house of the Lord and for the people, whose office it was to write and to read the law, 1 Chron. ii. 55; Psal. xlv. 1; Jer. viii. 8. Obj. 13. But neither in the Old Testament nor in the Talmudists can there be found any ecclesiastical excommunication, properly so called.

Ans. I deny both, yea, I have disproved both. Moreover, as touching the excommunication used in the Jewish church, I shall add here these following testimonies of Maimonides, in libro y Tract. Talmud Torah, cap. 6, sect. 10: "He that revileth a wise man, though after his death, shall be excommunicated by the sanhedrim, by whom also, after repentance, he shall be absolved." Ib. sect. 11:"He who is excommunicated in his town, ought also to be esteemed in all other cities and towns as a person excommunicated." Answerable hereunto were the ancient canons, which did appoint that a person excommunicated in his own church should not be received to communion in another church. The twenty-four causes of excommunication (above mentioned) he there reckoneth forth from sect. 13 to the end of the chapter. Again, cap. 7, sect. 12: "What is the manner of a simple excommunication, or niddui? He that doth excommunicate saith, Let that person, N. be in (or under) an excommunication or separation. If the person excommunicated be present, they who do excommunicate say unto him, Let this person, N. be separated, or excommunicated. And when cherem, or the greater excommunication is inflicted, what is the manner? They say, Let N. be devoted and accursed; let an execration, adjuration, and separation be upon him. But how do they loose the person excommunicated, and how do they free him from the separation or the curse? They say, Be thou loosed, be thou pardoned. If the guilty party be absent, they say, Let N. be loosed, and let him be pardoned." In the same chapter, sect. 8: "Neither is there any certain space of time predetermined, before which the bond of the excommunication inflicted may not be loosed; for immediately, and at the same time, when excommunication is inflicted, it may be loosed, if the guilty party do immediately repent, and come to himself." Which doth further set forth the great difference between the nature and scope of excommunication, and the nature and scope of corporal or civil punishments. For how soon soever an excommunicated person giveth good signs of

true repentance, he is to be loosed from the bond of excommunication; but he that is punished in his body or estate for any crime, is not freed from the punishment because he is known to be penitent. The repentance of a criminal person is no supersedeas to civil justice. Thereafter Maimonides proceedeth thus: "Yet if it seem good to the sanhedrim that any man shall be left in the state of excommunication, for how many years shall he be left in excommunication? The sanhedrim will determine the number of years and space of time, according to the heinousness of the trespass. So likewise if the sanhedrim will, it may devote and subject to a curse, first the party himself who is guilty of the crime, and then also every other person whosoever eateth or drinketh with him, or sitteth near unto him, unless at four cubits distance; that so by this means the heavier correction may fall upon the sinner, and there may be as it were a hedge put about the law, which may restrain wicked men from transgressing it." Whence observe, 1. It was from the Jewish church, that the ancient councils of the Christian church took a pattern for determining and fixing a certain number of years to the separation of some heinous offenders from the sacrament, and sometimes from other ordinances also. Though I do not approve this thing, either in the Jewish or Christian church; for at what time soever a scandalous sinner doth give evident signs of repentance, the church ought to receive him again into her bosom and fellowship. 2. From the Jewish church also was the pattern taken for that ancient discipline in the Christian church, that he who keepeth company and communion with an excommunicated person should fall under the same censure of excommunication; which thing must be well explained and qualified before it can be approved. 3. Compare also this passage of Maimonides with 1 Cor. v. 11, "With such an one no not to eat ;" 2 Thes. iii. 14, "Have no company with him, that he may be ashamed." Which texts do fitly answer to that which the Hebrew writers say of a person excommunicated. 4. The excommunication of an offender among the Jews, was intended not only for the offender's humiliation and amendment, but for an ensample to others, that they might hear and fear, and do no more any such thing: it was therefore a public and exemplary censure. much of sect. 8.

And so

For if

In the 9th and 10th sections Maimonides showeth us, that though a wise man was allowed to prosecute unto the sentence of excommunication one that did revile or calumniate him, yet it was more praise-worthy, and more agreeable to the example of the holy men of God, to pass in silence and to endure patiently such injuries. Then followeth sect. 11, "These things which have been said, are to be understood of such reproaches and contumelies as are clandestine. railers do put a public infamy upon a wise man, it is not lawful to him to use indulgence or to neglect his honour: and if he shall pardon (as to the punishment) him who hath hurt his fame, he himself is to be punished, because that is a contempt of the law. He shall therefore avenge the contumely, and not suffer himself to be satisfied, before the guilty party hath craved mercy." Here is the true object, or (if you will) the procuring and meritorious cause of excommunication, viz. not a private, personal, or civil injury, which a man may pass by or pardon if he will, but a scandalous sin, the scandal whereof must be removed and healed, by some testimony or declaration of the sinner's repentance, otherwise he must fall under the censure and public shame.

These testimonies of Maimonides, and the observations made thereupon, beside all that hath been said in this preceding book, will make it manifest that the spiritual censure of excommunication was translated and taken from the Jewish church into the Christian church.

Furthermore, beside all the scriptural proofs already brought, I shall desire another text (Neh. xiii. 1-3) to be well weighed. After the reading of the law (Deut. xxiii. 3), that the Ammonite and the Moabite should not come into the congregation of God for ever, "it came to pass," saith the text, "when they heard the law, that they separated from Israel all the mixed multitude." I conceive that this separation was a casting out of the church of Israel, and is not meant here of a civil separation from honours and privileges, nor yet only in reference to the dissolution of unlawful marriages. I understand also, by the prohibition of entering into the congregation of the Lord, Deut. xxiii. 1-3, that such were not to be received into church communion. Ostendit autem qui a cœtibus fidelium debeant excludi: He showeth who ought to be excluded from the assemblies of

the faithful, saith Aretius, upon Deut. xxiii. 1. Hic dicitur ecclesia Dei atrium mundorum, quod non debebant tales ingredi: Here that court of the temple which was appointed only for the clean, is called the congregation of God, whereunto such persons ought not to enter, saith Hugo Cardinalis upon the same place. Audita lege de duabas inimicis gentibus anathematizandis, &c.: Having heard the law concerning the two hostile nations to be anathematized or accursed, saith Beda, on Neh. xiii., thereupon they separated the mixed multitude. Pelargus on Deut. xxiii., citeth Theodoret, Procepius, and Rabanus, besides the Canonists, for this sense, that the not entering into the congregation of the Lord, is meant of refusing ecclesiastical, not civil privileges. I know that divers others understand Deut. xxiii. 1-3, of not admitting unto, and Neh. xiii. 3, of separating from, marriages with the Jews, and civil dignities or places of magistrates or rulers in that commonwealth; such an one "shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord," -that is, shall not be received into the assembly or court of judges. But there are some reasons which dissuade me from this, and incline me to the other interpretation.

First, The law, Deut. xxiii., being read to the people, Neh. xiii. 3, upon the hearing of that law," they separated from Israel all the mixed multitude." It is not to be imagined that all this mixed multitude were married to Jews, much less that they were all magistrates, rulers, or members of courts and judicatures in Israel. But by the mixed multitude are meant all such as were in Israel, but not of Israel, or such as conversed and dwelt among the Jews, and had civil fellowship with them, but had no part nor portion (by right) in church membership and communion; in which sense also the mixed multitude is mentioned, Exod. xii. 38; Num. xi. 4.

Secondly, That this separation from Israel is to be understood in a spiritual and ecclesiastical sense, it appeareth by the instance and application immediately added, Neh. xiii. 4-10. And before this, that is, before this separation, Eliashib the priest, being allied unto Tobiah, had prepared for him a chamber in the courts of the house of God; but now when the separation of the mixed multitude was made, Nehemiah did cast out the stuff of Tobiah, and commanded to cleanse the chambers of the temple which

K

CHAPTER I.

OF THE RISE, GROWTH, DECAY, AND REVIVING OF ERASTIANISM.

Divers learned men have (to very good purpose) discovered the origin, occasion, first authors, fomenters, rise and growth of errors, both Popish and others. I shall, after their example, make known briefly what I find concerning the rise and growth, the planting and watering, of the Erastian error. I cannot say of it that it is honestis parentibus natus, it is not born and descended of honest parents. The father of it is the old serpent, who, finding his kingdom very much impaired, weakened and resisted, by the vigour of the true ecclesiastical discipline, which separateth between the precious and the vile, the holy and profane, and so contributeth much to the shaming away of the unfruitful works of darkness, thereupon he hath cunningly gone about to draw men, first into a jealousy, and then into a dislike of the ecclesiastical discipline by God's mercy restored in the reformed churches. The mother of it is the enmity of nature against the kingdom of Jesus Christ, which he, as Mediator, doth exercise in the government of the church; which enmity is naturally in all men's hearts, but is unmortified and strongly prevalent in some, who have said in their hearts, "We will not have this man to reign over us," Luke xix.; "Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us,” Psal. ii. 3. The midwife which brought this unhappy brood into the light of the world, was Thomas Erastus, doctor of medicine at Heidelberg, of whom I shall say no more than what is apparent

by his own preface to the reader, namely, that as he was once of opinion that excommunication is commanded in the word of God, so he came off to the contrary opinion, not without a malecontented humour, and a resentment of some things which he looked upon as provocations and personal reflections, though it is like enough they were not really such, but, in his apprehension, they

were.

One of these was a public dispute at Heidelberg, in the year 1568, upon certain theses concerning the necessity of church government, and the power of presbyteries to excommunicate; which theses were exhibited by Mr George Withers, an Englishman, who left England because of the ceremonies, and was at that time made doctor of divinity at Heidelberg. And the learned dispute thereupon you may find epitomised (as it was taken the day following from the mouth of Dr Ursinus) in the close of the second part of Dr Pareus' Explication of the Heidelberg Catechism.

The Erastian error being born, the breasts which gave it suck were profaneness and selfinterest. The sons of Belial were very much for it, expecting that the eye of the civil magistrate shall not be so vigilant over them, nor his hand so much against them for a scandalous and dissolute conversation, as church discipline would be. Germanorum bibere est vivere, in practice as well as in pronunciation. What great marvel if many among them (for I do not speak of all) did comply with the Erastian tenet? And it is as little to be marvelled at if those, whether magistrates, lawyers, or others, who conceived themselves to be so far losers, as ecclesiastical courts were interested in government, and to be greater gainers by the

abolition of the ecclesiastical interest in government, were biassed that way. Both these you may find among the causes (mentioned by Aretius, Theol. Probl. loc. 133) for which there was so much unwillingness to admit the discipline of excommunication. Magistratus jugum non admittunt, timent honoribus, licentiam amant, &c.: The magistrates do not admit a yoke, are jealous of their honours, love licentiousness. Vulgus quoque et plebs dissolutior: major pars corruptissima est, &c.: The community also and people are more dissolute: the greater part is most vicious.

After that this unlucky child had been nursed upon so bad milk, it came at last to eat strong food, and that was arbitrary government, under the name of royal prerogative. Mr John Wemyes (sometime senator of the College of Justice in Scotland), as great a royalist as any of his time, in his book de Regis Primatu, lib. 1, cap. 7, doth utterly dissent from and argue against the distinction of civil and ecclesiastical laws, and against the synodical power of censures; holding that both the power of making ecclesiastical laws, and the corrective power to censure transgressors, is proper to the magistrate.

The tutor which bred up the Erastian error was Arminianism; for the Arminians, finding their plants plucked up, and their poison antidoted by classes and synods, thereupon they began to cry down synodical authority, and to appeal to the magistrate's power in things ecclesiastical, hoping for more favour and less opposition that way. They will have synods only to examine, dispute, discuss, to impose nothing under pain of ecclesiastical censure, but to leave all men free to do as they list. See their Exam. Cens. cap. 25, and Vindic. lib. 2, cap. 6, p. 131-133. And for the magistrate, they have endeavoured to make him head of the church, as the Pope was; yea, so far, that they are not ashamed to ascribe unto the magistrate that jurisdiction over the churches, synods, and ecclesiastical proceedings, which the Pope did formerly usurp. For which see Apollonius in his Jus Majestatis Circa Sacra.

But the Erastian error being thus born, nursed, fed and educated, did fall into a most deadly decay and consumption; the procuring causes whereof were these three: -First, The best and most (and in some respect all) of the reformed churches refused

to receive, harbour, or entertain it, and so left it exposed to hunger and cold, shame and nakedness.

Some harbour it had in Switzerland, but that was looked upon as coming only through injury of time, which could not be helped: the theological and scriptural principles of the divines of those churches being antiErastian and Presbyterial, as I have elsewhere shown against Mr Coleman ;1 SO that Erastianism could not get warmth and strength enough, no not in Zurich itself. Yea, Dr Ursinus, in his Judicium de Disciplina Ecclesiastica et Excommunicatione, exhibited to the Prince Elector Palatine Frederick III. (who had required him to give his judgment concerning Erastus's theses), doth once and again observe, that all the reformed churches and divines, as well those that did not practise excommunication as those who did practise it, agree, notwithstanding, in this principle, that excommunication ought to be in the church;2 which is a mighty advantage against Eras

tianism.

The second cause was a misaccident from the midwife, who did half stifle it in the birth, from which did accrue a most dangerous infirmity, of which it could never recover. Read the preface of Erastus before the Confirmation of his Theses, also the close of his

1 See Nihil Respondes, p. 32, 33, Male audis, p. 52, 53.

2 In aliis (ecclesiis) ubi aut nulla est excommunicatio in usu, aut non legitime administratur, ac nihilominus absque omni controversia, in confesso est ac palam docetur, eam merito in ecclesia vigere debere. Et infra. Ne etiam celsitudo tua se suasque ecclesias ab aliis omnibus ecclesiis, tam ab iis quæ nullam habent excommunicationem, quam ab iis quæ habent, nova hæc opinione sejungat: siquidem universæ ac singulæ uno ore confitentur, semperque confessæ sunt, merito illam in usu esse debere.

3 Erast. Præfat. Nos de illis solis loqui peccatoribus qui doctrinam intelligunt, probant amplectuntur: peccata sua se agnoscere vere atque odisse aiunt, et sacramentis secundum institutionem Christi uti cupiunt. Et lib. 6, cap. 2, Faciunt præterea nobis injuriam (immo vera calumnia est) cum dicunt nos omnes sine ullo examine velle admitti, quales sint ac esse velint. Quippe sic volumus unumquemque admitti, quomodo ecclesiæ nostræ consuetudo et regula jubet. Et infra. Sine ut idololatram et apostatam, negamus membrum esse ecclesiæ Christi, sic etiam Nequitiam suam defendentem negamus inter membra ecclesiæ censendum esse. Et quemadmodum illos ex Christiano cœtu judicamus exterminandos, sic hos quoque putamus in eo cœtu non esse ferendos. Verum neque de his, neque de illis quærunt nostræ theses: sed disputatur in eis, de solis doctrinam amplexantibus, et sacramentis rite cum ecclesia uti cupientibus, hoc est pænitentiam eodem modo quo alii profitentibus.