviii.; Lev. xxvi., and in divers places, where wrath and punishment from God is denounced against all such as would not observe his commandments, nor keep his statutes and judgments. But the cutting off is a part (and a great part) of the corrective or penal Mosaical laws which contain punishments to be inflicted by men, not by God, which makes Piscator almost everywhere in his Scholia, to observe, that excindetur is put for exscinditor, that soul shall be cut off, for let that soul be cut off. 4. The cutting off was a distinguishing punishment,-they that did such and such things were to be cut off, and in being cut off were to bear their iniquity, Lev. xviii. 26; Num. xv. 31, but we cannot say that Abijah the son of Jeroboam, or king Josiah, being taken away by an untimely death, were thereby marked with a sign of God's wrath, or that they were cut off from among their people, and did bear their iniquity. 5. And whereas they object from Lev. xvii. 10; xx. 5, 6, that the cutting off was a work of God, not of men, it is easily answered from that same place, it was only so in extraordinary cases, when men did neglect to punish the offenders, Lev. xx. 4, 5," And if the people of the land hide their eyes from the man when he giveth of his seed unto Molech, and kill him not, then I will set my face against that man, and against his family, and will cut him off;" which giveth light to the other place, Lev. xvii. 10. What I have said against the third and fourth opinion doth militate against Erastus, for he expoundeth the cutting off these two ways, that is either of capital punishment, or of destruction by the hand of God, yet he inclineth chiefly to the last (see lib. 3, c. 6). He toucheth this cutting off in divers places, but valde jejune, and because he is pleased to profess he had no skill of the Hebrew, he appealeth to the word Logs of which before.

There is a fifth exposition, followed by many both Popish and Protestant writers, who understand by the cutting off, excommunicating or casting out from the church; and of this opinion are some very good Hebritians, as Schindlerus, Lexic. Pentagl., p. 655; Cornelius Bertramus, de Republica

Ebræorum, cap. 2; Godwin's Moses and Aaron, lib. 3, cap. 4; the Jewish Canons of Repentance, printed in Latin at Cambridge, anno 1631, where the Hebrew hath the Latin hath ordinarily excommunicatio; so do divers of our soundest writers take the cutting off in the law to be excommunication, Synops. pur. Theol. Disp. 48, Thes. 24. 39. There are these reasons for it :

1. The cutting off had reference to an ecclesiastical corporation or fellowship. It is not said, that soul shall be cut off from the earth, or from the land of the living, but, cut off from his people, more plainly, from Israel, Exod. xii. 15; Num. xix. 14, but most plainly, "That soul shall be cut off from the congregation" (or church), Num. xix. 20, intimating somewhat ecclesiastical; so Lev. xxii. 3, "That soul shall be cut off from my presence.' The Septuagints, & iuc, from me; the Chaldee, from my face; and this was the very cutting off, or excommunication, of Cain from the church by God himself, Gen. iv. 14, "From thy face shall I be hid," and ver. 14, " And Cain went out from the presence of the Lord." It is another and much different phrase which is used to express cutting off from the world, or from the land of the living, Ezek. xxv. 7, "I will cut thee off from the people, and will cause thee to perish out of the countries;" Jer. xi. 19, "Let us cut him off from the land of the living;" Zeph. i. 3, "I will cut off man from off the land."

2. He that in his uncleanness did eat of an unholy thing was to be cut off, Lev. vii. 20, 21; yet for such a one was appointed confession of sin and a trespass-offering, by which he was reconciled, and atonement made for him, as Mr Ainsworth himself tells us on Lev. v. 2; whence I infer, that the cutting off such a one was not by death inflicted either from the hand of the magistrate or from the hand of God, but that the cutting off was ecclesiastical, as well as the reception or reconciliation. I know Mr Ainsworth is of opinion that the cutting off was for defiling the sanctuary presumptuously, or eating of an holy thing presumptuously, when a man was not cleansed from his uncleanness, and that atonement by sacrifice was appointed for such as defiled the sanctuary ignorantly. But that which made him think so was a mistake, for he supposeth that for sins of ignorance or infirmity only God did appoint sacrifices, but that for wilful or malicious sins there was no sacrifice,

see his Annot. on Lev. iv. 2, which Faustus Socinus also holdeth, Prælect., cap. 22, p. 144. But to me the contrary is plain from Lev. vi. 1-8, where we have atonement to be made by trespass-offerings for wilful lying, perjury, fraud, robbing, or violence, which made the Septuagints, ver. 2, for commit a trespass, to read, despising, despise the commandments of the Lord. And whereas Mr Ainsworth confirmeth his opinion from Heb. x. 26, " For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins," I answer with Calvin, Beza, Hemmingius, and others upon the place, It is not meant of all sins done wilfully (which to hold were a most dangerous and despairing doctrine), but of a total defection from Christ and the truth. And now, to return, there is nothing, Lev. v. 2, to exclude a trespass-offering for one who should in his uncleanness wilfully go to the sanctuary, or touch an holy thing; but there is this reason why it should not be excluded, because in that very place, ver. 1, he that did wilfully, for favour or malice, conceal his knowledge, being a witness in judgment, was yet admitted to bring his trespass-offering.

3. The Apostle, 1 Cor. v., gives us some light concerning the cutting off, for (as ver. 6-8) most manifestly he pointeth at the purging of all the congregation of Israel from leaven, Exod. xii. ; so ver. 13, when he saith, "Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person," he plainly alludeth to Exod. xii. 15, 19, "Whosoever eateth that which is leavened, even that soul shall be cut off from the congregation (or church) of Israel." Theophylact on 1 Cor. v. 13, observeth the Apostle's allusion to the old law of cutting off, and Maccovius (otherwise no very good friend to church discipline and government), Loc. Com. disp. 22, proveth that excommunication was transferred from the Jews to us by Christ himself, Matt. xviii., and that the cutting off mentioned in the law is no other thing than that which the Apostle meaneth when he saith, "Put away from among yourselves that wicked person."

4. The cutting off a soul from among his people did typify or resemble eternal death and condemnation; in which respect Peter doth some way apply it to the days of the gospel, that every soul which will not hear Christ the great prophet "shall be destroyed

from among his people," Acts iii. 23. So Vatablus on Gen. xvii. 14, "That soul shall be cut off," that is, shall not be partaker of my promises, and of my benefits; so that as J. Coch, Annot. in Sanhedrim, cap. 9, saith well, death inflicted by the hand of God is less than cutting off, Nam exterminii post mortem pœna luitur. The same thing Gul. Vorstius confirmeth out of Maimonides, Annot. in Maimon. de Fundam. Legis, p. 127; and Abrabanel, de capite Fidei, cap. 8, saith that "the greatest reward is the life of the world to come, and the greatest punishment is the cutting off of the soul." Now this could not so fitly be resembled and shadowed forth by the cutting off from the land of the living, either by the hand of God, or by the hand of the magistrate, as by cutting off from the church, and from the communion of saints by excommunication, which is summum futuri judicii præjudicium, as Tertullian called it, and foreshoweth that "the ungodly shall not stand in the judgment, nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous," Psal. i. 5. But God's taking away of a man by death, in the phrase of the Old Testament, is not a cutting off from, but a gathering of him unto his people; yea, it is said of wicked Ishmael when he died, he was gathered unto his people; and as for the abbreviation of life, and the untimeliness of death in youth or middle age, that both is now and was of old, one of the things which come alike to all, to the good as well as to the bad. As touching the capital punishment of malefactors by the hand of the magistrate, it being founded upon the very law of nature, and common to all nations without as well as within the church (so that very often those from whom a malefactor is cut off are not so much as by profession the church and people of God), it cannot so fitly resemble the separation or casting out of a man from having part or portion of the inheritance of the saints in light.

5. Dr Buxtorff, Lexic. Chald. Talm. et Rabbin., p. 1101, tells us that this difference was put between him that was guilty of cutting off, and him that was guilty of death: Reus mortis, ipse tantum, non semen ejus : pana excidii comprehendit ipsum et semen ejus. Now if the punishment of death was personal only, and the punishment of cutting off comprehensive not only of them but of their seed, how can this agree so well to anything else as to excommunication; espe

cially if that hold which Godwin in his Moses and Aaron, lib. 5, cap. 2, tells us, that the children of excommunicate persons were not circumcised.

6. Mr Selden, de Jure. Nat. et Gent., lib. 7, cap. 10, tells us, that the Hebrew doctors themselves do not agree concerning that cutting off in the law. He saith that R. Bechai and others make three sorts of cutting off: 1. A cutting off whereby the body only is cut off, which they understand by that phrase, Lev. xx. 6, "I will cut him off from among his people;" and this is untimely death, Psal. lv. 23, " Bloody and deceitful men shall not live out half their days." 2. They say there was another cutting off, which was of the soul only, Lev. xviii. 29, "The souls that commit these things shall be cut off from among their people." By this cutting off, they say, the soul ceaseth to have a being, the body not being taken away by death before the natural period. 3. They make a third kind whereby both soul and body is cut off, Num. xv. 31, "That soul shall be utterly cut off, his iniquity shall be upon him," whereby, say they, both the body is destroyed before the natural time, and likewise the soul ceaseth to have a being. But whatsoever any of the Hebrews fancied in their declining latter times concerning that second kind of cutting off (which Mr Selden doth not approve, but relate out of them), I am confident it was only the degenerating notion of excommunication, and that very fancy of theirs is a footstep thereof, which may make us easily believe that the more ancient Hebrews in purer times did understand that such a cutting off was mentioned in the law by which a man in respect of his spiritual being was cut off from the church of Israel, while his natural life and being was not taken from him; yea, Gul. Vorstius Annot. in Maimon. de Fundam. Legis, p. 60, showeth us, that some of the Hebrews acknowledge nothing under the name of the cutting off, but that which is the cutting off of the soul only; but if there be so much as some cutting off mentioned in the law which concerneth a man's spiritual estate only, it doth abundantly confirm what I plead for, and I shall not need to assert, that everywhere in the law excommunication must needs be understood by cutting off. Some understand the cutting off in the judicial or civil laws to be meant of capital punishments, and the cutting off in the ceremonial laws (which were

properly ecclesiastical) to be meant of excommunication, or cutting off from the church only; if anywhere the cutting off be excommunication, it sufficeth me, or whatever it may signify more, or be extended unto, if excommunication be one thing which it signifieth, then they who think it signifieth some other thing beside excommunication are not against me in this question.

I shall conclude with that in the Dutch Annotations upon Gen. xvii. 14, "that soul shall be cut off from his people." The annotation Englished saith thus, That man shall be excommunicate from the fellowship of God's people. This kind of expression implies also (as some do conceive) a bodily punishment to be inflicted withal by the magistrate. They hold determinately and positively that it signifieth excommunication, whether it signify some other thing beside, they judge not to be so clear, and therefore offer it to be considered.

It is but a poor argument whereby Bishop Bilson, Of the Government of the Church, chap. 4, would prove the cutting off not to be meant of excommunication, because it is applied even to capital offences, such as the law elsewhere appointeth men to be put to death for, as if it were any absurdity to say, that one and the same offence is to be punished sub formalitate scandali with excommunication, and sub formalitate criminis with capital punishment; and who knoweth not that a capital crime is a cause of excommunication, which is also sometimes the sole punishment, the magistrate neglecting his duty. If a known blasphemer or incestuous person be not cut off by the magistrate, as he ought by the law of God, shall he therefore not be cut off by excommunication. If he had proved that all the causes of cutting off in the law were capital crimes, he had said much; but that will never be proved.

CHAPTER VI.

OF THE CASTING OUT OF THE SYNAGOGUE.

We read of a casting out of the church, which was pretended to be a matter of conscience and religion, and such as did more especially concern the glory of God, Isa. lxvi. 5, "Your brethren that hated you, that cast you out for my name's sake, said, Let the Lord be glorified." Such was the cast

ing out of the synagogue mentioned in the gospel, Job ix. 22; xii. 42; xvi. 2, Arias Montanus, de Arcano Sermone, cap. 47, expounds it of excommunication from church. assemblies. So the Magdeburians, cent. 1, lib. 1, cap. 7, and Corn. Bertramus de Repub. Ebræor., cap. 7, Godwin in his Moses and Aaron, lib. 3, cap. 4, et lib. 5, cap. 2. Wherein the interpreters also upon the places cited do generally agree-Erasmus, Brentius, Tossanus, Diodati, Cartwright in his Harmony, Gerhardus, &c. So likewise Mr Leigh out of Paulus Tarnovius, ¿ñoσvváywyos dicitur ejectus e cætu sacro ecclesiæ, excommunicatus. See Critica Sacra of the New Testament p. 391. So doth Aretius, Theol. Probel. foc. 133 (though cited by our opposites against us), he saith, though it was abused by the Pharisees, yet it showeth the ancient use of the thing itself, that there was such a discipline in the Jewish church; it is not much material to dispute which of the degrees of the Jewish excommunication, or whether all the three were meant by that casting out of the synagogue. Drusius and Grotius expound John ix. 22, of niddui, Gerhardus expounds John xvi. 2, of all the three, niddui, cherem, and schammata. It is enough for this present argument, if it was a spiritual, or ecclesiastical censure, not a civil punishment. Mr Prynne, Vindic. p. 48, 49, tells us: First, this casting out of the synagogue was not warranted by God's word, but was only a human invention; Secondly, as it was practised by the Jews it was a diabolical institution; Thirdly, that it was merely a civil excommunication, like to an outlawry, whereby the party cast out was separate from civil conversation only, or from all company with any man, but was not suspended from any divine ordinance; Fourthly, that it was inflicted by the temporal magistrate; Fifthly, that in the Jewish synagogues at that time, there was neither sacrament nor sacrifice, but only reading, expounding, preaching, disputing, and prayer, so that it cannot prove suspension from the sacrament. To the first I answer, it was not only warranted by the cutting off mentioned in the law, but Erastus himself gives a warrant for it from God's word. He saith, p. 315, the casting out of the synagogue was vel idem vel simile quidbiam with that separating from the congregation, Ezra x. 18. To the second Aretius hath answered, The best things in the world may be abused. To the third I offer these eight considera

tions to prove that it was an ecclesiastical not a civil censure.

1. The causes for which men were put out of the synagogues, were matters of scandal, offences in point of religion, and we read of none cast out of the synagogue for a civil injury or crime, it was for confessing Christ, John ix. 22; xii. 42, then counted heresy, and for preaching of the gospel, John xvi. 2.

2. The synagogical assembly or court was spiritual and ecclesiastical, as Ludoviens de Dieu noteth upon Matt. x. 17. We read of "the rulers of the synagogue," Acts xiii. 15, among whom he that did preside and moderate, was called "the chief ruler of the synagogue," Acts xviii. 8, 17, names never given to civil magistrates or judges. Therefore Brughton makes this of the rulers of the synagogue to be one of the parallels between the Jewish and the Christian church, see his Exposition of the Lord's Prayer, p. 14, 16. As for that assembly of the Pharisees which did cast out or excommunicate the blind man, John ix., Tossanus upon the place calls it senatus ecclesiasticus; and Brentius argueth from this example against the infallibility of councils, because this council of the Pharisees called Christ himself a sinner.

3. The court of civil judgment was in the gates of the city, not in the synagogue.

4. Such as the communion and fellowship was in the synagogue, such was the casting out of the synagogue; but the communion or fellowship which one enjoyed in the synagogue was a church communion and sacred fellowship in acts of divine worship, therefore the casting out of the synagogue was also ecclesiastical and spiritual, not civil or temporal. The end was sacred and spiritual, to glorify God, Isa. lxvi. 5, to do God good service, John xvi. 2, in that which did more immediately and nearly touch his name and his glory. Though the Pharisees did falsely pretend that end, their error was not in mistaking the nature of the censure, but in misapplying it where they had no just cause.

5. Mr Prynne himself tells us, p. 49, that this excommunication from the synagogue was of force forty days (though I believe he hath added ten more than enough, and if he look over his books better, he will find he should have said thirty), yet so as that it might be shortened upon repentance. But, I pray, are civil punishments shortened or lengthened according to the parties repentance? I know church censures are so, but I