84, Sive sit peccatum directè contra Deum, sive contra proximum, si fit nobis scientibus, fit contra nos, cum nos scandalizet. Both Chrysostom and Theophylact, upon Matt. xviii. 15, observe this cohesion, that Christ, having before spoken against those that give scandal, now he gives a rule to the person scandalised.

Thirdly, That exposition which now I argue against, tendeth to make one scripture contradict another, and to make that lawful by one scripture which another scripture makes unlawful, even some of themselves being judges. They so expound Matt. xviii., that they make it lawful (and as such allowed by Christ himself) for a Christian to pursue his brother for a civil injury before infidel or heathenish judges, even as he would pursue an heathen or infidel, if such an one had done him the injury. Erastus saith freely1 (yet foully), that if a congregation of the faithful be under the Turk or the Pope, one of them may pursue another for an injury (when the offender will not hearken to his own assembly), before those judges who are aliens and enemies to the true religion. His exposition of Matt. xviii. doth plainly lead hereunto. So saith Bishop Bilson (a great follower of Erastus) in this debate upon Matt. xviii., in the place before cited, "Let him be to thee as an heathen man and a publican; that is, pursue him in those courts where thou wouldest a pagan and publican that should do thee wrong. But how doth this agree with 1 Cor. vi. (the place which Erastus, thes. 41, conceiveth to be a commentary upon Matt. xviii.)? Doth not the Apostle expressly condemn it, as being utterly a fault, that one brother went to law with another, for the things of this life or civil causes, before the unjust and unbelievers? Nay, let us hear Bishop Bilson himself in that very place: "Paul (saith he) by no means permitted them to pursue their brethren at the tribunals of infidels." What then? Will they set Paul against Christ? or will they make 1 Cor. vi. contrary to Matt. xviii.? As for that whereby Erastus would reconcile this difference, it as good as nothing. He saith, p. 183, that Paul re

1 Confirm. Thes., lib. 3, cap. 2, p. 184.-Habitant nunc sub Turca et pontifice Romano fideles; si quis afficiatur ibi a fratre injuria, nec audire injuriosus suum cœtum velit, quid aliud potest offensus facere quam ejus implorare judicis opem, qui facultatem habet coercendi ?

quireth them to refer to arbitrators within the church itself, only the smallest matters and things pertaining to this life, but not crimes or weighty matters, which he would reserve to the magistrates, otherwise he had detracted much from those to whom he everywhere commandeth to give obedience. And so, saith he, that which Paul saith is nothing but what Christ saith, "Tell the church." Besides, Paul himself appealed to Cæsar: Let all men judge, saith he, whether the Apostle would make it unlawful to other wronged persons, which he thought lawful for himself? I answer, 1. If it was a shame and foul scandal for Christians to pursue one another for smaller matters pertaining to this life, how much more for crimes and weightier matters? for then the unbelievers might cast the heavier load of reproaches upon the Christian religion. 2. This might have opened a door to elude that which the Apostle so earnestly presseth; for one would be ready to say, this cause of mine is a weighty one, it is an injury and crime that cannot be borne, therefore I am free to pursue it before unbelievers; whereas the Apostle saith, "Why do ye not rather take wrong? why do ye not rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded?" 3. The judging of the smallest matters, and of the things pertaining to this life is, by the Apostle, opposed, not to weighty civil injuries, but to the judging of the world and of angels, as is manifest by the antithesis in the text. he maketh no intimation of the least distinction of civil injuries, as if some might be pursued before unbelieving judges, some not. He speaketh generally, ver. 1, "Dare any of you having a matter against another;" ver. 4, "If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life;" ver. 7, "Why do ye not rather take wrong?" 4. If that which Paul saith be the same with that which Christ saith, "Tell the church;" and if it was Paul's mind that he who would not hearken to chosen arbitrators among the saints, might be pursued before the unbelieving judges (as Erastus tells us both here and thes. 47), then "Tell the church" cannot be meant of telling the magistrate of the same religion; for Paul sends them to no Christian magistrate (because there was none such then and there), but to arbitrators chosen among the saints. It is most strange to me, that so acute a disputant could expound the telling of the church, Matt. xviii., by the reference to arbitrators, 1 Cor. vi., and

But

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?

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 way 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? 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.

I

Eighthly, That interpretation of Erastus leaneth to a false supposition, namely, that the words woTep 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 ò; 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 reλwvns 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? 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 éviKoi. 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 Twν ȧvůрúπwν, 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 тò 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

66

men; by a branch, a fruitless or withered branch; why shall we not also understand by o Teλurns, the profane, loose, or unjust publican, and as Grotius doth rightly expound it, ỏ àμаprwλòs. 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.

endeth with all, "Whatsoever ye bind on earth," &c. Whence he concludeth that, in both these places, what is said to one is said to all of them.

CHAPTER V.

IN IT THAN TELL IT UNTO A GREATER NUMBER."

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. Papa. 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 ék«λŋoia 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 number 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 ésλŋoia, 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 ékkλŋola simply because of the majority of numbers.

1 Sutlivius, de Presbyt., cap. 1.

Sure I am ékkλnola 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 ekkλnoía, 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 συνέδριον, 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 ekkλŋoía had a power of jurisdiction to judge and determine causes, as is manifest from Acts xix. 38, 39. Their EKKλnoia was of two sorts, as Suides, Budæus, Stephanus, and others have observed: (1.) Νόμιμος ὡρισμένη ἐκκλησία, Nóμuos 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 κυρία ékkλnoia, 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, ἡ γὰρ ἐκκλησία κυρία 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 callpro re nata, upon some urgent extraor

ed

66

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 ouуkλŋтos without an adjective; é««λnoía, 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 eukaλeiolaι, to appeal to a superior ruler cometh from the same original verb from which cometh ekkλnoia. 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