CHAP. I. That the Jewes Synagogue-Assemblies were true visible Churches of Jesus Christ.

WHether were the Jewes Synagogues particular Churches of Jesus Christ or no? The Iewes Syna­gogues were particular Churches of Iesus Christ.

It is evident to me, that the Jewes-Syna­gogue-Assemblies were particular Churches of JESUS CHRIST: because it was the Angel of the Covenant, the Son of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, that did ordain and institute not only all the twelve Tribes into one Nationall-Church, but also that did di­vide and distribute the said twelve Tribes into several particular Churches. I say, Jesus Christ did institute both these kind of Churches in Israel : he was the Angel-Jehovah, that first spake unto Moses out of the bush, Exod. 3. 2. called also the God of Abraham, vers. 7. and he is also called the God of Glory, that first appeared to Abraham while he was an Idolater in his Fathers house in Me­sopotamia, Acts 7. 2. Jos. 24.

This God of glory did now appear unto Moses in the bush, and sent him to bring his People out of Egypt, and out of the house of bondage, Exod. 20. therefore Christ was that Jehovah, that said unto all Israel, Thou shalt have no other Gods but me: Thou [Page 2] shalt not make to thy self any graven Images, thou shalt not bow down to worship them; but thou shalt worship me alone, with such outward worship, as I have already appointed, or as I shall now appoint at this Mount Sinai, or which I shall hereafter appoint, when the Throne of my Tabernacle shall be reared up.

So then, Christ was that Jehovah that first promised the Land of Canaan, unto Abraham and his seed, Gen. 12. and that sent Moses to bring them out of Egypt, and that kept them company in the wildernesse, by going before them in a cloudy pillar by day, and in a fiery pillar by night, untill he brought them into the land of Canaan : And the Apostle Paul doth tell us plainly, that it was Christ that caused the rock to supply them with water in the wildernes, 1 Cor. 10. 4. Therefore it followes that it must needs be Jesus Christ that did not only unite the twelve Tribes, into one Nationall Church, but also that did distribute them into severall particular Church-Assemblies : And therefore it was Christ that appointed all the Ordinances of his worship by Moses, both their national, and in their particular Church-Assemblies.

How do you prove that Jesus Christ did distribute the twelve Tribes into several particular Church-Assemblies.

I prove it by a place of Scripture, that is both plain and pregnant, Lev. 23. 1, 2, 3. Jehovah spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the sons of Israel, and say unto them, &c. and in verse 3. he saith thus, Six dayes shall work be done, but in the seventh day shall be a Sabbath of Sabbatism, a convocation of holinesse, ye shall not do any work, it shall be a Sabbath to Iehovah in all your dwel­lings.

In this Text, Jesus Christ is called Jehovah, he bade Moses (the chief Magistrate) to speak unto the sons of Israel, that is to say, to the chief Sons or Elders of Israel; as he doth explain his meaning in Levit. 9. 1. 3. There Moses bids Aaron to speak unto the sons of Israel; that is to say the 70. to the Senate of Israel in the first place, Exod. 25. 1. 9. Numb. 11. that so by their means all the other sons of Israel might under­stand the commandment of Christ, concerning the time and man­ner of his publike worship. And so it was Christ also, that bad Moses to set the judiciall Laws before them, Exod. 21. 1. that is to say, before the chief sons of Israel in the first place, and so by their means before all the people also; and by this orderly way, Christ did communicate all his Laws, and Ordinances to all the people, see Ains. in Exod. 4. 29. & 12. 3. compared with 21. & with Num. 5. 1. & 30. 1.

[Page 3] Then Christ by Moses bade these chief sons of Israel to pro­claim Convocations of Holiness, that all the people might know the appointment of Christ : and Christ did command these chief sons of Israel to proclaim unto the people the observation of two several kinds of holy Convocations. First, particular Convoca­tions of Holiness, or particular Church-Assemblies, which they must observe every seventh Day in all their dwellings, Levit. 23, 3.

Secondly, By general Convocations of Holiness, or general Church-Assemblies, which they must observe before his Sanctu­ary three times a year, verse 4. and so to thee and of the Chapter

Now, the first sort of these holy Convocations spoken of, vers. 3. must needs be understood of their particular Church-Assemblies, for this phrase, In all your dwellings: cannot be understood nei­ther of their Family-Assemblies, nor yet of their Nationall Church-Assemblies; therefore it must be understood of particu­lar Church-Assemblies.

First I say, that this Convocation which Christ commanded them to keep every seventh Day in all their dwellings, cannot be understood of their Family-Convocations. It is a grosse con­ceit for any man to think that Christ did by this phrase, command every Family to stay at home to keep a Convocation in every pri­vate Family. Secondly, it is as grosse a conceit to think, that Christ did, by this phrase, command all the twelve Tribes to keep a general Convocation before the Sanctuary, every seventh Day, especially after they were setled in the Land of Canaan, in their several Inheritances: any man that hath but half an eye, may see that such a Convocation was impossible to be observed every seventh Day. Therefore it follows by necessary conse­quence, that the holy Convocation which Christ did command them to keep every seventh Day in all their dwellings, must be understood of such particular Church-Convocations, as were made of several Families, in a convenient distance of place for every ones dwelling. The truth of this Interpretation will the better appear, if we do but consider two circumstantial differences. 1. Of Time. 2. Of Place. First, of Time: This Convocation spoken of in verse 3. is expresly commanded to be observed every Sabbath, or seventh Day through all the year, even during the time of their travel in the wildernesse; therefore this Convocation can­not be understood of their general Church-Convocations: for their general festival Convocations were commanded to be ob­served [Page 4] only three times in the year: neither were they bound to observe their festival Convocations in the time of their travels in the wilderness, but the observation of those Convocations were adjourned until they were settled in rest, in the Land of Canaan, Numb. 15. 2.

Secondly, this Convocation of holiness, Levit. 23. 3. Differs from their National-Convocation in respect of place, because their National-Convocation was commanded to be observed only be­fore the Tabernacle or Temple, which place was a great way off from the most part of their dwellings, after they were setled in Canaan. But this Convocation of holinesse, in verse 3. is at hand, and therefore it is commanded to be observed in all their dwel­lings; that is to say, not far off, but nigh to every ones dwelling, so that all sorts of persons might resort thither with ease, every Sabbath or seventh Day, without breaking the rest of the holy Sabbath by long toyl of travel; for the Text saith plainly, Yee shall not do any work, it shall be a Sabbath to Jehovah, in all your dwellings; but if all the twelve Tribes had been commanded to repaire to the Tabernacle, or Temple every Sabbath or seventh Day, they must have toyled hard, and so have broken the rest of the holy Sabbath.

Therefore seeing this Convocation in verse 3. is so expresly li­mited. 1. To the time of the Sabbath or seventh Day. And 2. to the place of their dwellings; that is to say, in a convenient nigh distance to their dwellings. It doth necessarily follow that this Convocation of holinesse spoken of in verse 3. must needs be un­derstood only of their particular Church-Assemblies, which Christ ordained as well as their general Church-Assemblies.

It is said in Psal. 87. 2. That Jehovah loveth the Gates of Zion, above the dwelling places of Iacob.

That is to say, Christ did more delight to manifest his visible Presence in the Cloud of his presence, between the Cherubin up­on Mount Sion, then in their Synagogue-Assemblies: but he did graciously blesse their Synagogue-Assemblies with his Spiritual presence to the conversion of souls, as he did the place of his visi­ble presence in Mount Sion.

But I chiefly alledge this place in Psal. 87. to note out unto us, that their particular Church-Assemblies, were called the dwelling places of Iacob, because they were many, and conveniently dis­persed in all the Towns and Villages of Israel.

[Page 5] Secondly, if Jesus Christ had left his people to their own liber­tie and discretion, whether they would have met together in particular Church-Assemblies, to worship him every Sabbath or no, all the while they were in their travels in the wildernes, which was for the space of thirty eight years together; Then doubtless they would have used that liberty to the increasing of Idolatry, and profaneness, as experience doth teach us in all places where the strict exercise of Gods worship in particular assemblies hath been neglected; and then the generation that entred into Ca­naan, would have been worse then those that came out of Egypt, but they must be better instructed before they could enter into Ca­naan; therefore there was a necessitie that Jesus Christ should en­joyn them to observe particular Convocations of holiness, by particular Church-Assemblies every Sabbath or seventh Day, even whiles they were in their travels in the wildernesse.

What other proof have you to confirm this Tenent, that the Iewes Synagogues were particular Churches of Iesus Christ?

The truth of this Tenent doth further appear by the term Church, and the term Synagogue, which are used as terms convertible or synonima.

First the Apostle Iames calls a Christian Church a Synagogue, Iames 2. 2. If there come saith he, unto your Synagogue, a man with a gold ring, &c. Here the term Synagogue, in the singular number is put for Synagogues in the plural number; for Iames writes not to one particular Church or Synagogue onely, but he writes to the converted Iewes of the twelve Tribes which were dispersed into divers heathen Countries, Iames 1. 1. For they had Synagogues in every heathen Countrey, and they had many god­ly Christians that still lived with them, though some were sepa­rated into particular Churches: Iames saith to them all in gene­ral as if he spake to one particular Church meeting, &c.

Secondly, David calls the Jewes-Synagogues by the name of Churches, as M. Ainsworth noteth in Psal. 26. 12. In the Churches, saith he, will I blesse thee: And again David doth exhort all the faithfull to blesse God in the Churches, Psalm. 68. 26. That is to say, in their particular Synagogue-meetings: so then by the Testimony of Iames and David, it is evident that the term Church, and the term Synagogue, are terms convertible or sy­nonima.

[Page 6] Thirdly, The seventy do make the terme Church, and the terme Synagogue to be Synonima. These seventy Translators were Jewes, and therefore in reason were able to render the He­brew word Kahal (which we translate Church) in a right sense; and they translate Kahal seventy times by Ecclesia, and thirty se­ven times by Synagogue: as Kirkerus in his Hebrew-Greek Lexicon doth note it to our hands.

Fourthly, The Prophet lamenteth, that the enemy had burned all the Synagogues of God in the land, Psal. 74. 4. 8. The Pro­phet calls them the Synagogues of God, because they were ap­pointed and ordained by Jesus Christ, for the use of his publike worship every Sabbath day.

Hence it follows, that if any of the Jewish Synagogues in the dayes of the Apostles did embrace the Gospel, they might well be called a Christian Church, without any alteration of their Discipline; as the whole Synagogue of Antioch in Syria did : (for I believe there was a Jewish Synagogue in that City, be­cause there were many Jews there, though the terme Synagogue be not expressed in the text) For as yet the Apostles preached to the Jews onely: Acts 11. 29. and therefore that Synagogue might well continue in the same order of Discipline as it stood before : and why should it be thought a thing incredible, that a whole Synagogue might not be converted by the preaching of the Gospel, as well as whole Families; seeing the Jews of this Antioch, did not oppose the believing Grecians, as the malignant Jews of other Synagogues did? we never read of any opposition that this Church or Synagogue made against the Gospel, except by some Jews that came from Judea, and taught the Brethren, say­ing, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye can­not be saved. Acts 15. 1. Neither do we read of any separation that Christians made from this Synagogue, as they did from other Synagogues when they were persecuted. Therefore I conceive all the Jews of this Synagogue were converted in general: and this Synagogue was first called a Church of Christians. Acts 11. 26. and yet there were synagogues in Judea, Galilee, and Samaria, that were called Churches before this: Acts 9. 31. but they were not wholy converted to Christianity, as this synagogue of An­tioch was : some godly converts there were in these synagogues by the ministry of John Baptist, and of Christ, who had some rest from persecution, at the time of Paul's conversion; but no sepa­rated [Page 7] Christian Church was established as yet, except the Church at Jerusalem, Acts 1. 15. and except this synagogue of Antioch.

5. When Paul was sent with letters from the high Priest, to persecute Christians that as yet continued in synagogues; he was converted as he was going to persecute the Christians that were in the synagogue of Damascus; whereupon he preached Christ in the synagogue of Damascus, and then he preached Christ also in the synagogues of Arabia, for three yeers together, before he consulted with any of the Apostles, Acts 9. 1. 20. Gal. 1, & 2. Then had the Churches rest, throughout all Iudea, Galilee, and Samaria. Acts 9. 31. These Churches can be no other but the synagogues of those places where divers of them were converted to Christianity by the preaching of Iohn Baptist, and by Christ and his Apostles, where they yet continued : For I find no parti­cular Christian Church established as yet, but the Church at Jeru­salem and at Antioch, as I noted above. In one place Paul saith that He persecuted the Church of God extremely, and wasted it. Gal. 1. 13. but in Acts 22. 19. he saith, He prisoned and beat in e­very synagogue, them that believed in Christ. Therefore the Jews synagogues may well be called particular Churches of Jesus Christ.

Some learned men do affirm, that the Iews Synagogues were no true Particular Churches of Iesus Christ, because they wanted one of the essential marks of a true Particular Church: For according to the opinion of sundry learned Divines, a true Church must have three marks that are essential to the completing of a true Church. First, The preaching of Gods word by a chosen Officer. Secondly, The right administration of the Sacraments. Thirdly, the power of Discipline: Now it is evident that the Sy­nagogues wanted the use and practise of the two Sacraments, which were in ordinary use before the coming of Christ. Therefore they were no true Churches of Iesus Christ.

This is a hard saying, to condemn the Jews syna­gogues, as no true Churches of Jesus Christ, because they did not Administer those Sacraments, that were in ordinary use among the Jewes. If there can be no true Church of Jesus Christ without the Administration of the ordinary Sacraments, then those Chri­stian-Assemblies were no true Churches of Jesus Christ, which were often Congregated at Amersham, and in other parts in England, in the dayes of Henry the eight, to hear the Word of [Page 8] God read and expounded, by the ablest Christians they would chuse out among themselves: for I conceive they did many years meet together to hear the Word of God, without the use of the Sacraments, and without the use of any settled Discipline, except­ing the use of such private reproofs, as they in godly wisedome did give to one another for the reformation of sinful misdemeanours: though I grant that such Assemblies had the use of the Sacraments, and of Discipline also in the dayes of Queen Mary, but not in the dayes of King Henry the eight, that I can find recorded in any story; and yet I conceive there were many true particular Churches of Jesus Christ in those dayes. Therefore I conceive that in time of persecution, where ever a company of godly Christians did use to assemble upon the Lords-Day to hear the Word of God preached by one of the most ablest chosen men among themselves, they were to be esteemed as a true particular Church of Jesus Christ, or else I fear we shall hardly find any true Church of Christ in the world, for many years together in the height of Popery.

Therefore notwithstanding this Objection, I conclude that the Jewes synagogues were true Churches of Jesus Christ, as long as they had the use and exercise of the Word preached among them, though they wanted the use of the ordinary Sacraments in their synagogues, and yet I suppose they circumcised in their synagogues, for they came to the Administration of that seal of the Covenant in a publick manner, as Learned Divines think, Luk. 1. 59.

I confesse that the Iewes Synagogues have been of ex­cellent use from ancient times: but I have formerly thought that these Synagogues had been erected at the first, by the voluntary care of their godly Governours: and not by Divine Institution of Iesus Christ.

I have sufficiently proved from Levit. 23. 3. that syna­gogue-worship was not first erected by the voluntary care of god­ly Governours, but by the special appointment of Jesus Christ : and it is most like that synagogue-worship was ordained by Christ from the beginning of the world: for they did sanctifie the Sab­bath by particular Church-Assemblies, whilest they lived in E­gypt long before they came into the Wilderness : for the Angel of Gods presence said thus unto those that went out to gather Manna upon the Sabbath (before they came to Mount Synai, and there­fore before the Law given at Mount Synai) How long will ye re­fuse to keep my Commandments, and my Lawes? Exod. 16. 28. [Page 9] From this text it is evident, that Jesus Christ had given them a commandment and a law, for the publike sanctifying of the holy Sabbath, before he gave the ten commandments at mount Sinai: and therefore he had instructed them in the observation of their festival sabbaths; for he did not require them to observe their fe­stival sabbaths while they were in their travels in the Wildernes, but he adjourned the observation of their festival sabbaths, until they were setled in rest in Canaan, Numb. 15. 2. and therefore after Christ had commanded the Tabernacle to be twice erected in the Wildernes, for the place of their National Church-Assem­blies, and after that he had declared the Ordinances thereof (which was done in the second yeer after their coming from Aegypt) then, immediately after the Tabernacle was folded up again, 38. yeers together, as M. Ainsworth observed, Numb. 2. In all which space, they did not observe any of their festival sabbaths, except the Pass-over once onely, in the second yeer after they came out of Aegypt. Num. 9. And yet in all this 38. yeers space, the Angel of Gods presence did not leave them to their own li­berty, whether they would observe the sabbath by an holy con­vocation or no : but he did straitly charge them to observe that day with an holy convocation in all their dwellings; they might not omit this holy convocation every seventh day in all their dwellings; though they must omit the observation of all their festival sabbaths for 38. yeers togethers : If they had neglected their Particular Church-Assemblies, as they did omit their Nati­onal Church-Assemblies, for 38. yeers together, doubtless Reli­gion would have perished from among them.

Yea, after they did enjoy their National Church-Assemblies Their National Church-worship, was not suffici­ent of it self to preserve the truth of Religion a­mong them. But their Synagogue worship was suf­ficient without National wor­ship, both when they lived in the Wildernes, and when they lived in heathen coun­tries. in the land of Canaan three times a yeer, Religion would have perished among them, if it had not been for this command of Christ, to observe those particular Church-Assemblies in all their dwellings.

And this is evident, by considering the defects that were in their National Church-worship : 1. In regard of Persons. 2. Of Place. 3. Of time.

First, Consider the Persons that were enjoyned to be present at their National Church-Assemblies; and they were but some part of those persons that were to be instructed in Faith and Ho­liness: For neither bond-men, nor women, nor children, were bound to be present at any of their National Church-meetings, [Page 10] onely men that were free, were commanded to meet three times a year : vid. Ainsw. on Exod. 23. 17. Therefore their National Church-Assemblies, were never intended by Christ as the chief means to train up all sorts of Persons in faith and holines.

2. Consider the place that the Son of God appointed for their National Church meetings, and that was set but in one of their Tribes, which the Lord would chuse; therefore all sorts of per­sons could not come thither every sabbath day, in regard of the length of the way; for the place was a great way off from most of their dwellings. Therefore the most men could not come thither every sabbath, especially if any infirmity were upon them; and if it had been possible for all sorts of persons to assemble every sabbath unto the Lords Temple, yet so great a multitude could neither hear the voice of the Priests, nor yet see the publike sacrifices with their eyes; and in that regard, every one that re­sorted to the National Church-Assembly, were commanded by Christ to bring their own private sacrifice over and above the publike, and not to come before the Lord emptie. Deut. 12.

Therefore the place of their National Church meetings, was never intended by Christ, as the onely Church meeting of the Israelites, for the training up of all sorts of persons every seventh day in faith and holines.

3. Consider the time of this National Church-worship, and that was commanded to be done, (not every sabbath or seventh day) but onely three times a yeer, Exod. 23. 14. 17. Lev. 23. Therefore it must needs follow by necessary consequence, that this National Church-Assembly, was never intended by Christ as the onely Church-meeting for Israel : and therefore Christ must needs establish some other particular Church-meetings for holy convocations in all their dwellings, to be observed every seventh day, as the most constant and familiar way and means for the education of all sorts of Gods people in faith and holines: and what other particular convocations could Israel have in all their dwellings, but their synagogue-assemblies, whither all sorts of people might easily resort every sabbath? Bondmen as well as Freemen; Children as well as the most Ancient; Women as well as Men; Proselites as well as Israelites; yea Heathens might come thither to be instructed, though they might not come into the holy Temple. And these holy convocations in all their dwel­ings, were commanded to be observed in the Wildernes, while [Page 11] they were in their travels, as well as in the land of Canaan when they came thither. Yea they observed these particular Church-Assemblies in all Heathen Countries, when they were in disper­sion. Christ did not leave them in any place of their captivity, free from the observation of the holy sabbath, in the best manner they could attain; but he did fully free them from all their National Church-worship when they were in captivity in heathen coun­tries: but he commanded them to observe his National Church-worship, but only in that particular place which he had chosen in the land of Canaan, and not in heathen Countries, nor in the Wildernes.

From the due consideration of these three circumstances, the Angel from whom Moses received lively Oracles, doth plainly shew unto us, that there was an absolute necessity why he must distribute the National Church of the Jews, into particular Church-Assemblies, in a convenient distance among all their dwellings, for the better instruction of all sorts of people, every sabbath or seventh day, in faith and holines.

I confess you have given me good satisfaction in this point: I do conceive that Christ did distribute the National Church of the Iews into sundry particular Churches, in a conve­nient distance among all their dwellings, for the better instructing of all sorts of people every sabbath in faith and holines; not onely in Canaan, but in the Wildernes, and in all places of their disper­sion; by means whereof they did preserve the truth of Religion, till the coming of Christ, better then the Iews did in Canaan, where they did for the most part enjoy the free use of their National Church-Worship. And Christ did much honour these dispersed Synagogues, with the conversion of many ten thousand souls, both of Iews and Heathens, by sending abroad his Apostles and Disci­ples, to preach the glad tydings of the Gospel among them.

I am glad that you are now satisfied that the Iews synagogues were established by Christ as his particular Churches : now seeing you grant their synagogues to be true Churches, you must allow their Discipline to be according to the mind of Christ : and indeed Christ did highly honour this point of Discipline a­mong them, in that their Officers did so freely give way to the Apostles and Disciples to preach in their synagogues. This free­dom and liberty was a commendable custom among them, and it was well rewarded with plentiful preaching, and conversion of souls all the world over.

[Page 12]

In what parts of the world had the Iews liberty to have or build Synagogues?

The Iews were scattered abroad into the four winds of heaven, by the just anger of Christ for their Apostasie, but in the midst of wrath he remembred mercy; for at last he gave them favour in the sight of all Nations, to have and build synagogues for the free ex [...]rcise of their Religion.

As for example, in the daies of Ahasuerus the Persian Empe­rour, The antiquity of Synagogues in heathen Coun­tries. Haman did inform the King that there was a people which were dispersed in all his Dominions (which was an hundred twenty and seven Provinces) that had laws differing from all Nations, and differing from the Kings laws, and he perswaded the King it was not fit for him to suffer them to live. Est. 3. 8. Now if Haman had been asked what laws had the Iews differing from all Nations, and differing from the Kings laws? I believe he could have found no other laws peculiar to them, and differing from other Nations, but the laws and Ordinances of Iesus Christ, which they publikely preached and taught in their synagogues every sabbath, in all the said hundred twenty and seven Provin­ces. From this accusation of Haman, it may be safely gathered, that the Iews had abundance of synagogues in all the hundred twenty and seven Provinces of Ahasuerus Dominions.

And we may guess, they began to build synagogues in the time of the Babylonian Captivity, for Christ did procure favour for the poor captives at the hands of the Babylonian Emperors, as well as of the Persian, by many stately passages of his wise pro­vidence: For about the fifth yeer of Nebuchadnezar, he caused Daniel to be advanced into the Kings favour, by giving him skill The provident care of Christ for speedy spreading of particular Christian Churches into all parts of the world, doth mightily appear by his dispersing the Iews into sundry heathen Coun­tries, to have Sy­nagogues, and to get Assemblies before-hand, fit for the Apostles and Disciples of Christ to preach the Gospel to. to tell and to expound Nebuchadnezar's dreams; and then he procured them another new favour, by delivering the three no­ble Martyrs out of the fiery furnace. Thirdly, Daniel obtained another new favour of Darius Madai, fellow in government with Cyrus, when Christ did so miraculously deliver him from the power of the [...]ungry lyons. Fourthly, Christ caused Ester and Mordecai to be highly advanced into favour with Ahasuerus, and with Darius Artaxerxes his son: and thus it pleased Christ by these stately passages of his providence, to procure favour for all the Iews in general that were dispersed into several heathen Countries for the building of synagogues for the free exercise of their Religion. And though Haman plotted the overthrow of [Page 14] their Religion, yet through the wise providence of Christ (to whom the Father gave all authoritie and power) Haman was o­verthrown with all his Amalakite party, who had determined the death of the Iews in every Province. Then the fear of the Iews fel upon the Heathens, and many heathens became Proselites, Ester 8. 17. that is to say, they did associate themselves with the Iewes, to worship God, with them in their synagogues.

And thus the Lord Christ by these stately passages of his provi­dence, did promote some of the Iews to special favour with the heathen Emperours, by whose favour the rest obtained favour for the erecting of synagogues, and for the exercise of their reli­gion in all Countries.

Nay, It appears to me that the Iews began to have and build synagogues in heathen Countries in the dayes of Nebuchad-ne­zar, and in the time of Ieremies preaching, for he and Ezekiel did assure them that Nebuchad-nezar should conquer the land and lay it wast for seventy years, thereupon many Godly Iews did sell their estates and flee away, as they could get opportunitie into di­vers heathen countries aforehand, either unto Babel before they were captivated, or else into some of those hundred twenty seven Provinces above-mentioned, even as Elias fled from the face of Iezabel, so did many Godly Iews flee from persecuting Princes, Priests and Prophets into divers heathen countries for safety; for God had his out-casts that did hide themselves from the evil day, Esa. 16. 3. 4. Ier. 40. 11, 12. and 43. 5, 6, 7. and 44. 14. Ezek. 7. 12. and of the number of these out-casts they might well be who had and built synagogues in Corinth and Rome and other remote parts, as Mr Broughton thinks in Lam. 1. 3.

And Christ Iesus did provide by his special providence, that these synagogues should be made famous and eminent for learn­ing and Godlines in all heathen Countries, for many heathens were affected to religion, and became Proselites, and many did accompany the Iews that returned with Zorobabel that could not discerne their fathers house, whether they were of Isra­el or no, Ezra 2. 59. 60. and by this quaere into their genea­logy it appears that the rulers of the Iews did conceive that there were some heathens among them that had been so long joyned to their Church, that they could not finde out their pedigree, whether they were Israelites or no. And though forty nine thou­sand Iews returned at the first, Ezra 2. and many after, yet ma­ny [Page 14] thousands did continue in all Nations, and did exercise their Religion in particular Church-assembies, which Church is con­tinued till the Gospel of Iesus Christ was preached among them: as in Babylon, they had a synagogue, if not more then one: for the Apostle Peter (neer 500. years after) converted many souls to Christ there: and dated his first Epistle from thence, 1 Pet. 5. 13.

2. Jesus Christ did still more and more disperse the Jewes, af­ter the Chaldean and Persian times, by the interchangeable wars that continued long between the Seleucidae and the Lagidae, the two legs of the Image; Dan. 2. for the seat of their war was for the most part in the land of Canaan and in the Countries adjacent. And when the Celeucidae prevailed, they led captive many Jews into the Easterne and Northern parts. But when the Lagidae pre­vailed, they led many Jews captive into Egypt, and the parts adjacent. And thus Christ the Lord used these Tyrants as his in­struments to disperse the Jews all the world over, to build Syna­gogues for the exercise of Religion, and for the instructing and converting of many heathens, and for the use of the Apostles and of other Apostolick men, that by this means they might have a free and ready entrance to preach the Gospel, to the conversion of many ten thousands both of Jews and Heathens. And thus the Lord Jesus did before-hand prepare a way for the ready preaching of the Gospel all the world over : and then, when he was ready to leave the Apostles behinde him, he commanded them to go unto all Nations, to teach and baptize them into the Name of the Father, of the Son, and of the holy Ghost, Mat. 28.

And Paul himself was so industrous, that he did quickly make the word of God to abound from Ierusalem to Illyricum, and also to Rome, Rom. 15. 14. for he found ready to his hand, many Sy­nagogues in all places where he came : when he came first to Da­mascus he found Synagogues there, Act. 9. 2. 20. and at Sala­mis, Acts 13. 5. at Antioch in Pisidia, chap. 13. 14. at Iconi­um, chap. 14. 1. at Thessalonica, 17. 10. at Athens, chap. 17. at Corinth, 18. 4. at Ephesus, chap. 18. 19. at Philippi, there was a place for publique worship, chap. 16. 13. and by the opportunitie of these Synagogues, Paul had a ready entrance to preach the Gospel every-where, to the conversion of many ten thousand Iews, Act. 21. 20. The Lord Iesus Christ by the seven eyes of his providence, prepared these Synagogues, by dispersing the Iews all the world over, to build them for the preservation of Religion, [Page 15] and for the spreading thereof: and then the Lord did also make a gracious promise to the Iews that went into dispersion, that they should honour him, by setting up his pure worship in all those heathen countries where they were captived, Ezek. 6. 8. 9. 10. Zac. 10. 9. Ezek. 11. 16. and 12. 16. and this prophesie was ful­filled by the Iews practice of Religion, in one hundred twenty and seven Provinces, Ester 3. 8. 1 Pet. 1. 1. Iam. 1. 1. Acts 2. 5. and 21. 20. And Christ did honour these dispersed Iews by sending his Apostles to preach in their Synagogues, and by dedi­cating a great part of the New Testament to the faithfull that li­ved among them; for Peter wrote two Epistles to them, and Iames wrote an Epistle to the twelve Tribes that were in disper­sion, and Iohn wrote severall Epistles to them, and Paul wrote an Epistle to the Hebrews in generall.

You have spoken much of the free liberty the Apostles had to preach in their Synagogues, but they did often finde strong opposition also by the malignant part of the Synagogue: What course then did the Apostles take to train up their young Converts in faith and holinesse?

In this case the Apostles were forced to separate the beleeving Christians from the malignant of the Synagogue, and Those Christians that were first converted by the Apostles in the Iews synagogue did not presently separate them­selves from the Iewes synagogue to make particu­lar Churches by themselves, until the synagogues did first persecute them for their faith in Christ crucified. they app [...]inted them to meet together in some convenient place, as a Christians Church upon every Lords day. As for example, when the malignant Synagogue of Corinth did persecute the be­leeving Christians that were converted among them, then the Apostles did separate them from the malignant Synagogue, and then they kept Church-meetings in the house of one Iustus, Act. 18. 7. But the greatest part of these Converts were the Proselites of that synagogue, 1 Cor. 12. 2. Act. 18. 4. and many of them were Iews also, for the incestuous person was a Iew, 1 Cor. 5. 1.

2. The beleeving Christians of Ephesus did separate them­selves from the malignant synagogue, and they kept their Church-meetings in the Schole of one Tyrannus, Act. 19. 9. 10. and these Converts were part Iews and part Gentiles.

3. The beleeving Christians in Thessalonica did separate themselves from the persecuting synagogue, and joyned them­selves in company with Paul, Act. 17. 4. 5. they kept their Church-meeting in the house of Iason, and part of this Church were Iews, but the greatest part were heathens, 1 Thess. 2. 14. and I think, all the Iews synagogues in all the parts of their dispersion [Page 16] had many Gentiles that were joyned to their synagogues, as Pro­selites, Act. 17. 4. and 14. 1. and 13. 42. 43. But when the A­postles and Disciples did evidently evince by the Scriptures that Christ must die and rise again, then it stirred up many Iews to en­vy, which caused persecution, and persecution caused the believing part of the synagogue to separate from the unbelieving and malig­nant part. This separation was not made because the beleeving part held the unbeleeving part no true Church, but because they could not be suffered to preach and teach those sundamental truths, but must endure great opposition and persecution if they did still abide with them.

You said ere-while that the Lord Christ commanded them to order it so, that the place of holy Convocations every sab­bath must be placed in a convenient distance for their dwellings, for the more easie and familiar accesse of all sorts of people every sabbath: but how far off, or how nigh this place of worship must be from every ones dwelling, is not expressed in the Text; Therefore how can this distance be determined?

The command of Christ in this and such like cases, is contained or included within certain general rules. As for ex­ample, Christ saith thus, every seventh day ye shall observe a con­vocation of holinesse in all your dwellings, Levit. 23. 3. Hence Iesus Christ did ordain that the place of his par­ticular Church-worship should bee conveniently seated for their dwellings. it is evident that the place of their holy convocations must be so conveniently disposed, that they might come to them without bodily toyl; for the Text saith, that no work must be done upon that day.

2. There is another general rule which Christ gave them, for the conveniencie of place, in Exod. 16. 29. Let no man goe out of his place upon the seventh day: by this limitation Christ doth not prohibit men to go out of their private dwellings upon the sab­bath, for the Text doth command holy convocations upon the sabbath, Levit. 23. which cannot be done except men go out of their private houses to make a convocation. But by this prohi­bition, Let no man go out of his place upon the sabbath: The He­brew Doctors understand it as a general prohibition, that no man should go far from his private dwelling, to the publick place of Gods worship, upon the sabbath. But still the distance is not expressed, therefore it is left to the wisdom of Godly superiours to set down some convenient order therein : Therefore these com­mands of Christ doe contain as much in them as is contained in [Page 17] those other general commands in the New Testament, Let all things be done to edification, 1 Cor. 14. 26. And Let all things be done decently and in order, 1 Cor. 14. 40. Hence it is evident that there are many particular circumstances about the manner of Gods worship, which are not expressed, but are left only to the Godly wisdom of superiours to order and determine. And in this re­spect the Hebrew Doctors took care to settle an order touching the distance of place, how far off the synagogue must be set from every ones dwelling; and by their order they did not allow men to go above two thousand cubits upon the sabbath. Kimchi in his Annotations upon Ezekiel 48. 7. saith that two thousand cubits are a mile, (meaning an Italian or English mile:) and from this ancient Hebrew decree, the speech of a sabbath dayes journey was common among the Jews: and in this sense Luke doth Thalmu­dize, saying, that mount Olivet was a sabbath dayes journey from Jerusalem, Act. 1. 12. vid. Ains. on Exod. 16. 29. And by this Godly Hebrew decree we may see that the vast distance of some meeting-houses in England, are so far off from some mens dwel­lings that they cannot come thither on the Lords day, unlesse they travel and toil for it three or four miles together, by means of which travel they are more fit to sleep at Gods worship then to attend it as they ought to do.

But in case no good preaching be to be had neer to every ones dwelling, or in case there be far more excellent means to be had further off, What then is to be done? Then I conceive the point of conveniencie must give way to the point of necessity, as in the dayes of Christ, they flocked to his Ministery from their own sy­nagogues, and yet he did not rebuke them for it, as a sin.

What would you have those men to do whose habitati­ons are three or four miles distant from the place of Gods publique worship? would you have them to forsake the place of their habi­tation where their inheritance lies, or where the means of their livelihood lies, to dwell in a neer distance to the meeting-house?

Either they ought to remove neerer to the place of publike worship, or else they ought to provide a place for publike worship neere unto their habitations. The Hebrew Doctors If ten men of Israel did live re­mote from any synagogue, they must prepare a New Synagogue nigh to their dwellings. did wisely labour to stoppe this objection, and therefore they de­creed, that where ever Ten men of Israel did live but above a mile from any synagogue, they should prepare them another house for prayer, wherein they might assemble at all times of prayer. And [Page 18] in Cities they compelled the Citizens to build them a synagogue, and to buy them a book of the Law, Prophets, and Scriptures. And it is evident that the Jews built synagogues in every small place, And it is recorded by the Hebrew Doctors, that the Jews had of old four hundred Scholes and Synagogues within the Ci­ty Jerusalem, besides what they had in other Cities and Towns, through all the Tribes in Canaan, and through all heathen Coun­tries whither-so-ever they were carried captive : in all places they did exceedingly multiply synagogues and scholes of learning, as the chiefest Nurseries of Religion. See Ains. in Levit. 26. 31.

What kinde of worship did the Lord ordain to be used in their synagogues on the sabbath?

The Apostle Iames▪ doth tell us that Moses had of old time in every City, them that preached him, being read in the synagogue every sabbath, Act. 15. 31. and Paul doth tell us that That kind of worship which Christ ordained to bee used in their synagogue-Assemblies was Prayer and Prea­ching, without any Levitical ce­remonie. the Gospel was preached to the Iews as it is unto us. Heb. 4. 2. Gal. 3. 8. Maymony doth testifie, that Moses did appoint a certain por­tion of scripture to be read in their synagogue every sabbath throughout the year: and he doth tell us also, that Ezra did re­new this custom, after their return from captivitie of Babel: and that Lections of the Prophets were by him chosen out, in number and matter agreeable to the Sections of Moses. And the Rabbies do commonly make Ezra the Author of the Petaroths Distin­ctions, (not agreeing with Elias Levita,) which must needs be a long time before Antiochus Ephiphanes. They began to read their Sections and Lections in the feast of Tabernacles, and in a year they finished all. And after the reading of the Law and the Prophets, they that would (having leave of the Ruler of the sy­nagogue) spake upon those scriptures. And this custom was retained among them untill the dayes of the Apostles, as Luke doth witnesse in Act. 13. 14, 15, 16. vid. H. Broughton in his lesser Concent before the Petaroth: and Mr Ainsw. in Gen. 6. 8.

The place of their publique worship they called Beth Hackten­sen, The House of Doctrine: and sometime they named it The Place of Prayer, Act. 16. 13. by the terme Prayer, they meant it was the place of Gods publike worship : They comprehended Preaching under the term Prayer, as we may see by Paul's action, because he preached in this place of Prayer, by whose preaching Ly­dia and her houshold were converted : and afterwards as Paul and Sylas were going to this place of Prayer a certain maid having a [Page 14] spirit of Divination, cryed out, saying, These are the servants of the most high God, which shew unto you the way of salvation. This Maid doth bear witnesse that Paul and Sylas did something else in this place, more then bare Prayer : for she doth affirme that they did shew unto the people the way of salvation, by preaching Iesus Christ in that place. Therefore this place was not only a place of bare Prayer only, but it was a place of Preaching also: and it is called The place where the women did meet: but it appears by vers. 40. that men also did meet in this place, for they are called the brethren: It is called the place where the women did meet, in honour of Lydiaes conversion; but it was not a place for wo­men only, for it appears by Neh. 8. 2. that men women and children, and all that could understand, did assemble themselves to the preaching of the word of God: all sorts of people might and must resort to worship God in their synagogues: even unclean persons as well as clean; and therefore the very lepers (which were the most contagious of all unclean persons) had a place by themselves in their synagogues, vid. Ainsw. in Lev. 13. 46. but no unclean person might come to the publique worship of God into the ho­ly Temple.

So then their Synagogues were called the place of Prayer, by the figure Synocdoche, because Prayer was a principal part of that worship which was used there; Prayer was the beginning and ending of every duty. When they read the Law and the Pro­phets, they began and end with Prayer. But now the Jews have sophisticated the ancient gravitie of this duty, for the Jew that now reads in the synagogue, begins with Praising God, who chose Moses and the Prophets, and delighteth in their most true words, likewise endeth with praising of God, who speaketh and performeth, saith and establisheth, so that no one word faileth : then he prayes for the coming of Elias, and for the restoring of the pompous Kingdom of David by the Messiah. vid. H. Brough­ton, after the Petaroth in the Concent.

But in the days of Ezra, this manner was more pure, for then they begun with solemne Prayer before they read the holy Scriptures, Neh. 8. 5. 6. and the King himself when he read the Law publike­ly in the seventh year in the feast of Tabernacles, he began with solemne Prayer, Deut. 31. 10, to 14. And the Hebrew Doctors say, that when the King was to read the Law publikely, they blew Trumpets through all Jerusalem, to assemble the people: and they [Page 20] set up a Pulpit of wood, and set it in the midst of the Court yard, and the King went up, and sate thereon, that they might hear him read: and all Israel that went up to the feast, gathered round a­bout him: and the Minister of the synagogue took the book of the Law, and gave it to the Ruler of the Synagogue and the Ruler of the synagogue gave it to the Sagan of the Temple, and the Sagan of the Temple gave it to the high Priest, and the high Priest gave it to the King, to honour him before the multitude. And the King took it standing, and if he would he sate down, and opened it, and blessed God: and after he had blessed God, he read untill he had made an end; then he folded it up, and blessed God again after it: as the manner was to blesse God in the synagogues. Both the reading and the blessing was in the Holy tongue. vid. Ains. in Deut. 31. 11. This Hebrew record I bring for this purpose, to shew their ancient practice in blessing God, both before and after they read the holy Scripture in the Sy­nagogues: for it is said that the King blessed God before and after, as the manner was to blesse God in the Synagogues.

And when the King read the holy Scriptures, all the hearers were bound to prepare their hearts, and to make their ears atten­tive, and to hear with fear and reverence, and with joy and trem­bling, as in the day when the Law was given in Mount Synai. And though they were great wise men which knew the whole Law every whit, they were bound to hear with great attention; for the King is the Angel of the Congregation, to cause the word of God to be sounded. (vid. Ainsw. ibid.) that is to say, the King is the Angel of the general Assembly, to cause the word of God to be heard on that day.

But Sheliach Zibbur was the Angel of each particular Con­gregation, to cause the word of God to be read and expounded in their synagogues every sabbath day: therefore all their hearers were bound to make the like reparation, and to hear with great attentivenesse in their synagogues. And when the King read, or the chief Ruler, he must endervour to make the people understand the reading, as it is recorded in Nehemiah, chap. 8. 8.

And the persons that were bound to hear in the last day of the feast of Tabernacles, were not only men, but women and children, and the stranger that was within their gates, Deut. 31. 12. but yet no unclean person must come into this generall Assembly, as it is written in vers. 11. When all Israel is come; but the uncleane were not fit to come, because this general Church-Assembly was [Page 21] kept at Ierusalem in the Holy place. But no unclean Persons were exempted from coming into their particular Church-As­sembly, for all were bound to come to their synagogue convoca­tions every sabbath; yea the very lepers which were the most contagious of all unclean persons, they had a place prepared for them in their synagogues, as I noted it before.

And indeed their synagogue-Assemblies were in such high They used to keep weekly Le­ctures in their Synagogues. esteem among them, that they frequented those Assemblies, not onely on the sabbaths, but also they kept Lectures therein upon the week daies, for the better edification of Gods people in faith and holines. For when Paul and Barnabas had ended their preaching upon the sabbath at Antioch in Pisidia, then the Pro­selites of that synagogue besought them to preach the same sermon again in the middle sabbath: Acts 13. 42. That is to say, in the middle of the week, which they called the middle sabbath; for they dated all the daies of the week from the sabbath, thus; the first of the sabbath, the second of the sabbath, the third, the fourth of the sabbath, called here by Paul, The middle sabbath : on this day it seems they kept a weekly lecture at Antioch in Pi­sidia, and doubtles other synagogues in other places did the same: and in this regard the Apostle Paul doth exhort Timothy to preach the Word, and to be instant in season and out of season: 1 Tim. 4. 2. That is to say, be instant to preach the Word, not onely upon the sabbath daies, but also in the week daies, in keeping Lectures : and this may be said to be out of season, be­cause weekly Lectures is not so constantly and certainly com­manded as the sabbath Lectures are; but it is a voluntary sacri­fice which we give to God out of our own time and labour.

When the Jews received Heathens, as Proselites into their Synagogues, What did they require of them to fit them to be Members? For divers Heathens became Proselytes, and joyned with the Jews in their Synagogue Worship. Act. 2. 10. and 13. 43. and 14. 1. and 17. 4.

Those Heathens that desired to joyn with the Jews, How the Iews received hea­thens to be members of their National Church, and of their particular Synagogues also. as one body in their synagogue-worship, must be thus and thus qualified : The Hebrew Doctors say, that they received none to be Proselites, as long as they lived in the land of Canaan, until they had performed three actions. First, They must be circum­cised. Secondly, They must be baptised. Thirdly, They must bring a sacrifice. But in the Heathen Countries, where it was [Page 22] not lawful for the Iews to offer sacrifice, because they had no Sanctuary, there they received Proselites into their synagogue, by the performance of the two first actions onely, (and Women were received onely by Baptisme) and he that was baptised, was baptised in the presence of three, &c. And in the land of Is­rael, when any heathen man or woman came to joyn themselves to the Common-weal of Israel as a Proselite, the Elders of the Iews made diligent enquiry after such, lest they came to get themselves under the Law for some riches, or for some dignity, or for affection for marriage-sake, with some Iewish man or woman: If no such occasion were found against them, then they made known unto them the weightines of the yoke of the Law, and the toyl that is in the doing thereof, above that which the people of other lands have: to see if they will leave off; if yet they will take them upon them, and not withdraw, and see that they come of love, they then receive them; as it is written, When Naomi saw that Ruth was stedfastly minded to go with her, left speaking unto her, and embraced her. Ruth 1. 18.

But the Judges of Israel received no Proselytes into the Nati­onal Church, all the daies of David and Solomon: not in Davids The Iudges of their Sanhedrins were the Elders of their National Church. daies, lest they should come of fear; not in Solomons daies, lest they should come because of his peaceable Kingdom, and great prosperity which Israel then had : For who so cometh from the Heathens for any thing of the vanities of this world, he is no righ­teous Proselyte.

Notwithstanding, there were many Proselytes in the daies of David and Solomon, that joyned themselves to the Church, in the presence of private persons, and the Judges of the Sanhedrin had a care of them, and drove them not away out of any place after they were baptised, neither took they them neer unto them, until their after fruits appeared. Vid. Ainsw. on Gen. 17. 12. and Mr. Broughton on Dan. 9. saith, That many thousand Heathens became Proselytes in the daies of David and Solomon; being ad­mitted only by Baptisme, without Circumcision.

Baptisme was ever frequently used among the Jews, and doubtles it was in use from the begining of the World, as sacrifi­cing was; and it is evident, that the Godly after the Flood, did use to baptise their bodies, and their wearing garments, when they were defiled by any polution: as Jacob did, Gen. 35. and Christ commanded Moses to ordain the use of Baptisme among [Page 23] his People, as a signe of their sanctification. But at the last, when Christ ended all the Typical Ceremonies; then it pleased him to retain the use of Baptisme still, as the Sacramental Seal of our Justification; but he ordained it to be used in another form then it was before: For at first, every unclean person did bap­tise himself, but now he ordained it to be administred by his Apo­stles and Teachers to the end of the world as a sign of our initi­ation into his Visible Church, according to the use of it amongst them, when they received Proselytes into their synagogues: so in like sort, from the use of the bread and wine at their volunta­ry feast of peace-offerings, which they usually adjoyned to the Pass-over : Jesus Christ authorised his Sacramental Supper of part of that Bread and Wine for the comfort and confirmation of all Believers in particular Churches.

And when John Baptist began his Ministery, preaching that the Kingdom of Heaven was come; he began to enter men into the said Kingdom by Baptisme: and that action of his was no­thing strange among the Jews; Matth. 3. 5, 6. they made some question of his person that did it, but not of the use of Baptisme. Iohn 1. 25. M. Broughton saith Iohn was not astonishment to the Jews for his Baptisme, but for his person onely, and in that re­spect they demanded whether he were Elias, or Christ, or that Prophet named in Deut. 18.

2. When there was a question between some of Iohn's Disci­ples, and the Jews about purifying; that is to say, about the Jew­ish Baptismes, and Iohn's Baptisme, they made no opposition a­gainst Iohn's Baptisme, as a new upstart device of his own brain: Iohn 3. 23. 25. but they approved the use of Baptisme. And the Hebrew Doctors do determine the quantity of Water that they held fit to baptise a person withal, to be forty Seahs of Wa­ter. Vid. Ainsw. in Levit. 15. 12. 17.

But the Hebrew Doctors did not receive Proselytes by Baptism onely, as it were hand over head: but they put them upon tryal to see if they came out of love to the Law of God; and in this respect the Hebrew Doctors say thus, Moses our master gave the inheritance of the Law of Commandments to Israel onely, as it is written, Deut. 33. 4. The inheritance of the Congregation of Iacob: And unto any other that the Nations that willingly joyn­ed himself as a Proselyte, as it is written, Numb. 15. 15. As ye are, so shall the stranger be before the Lord. But whosoever is not [Page 24] willing, they force him not to receive the Law and the Com­mandments, vid. Ainsw. in Exod. 12. 49. These Proselites they were wont to be called Strangers within the Covenant, and Iust Strangers, to distinguish them from Strangers within their gates, that did but dwell among them; such as are mentioned in Deut. 14. 21. and in Exod. 12. 15. So then I conclude in answer to your question: That the Judges or Elders of the Sanhedrin, whiles they lived in Canaan, and likewise the Elders of their Synagogues when they were dispersed into Heathen Countries, received not all Heathens to be Proselytes that were willing to dwell among them; but they received those onely to be Proselytes, that wil­lingly testified their earnest desire to live in obedience to all the Laws and Commandments of the Lord: and this their willing desire was testified in the land of Canaan; First, By Circumcisi­on. Secondly, By Baptisme. Thirdly, By offering a Sacrifice. But in Heathen Countries it was testified by Circumcision, and Baptisme only : and Women were received by Baptisme onely, as the badge of their repentance and new obedience.

Did the Iews practise publike fasting in their Syna­gogues upon special occasions or no?

I find by their Hebrew records, That the syna­gogues were careful to observe daies of publike fasting upon oc­casion In their Syna­gogues they ob­served daies of publike fasting, upon occasion of any distress that was upon them. of any distress that did befal them. And they decreed that upon every Fasting-day which was appointed by the Congrega­tion, the Judges or Elders should sit in their synagogues, to make enquiry of the deeds of the men of that Citie from after morn­ing prayer, till mid-day; and they removed the stumbling blocks of transgressions, and did admonish, enquire, and search, con­cerning injurious persons and transgressors, and separated them; and concerning violent persons, to humble them; &c. vid. Ains. in Numb. 9. 10. And we have an example of their practise in that Ester and Mordecai, with the Iews in Shushan, and in the hun­dred twenty and seven Provinces, in their distress keep a Fast, until the Lord was pleased to hear their Prayers, and to turn away the wicked device of Haman. Est. 9.

And the whole Congregation in Canaan did observe daies of publike Fasting, for sundry kinds of distresses. First, For ene­mies that came against Israel. Secondly, For the sword that passed by the land; as when heathens did war with heathens. Thirdly, For the Pestilence. Fourthly, For evil beasts. Ffthly, [Page 25] For Locusts. Sixthly, For Caterpillars. Seventhly, For blast­ing of Fruits. Eighthly, For Mildew. Ninthly, For down­falls of Buildings by Earthquakes or Winds. Tenthly, For sick­nes that spread among the people. Eleventhly, For decay of Trade. Twelfthly, For rain, if it be too much or little; for these they fast and sound an Alarum, until the distress be taken a­way. Vid. Ains. on Numb. 10. and in Exod. 5.

Whether did the Iews use any form of blessing in their Synagogues when they dismissed the people, or no?

Yea, The Past [...]r of the synagogue used to dismiss the people with a grave and gracious blessing. Maymony saith, that How the blessing was pronounced in the synauogue after the Lecture of the Law was ended. the synagogues which were all Priests (as many synagogues were in the Towns allotted to them) they all lift up hands when the blessing was pronounced : and the Men, Women, and Children said Amen. But in the synagogue, wherein there was no Priest, but a Minister onely (called else-where Zeliach Zibbur) he lift­eth not up his hands, but when he is come to conclude with peace, he saith; Our God, and the God of our Fathers, bless us with the threefold blessing in the Law, written by Moses thy ser­vant, which was pronounced out of the mouth of Aaron and of his Sons the Priests, with thy Saints: as it is said, Ad [...]nai, bless thee, and keep thee, &c. In this last sentence they alter the Original, for in the Original it is said, Iehovah bless thee and keep thee. By this alteration, we may see how the Jews have fallen into blind superstition by not pronouncing the attribute Iehovah; as if they could preserve this Name from polution, more then the other Titles and Attributes of God, by exchanging Iehovah for A­donai.

Did the Iews use any Levitical Ceremony in their sy­nagogues, or no?

The Hebrew Doctors say, That it was unlawful to make any house, either synagogue, or any other private house, No Levitical worship was lawful to be used in their syna­gogues. after the fashion of the Temple, or a Porch like the Porch thereof, or a Court-yard like the Court-yard thereof, or a Ta­ble like the Table thereof, or a Candlestick like the Candlestick thereof, &c. Vid. Ainsw. in Levit. 19. 30. Neither had the sy­nagogues any thing to do with sacrifice, neither might they any more imitate Aarons attire, then they might sacrifice there : and yet the Father of Rome doth counterfet all, He will have a Candlestick, Cope, Linen-Garments, Precious-Stones, Miter, [Page 26] Girdle, &c. He will have Sacrifice, Priest, and Altar, and Iubilees, &c. and yet it was death for any in Israel to meddle with Levies proper duty; and now seing his Office is quite extinguished, it is a most high contempt of God to revive it by imitation from mans brain; and therefore such Reformed Churches as retain any of these Popish Jewish Rites, ought speedily to repent and re­forme, or else God will surely purge them by sharp tryals, to pro­voke them to repentance and reformation.

What Officers had the Iews in their Synagogue?

They had Zeliach Zibbur, as their chief Officer for teaching, and they had Archysynagogus as their chief Elders for ruling : and doubtles they had more Elders then one in the most What Officers the Iews had in their Syna­gogues. of their synagogues: For the synagogue at Thessalonica had two ruling Elders, which were both converted by Paul's ministry : and it seems that every Synagogue used to have more ruling El­ders then one: vid. Mark 5. 22. For they were Judges in causes criminal, and in all Aristocratical Governments one man is no man, as the Greek Proverb is.

Why did they call the Teacher of the Synagogue Zeliach Zibbur?

To denote the quality and dignity of his Office; for Zeliach Zibbur doth signifie the Angel of the Congregation, or the Angel of the Church, as the Thalmud speaketh : and our Why they called the Pastor of their syuagogue Zeliach Zibbur. Lord in imitation of the Hebrew Doctors, bade John write to the Seven Angels of the seven Churches of Asia. And the Scri­pture doth often call eminent Persons Angels; as for example; The Prophets, are somtimes called Angels, Iudg. 2. 1. 2 Chr. 36. 15. 16. Hag. 1. 13. sometimes Priests and Levites are called Angels; to dignifie their Office (which was in a special manner to teach and expound the Law, Deut. 30. 13.) Mal. 3. 7. And the Hebrew Doctors stiled the King Zeliach Zibbur, when he did read the book of the Law before the people, in the seventh yeer, the yeer of release; and they gave him this Title, to dignifie his person; and to dignifie that religious action. Vid. Ainsw. in Deut. 31. 11. and M. Broughton in Apoc. 265.

From these considerations it is evident, That the Hebrew Do­ctors gave this Title to the Pastor of the synagogue, the better to describe the excellencie of his Office, and to teach him and the people what excellent qualities such Officers ought to have: For by this Title the people were directed how to make choise of a fit Teacher for their synagogue; namely, they were hereby directed [Page 27] to make choise of one that was learned, wise, and godly; that so he might answer to the dignity of his Title.

Secondly, By this Title every Pastor was warned to behave himself sutably, both in their inward frame of soul, and in their outward deportment and behaviour: and doubtles, at the first, the people made choise of such as were grave in their outward at­tyre and deportment: and therefore when Moses was so much favoured of Christ as to shew him his glory, Exod. 33. Then Christ appeared unto him in the graceful form or habit of Zeliach Zib­bur: Mamony saith, that Sheshinah (for so they called the An­gel, the Redeemer) appeared unto Moses like to Zeliach Zibbur, clad with a robe: and in another place Maymony saith thus, that Moses saw him on the Red-Sea, like a mighty Warriour; but on Sinai clad like Zeliach-Zibbur, that is to say, in a graceful habit, like the Angel of the Church : ready to teach him the mysteries of the Law. Vid. Ainsw. in Exod. 33. 23.

In what Language did Zeliach Zibbur read and ex­pound the Scriptures to the people in their Synagogues in Heathen Countries?

As long as the Hebrew Tongue was the common language of the Jews, they did all in the Hebrew Tongue; but when the Jews had lost the common use of it, not long after their In heathen coun­tries, when the Hebrew Tongue ceased from common use, then Zeliaeh Zib­bur did read his Text in the He­brew Tongue, but afterwards he did expound it in the com­mon Dialect of that Nation where they lived. captivity in Babylon; then they used to read the Text onely in the Hebrew Tongue, and made their expositions in the language that was most used in every Heathen Countrey : and so the Jews are said so to do in Maymony: The reading of the Text, and the Blessing both before and after, they used to do that in the Holy Tongue; as I noted above out of Maymony, when the King did read the Law in the yeer of Freedom, the Sabbath yeer: But they made their expositions alwaies in their common Dialect of the Countrey where they lived: And the Apostle Paul doth ap­prove of this practise in 1 Cor. 14. vid. Mr Broughton in Apoc. 76. and it is further evident that this was their practise, by the example of Ezra after the captivity, He did read the Text in the Hebrew Tongue, Nehem. 8. and assoon as he had finished the reading, then Iesua, and Bani, and others, did explicate the meaning unto the people in the Chalde or Syriack Tongue, which was then the common language of the returned Jews : vid. Brerewoods Enquiries, p. 62. 64. By these Testimonies it is evi­dent, That the Jews synagogue Discipline, and Pauls in the [Page 28] Corinths is all one, 1 Cor. 14. 6. 13. 27. And in my apprehensi­on it would be an ornament to learning, now that every learned Teacher should first read his Text in the Original Tongues, and then proceed to make their Expositions in that language, that is most common in every Nation.

When they wanted a Pastor for any Synagogue, whether were the People bound to chuse one out of the Tribe of Levi or No?

Levi had no particular stroke in any synagogue of the other Tribe : but their custom was to go up from their for­ty eight Towns, to Ierusalem, as their courses came; therefore they were not so fit as other Godly and learned men were, to be The Pastors of their Synagogues in Canaan were not Levits, but they were cho­sen out of any Tribe. chosen for Pastors in the other Tribes : but they had sundry syna­gogues in their own Towns, and there all the Officers of the sy­nagogue were Levites. But as for the synagogues of other Tribes, they had not a Levit to their Officer : but all their Doctors were of Israel. vid. Mr Broughton in Apoc. 77. and in Lords Prayer, p. 13. and Tharg. Ierusalemi, saith of the Simeonites, that they were Teachers of the Law, in the Synagogues of Iacob, and the Levites in the Scholes of the Sonnes of Israel. vid. Ainsw. on Gen. 49. 7.

Malachi seems to make the Levites the common Pa­stors of all the twelve Tribes: for he doth tell us, The Priests lips should preserve knowledge; and that they should seek the Law at his mouth, for he is the Angel of the Lord of Hosts. Mal. 2. 7.

Malachi meaneth that they were general Pastors, appertaining to the general place of Worship; for their Office was, to wait upon the service of the Temple, whither all the twelve Tribes used to resort three times a year, besides their oc­casional resorting thither at other times : Therefore the Office of the Levits was not restrained to particular Synagogues, but they were Pastors at large, to expound the meaning of the Law, unto any of the twelve Tribes, as they had occasion to resort to their Ministery at the temple, where they had not only right to offer all Sacrifices, but they had also some separated places for the opening and expounding of the Law unto the people, in a dayly practise, Levit. 10. 11. Deut. 33. 10. 2 Chron. 15. 3. and 35. 3. And some of the Levites also taught the Law in Scholes; as Samuel of Ko­rah did: And also they taught the people in their owne Synago­gues, in their own forty eight Towns : some of them also taught the Law as Judges and Elders, when any of them were chosen to [Page 29] be of the high Sanhedrin, Deut. 17. 11. 12. 2 Chron. 17. 8. as I shall by and by shew more at large, in my discourse upon the Sanhe­drin: But because their Office was to attend upon the service of the Temple, as general Pastors to the twelve Tribes, therefore in reason they were bound to be learned. But Daniel of Iudah was not inferiour in learning to any Levit; Likewise those three no­ble Martrys and Confessors, who by faith is escaped the violence of fire. Heb. 11. Dan. 3.

The Pope indeed will have all his Church-Ministers to be di­stinguished from the Common people, by the name Spiritualtie and Clergy, to tye learning to them; but David had his Warri­ers as learned in Moses as any Levit, who by foresight of Christ were valiant in battel; and Daniel of Iudah, with Ananias, A­zarias, and Misael, were the glory of the world, before Ezekiel of Levi was come to Babel: and it would be an honourable re­nowne, if all of wealth and leasure were brought up in the Bible, in frame of Art, to know it throughly. Jehosaphats memoriall is precious, because he sent some Princes (as well as some Levites) to teach and preach the faith, in the synagogues of Iudah. 2 Chron. 17. 7. and it is like they were all chief Doctors of the high Sanhe­drin Court.

So then the case is now clear that Zeliach Zibbur was usually of Israel, and not of Levi, except in their own forty eight Towns : for the Elders of the Sanhedrin made any scholars Do­ctors, that they approved of for learning and for Godly conversa­tion, of any of the twelve Tribes as well as of Levi.

How did the Elders of the Sanhedrin make Do­ctors?

The Talmud and Maymony in Sanhedrin sheweth that they did not lay hands suddainly upon any man, not till they The manner how the Elders of the Sanhedrin made Doctors at large. found him to be Muphla, Wonderous learned : but after tryall, if they found him to be so, then two or three of the Sanhedrin im­posed their hands and said, Learned Rabbi, Take thou authoritie to teach what is loose and what is bound. This was their manner in making Doctors at large.

And when our Saviour would make his Apostles to be the first teachers of the kingdome of heaven, he did first prove them with This phrase, what­soever thou shalt hinde on earth, shall be bound in Hea­ven, &c. is a Thal­mudical phrase. learned questions, and when he found them to be fit, then he made them to be Doctors, in the very manner of the Talmuds known speech; saying thus unto Peter, because thou hast answered my [Page 30] question, and declared my natures and office, therefore, I will give unto thee (as the Fore-man of the rest) The Keys of the King­dom of heaven, to teach what is bound and what is loose; and what­soever thou shalt binde on earth, shal be bound in heaven, and what­soever thou shalt loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven, Mat. 16. 19. In this phrase of speech the Lord doth plainly talmudize▪ therefore the sense of this phrase cannot be so well opened, as by comparing it to their use and custome.

Keys signifie Power and Authoritie: both Papists and Pro­testants agree thus far: but yet there is a great difference between them about the kind of Power : the Pope and his Clergy will have the Keys in this place, to signifie the Power of Government over mens souls and bodies also; because the terme Keys, doth signifie so much in other scriptures. Yea, many Protestants will have the term Keys in this place, to signifie the power of Excommunication. But these interpretations will not agree to the Talmudical sense; for the Talmud (from whence this phrase is borrowed) doth mean it of the Key of Authoritie, to preach only; and not of the Key of authoritie to rule over mens bodies. When they made a Doctor at large, they did not give him power to rule over mens bodies, but they gave him power to preach only as a Doctor at large, un­till he might be called to some particular Place or Office; either as a Pastor or Teacher to some Synagogue, or as an Elder to some one or other of their Sanhedrins.

Some Reformed Churches understand this Key of Authoritie to signifie the Power of Ecclesiastical Censures, upon scandalous members; but considering that this phrase is borrowed from the Talmud use and practise, I wish that this Exposition of some Re­formed Churches may not in the end be turned into a spice of Pope-like power.

I grant that the Elders of the Synagogues in heathen Countries had the Key of authoritie, to execute the sentence of Excommu­nication upon scandalous and impenitent persons : but that pow­er of theirs must be fetched from other scriptures, and not from this phrase in this Text: for this Text speaks only of that Key of Power and Authoritie which our Saviour gave unto his Apostles to preach what was loose, and what was bound in the Kingdom of Heaven, here upon earth.

Christ gave them Power and Authoritie to teach, that whoso­ever beleeved in the promised seed, should be loosed from his sinnes; [Page 31] and that whosoever beleeved not, should be bound up in his sins to death and damnation. vid. Master Broughton, in Apocalips 76. 78. 109.

And our Lord after his resurrection, did again confirm his Apo­stles with new authoritie, to teach what was loose, and what was bound, Ioh. 20. 23. and by the use of this phrase at another time, he put them in minde of their Authoritie, to preach what is loose, &c. Mat. 18. 18. I confesse that some do expound this Text to mean the Power of Excommunication; but yet reserving to them all due respect, I take it to be meant only of their Authoritie to preach what is loose, and what is bound. And I shall be ready to give some further reasons of this Exposition hereafter.

Mr Broughton in his Explication of the Article of the Descent. p. 30. saith, All Ecclesiastical discipline-terms, I dare undertake to shew from Maymony and the two Talmuds: yea, even the phrase of loosing and binding, in making a Doctor absolute by the Sanhe­drin, with imposition of hands.

I would fain see what manner of Discipline it was that Christ ordained for the orderly Government of his particular Churches in their Synagogues?

Neither the holy Gospel, nor the Epistles do teach any other thing for Ecclesiastical Government, but as the holy synagogues did. vid. Mr Broughton in Apoc. 303. I say they had the same discipline for substance, as it may appear by comparing the Discipline termes of the New Testament with the Discipline terms of their synagogues, as they may yet be found in Maymony, and the two Talmuds. Therefore seeing the Hebrew Doctors speak the same things the Apostles do; reason will teach us that The Discipline which Christ or­dained for the government of the Iewes syna­gogues, is recor­ded by fragments in Mayomy, and the two Talmuds. the Apostles speeches which are like theirs only, and differing from all others should be expounded according to their Dialect and peculiaritie of phrase and speech : and what though all the Rab­bins now extant be later then the Apostles? Yet, saith M. Brough­ton, Seeing they only, of all forreign writers, have some hundreds of speeches, which are used in the New Testament, we may well conclude, that the old Hebrews before them used those speeches, whom the Apostles do follow. Vid. Mr Broughton in Melchize­dek, cap. 3. and in D. 3. he saith thus, The latter Rabbins have much from the ancient Rabbins, agreeable to the Apostles doctrine, yet stained with their late dogged blasphemies: notwithstanding, their Records in pieces of ancient truth, must be regarded: and as [Page 32] the mouth tasteth, so Wisdom will taste their sayings, and know which agrees to the sense of Scripture, and which not.

You say that the Hebrew Doctors above all forreign writers, have some hundreds of speeches yet abiding in their Re­cords, which no other writers have but the New Testament. Now I pray you shew me how often the New Testament doth Talmudize or borrow speeches from their ancient Hebrew Doctors, as they are yet recorded by their latter Hebrew Doctors?

It will be a long digression from the point of their Synagogues order, to number up all the words and phrases which the New Testament doth borrow from the ancient Hebrew Do­ctors: yet notwithstanding, I hold it necessary to enlighten your understanding with some particulars. Our Lord Iesus Christ The New Testa­ment hath many phrases that are Thalmudik, which cannot be so fitly opened as by the Thalmud. (saith M. Broughton) doth often confirme the Hebrew Doctors particular Decrees, and learned speeches, such as plain reason of all know to be good. Our Lord reverenced the divine schole of the San­hedrin, at twelve years of age, (Luk. 4. 46.) sitting among them, (hearing and posing them) the reverence of all gestures, which their Decrees have for the reading of the Law, in their Synagogues. May. Tom. 1. And our Lord dotb shew his approbation of their Decree, for that gesture by his practise in Luk. 4. 20. Their just Excommunication he allowed, and their Law for excommunicating them who mis-use Authority, as it is recorded by Maymony, Tom. 1.) himself (by himself alone) practised upon the Scribes and Pharisees, and upon all Ierusalem. Mat. 23. But their late tradi­tions now in the Talmuds, he damned, as foolish, and contrary to Godlinesse, Mat. 5. 6. 7 chapthers, and chap. 15. 9. Yet what the latter Rabbies have from the ancient Rabbies, he alloweth. All their Terms, Phrases, and Proverbial Sentences; The world to come, The dead, Tasting death, Resurrection of the dead; Forgive­nesse in this world; Paradise: Gehenna, and Gehenna large, in Mid. Tillin. Eating, and drinking the object of Faith, Eating and drinking in the world to come; Carrying the Crosse. These and many other phrases the New Testament doth borrow from the Hebrew Doctors common use, yet abiding in their Records : yea, and to singular use, Jod and Prick: and in Greek proverbial speech Alpha and Omega: after the Hebrew manner from Aleph to Thau: in Ben. Aram. on the contrary, He taunteth Talmuds, Raca: the swearing by the Head: their Corban, their Abothenu, and Rabbi, &c. These and such like corruptions he [Page 33] blameth. —Vid. Mr Broughton on Daniel 9. in his Re­duction.

I confesse it doth ad a great deal of light to the full in­terpretation of Scripture, to seethe ground and rise of every borrow­ed speech: From what custom or dialect it is taken.

You judge rightly : and therefore M. Broughton hath often given special caution concerning this usefull ob­servation.

How many sorts of Dialects are contained within the several parts of the New Testament?

Four sorts of Dialects are especially to be marked in the New Testament. 1. Much of the New Testament is attique, or common Greek, such as Heathens used for matters known to heathens; for no man will deny but that they which will move others, must speak in such a Dialect as is proper to their capacitie.

2. More of the New Testament is borrowed from the Septu­agint Translation; and it was needfull that when the Apostles did relate to the Church such things as concerned the Jews mat­ters; they should expresse it from the seventy translation, which was in common use among them. Mr Broughton saith, that he gathered many thousands of words out of the New Testament, which the Apostles took out of the Seventy: but lately (saith he) I used the help of Kirkerus his Hebrew-Greek Concordance, for a book of which nature I would have given formerly an hundred pound sterling: and (saith he) I am sorry that our Vniversitie students know not the use of this most profitable work.

3. Much of the New Testament is Apostolike Greek: for as all faculties draw common terms to their Trades peculiar to each Trade: so do the Apostles, they fit many Greek words to the Hebrew in a new manner, differing from all others.

4. Much of the New Testament is Talmudique-Greek, being framed according to the Schole phrases of the Hebrew Doctors; and of this last sort I have given many instances already.

I acknowledge you have shewed how that sundry terms and phrases of the New Testament Discipline is taken from the Jews synagogue discipline: but I desire yet more fully to know how the New Testament doth imitate their Talmudical Doctrines in other points also, for that will enlighten mine understanding, and perswade me more fully that the New Testament doth indeed borrow its discipline terms from the Synagogue-customs, as they are expressed in their Talmuds.

[Page 34]

I will endeavour to satisfie your desire by sundry o­ther particular instances, wherein the Apostles do speak after the Talmud manner.

1. Paul saith, 2 Thess. 2. 8. That the wicked shall be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the Spirit of his mouth. Now if it be demanded who this wicked is? Then Ionathan the Chal­dea Paraphrase in Esa. 11. 4. will tell you that it is the wicked Romulus, for he in Esa. 11. 4. doth render the last Clause of that verse thus, with the breath of his lips shall he slay the wicked Romu­lus. But Arias Montanus when he translated the Chaldea into Latin, omitted the word Romulus. Such faith there is in Papists, to corrupt the Translation of any place that makes against their Anti-Christian State. But the Venetian copy is in thousands a­broad, and by that we may see the Truth. Arias Montanus saw plainly, that S. Paul 2 Thess. 2. 8. did borrow this phrase from the Chaldea in Esa. 11. 4. for this Chaldea Paraphrast was newly extant in Pauls time.

2. Our Lord Jesus saith, Mat. 12. 32. that they which sinne a­gainst the Holy Ghost, shall not be forgiven in this world, nor in the world to come: This Phrase is borrowed likewise from the He­brew Doctors; For Maymon. in Poenit. Perek. 6. saith, That there be sins whereof Iudgement determineth, that judgement shall be taken upon a man in this World, in his body, or in his wealth, or in his children, which are his possession: and there is a sin whereof punishment is taken in the world to come, and nothing passeth upon him in this world: and there is a sin which is punished both in this world and in the world to come. The penitent thief examplifieth the first: The Rich man Luk. 16. proveth the second: the men of So­dom maketh good the third.

This speech doubtlesse Maymony had from elder Rabbins, and from them our Lord spake to the Scribes in their own Schole-Phrase, that they sinning against the Holy Ghost should not be forgiven in this world nor in the world to come. Vid. M. Brough­ton in Apoc. 301. & alibi.

3. The Apostle Iuda-Thaddeus doth tell us, that Michael dis­puted with Satan about the body of Moses, and durst not (as our English Translation is) bring against him a rayling accusation, Iude 9. This the Apostle speaks as a thing known to them: But they could not know this from the Old Testament, for there is no mention made of such a disputation in the Old Testament: But [Page 35] this disputation is recorded by the ancient Hebrew Doctors, as it is yet recorded in Abboth. Rab. Nathan. and in Middras Rab. and in many Rabbins moe.

4. The Apostle Thaddeus adds another sentence, That Mi­chael durst not forbear Strife of blasphemy: but said, The Lord rebuke thee. We translate this Text as though Michael (who is one with the Father) durst not give Satan better words. * But the Text holds forth, that he gave him as bitter as could be; (even So Theod. doth translate this text : Michael could not for­bear, but put Sa­tan under the check, saying as it is in Zach. 2: The Eternal rebuke thee Satan. as bitter as Paul gave to Alexander the Copper-smith.) And the learned Abridger of Iudes Epistle, in Robert Stephens edition, hath [...] for [...]. That Michael durst not suffer Mo­ses (the first King in Israel) to be blasphemed by Satan. Vid. Mr Broughton in Manus.

The term Michael is frequently used in the Rabbins, for the Messiah, and it is used once or twice in Dan. 10. and 12. but in the Rabbins it is often used for the Messiah. Therefore Exposi­tors ought to look much to the Thalmud for the better Explana­tion of these and such like termes. vid. Ains. in Gen. 32. 24. and in Exod. 3. 2. and in Exod. 23. 23.

5. It is said, 1 Pet. 3. 19. that the Spirit of Christ went and preached in the dayes of Noah, to them which are now spirits in Prison. Every word of this Text is spoken after the Jews vein: they make the Spirit of God in Gen. 1. 2. to be the spirit of Messi­ah, and the spirit of Iehovah, Gen. 6. and Peter after the Jewes manner calls it the Spirit of Messiah; and so the Zohar and Baal-Hatturim and other Rabbins, many do speak the same.

And so the next clause, [By which he went.] This speech is ten times spoken of God in the Old Testament : and so likewise it is called the going down of the Spirit in the dayes of Noah, by Rab. Eleazar in Perek. Again the Hebrew Doctors speak of the Preaching of the Spirit: How the Holy Ghost preached by No­ah: as the Zohar upon Gen. fol. 49. and often else-where; and how that generation strove against the Spirit of Iehovah, and how God brought upon them double waves of water, and of Gehenna fire, and that their spirits are now in Prison : for the Text of both Talmuds hath set it down as a common Article, That the generation that dyed in the deluge, have no hope of blessed portion in the world to come.

These phrases are something hard to us Christians, untill we look to the Hebrew Doctors, and then they make them familiar [Page 36] and easie to us, because they flow out of their Fountains, vid. Mr Broughton in his Epistle to the learned Nobilitie, p. 39. and in Apoc. 226. and in Manuscript.

6. When the Prophets were no more, and the Kings of the North and South, the two legs, (Dan. 2.) vexed Iudah still with wars, then the Jews souldiers became Sadduces, rejecting the wri­tings of all the Prophets (but the five books of Moses, which ne­ver speak plainly of the place of souls after this life:) thereupon they denyed the immortalitie of the soule: for the cure of which Pestilent errour. The better sort of Hebrew Doctors (having but few in those dayes that regarded Divinitie) enacted certain terms against the corrupt Tenets of these Athistical Sadduces.

They termed all the Old Testament, the Law, from Psal. 82. and from Esai. 8. And this term of theirs the New Testament doth imitate in Ioh. 15. and in Rom. 9.

They also enacted divers terms to ratifie the Doctrine of the soules immortalitie after this life is ended; as, the world of soules: the world to come: the day of Iudgement: the great day of Iudg­ment: the Kingdom of heaven: eating and drinking in the King­dom of heaven: the feast of the Passeover in the Kingdom of Hea­ven: the place of Godly souls under Gods throne: Crowns for the Iust: and many such like which the New Testament alloweth.

Also they enacted proper terms for the immortalitie of wicked soules; as Gehenna, the fire of Gehenna: frizing cold: gnashing of teeth: the second death, &c. this last phrase is used in Onkelos, upon Deuterenomie 33. and in Ionathan upon Isaiah 22. and in Zohar, and in many others.

They hold also in Abboth. Rabbi Nathan, that the Prophet Moses and all faithful, at their death, are presently carryed to Gods Throne, and that they rest there under the Throne : and the New Testament useth the like speech for the souls of the Martyrs under the Altar, Apoc. 6.

Again, the Hebrew Doctors testimony is cited by Paul, and by their Talmuds, for the very names of those Sorcerer that resi­sted Moses, they call them Iannes and Iambres, and so doth Paul, 2 Tim. 3. 8. also the term Colyrion is from them, and the girding about the breast, as the High Priest was: just as it is expressed in Apoc. 1. 13. This girding of the Priest about the breast, Maymony proveth from Ʋzielides in his Treatise of Holy Implements, Pe­rek. 10. and 4. of the Precious Iewels in Apoc. 21. are from the [Page 37] ancient Rabbins, as the Thalmud doth witnesse. Also the terme Angels, as it is applyed to the seven Pastors of the seven Churches of Asia is Talmudical: And Raca in the Talmud is a terme of contumelious reproach: and so Beelzebub in Mark 3. 22. is a contumelious term of reproach in the Talmud: also the Furlong of the New Testament is a Talmud terme, and so it differs from the Romane Furlong: for eight Romane Furlongs make an En­glish or Italian mile: but the Talmud allows but seven and a half to an English mile. Also the Talmud doth use the terme Dead, for such as are profane in Zeror often: and Peter and Paul use the same terme in their sense, 1 Pet. 4. 6. Ephes. 2. 1. Also the terme Mammon, for riches of iniquitie, is from them. These and such like words and phrases, the New Testament doth often bor­row from the ancient Hebrew Doctors, whereof many are yet to be seen in their Talmuds. vid. more in Mr Ainsw. in his Epistle to Genesis: and in his Advertisement, at the end of Deuteronomie.

Hence I inferre, that seeing the New Testament doth cite so many termes from the Hebrew Records, Why then may it not cite other termes from their Synagogues Discipline, seeing the N. Testament doth use such Discipline terms as they give to their synagogue discipline, as I have shewed in many particulars already?

I cannot deny but that the New Testament may as well borrow its Disoipline termes from their Synagogues Discipline, as it doth other termes from their Records. But I do much wonder why the Apostles should write to Heathen Christians, after the Iewes peculiar vein, seeing such Christians of the Heathens might be as much to seek in their Talmudical phrases, as wee are at this day.

I think not so: for I conceive that many heathen Chri­stians were first well instructed and bred up with the Jews in their Synagogues in all parts of their dispersion: and heathen Christians and converted Jews were conjoyned together in all Christian Churches, as Peter and James do testifie in their several Epistles. Therefore the heathen Christians in those parts might be better ac­quainted with their Talmudical phrases, then we can be at this day: and therefore the Apostles might well garnish their Ser­mons and Epistles, with several phrases from the ancient Hebrew Doctors, as well as from their heathen writers: And by this means every Nation under heaven might see a sweet accord between the Doctrine of the Gospel and their best Writers.

CHAP. II. That the Government of the Church of the Jews, was in­stituted by Jesus Christ, to be 1. Dependent, when they lived together in the Land of Canaan. 2. In­dependent, When they inhabited in Heathen Coun­tries.

WEre the Jews Synagogues Dependent or Independent Churches in the point of Discipline and Government, yea or no?

Somtimes their Discipline was Dependent, som­times Independent.

This is a strong answer. Did Jesus Christ establish such a different order in the administration of their Synagogue-Discipline? This Tenent is contrary to the judgment of many learned Writers: For those that are for Dependent Church-Go­vernment, do affirm that way of Government to be the onely way that Christ hath established for ever in all Particular Churches. On the contrary, those that are for Independent Church-Govern­ment, do affirm their way is the only way that Christ hath ordained for ever in all particular Churches. Both sides are confident of their way to be the only way, therefore one of these two waies must needs fall to the ground, as not being the only way of Christ. How then say you that the Jews Synagogue-Discipline was somtimes Dependent, and somtimes Independent? Did Christ allow of both these waies of Government?

Yea Christ allowed of both these waies of Govern­ment, The Iews Syna­gogue Discipline was somtime Dependent, and somtime Inde­pendent. because he did put his synagogues into several capacities by difference of place and case: Therefore the word [onely] ought not to state the case. As for example, whiles the Jews li­ved in their own land, their synagogue discipline did depend up­on their Sanhedrin Courts; because Christ established the Elders of their Sanhedrin Courts; as the general Elders of the whole Church.

2. But when the Jews were dispersed by the hand of God into [Page 39] sundry Heathen Countries, then Jesus Christ did necessitate them In heathen coun­tries every Syna­gogue had a ge­neral license to exercise such a discipline among themselves, as tended to the correction of vice, except life and limb. somthing to vary the form of their synagogues-discipline, because they had no Sanhedrin Courts in those Heathen Countries to de­pend upon: therefore in those Countries the Elders of each sy­nagogue did keep a Court or Consistory in each synagogue for the correction of manners; and this power of Discipline was al­lowed to them by the consent and approbation of their Heathen Governours. I say, the Elders of each synagogue had this power of discipline, as it is evident; because the high Priests did send Paul with letters unto the Elders of every Synagogue, to imprison, [...]nd to beat such in every Synagogue, as embraced the holy waies of the Lord Jesus: they had some power to inflict some kind of cor­poral punishment, as well as power to excommunicate : and in some cases they did good justice against some sins, which else would have escaped unpunished; as swearing, cursing, blasphe­my, fornication, incest, and such like sins, which heathen Ma­gistrates would have passed over lightly. But the Elders of each synagogue had power to punish these and the like sins, provided they did not take away life or limb: for this was the onely Pre­rogative of Heathen Courts in every Countrey where they lived in dispersion. And it is further evident, that the Elders of each synagogue did exercise some power of discipline even in Canaan it self, after they became subject to the Roman Jurisdiction, which no doubt was allowed them by their Sanhedrin Courts also; for in those daies they did inflict scourging upon offenders as often as there was just cause, as these places do testifie, Mat. 10. 17. Mat. 23. 34. Luke 6. 22. and 12. 11. and 21. 12. Acts 22. 19. and 26. 11. and somtimes they did also excommunicate, by putting evil persons out of their Communion for a time, namely, as long as they were incorrigible and impenitent: as these places do testifie. Iohn 9. 22. 34. and 12. 42. and 16. 2.

And godly reason and wisdom did necessitate the dispersed Jews to use this Independent power of Discipline, when they were first dispersed into heathen Countries, for many godly Jews were forced to fly for safety into many heathen Countries, even in the daies of Jeremiah, for he preached 40. yeers together that the land should be made desolate by the Tyrannie of Nebu­chadnezar; thereupon many godly Jews took the warning, and fled away as they could get opportunity before the captivity, for their better liberty and safety: the believing Jews sold their lands [Page 40] and means, though with some reluctation, and others bought with great content. But Ezekiel said, Let not the seller mourn, nor the buyer rejoyce, Ezek. 7. 12. Our case for New-England was much like theirs.

And wheresoever these godly Jews came, they had liberty to build synagogues for the exercise of Religion, as these Scriptures compared together do testifie, Ezek. 7. 16. and 6. 8, 9. and 11. 16. and 12. 16. Isa. 24. 13, 14, 15, 16. Est. 3. 10. And it seems the blessing of God was much upon the posterity of these disper­sed Jews : For Iames, and Peter, and Iohn, wrote several Epistles to them, with sundry heathen Proselytes that were conjoyned in the profession of the same Faith, and Paul doth testifie that there were many (Myriads, that is,) ten thousands dispersed Iews that did believe in Christ, Acts 21. 10.

And I make no question, but as these dispersed Iews found fa­vour with their heathen governours to build synagogues in every heathen Countrey where they came, so also they found the like favour to set up such a form of Discipline in each synagogue, as might tend to the preservation of their Religion, by censuring scandalous and impenitent Persons according to their demerits, provided they did not take away life or limb.

I say, it is evident they had this power of Government with the consent of their heathen Governours; For Gallio the Deputy of Achaia doth testifie, that the Iews of that Countrey had a cer­tain power of Government among themselves: for Gallio doth thus answer the Iews that accused Paul of false Doctrine. If it were a matter of wrong, or an evil deed, O ye Iews, I would ac­cording to reason maintain you. But seing it is about a question of words and names of your Law; look ye to it your selves: Acts 18. For you have a power of Government among your selves, in such like cases as this is, whereof you do accuse Paul, therefore I will be no judge of these things: and so he drave them from the Iudgment seat.

And other Heathen Governours did acknowledge also that the Iews had a certain power of government among themselves in all matters that concerned the preservation of their Religion; as it is evident by Acts 23. 29. and 25. 19.

Yea Haman by way of accusation did affirm to Ahasuerus, That there was a people scattered abroad among his people in 127. Provinces, that had Laws divers from all his People: Esth. 3. 8. [Page 41] Now it may be demanded what Lawes had they divers from all other people? Did not they live according to the Laws of the Empire? Yea doubtless : but they had an order of Discipline which the Elders of each Synagogue did exercise upon such as did not live according to Gods Laws: and in this respect the Iews had Laws differing from all other Nations.

Reason doth tell all reasonable men, that in what Countrey soever heathen Governours did allow the Jews so much liberty as to build synagogues for the worship of their God, they would doubtles allow them so much power of Discipline also, as did ne­cessarily appertain to the preservation of that worship : and the Scripture doth tell us, that as long as they might lawfully make Judges of their own, it was not lawful for them to plead before Infidels; I mean in such cases wherein they had power of go­vernment. vid. Ainsw. in Exod. 21.

By these considerations it is evident, that the Jews had an In­dependent power of Discipline in each synagogue, as long as they lived in heathen Countries.

Now in the second place, I think it necessary also to speak a little more fully of their synagogue Discipline, as it was Depen­dent upon the Elders of the general Church while they lived in Their synagogue Discipline was Dependent as long as they li­ved in Canaan. Canaan. I mean before their dispersion into heathen Countries. But before my meaning can be well discerned, I must first explain the nature and constitution of their Sanhedrin government.

Their Sanhedrin government was twice ordained. 1. By the advise of Iethro: and 2. By the immediate direction of the An­gel of Gods presence. First, I say, that Iethro by the light of true When the San­hedrin govern­ment was first ordained. reason, did advise Moses to set up this form of true government, Exod. 18. But secondly, afterwards the Angel of the Covenant himself, did ordain this form of Government : and therefore he appointed Moses to make a new choise of Elders of the best and ablest that were among them; and for this purpose the Angel (that gave Moses lively Oracles) appointed Moses to gather be­fore him 70. men: viz. such as the people had before chosen, and approved to be their Elders : and they must be such also as Moses himself knew to be men of approved wisdom and godlines, and then the Son of God (to whom the father committed all autho­rity and power as Mediator) said unto Moses, I will come down and speak with thee there, and I will take off the Spirit which is upon thee, and put it upon them, and they shall bear with thee the burden of the people. Num. 11. 16, 17.

[Page 42] In these words are laid down the original ground of ordain­ing and instituting the chief Court of their Sanhedrin govern­ment.

But because one Court could not conveniently serve for the daily use of all parts of the Land. Therefore the Son of God to Iesus Christ did first constitute the Sanhedrin government. whom was given all power and authority, directed Moses and the Elders of the high Sanhedrin to make and constitute as many o­ther Sanhedrin Courts as they should have Cities in their possessi­on when they came into the land of Canaan: In Deut. 16. 10. Thus it is expressed; Iudges and Officers shalt thou make thee in all thy gates which Jehovah thy God giveth thee through all thy Tribes.

Judges, that is to say, Elders siting in the seat of Iudicature : Offi­cers are such as attend upon the Iudges to execute their commands. Shalt thou make thee, that is to say, thou that art the high Sanhe­drin, thou shalt make and constitute Iudges in all thy gates, both in the greater Cities, and lesser Towns within the land of Ca­naan. But thou art not bound hereby to constitute Sanhedrin Courts out of the land of Canaan, for it is said in all thy gates which the Lord thy God giveth thee.

Though Christ do command the high Sanhedrin to set up sun­dry Courts of Iudicature in every Citie, yet he doth not deter­mine the number of Iudges how many shall belong to each Court, but he leaves that to be ordred by the wisdom of the high Sanhedrin, because they were the chief chosen Elders of the whole Church : and they saw it necessary to ordain two degrees of San­hedrin Courts mo, which they set up assoon as they were setled in the land, in every Citie and Town, for the more convenient di­stribution of Iustice through all the parts of the land of Canaan, not only within, but also without Iordan in the Tribes of Ruben, Gad, and half Manasses: reserving onely to themselves such cases as were too difficult for the lesser Courts. And thus was the disposition of their Courts according to the exposition of the He­brew Doctors.

First, The highest Sanhedrin consisted of 70. Iudges and one, Numb. 11. 16, 17. 30. where Christ joyned 70. Elders unto Mo­ses the King. For Moses is said to be a King in Iesurun, Deut. 33. 5. and in imitation thereof, they did ever after account their kings to be the head of the high Sanhedrin, and at last this high Sanhedrin was setled at Ierusalem.

[Page 43] Secondly, This high Sanhedrin erected two other Sanhedrin Courts in Ierusalem, each of them consisting of twenty three Iudges a piece : one of them sate in the mountain of the Temple, and the other sate at the dore of the Court-yard of the Temple : and the high Sanhedrin sate in the chamber of hewen stone with­in the Temple.

Thirdly, They appointed and ordained another Sanhedrin of twenty three Iudges in every Citie of Israel, if there were in it but an hundred and twenty men: And they kept their Courts in the gates of the Citie. Amos 5. 15.

Fourthly, They set up also a Court of three Iudges in every Town and Citie, wherein were less then an hundred and twenty men; and they ordained that no Court should be kept of any less then three chosen Elders : they ordained also that every Ci­tie which had not in it two wise men, the one fit to teach the whole Law, and the other skilful to hear, and to demand, and to make answer; that no Sanhedrin should be set therein, although it had in it two thousand Israelites. Vid. Ainsw. on Numb. 11. 16.

By these conclusions we may see what great care the Hebrew Doctors took for the well ordering not only of the highest, but of the lowest Sanhedrin also, with learned and skilful Elders.

And the Hebrew Doctors say, that the Elders of the lowest Sanhedrin, (which they call the Court of three men) must have every one of them these seven properties, First, Wisdom. Second­ly, Meekness. Thirdly, The fear of God. Fourthly, the hatred of Mammon. Fifthly, Love of Truth. Sixthly. Love of their fellow creatures, (that is, of other men) and seventhly, that they be men of good name. Vid. Ains. in Exod. 18. 21.

Moreover, the Elders of this Sanhedrin of three, had great honor : Vide Ains, in Deut. 22. 15. They were called Elohim, Gods, as well as the Elders of the high Sanhedrin, because the word of God was given to all the Elders in general, Exod. 24. 9. 13. 14. Deut. 5. 23. with Iohn 10. 34, 35. The Hebrew Doctors say, that none are called Elohim, but those Judges which were ordained in the land of Israel onely, and such as are wise and fit to judge, and such as the Senate of the land of Israel sought out, appointed and imposed hands upon them. Ains. on Exod. 21. 6.

And when the high Senate of the Land sought out any to set The high San­hedrin ordained all the other San­hedrins them as Elders over the people they did it with the advise of the people by making inquiry of them among the people. Deut. 1. [Page 44] 13, 14, 15. They say also that if any Sanhedrin, King or Governor di [...] set up a Judge for Israel that is not wise in the wisedom of the Law, and meet to be a Judge : Although he be wholly amiable, and have other good things in him, yet he that setteth him up transgresseth. Ains. on Numb. 11. 17. and they counted it a great shame for a just Judge to sit in company with one that was wick­ed. Ains. in Exod. 23. 7. yea they held it unlawfull for a wise man to sit in the place of judgement, until he knew with whom he sat, lest he had society with men unworthy and unmeet, and come within the compasse of conspiring with the lawless, against the law of the Judgement Hall. Maymon. San. Perek. 2. fol. 229. and in Perek. 3. fol. 230. he saith thus, whatsoever Judge giveth a bribe to come to his place : It is unlawfull to be tried by him, and the learned teach to set him at naught, and to cut him short.

But notwithstanding, their godly care touching Courts and Elders which they set up in all parts of the land for the well or­dering of Religion and Justice, yet the Devil and mans corrup­tion quickly found out devises to corrupt these Fountains of good government; and assoon as the fountains of good government were corrupt, the lesser riverets, I mean their Synagogue govern­ment must needs be corrupt also. But ever and anon God raised up fresh means of reformation.

Corruption in government was increased by Samuels sonnes, and more by Saul; but after some space of time, God raised up David, A man after his own heart to feed his people Israel with Iustice and judgement. 2 Sam. 7. 7. 8. Psal. 78. 70. In those dayes godly David took care to furnish all these Courts with wise and a­ble men, out of all Tribes, and some of the Tribe of Levi were conjoyned with them : For he appointed Chonaniah, and his sons of the Icharites for the businesses without (that is to say, remote from Jerusalem) for Officers and Judges: and of the Hebronites, he appointed Hashaviah and his brethren which were men of activity seventeen thousand over the charge of them of Israel, be­yond Iordan westward in all businesses of the Lord, and in the ser­vice of the King. 1 Chron. 26. 29, 30. And Iediiah the chief of the Hebronites, and his brethren twenty seven thousand chief Fa­thers, whom David in the fortieth year of his reign made Rulers over the Gadites, the Reubenites and the half Tribe of Manasseh for every matter pertaining to God, and for the things of the King. Verse 31, 32. Many Rulers were needfull in such a time of [Page 45] Reformation, but it is worth the marking, that all these chief Ru­lers were appointed to look to every matter appertaining to God, as well as to the things of the King.

But after some space of time these Sanhedrin courts were again corrupted, and good Iehosaphat did again reforme them : first he sent abroad divers of his Princes as well as Levits, to instruct the people in the knowledge of Gods Law, in all the Cities and syna­gogues of Iudah, 2 Chron. 17. 7. Those Princes were learned and therefore were not ashamed to expound the Law of God, be­ing sent unto the people for that purpose: hence I gather that a­ny Prince of any Tribe, having a fair calling, by the Sanhedrin, might as lawfully preach in any synagogue of the Jews, as Paul of Benjamin might, or as the Apostles of Iudah might. But this example ought not to be imitated by such as want an outward calling, or that want learned abilities.

After this Iehosaphat prosecuted this new-begun Reformation, by restoring the Sanhedrin courts to their original puritie. First, He reformed those Courts that consisted of three and twenty Judges in all the strong Cities of Iuda, Citie by Citie, 1 Chron. 19. 5. 2. He reformed the high Sanhedrin of seventy Judges, setting up some Levits, some Priests, and some of the chief families of Israel, for the Judgements and Cause of the Lord, 1 Chron. 19. 8.

The Rulers of Israel did not take themselves necessarily tyed to set up some Levits among the Elders of Israel. For the Hebrew Doctors say, that this high Sanhedrin might be all of Israel, though usually they adjoyned some of Levi to them, Aaron was joyned to Moses the King, in the first election, Numb. 11. afterwards Moses also did appoint some Priests and Levits, to sit with the o­ther Judges of the other Tribes, Deut. 17. 9, to 14. and Aaron was joyned with Hur, among the Elders of Israel at Mount Sinai, Exod. 24. 14.

After the captivitie Ezra also did obtain so much favour of the Persian Princes, that he restored this government again to the pu­ritie thereof, Ezra 7. 25, 26. with ch. 10. 14.

But in processe of time, when the Romane Emperours were Lords over the Jewes, then they took away from them the pow­er of life and death, about a yeare or two before the death of Christ: For Talmud Ierusalemi, and Maymony in San. do shew that 48. yeers before the destruction of Ierusalem, causes of life [Page 46] and death were taken away from Israel, and this Testimony is confirmed by the Jews own confession to Pilate, for they told Pilate, that it was not lawful for them to put any man to death: Ioh. 18. 31. and this was brought to passe before the death of Christ, by Gods special providence; that the words of Christ might be fulfilled, when he fore-told the manner of his death, that it should not be after the Iewish but after the Romane manner, Ioh. 12. 32. 33. Mat. 20. 19.

And yet, though the Romans took away the power of life and death, from the Jewes they did not take away all power of Go­vernment from the Jews, but they still left them to exercise the power of their Sanhedrin Courts in all other cases, as Pilats speech to the Scribes and Pharisees doth import, when he bade them take Christ and judge him according to their own Law, Ioh. 18. 31. * And our Saviour taught the Jews to Hear, that is to say, To sit in Moses chair is to iudge according to Mo­ses Lawes. to obey the Scribes and Pharisees, as long as they sate in Moses chair; that is to say, As long as they judged according to the Gra­matical sense of Moses precepts: and for that cause our Saviour doth eight times over curse them, because they urged the observa­tion of their own traditions, with equal authoritie to Moses Lawes. Mat. 23. Therefore the Jews did exercise the power of Government, in their Sanhedrin Courts, except in the case of life and death, when the Romans had taken away from them the pow­er of life and death.

I had thought, this speech of hearing the Scribes and Pharisees, that sit in Moses chair, had been meant of such Preachers and Teachers as used to expound Moses Laws in their synagogues, and not of the Sanhedrin Doctors, that expounded Moses Laws in their Sanhedrin Courts or Scholes.

This speech; [Hear the Scribes and Pharisees, that sit in Moses chair,] doth plainly point out unto us, that we must hear and obey the Laws and Constitutions of the Scribes and Pharisees, as long as they sit in Moses chair; that is to say, As long as they expounded Moses Laws in a Grammatical sense. For as Christ (the Angel, Act. 7.) was the first giver of all Moses Laws, and ordained Moses to be the chief head of the Sanhedrin Court: so he bade the Jews, Hear all those that sit in Moses chair. It was Christ that bade Moses charge the Levits to lay up the book of the Law in the side of the Ark, as the Standard of all their Laws and Constitutions, and as the rule of all their judgements and [Page 47] proceedings, Deuterenomie chapter 31. verse 24, 25.

You said ere-while. that the Elders of the Sanhedrin, were the Elders of the Church. But how doe you prove that the Elders of the High Sanhedrin were the general Elders of the whole Church, in all matters of Religion, as well as in matters of the Common weal?

I have already proved that Christ did put this power into their hands. 1. They are plainly called the Elders of the Church, Levit. 4. 14, 15. 2. It is evident that every Elder of the chief Synedrion, was chosen to be a general Elder of the whole Church. Numb. 11. 25. 30. And the Elders of this high Synedri­on set up other Courts and other Elders in every Citie, who judged in all matters of Religion that fell out in their respective parts, as The Elders of the Sanhedrin were the general Elders of the Church, and therefore they had power to deal in all mat­ters of Religion as well as in civil causes. well as in civil matters, except the matter were too hard for them, and then in such cases Moses ordained before-hand, that all such hard matters should be brought in an orderly way unto the high Synedrion, (which was setled afterwards at Ierusalem.) And this orderly way of bringing the difficult causes before them, is descri­bed by the Hebrew Doctors, as you may see it set down by Mr Ains. in Deut. chap. 17. 9.

3. It is evident that the Elders of the high Synedrion were the general Elders of the Church, because they were ordained to bee Judges, not only in civil Causes, but also in Levitical matters, as these places well examined doe fully testifie. Deut. 19. 12. and 21. 2. 19, 20. and 22. 15. to 19. and 25. 7, 8, 9. and 27. 1. and 29. 10. and 31. 9. And the Angel-Iehovah, Christ, (1 Cor. 10.) com­manded Moses the Magistrate, as well as Aaron the Priest, to instruct the people in all his Levitical Laws, Speak ye to all the people of Israel, saying, &c. that is, Teach them to observe all my Levitical Laws, Levit. 11. 2. Hence it is evident, that if any question did arise about the practise of the Levitical Lawes, that Moses the chief Magistrate, (as he was the Head of the Sanhe­drin) must expound the true sense and meaning of such Lawes, both to the Levits and people : and in case any did walk contra­ry to their Teaching, they might correct and punish them: as for example, There were certain men, in Numb. 9. 6. that were un­clean by a dead corps. In this case they could not tell whether they might come to that second Passeover, yea or no. Therefore those men brought the matter before Moses, as well as before Aaron, as they were the chief Heads of the Synedrion. And Moses said [Page 48] unto them in vers. 8. Stand still, and I will hear what Iehovah will command concerning you. This deliberate enquiry of Mo­ses into this difficult matter, may teach the Elders of any Church or Common Weal, not to passe sentence too hastily in doubt­full cases, till they have a word from Christ, to warrant their judgement.

4. It is also evident that all the Iudges of the Synedrion had need to be wise, and learned in the wisdom of the Law, because they must give judgement, and passe their sentence in all doubt­ful and difficult cases; yea even in doubtful Levitical cases.

Mamony saith, that the Elders of the great Sanhedrin were wont to sit in the Temple to judge and try the Priests, both touching their Genealogies, and Blemishes: and what Priest soever they found dis-allowable by his Genealogie, they clothed him in black; and so he went out of the Priests Court in the Temple. But whosoe­ver they found perfect and fit, he was clothed in white, and went in, and ministred with his brethren. Ainswoth in his Preface to Genesis.

By all these testimonies we may see that the Iudges of the Sy­nedrion Court were the general Elders of the Church, to look to all matters, as well Levitical as Civil.

Yea, sometimes the Priests were so simple in the knowledge of their duty, that the Iudges of the Sanhedrin were fain to teach them their duty. As for example, If the Priests were unclean or unmeet any kinde of way to burn the Red heifer, then it was the proper duty of the Iudges of the Sanhedrin to looke to this matter : they must take abundant care to see it done, as it ought to be done. Ains. Numb. 10. 7.

It belonged also to the Elders of the Sanhedrin to judge in all Levitical Ordinances, both of Prohibition, and Permission: be­tween the Clean, and the Ʋnclean, and in all like cases. Ains. in Exod. 23. 2. and it belonged to them to judge in all cases about tythes: Ains. Levit. 27. 33.

And if a Priest were not able to judge of the signes of the plague of Leprosie, then it was not lawful for such a Priest to look upon any Plague, till a Master had taught him, and made him expert in all Plagues. Ains. Levit. 13. 3.

Therefore seeing the Elders of the Synedrion must judge in all such like Levitical cases as this : it follows by necessary conse­quence, that they were the general Elders of the whole Church: and [Page 49] therefore they had power to inflict the sentence of Excommuni­cation upon any offender, as well as other punishments : For they judged in all cases; as well in matters of Religion, as civil Justice : and therefore also by the same rule of equity, the Judges of the highest Court, now may dispence the same power now; both they and their Substitutes : provided they take the like care that none be made Judges, but such as be learned and godly.

You said ere while, that Iesus Christ put Aaron the high Priest in trust with the care of matters of Religion, as wel as Moses the King. In that respect, I conceive that the high Priest was the principal Elder of the National Church: If so, then it belonged to him, as the chief Elder of the Church, to dispence all actions of Church-discipline, and so many learned do conclude and affirm.

I grant that many learned Divines do usually say and affirm, that the high Priest was the chief Elder of that national Church; and thus Chrysostome in Photius Library doth make the high Priest the stay of the State.

But I Answer first Negatively; That the high Sacrificer was The high Sacrifi­cer was not the chief Elder of the National Church in Israel, as some affirm. many times so simple, that he was not fit to be chosen for an Elder of the Sanhedrin, and therefore not fit to be the chief Elder of the whole Church. But secondly, I say, that if the high Sacrificer were at any time chosen to be one of the Elders of the Synedrion, then by that choice he was made an Elder of the National Church, or else not: His Priestly Office did not make him an Elder of the high Sanhedrin (or Synedrion) unlesse he were chosen thereto in an orderly way, as all the other Iudges of that Court were. But, If he were orderly chosen to be one of the Iudges of the Sanhedrin, then if his gifts and parts were more eminent then others, he might haply be more exercised in judging Levitical Laws and Ordi­nances then others. But if his parts were lesse eminent then some other Iudges of the Sanhedrin, then other Iudges chosen out of their Tribes might be more exercised in judging Levitical Laws and Ordinances then he, and so they might be preferred above him.

2. It is evident, that the high Sacrificer was not the chief Elder of the Church, as he was the high Priest: for though he had a privi­ledge above all other Priests, in the Priests Office, yet he had no place among the Elders of the Sanhedrin, as he was the high Priest : For his high Priests Office fell to him partly by birth (which hath no learning nor gifts intailed to it) and partly he was chosen [Page 50] by the Elders of the Sanhedrin. They anointed the high Priest, and installed him into his Office, because they were the Churches Elders. Ains. Levit. 6. 20.

And Talmud Ierusalemi in Sanhedrin sheweth that the seven­tie Elders of the high Sanhedrin might be all of Israel, without any one of Levi: and that the high Priest was not of the San­hedrin, except he were rarely learned and sage: but saith the Talmud, they were often times so simple, that the Elders of the high Sanhedrin were forced to teach them their duty on Expia­tion day: And this the Elders of the high Sanhedrin did not as a voluntary act, but as a duty commanded them by vertue of their Office, as they were the Churches Elders. For it was the Angel of Gods presence that commanded Moses the Magistrate (or head Elder of the Sanhedrin) to speak unto Aaron, the high Priest (after the death of Aarons two sons by fire) for their transgression) to warn him of his duty on Expiation day, lest he might transgress in his duty, as his sonnes had done. vide Ains. on Levit. 16. 1, 2. 33.

And as the Elders of the high Sanhedrin must anoint the high Priest, and instal him into his office : so also they might excommu­nicate him for his offences, as the Hebrew Doctors do testifie, they say they might not excommunicate the King (except in Ieroboams case) but in great offence the high Sanhedrin would say unto the King; Keep your house (for a time) and salve your honour. v. M. Brough, in Apoc. 90. & 108 But they say they whipt the high Priest for his faults, [...]s much as any other man. As for example, if the high Priest do marry a widdow, and lie with her, he was beaten twice: once for transgressing this Law, He shall not take a widdow; and once for this, He shall not profane. Ains. Levit. 21. 15. Yea, the Talmud in Sanhedrin sheweth that the high Priest was judged in all sorts as any other man : Therefore the high Priest was not by the vertue of his high Priests Office the chief Elder of the Natio­nal Church. But the Judges of the high Sanhedrin (whereof the King was the head) were the chief Elders of the National Church. They had the charge, and the burden laid upon them to deal in all Levitical controversies as well as in matters of civil justice : for as it was the Angel (Acts 7.) that gave Moses lively Oracles) that said unto Moses the King, as well as unto Aaron the Priest, (as they were chief persons in the high Sanhedrin) that he should instruct the people in the observation of all Levitical Ordinances. Levit. 11. 2. and so on as it follows in the next Chapter, as I have [Page 51] noted above. 2. It was Moses the King, as well as Aaron the Priest, that charged all Israel to observe holy convocations every Sabbath in all their dwellings. Levit. 23. 3. Christ commanded them to charge the people to observe the Sabbath.

3. It was the Angel that had the Name of God in him, that first ordained the Elders of the high Sanhedrin, as the general El­ders of the Church in all matters of Religion, as well as in mat­ters of civil Justice : they must regain people from Apostacie. Therefore Iehovah the Mediator (to whom the Father hath com­mitted all authority and power) said to the Judges of the San­hedrin: Hear I pray you, O ye heads of Jacob, and ye Princes of the house of Israel, should not ye know judgement? Mica. 3. 1. As if Christ should say, none ought to be Iudges of the Sanhedrin, but wise and godly men, such as are able to judge and trie causes ex­actly, according to all the Ordinances of Moses. We may take Iehosophats example for a Lanthorn to our feet in this case : He charged the Iudges to try all matters of Religion, as well as civil affairs. 2 Chron. 19. But how could they be competent Iudges, except they were learned in the Levitical Laws, as well as in the Iudicials. This shews what care ought to be taken in all those whom it concerns, to seek out for the ablest men that can be found for Elders and Iudges, for variety of great and difficult matters ap­pertained to their judgement. Vide Ans. in Levit. 5. 15. and Deut. 25. 2.

4. It is evident that the Iudges of the Sanhedrin were the ge­neral Elders of the whole Church: because the Sin-offering of the whole Church was presented to the Lord by their hands. For if the whole Church did sinne ignorantly in their practise against any branch of the Law of God through the erroneous teaching of the Elders of the Sanhedrin, then as soon as this sinfull practise was found out by any man of Israel, the Church must bring a bullock for a sin-offering, and yet the whole Church of people were not bound to come to Ierusalem, to offer this general Church sinne-offering. But the whole Church did it, (being absent) by their Elders onely, namely by the Elders of the high Sanhedrin. Yet still the question will be, who among them was the Churches chief Elder in this action. The answer is, Not the high Priest, al­though he were one of their Elders chosen to be of the Sanhedrin. But the Elders of the Sanhedrin Court in general, or any three of them, did bring this bullock as they were the Churches Elders, [Page 52] they laid their hand upon the head of the said Bullock, in the name of the whole Church, whose sin-offering it was. verse 14. 21. There­fore the Elders of the high Sanhedrin might be called the Church, for they were the whole Church representatively. But after the Churches Elders had thus presented the said Bullock for the sinne­offering of the whole Church; it belonged to the high Priect (as he was the chief anointed Priest) to kill the said Bullock before Ie­hovah. Ains. Levit 4. 13, 14, 15.

Hence it follows that the Judges of the high Sanhedrin Court were the General Elders of the whole Church: and this thing is put out of doubt, because they are plainly called the Elders of the whole Congregation, in v. 15. This is so plain, that nothing can be plainer spoken: and so in like sort the Elders of all the other Sanhedrins (being many thousands in all) were to be accounted as the Elders of the Church also, in all the parts of Canaan, in their respective Tribes; they must bear the burden with the high San­hedrin as their Delegates.

And when the Churches sin-offering was to be offered, Aaron the high Priest, as he was an Elder of the Sanhedrin, must speak to the sons of Israel to bring it, namely he must speak to the chief sons of Israel, which were the Elders of the high Sanhedrin Court to bring it. vide Ains. Levit. 9. 3. For these Elders were the highest Officers that the Church had. And therefore the term Elder, is a superior Title to the term Bishop: For the term Bi­shop is given to those inserior Officers that attended upon the El­ders of the Sanhedrin Court, Numb. 3 [...]. 14. vide also Ains. in Deut. 16. 18. Yet an Apostate Priest might be a Bishop after his repentance, but he might not be an Elder of the Sanhedrin: nei­ther might he be restored to be a full Priest any more, but he might serve as a Bishop in a place of inferiority in the Temple. Ains. Levit. 21. 20. ult. And I grant that the term Bishop is sometimes given to the highest degree of men; For it is some­times given to the Emperors of Asia, as a Title of Honour to their Office: And Eleazar the Prince of Princes over the Levites, did exercise the Bishops Office over them. Ains. in Numb. 3. 32. That is, he did oversee them: And in that sense every inferiour Officer that takes the charge to oversee others, is a Bishop: and so the term Bishop may properly be given to all Officer both high and l [...]w, that take upon them the charge to oversee others as well in civil, as in religious matters: But the term Elder, is never given [Page 53] to inferior Officers, as the term Bishop is: this distinction I bring in for the honour of the term Elder; by way of parenthesis onely.

Was the power of Excommunication given to the first Elders of the Sanhedrin, when they were first ordained in the wil­derness, or not?

I make no question but Iehovah the Mediator, from Iehovah, gave them all power that was sutable to the well order­ing of his Church, from the very first time that he ordained them to be the general Elders of his Church in the wilderness: therefore Christ gave them power of Ex­communication originally to the Elders of the Sanhedrin in the wildernes. he did then give the power of excommunication into their hands; and though it be not in plain terms expressed, yet it is implyed by necessary consequence, because he gave them power to correct all vice and sin, with sutable punishments, as I have already de­monstrated.

Therefore seeing that power of Excommunication was given by Christ originally to the Elders of the high Sanhedrin in the Wildernes, it must belong also to the Elders of all the other San­hedrins in their respective places, because they had their power of Delegation from them, yet by Christs ordinance, as above, and so in time it went from them to the Elders of each particular synagogue also, especially when they lived in dispersed places in several heathen Countries, Yea the power of Excommunication was practised in the synagogues of Canaan, at least after the cap­tivity, if not before.

Some learned men do think, that Excommunication came not into practise among the Jews, until the Romans had ta­ken away the power of life and death from the Elders of the San­hedrin, and that thereupon the Elders of the Sanhedrin were for­ced to invent the use of excommunication as a capital punishment for capital offenders, next unto death: and thereupon they think that seing the Elders of the Church of Corinth could not put the Incestuous person to death, as Moses Law did appoint, Levit. 20. they did excommunicate him out of the Church, as the next pu­nishment unto death.

I grant that the Romans had taken away the power of life and death from the Sanhedrin-Court of Judea, about a yeer or two before the death of Christ, as I have formerly noted: and therefore the Elders of the Church of Corinth could much less put him to death; neither ought Excommunication to be accounted [Page 54] as the greatest punishment next death. Neither do I agree to those that say, that Excommunication was not in practise among the Jews, until that time when the Romans took away the power of life and death from them. I do not think that the Elders of the high Sanhedrin at this time (being most of them degenerate, Scribes and Pharisees) would now first have invented such a religious course of Justice, as Excommunication rightly used is: I rather think that Excommunication was in practise among the Jews, in the daies of Moses, or at least, long before the daies of Ezra. And my reasons are these :

First, It is evident that the Son of God did endow the high Sanhedrin in the Wildernes, with full power and authority to ordain such Laws as might tend to the suppression and Reforma­tion of scandalous sins; and therefore they had power to ordain a Law for Excommunication, if they saw it needful; as I noted before▪ and therefore they did ordain Excommunication, or some other Act of Justice in the place of it.

Secondly, The Hebrew Doctors in Sannedrin say, No King ought to be excommunicate, except in Jeroboams case: but they say, That for his great offences, the Elders of the Synedrion did warn him to keep his House for a time, to salve his honour.

Hence I reason thus, that this rule of Excommunication which is given by the Hebrew Doctors, must have relation to those times when Kings reigned among them. But the whole race of Kings was ended before the daies of Ezra, and no more Kings were suffered to reign afterwards. For Ezra, and the Doctors of his age, knew well enough that they should have no more Kings till Christ came : They knew well enough from the Prophesie of Daniel, that the four great Beasts would take away the Kingdom of the Saints of the Most High. Dan. 7. 18. Therefore he and the Doctors of his age would never have given this rule to pre­serve the King from Excommunication, in relation to succeeding times, and therefore they gave this rule to be observed in the daies of Kings at least.

Thirdly, I conceive that Excommunication was in practise be­fore the daies of Ezra; because else I cannot see how the godly Jews that were dispersed into sundry heathen Countries, where they built synagogues for the exercise of their Religion, could possibly preserve their Religion in purity, and from scandal, with­out the use and practise of Excommunication in their synagogues. [Page 55] And the scattered Jews very hardly could have agreed upon such a practise universally, except they had known the use of it among the Jews, before the Captivity.

And it is evident that the Jews did universally practise Excom­munication in their synagogues in all heathen Countries, by the complaint that Haman the Amalekite made to Ahasuerus against the Jews that were scattered into the hundred twenty and seven Provinces of his Dominion : He told the King, That their Laws were divers from all people, and that they did not observe the Kings Laws: Esth. 3. 8. This differing Form of Laws from all Nati­ons, cannot be understood of any other Laws or Government, but such as the Jews did practise in their synagogues: I grant they expounded the Law of God in their synagogues, but they could not correct incorrigible and scandalous persons, without some form of Laws to strengthen their Discipline, therefore in reason they could not be without the use and practise of excommunica­tion in all their synagogues; And it was foretold that they should not be reckoned among the Nations, Numb. 23. 9. because they should have certain Laws distinct by themselves.

In what cases did the Elders of the Sanhedrin excom­municate? Did they excommunicate for sins of Omission, as well as for sins of Commission against a Prohibition? And did they ex­communicate for sins against God, as well as for sins against Man?

I cannot as yet find in the Hebrew Doctors for what particular sins they did excommunicate : but by collection, I find that they did excommunicate for sins against the first Table, as In what cases the Elders of the Sanhedrin did excommuni­cate. well as for sins against the second Table, and for sins of Omissi­on somtimes: though most usually for scandalous sins against a prohibition. But for sins of trespass against a mans neighbour, they did ordinarily punish such sins, by imposing upon them some kind of satisfaction by their goods, rather then by Excommunication.

I find one instance in the Hebrew Doctors for Excommunicati­on for a sin against a prohibition of the first Table. The case is this. Whosoever did any servise work in the Pass-over evening, from mid-day, and forwards, he was to be scourged, or excom­municate with the Niddui, that is to say, with the lesser Ex­communication. But they did not scourge or excommunicate for working in the Evening of their Festival Sabbaths, nor yet for working in the Evening of the Sabbath or seventh day, be­cause [Page 56] the evening before the sabbath (which by their Ceremonial anti-date they called the evening of the sabbath) was not any part of the sabbath it self, it was but for preparation to the sab­bath. But the evening of the Pass-over from mid-day and for­wards, was the very day of the Pass-over it self, for the Pass-over evening began at mid-day, and ended at midnight. The words of Maymony run thus, It is unlawful to do works in the Evenings of the Festival daies (from the time of Evening Sacrifice, and forwards,) even as on the Evenings of the Sabbaths: and who so doth work in them, shall never see a signe of blessing, and he is to be rebuked, and to be made to leave off by force, though he is not for it to be scourged or excommunicate, except in the Evening of the Passover, after Mid-day: who so doth work therein after mid­day, is to be scourged, or excommunicate with the Niddui, if he be not scourged. For the fourteenth of Nisan is not like unto other Festivals, because in it are the feast and the killing of Sacrifices: See Ains. in Lev. 23. 5. Hence I gather also, that they used to excommunicate men for such sins as deserved scourging : they u­sed scourging or excommunication as an indifferent punishment for the same sin, as the circumstances of time, place, person, and the like, did sway with them.

How many sorts of sin did they punish with scourging? And how far was excommunication a sutable punishment for the same sins?

The Hebrew Doctors do reckon up the several sorts of sins that deserved beating to be 207. Ainsw. in Deut. 25. 2. and for the most of these sins, I conceive that excommunication was as sutable as whipping. But for some sins of trespasses, if the sinner did confess and repent, then he was appointed to bring his Sacrifice of Atonement, Numb. 5. 7. and then he was free from any further punishment : But for some kind of sins he was not only to bring his sacrifice of Atonement, but he must be beat­en also; as for example, He that sweareth vainly or falsly, was both to be beaten by the Magistrate, and he must bring his sa­crifice of atonement also. Vid. Ainsw. in Lev. 19. 12. and 5. 4. and Numb. 5. 7. But the most ordinary punishment of lesser capital sins, was done by scourging. They whipped the High Priest for marrying a Widow, as I noted before: and they whip­ed other Priests for several sinful failings in the execution of their Office; as for example, in omiting a duty of the first Table : If [Page 57] the Priest did not divide the poor mans Trespasse-offering with his nail aright, he was to be punished by beating. vid. Ains. in Lev. 5. 8. and in such like cases as this, they whipped a Priest rather then Excommunicate him, because the Priests were bound to wait upon the service of the Sanctuary, therefore they might not be Excommunicated, lest it should dis-able them for their service in the Sanctuary.

I conceive that the sin of Impenitency after admonition was the chief cause of Excommunication: for if a Jew met an Excommu­nicate person in the Temple, he would thus salute him : He that dwelleth in this House, give into thy heart that thou maiest hearken to the words of thy neighbour: The words of the Hebrew Re­cord run thus, All that went into the house of God went by the way of the right hand, except hee to whom some thing had befallen him: for which cause he turned towards the left hand. Thereup­on if any asked him, What is befallen thee, that thou turnest to­wards the left hand? if he said, Because I have the Niddui upon me. (That is to say, the lesser Excommunication.) Then the party answered him, He that dwelleth in this House, give into thy heart, that thou maiest hearken to the words of thy neighbour. vid. Ains. in Levit. 19. 30. From this Hebrew Record it is evident that his impenitency in not harkning to the words of his neigh­bour was the chief cause of his Excommunication.

This Testimony of the Hebrew Doctors sheweth that they held an Excommunicate person to be an alone person: because he might not go in the common way of Converse into the Temple, until they gave satisfaction to the offended brother, by their verbal and particular Repentance. But I wonder at this, Why was he suf­fered to come into the Temple, seeing many Godly Divines say, that an Excommunicate person ought not to come in within the Church door, because it is said, Let him bee to thee as an Heathen and Publican?

It is most certain that an Excommunicate person was excluded out of the Synagogue, till he repented; but not out of the Temple: therefore he was not to be held as an heathen in all respects; for a heathen might not come into the Temple at all; because they were uncircumcised, and unclean. Act. 21. 28. Ezek. 44. 7. Numb. 19. 20. but they might come into the Synagogue if they pleased; and so might not an Excommunicate person, till he had repented, and were released of his Excommunication : but [Page 58] yet that Excommunicate person being circumcised, and ceremo­nially An Excommu­nicate person & a Publican might go into the Tem­ple, but an hea­then might not. cleansed, might come into the Lords Temple; though not without some note of shame: because he must turn towards the left hand : and it is evident that our Saviour did find the blind man after his Excommunication in some part of the Temple: as Ioh. 9. 35. compared with the sequel of Christs speech in the porch of the Temple, doth shew, Ioh. 10. 21. 23. and it is evident that a Publican might also go into the Temple to pray, Luk. 18. Again, the Iews were forbidden to have communion, by eating and drink­ing with Heathens, Act. 10. but with Publicans they might eat and drink, as we may see by our Saviours practise, Mat. 9. 10, 11. and 11. 19. though the blinde Jews did superstitiously hold it unlawful to eat and drink with Publicans.

Some Divines do think that the punishment of cutting off, so often threatned in the Levitical Law, for several transgressions against the Levitical Law, was nothing els but Excommunication.

There is a wide difference between that punishment and excommunication: for the Hebrew Doctors do expound this Cutting off in the Levitical Law, to mean nothing else but Gods cutting men off, by an untimely death, if their sin were se­cret: but if their sin were known, and witnessed to the Elders of the Sanhedrin, then they did punish the said sinner according to the nature of the sinne, all circumstances considered: some of those sinnes which God threatens with cutting off, they did punish with death, and others they punished with scourging, or with Excom­munication in the place of scourging; but in case men did those sins ignorantly, they appointed such to bring their sacrifice of At­tonement to the Priest, to be offered on the Lords Altar. vid. Ains. in Gen. 17. 14. Exod. 12. 15. 19. and 31. 14. Levit. 7. 20. 21. 25. 27. and 17. 10. and 20. 35. and 22. 9. Numb. 9. 13. Therefore seeing some of those sins were punished with death; this phrase they shall be cut off, doth not point out unto us the par­ticular censure of excommunication. Neither do I finde that ex­communication is expressed by the term cutting off, neither in the New Testament, nor yet in the Hebrew Doctors : but it is ex­pressed by casting out, Ioh. 9. 34. or puting out, Ioh. 12. 42. or separating, or puting away, 1 Cor. 5. 13.

It seems the Iews used two sorts of Excommunicati­on: the lesse called the Niddui, and the greater Excommunicati­on called the Anathema maranatha : what kinde of Censure is the Anathema maranatha?

[Page 59]

The Talmudists did frame this word from two Chaldy words, in likelyhood from Daniels Chaldy Visions. [Mar] is What kinde of Excommunication is the Anathema maranatha. one of the names of God, by the confession of Nebuchad-nezzar, Dan. 2. 47. and [...] is in Dan. 7. where Christ the Son of man is described comming into his Kingdom, to judge the four perse­cuting Beasts, or Kingdoms; because they took away the King­dom of the Saints of the most high, Dan. 7. 18. This word [...] is of great force, because it sets out the Kingly justice of Christ, a­gainst wicked persecutors.

Paul delivers this Anathema as a command, and therefore it must be regarded, and obeyed as all the other commands of God ought to be. The command is thus uttered; If any man love not the Lord Iesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha: that is to say, Let him be separated to the Lords wrath (which is a river of fire from the fiery throne,) who cometh in the clouds of heaven, that is to say, With thousands of Angels, to judge such wicked persecuters, Iude verse 14. The not loving of Christ, by it self simply considered, is no just ground of inflicting this curse: for then the poor ignorant Heathen, which know nothing of Christ, should be cursed with this Anathema: but no man I think will say so : therefore I expound this curse to belong to such as are so far from loving the Lord Jesus Christ, that they hate him, his Kingdom and servants.

Neither do I think that the Apostle doth command the Church of Corinth, to execute this bitter Anathema, as a Church act upon any like unto the lesser Excommunication, but either a whole Church, or any one Godly particular man, may denounce this bitter Curse, upon incorrigible persecutors. But no man can give this curse to a­ny that God hath not cursed, Num. 23. 8. Now Christ declared un­to Abraham what kind of persons he would have cursed, Gen. 12. 3. him that speaketh thee evil, I will curse: From this comman­ded promise Paul doth infer his command, If any love not the Lord Iesus Christ, let him be Anathema maranatha. Tremellius in his Translation of the Syriac Testament, hath a Note to this effect, upon 1 Cor. 16. 22. The reason of this terme (saith he) may be applyed to the Thalnudists, they mention such a kinde of Ana­thema in their Thalmud, which is made up of two words, which signifieth as much as [Come Lord,] yet (saith he) I am not igno­rant that it is otherways expounded three several ways, by the Thal­mud Expositors; which I leave to be scanned by the Learned.

[Page 60] But this I say, I do not apprehend that this Anathema doth bind men over to the eternal curse as most Expositors thinke, but to some exemplary judgement of God in this world (as those four beasts had. Daniel. 7.) such as are open and incorrigible enemies to Christ and his Kingdom may and ought to be cursed by such as love the Lord Jesus Christ: either they may threaten the venge­ance of Christ upon them from such positive curses as are in Gods Book delivered against such, with a positive command; or else such may be cursed by imprecating the wrath of Christ upon such wilfull and implacable enemies.

And in this sense, Christ bade Moses to command all Israel to pronounce both the blessings and the curses, as soon as they came in­to the land of Canaan, Then the Priests and the Levites stood be­tween the twelve Tribes, and pronounce both the blessings and the curses with a loud voyce, and all the people said, Amen.

Now the last of those curses was denounced against self-Justi­ciaries; Cursed is he that continues not in all things that are writ­ten in the Book of the Law to do them: Deut. 27. This last curse must be understood of the eternal curse, but all the rest must be understood of temporal curses chiefly.

By this Law, Christ taught his people how, and when, and whom to curse. The Ruler may not be cursed. Exod. 22. 28. And yet such Rulers as mislead the people, and cause them to go astray in their practice, Are cursed, in Deut. 27. 13. And by this Law Paul cursed Ananias, Acts 23. 3. And by this Law, Our Sa­viour cursed the ruling Scribes and Pharises eight times over, Matth. 23. 13. to 39. And David cursed obstinate Saul, Psal. 59. And Ezekiel cursed Zedekiah, Ezek. 21. 25. And by this rule Ie­remiah cursed the Priests of Anathoth and Ierusalem, Ier. 11. 20. & 18. 21. & 17. 18. & 10. 25. Lam. 3. 64. This last curse Paul trans­lates according to the 70. and laid it upon Alexander the copper-Smith. 2 Tim. 4. 14. And Nehemiah is bold to curse such as had married wives of Ashdod, &c. Nehe. 13. 25. and in this sense the godly Martyrs, and Confessors, and Professors do curse the Cesars and the King of Locusts. Apoc. 6. 10. & 8. 4. 5, & 11. & 16. Iames 5. 7. 8. And in this sence Paul must be understood, Let him be Anathema maranatha, that loves not the Lord Iesus Christ.

The Apostle speaks this to all godly Christians, they are bound to execute the curse that is written, either by a positive denuncia­tion, or else by way of imprecation, as the occasion is offered. [Page 61] Curse ye Meroz, said the Angel of the Lord, curse ye the Inhabi­tants thereof, because they came not to help the Lord, to help the Lord against the mighty, Iudges. 5. 23.

They that curse others for private injuries ought to be severe­ly punished by the Magistrate. Levit. 19. 14. But they that curse the enemies of Christ may do it in Faith, because they have a word of command to warrant their Act. And thus Paul delivered Hymeneus, and Alexander to Satan, 1 Tim. 1. 20. He delivered them to Satan, by denouncing the Anathema. 2 Tim. 4. 14. A little before this, Alexander was a defender of the Truth at Ephe­sus, Acts, 19. 33. He was a Member of that Church: but Paul doth not appoint the Church of Ephesus to give him the Anathe­ma, but he did it by himself without them.

The Talmud gives a rule of caution to such as denounce the Anathema, to take good heed they do it upon right grounds, or else they say, the curse given, shall return to the giver : And so Salomon saith, That the curse which is causelesse, shall not come.

The seven cups of Gods wrath in Apoc. 15. & 16. are nothing else but the pouring out curses and imprecations against the Anti­christian Tyrants.

When Zachariah, the son of Iehoiadah was stoned between the Temple and the Altar, he said, The Lord look upon it, and re­quire it. This Anathema maranatha took effect: For when Na­buzaradan came into the Temple, he saw some bloud upon the pave­ment not washed off, thereupon he asked what bloud that was? It was answered, That it was the bloud of a Prophet that foretold all these things that now are come upon us, and we rose up and killed him: Yea, said Nebuzaradan, and I will pay you for it; The reupon he caused his Souldiers to fall upon the young Priests, and they killed eight thousand of them: This the Iews record in Tugueh, fol-69. Col. 1.

I cannot tell what to think of the use and practice of this great Excommunication: whether it be any Church privi­ledge or no? But I will leave it for the present: and desire rather to search out the lesser Excommunication which is granted on all hands to be a special priviledge belonging to all Christian Churches. And very learned Divines do affirm that Iesus Christ did first or­dain it, in Matth. 1. 18. 17. as a special Ordinance for the use of all Christian Churches to the worlds end.

[Page 62]

I cannot believe yet that Iesus Christ did first or­dain excommunication in Matth. 18. 17. as a new Ordinance Christ did not first ordain Ex­communication. in Mat. 18. 17. for the use of Christian Churches. I have already shewed that Iesus Christ did institute many particular Churches or synagogues among the Jews, and that they had the use of Excommunica­tion among them of old time : therefore I cannot as yet believe that Christ did now first ordain excommunication as a new Or­dinance for the use of Christian Churches, in Matth. 18. 17.

Secondly, It is evident that Christ did not now first ordain ex­communication as a new Ordinance for the use of all Christian Churches, in Matth. 18. 17. because Luke relates a part of this exhortation touching private brotherly dealing, and makes no mention of proceeding on to excommunication, which doubt­les he would not have omitted, if Christ had now first ordained it for the use of Christian Churches.

Very learned Divines do think, that the circumstan­ces of the Text, Matth. 18. 17. do plainly demonstrate, that Christ did now first ordain excommunication as a new Ordinance for the use of all Christian Churches to the Worlds end; and that Christ exhorted his Apostles to put this new Ordinance in practise, assoon as they should plant any new particular Christian Churches.

I desire that the circumstance of this Text may be alledged and weighed, whether any of them do prove the ordi­nation of excommunication at this time or no.

The first considerable circumstance is this: If he will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as an Heathen and Pub­lican : Hence I gather, That none could account his Brother of the same profession as an Heathen or Publican, until the Church had excommunicated him.

Your collection is not sound : for first, If this sen­tence had implyed his excommunication by the Church, then Christ would have said thus; Let him be to it, that is to say, to the Church : Or let him be to them, that is to say, to all the mem­bers of the Church, as an Heathen and a Publican: But Christ doth not say so, but let him be to thee, that is to say, let him be to thee that art the wronged Brother, as an heathen and a Publi­can, if he refused to hear the Church, though he never were ex­communicate by them : For it is a point of good Justice, and of Christian Wisdom, to account an obstinate sinner that will not hear the Church, no better then an Heathen or Publican : And [Page 63] thus godly David did, when his brethren. Israelites sought to be­tray his life into the hands of Saul; he both esteemed them, and called them Heathens for it, his words run thus, Lo they lay wait for my soul, yet not for my trespass, nor for my sin: (for I have done them no wrong at all) Therefore thou, O Jehovah, God of hosts, God of Israel, awake to visit all the Heathens. Psal. 59. 4, 5. and in verse 9. he saith thus; Thou Jehovah wilt laugh at them, thou wilt mock at the Heathens: Thus David esteemed his bre­thren the Jews no better then heathens for their trecherous en­deavours, and yet I believe he knew they were not excommuni­cated by the Church. In like sort he calls the Ziphims of the Tribe of Iudah, Strangers, that is to say, Heathens, for their trecherous endevours against his life : Psal. 54. 5. In like sort Ieremiah ranks the profane Jews, with the uncircumcised Hea­thens. Ier. 9. 26. and Iohn calls the persecuting Papists, Gentiles, Apoc. 11. 2. 18. and Heathens also; in chap. 19. 15. and Isaiah calls the Kings and People of Judah, Kings of Sodom, and People of Gomorrha. Es. 1. 10. and yet I believe none of these were so esteemed and called because they were first excommuni­cated by the Church. Therefore you cannot conclude (that Matthew doth mean) that the impenitent brother was first ex­communicate by the Church, because Christ bade the innocent party to esteem him as an Heathen and Publican.

There is another circumstance in verse 18. which doth imply Excommunication, as all Interpreters say; The words of the Text thus speak: Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven, &c. Hence Interpreters conclude, that the Church by the power of Excommunication, do bind sinners in their sins on earth; and when they repent, then they loose them from their sins on earth, by discharging them from the sentence of Excommunication, and that Christ doth ratifie all their doings in heaven.

I do not look upon this 18. verse in the same sense that you take it : I do not apprehend it to have any necessary de­pendance on the three former verses : but I take this 18. verse to speak of another matter distinct from the former: For it is evi­dent that Christ doth use many miscellaneous exhortations in this Chapter, which have no dependence on each other.

Secondly, I say, that this sentence in verse 18. doth not agree to the terms of the Churches Excommunication; For then Christ [Page 64] would have said thus: Whatsoever they bind on earth, that is to say, Whatsoever they, the whole Church both Officers and Mem­bers do bind on earth, &c. But Christ doth not say so, But, what­soever ye shall bind on earth, namely, ye that are my Apostles and Disciples: Or else Christ would have said thus, Whatsoever [thou] bindest on earth, in relation to the phrase afore-going in verse 17. Let him be [to thee.]

This phrase, Whatsoever ye bind on earth, &c. is a Talmudd phrase, which phrase of speaking Christ had formerly used to his Apostles, when he gave them authority to preach the Gospel, in Matth. 16. 19. and now again he doth put them in remem­brance of their calling and power to preach the Gospel, by re­peating the said Talmud phrase: and he begins his memento to them with an asseveration. Amen, I say unto you, Whatsoever ye bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven; that is to say, What­soever person he or she be that lives in sin, without change of mind, ye shall by the preaching of the Gospel bind him or them over to eternal condemnation; but whatsoever person he or she be, that hath the truth of change of mind, according to the rules of the Gospel, you shall loose that person from his sins, by preach­ing to him his pardon, reconciliation and atonement, by resting on Christ for his pardon and atonement.

And in this sense every faithful Preacher doth bind on earth, and loose too, though he never do excommunicate, nor release any from their excommunication.

And if any man doubt whether this exposition of this phrase be to be understood of their power and authority to preach: let them confer hereto another place in Iohn 20. 21. where our Sa­viour useth the like phrase to his Apostles; and there he doth plainly expound it of their calling and power to preach the Gos­pel; for in verse 21. Christ saith thus to his Apostles, As my Fa­ther sent me, so send I you, namely, to preach the Gospel: and in verse 23. he saith, Whosoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whosoever sins ye retain, they are retained. This manner of speaking implies, that they must teach according to the rules of the Gospel: Whosoever sins ye remit according to the rules of the Gospel, they are remitted: But the Gospel doth not pronounce pardon of sin to any but to the godly repenting, therefore you must remit no mans sins but theirs only; to such re­pentant sinners you must preach remission of sins, for their sins [Page 65] are remitted in heaven. But whosoever sins you retain, according to the rules of the Gospel, they are retained: You must tell all unrepentant sinners, that without good change of mind, they shall all perish eternally. These are the limits of that commissi­on which Christ gives to all true preachers, when he doth first give them power and authority to preach the Gospel : and I think that no sound Divine dares deny this exposition. And thus by comparing these Scriptures together, the true interpretation of Matth. 18. 18. may be found out.

Thirdly, This phrase, Whatsoever ye bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven, cannot be expounded of the Churches excom­munication: For no Church is so perfect in judgment, as to know the spiritual estate of an excommunicate person: many godly persons have been excommunicate for a particular sin, and have died under their excommunication, and yet their sin not bound in heaven, when they dyed : and some are unjustly excommuni­cate: and some are released from their excommunication, upon their verbal repentance only. In this case the Church cannot say, we know thy repentance is true, and therefore we do loose thee from thy sins on earth, and Christ doth also loose thee from thy sin in heaven : No Church can say thus.

But when a godly Minister doth preach remission of sins to the truly repentant sinner, (or to a man thrt truly turns to the Lord) and preach everlasting damnation to the unrepentent: they do not personate men, as they do when they excommuni­cate persons, they only deliver the rules of the Gospel to persons in general : If any of their hearers can find themselves so and so qualified, then they preach remission of sins to such as do truly re­pent (or turn to God. Act. 26. 20) according to the rules of the Go­spel, and they preach damnation also to them that do not turn to God, that is, to the unrepentent. But a particular Church had need an of infallible Judgment in mens personal conditions, before she can conclude that all her personal censures are ratified in heaven.

Sir, I must confess that your exposition of this verse 18. doth set me at a gaze what to think of other mens Interpretations: but yet I am not fully satisfied: Therefore I will yet try further in another circumstance of the Text: It is said in verse 15. If he hear thee, thou hast gained thy Brother. These words imply, that the only end and aime which the innocent brother had, in telling his trespassing brother of his fault, was to gain him from his sin by [Page 66] gaining him to repentance, to change of mind, therefore his end and aime was the same in verse 16. in taking with him one or two: and therefore his end and aim was the same also in verse 17. in telling the Church. Now if his end and aim was the same in all these proceedings, namely to bring him to repentance, then it fol­lows by necessary consequence, that the Churches dealing with him was either to bring him to change of mind, or else to excommuni­cate him, in case he shall still remain unrepentant.

I grant that the two first degrees of proceeding a­gainst the brother offending, was only to gain him to the sight of his sin, and so to godly repentance for it. But the third degree of proceeding in telling the Church, might well have another end; namely, to bring him to some publike shame for his un­repentancy (or non-change of mind) and to gain him to make some satisfaction for his injurious trespassing against him.

Do you make the word Trespass in this Text, to mean such sins only as do trespass or hurt a mans brother? Very learned Divines do take it to signifie all kinds of sin, as well against God immediately, as mediately against man.

I acknowledge that the Greek word used in this Text is often put as well for sin against God, as for sin against man : But most usually it is put for sin or trespass against man: and me-thinks that the circumstances of this Text do carry it plainly of sin against a mans brother : If thy brother sin against thee, namely, by hurting or injuring thy person, goods, or good name, then thou shalt tell him his fault between him and thee alone.

2. This kind of sin is such a sin, as a brother may forgive, and so Luke doth explain our Saviour to mean, Chap. 17. 3. But a brother cannot forgive a sin against God; and so Eli saith, If a man sin against God, who shall plead for him? 1 Sam. 2. 25. therefore the sin here spoken of, is not to be understood of sin a­gainst God immediatly, but of such sins as a brother may forgive by passing by it, and not revenging it, in case his brother testifies his sorrow and repentance for it. In this sense Iosephs brethren sinned against Ioseph, as Reuben doth explain the nature of their sin, Gen. 42. 22. with Gen. 37. 21, 22. And therefore, after Ia­cob was dead, all Josephs Brethren came to him and confessed their sin (many yeers after,) and they prayed Joseph to forgive their Trespass and their sin. Gen. 50. 17. They did not pray him to forgive their sin, as it was a sin against God, for in that sense they [Page 67] knew that Ioseph could not forgive it, but as it was a sin against his person, in that sense they knew he might forgive it if he plea­sed; and he did forgive it, though it were a sin of the highest na­ture: for the sin that is done against a mans person, is far great­er then that which is done against a mans goods: and so the He­brew Doctors affirm; they say if a man have done his neighbour dammage [...]n his goods, assoon as he hath paid that which he ought to pay, atonement is made for him.

But he that hurteth his neighbours person, although he give unto him for satisfaction all the five things spoken of in Exod. 21. 13. yet atonement is not made for him thereby, yea though he should sacrifice unto God all the Rams of Nebaioth, Es. 60. 7. yet atonement is not made for him, nor his iniquity forgiven, until he request it of Him that was hurt, and he do forgive it him. Ains. in Gen. 50. 17.

Our Saviour also gives the like rule of caution; If thou bring thy gift to the Altar, and there remembrest thy brother hath ought against thee, leave there thine offering before the Altar, and go thy way, first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift. Mat. 5. 23, 24.

Thirdly, This kind of sin against a brother, may be explained by other instances. Jonathan entreated Saul not to sin against David, because David did not sin against him. 1 Sam. 19. 4. And so David pleaded with Saul (when he cut off the skirt of his robe) Know thou, and see that there is neither evil nor transgression in my hands, I have not sinned against thee, yet thou huntest my soul to take it. 1 Sam. 24. 11.

In this sense also Iacob asked Laban, What is my trespass, and what is my sin, that thou hast so hotly pursued after me, Gen. 31. 36. the 70. translate this phrase thus, What is my injury, and what is my sin? Shimei also met David at his return, and acknowledged that he had sinned against him, and desired pardon, thereupon Da­vid accepted of his acknowledgment, and forgave him. 2 Sam. 19. 19, 20. 23. David forgave the sin that was done to his person, but David could not forgive his sin as it was done against God.

So the prodigal son, when he had sinned against his Father, in wasting his Fathers goods : he confessed his sin against his Fa­ther, and said, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and against thee: Luke 15. 18. and his Father forgave him the sins that were done against him.

[Page 68] Breach of promise is a great sinne against man, as Iudah did acknowledge unto Iacob. vide Ains. in Gen 43. 9. & 44. 32. which a man may forgive to his brother.

4. It is plain that Christ speaks in this Text of such a kind of sin as a brother may forgive, because Peter demands this question in ver. 21. in relation to Christs exhortation, How oft shall my brother sinne against me, and I forgive him? Our Saviour by his answer to the end of the Chapter, sheweth that he spake of the sin of injurious dealing against a mans brother, and our Saviour doth much inculcate upon this point of dealing brotherly in point of wrongs and injuries: and in his form of Prayer he doth lay it down, as one of the conditions of those Petitions, which we ought to make unto God in our dayly prayers, To forgive us our tres­passes, as we forgive them that trespasse against us. Matth. 6. 12. and in verse 14. he enforceth this point by this reason; If you for­give men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you; but if you do not forgive men their trespasses, no more will your heavenly Father forgive you your trespasses. And in this sence Christ did conclude his answer to Peters question. Matth. 18. 35. All these places compared together, do plainly evidence that the kind of sin Christ speaks of in Matth. 18. 15. is no other but the sin of trespass or injury which one brother may do unto another.

It seems to me that our Saviour doth exhort his Dis­ciples to rebuke a brother for every sinne they see in him: for sinne against God, as well as for sinne against man: As for example, if a man hear his brother swear a vain oath, ought he not to rebuke his brother for it; and if he repent not then, to take one or two with him, &c. Yet that sin doth no hurt to a mans brother, it is onely a sinne against God immediately?

The point about which we reason, is about a parti­cular case; namely about a brother sinning injuriously against a brother. But now you start a question about sinne against God im­mediately: Whether a man that sees his brother sin against God, immediately ought not to rebuke him for it. I will answer as plainly as I can. First I say, that all sinne in general ought to be rebuked. But yet secondly, I say, that this duty of rebuking sinne against God must be grounded on some other command of Christ that is more large then this in Matth. 18. 15. namely, it must be grounded upon the second or third Commandments, or upon Levit. 19. 17. Which I conceive is a general command to rebuke [Page 69] all kind of sinne in all sorts of persons, as farre as any brother may have a necessary calling thereunto, or else saith our Saviour, He hates his brother in his heart, and must bear sinne for him: and if he remain impenitent or perverse, he ought to complain a­gainst him to authority, provided he can witness his complaint. But this extraordinary command in Matth. 18. 15. is a more parti­cular command to rebuke a trespassing brother in a private way first, which is a loving and honourable kind of dealing, and this duty is of necessary concernment to be practised for the better pre­servation of Christian love and society, as I have above noted it from our Saviours large answer to Peters question.

Therefore now I conclude from all the premisses, that our Sa­viour did not ordain excommunication in this Text: no other­wise then he ordained scourging, fining, or the like punishments, for the correction of unrepenting sinners, such as the Church or Court of Magistrates should see cause to inflict upon complaint and proof.

Do you hold the word Church in Matth. 18. 17. to be a Court of Magistrates? learned Divines hold it to be meant of a particular Christian Church assembled together both Elders and Members.

I apprehend that the word Church in Matth. 18. 17. This phrase, Tell the Church: means nothing else, but tell the Elders of the Sanhedrin. Must be taken for a Court of Magistrates, and that it cannot be taken for a particular Christian Church of Elders and Members assembled together.

First, because there were no particular Christian Churches as yet established.

Secondly, It is plain by the circumstances of the Text that Christ spake of such a Church as was in present being, unto which the present offended brother might repair for justice against his unrepentant trespassing brother : or else how could his Disciples practice his Doctrine, seeing he doth nor explain himself to speak of Christian Churches.

Thirdly, It is evident that Christ spake of such a Church, as was in present being among the Jews; because he applies his speeches to the present Jews capacity, Let him be to thee as an Heathen and Publican. This phrase is not sutable to a particular Christian Church : for Christians might company with Hea­thens and Publicans. But the Jews might not hold communion with any unclean and uncircumcised Heathens, as Peters refusing [Page 70] to go to Cornelius doth testifie. Acts 10. Neither did Christians hate Publicans, but the Jews in general did, because they raised them up in the point of Tribute to Cesar. But converted Christi­ans were allowed to eat and drink with Heathens in civil feastings except it were in the Idols Temple; and they might also eat and drink with Publicans, as our Saviour and his Disciples often did, though the Jews in general (through their own unjust tradition) took offence at Christ for it.

Can you make it manifest by Scripture with good reason, that a Court of Magistrates are a Church: Learned men affirm the contrary. They affirm that a Court of Magistrates is no where called a Church in Scripture.

I will answer you fully and plainly: I affirm that a Court of Magistrates is often called a Church in Scripture.

First, It is evident that the Hebrew word Kahal the Church, A Court of El­ders, is a Church in Scripture phrase. is in Deut. 31. 30. must be understood of the Elders and Officers of the Church onely, which also were the Magistrates of the Com­mon-weal : they did now assemble unto Moses out of all the Tribes: as it appears by comparing verse 30. with verse 28. Therefore the said Elders with their Officers attending on them were called the Church. They were the whole Church represen­tatively; and it may be further observed that Kahal in this place is translated by the seventy Ecclesia, the Church.

Secondly, If the whole Church did sin ignorantly in their pra­ctise against some branch or other of the Law of God : then the Church must bring a sin-offering, and it is called the Churches sin-offering, in Levit. 4. 13, 14. 21. and yet the Common people of the twelve Tribes did not assemble to Jerusalem to present this Church sin-offering, but the Elders or Magistrates of the San­hedrin did it, without the presence of the people, Levit. 4. 15. There­fore the Elders of the Court Sanhedrin, are a true Church repre­sentatively.

Thirdly, Kahal the Church, 1 Chron. 13. 2. 4. compared with verse 1. is nothing else but the Captains of thousands, and hun­dreds, with the Governours or Elders of the Court Sanhedrin; and the 70. translate this Kahal by Ecclesia.

Fourthly, Kahal the Church in 1 Chron. 29. 1. 10. 20. Is nothing else but the Elders of the Court Sanhedrin, together with other chief. Princes and Captains of thousands, and Captains of hun­dreds, &c. As it is evident by comparing this place with 1 Chron. [Page 71] 28. 1. 8. This Kahal also is translated by the seventie Ecclesia.

5. Kahal the Church in 2 Chron. 1. 3. 5. is nothing else but the Captains of thousands and hundreds with the Judges and every Governour in all Israel: all these did accompany Salomon to seek the Lord at Gibeon: all this assembly of Governors and chiefe Fathers, are called a great Church: This Kahal is also translated by the 70. Ecclesia.

Sixthly, Kahal the Church, 2 Chron. 23. 28. 31. 32. & in 2 Chron. 3. 2. 4. is explained in 2 Chron. 29. 20. to be nothing else but the Rulers of the City assembled together in a Sanhedrin Court; that is to say, there was the 70. Elders of the high Sanhe­drin, and the Elders of the two other Sanhedrins, who had their residence in Jerusalem: (as I noted above in opening the kinds of Sanhedrins) and this matter is also further explained, in verse 28. 31. 32. and in 2 Chron. Chap. 30. 2. 4.

This Assembly of Elders is termed a Church in all the said verses, both in the Hebrew, and in the seventy. The generaltie of the people did not come to the first Passe-over in the first moneth : Therefore Hezekiah took counsel of this Church of Elders, and they counselled him to gather together all the people on the fourteenth day of the second moneth : So then Hezeki­ah and the Elders made a Church by themselves in the point of Counsel in the first moneth. But in the second moneth, both the Elders and the people together made a very great Church: and these degrees of Church meetings were ordained by Moses: If one Trumpet alone sounded, then the Elders came alone to the Church-meeting; but if both Trumpets sounded together, then both Elders and People did meet together in one Church-Assem­bly, vide Numb. 10.

7. Kahal the Church translated by the seventy Ecclesia in 1 Chron. 28. 14. is nothing else but the Elders of Samaria assem­bled together: For by the counsel of the Prophet Oded, certain of the Heads of the children of Ephraim stood up against the Souldiers that were returned from warring against Iudah: And they said unto the Souldiers, ye shall not bring the captaives in­to this City; and the armed men obeyed their voice, and left all the captives before the Princes, and before all the Church: This Church therefore is nothing else but the Magistrates of Samaria, which were assembled to this place by the counsel of Oded the Prophet to prevent the further occasion of Gods wrath.

[Page 72] 8. The word Church, in Deut. 23. 1, 2, 3. 8. is Kahal in all the four places, and in the Seventy, Ecclesia, in one of these four places it is said, that a Moabite and an Ammonite may not enter into the Church of Iehovah for ever. This place doth not exclude a converted Ammonite or a Moabite from the Church of the Jewes: but yet it did exclude them from bearing any Office in their Church or Publique Courts; and so both the Hebrew Do­ctors and some learned Christians do understand the word Church in this text to be spoken of the Church of Elders assembled in the Sanhedrin Court: a Moabite or an Ammonite, though convert­ed to the Faith, yet they might not bear any Office in the Church-Court. So Mr Broughton expounds the word Church in this place, and so doth Mr Ainsworth in effect.

In another of these four places it is said, The Priest which was hurt in his privy members, might not enter into the Church of Ie­hovah, Deut. 23. 1. He might not enter in, to wait upon his Of­fice, as a Priest compleat; neither might he enter into the Sanhe­drin Court, to bear any Office there, as long as that part was de­fective, but he was not excluded from coming into the Temple; he might come thither to do some inferiour works. As for exam­ple, He might cleave wood in the Wood-chamber, and in that respect, he must have his portion in the holy things; therefore he was not excluded from the Church at large: he was only exclu­ded from bearing special Office in the Church as a Priest compleat, and as a Magistrate: For this phrase, He shall not enter in, or come in, is expounded, [To beare Office as a Magistrate,] 1 Kings 3. 9.

9. The Congregation of the gods, Psal. 82. 1. is translated by the Seventy, the Synagogue of the gods: it may be as well tran­slated [the Church of the gods;] for the seventy do often put the term Synagogue, for the term Church, and for the term Congre­gation. vid. Ains. Exod. 21. 6.

10. The Congregation before whom the man-slayer must stand in judgement, Numb. 35. 12. &c. and Ios. 20. 6. is term­ed by the Seventy, the Synagogue or Church of Elders: for I finde these three termes, Congregation, Synagogue, and Church, often put the one for the other, as termes Synonima.

11. Salomon describes the course of Justice against an impeni­tent person, much like to that course of Justice which Christ doth direct us to, in Matth. 18. 15, 16, 17. He saith, That hee [Page 73] whose hatred is covered by deceit, his wickednesse shall bee shewed before the whole Church. Prov. 26. 26. The Hebrew word in this place is Kahal; but the Seventy translate it, the Synedrion, or the Session of Elders. Salomon by this phrase [his hatred is covered by deceit,] doth imply, that hee will not acknowledge his fault to his neighbour, but did labour to cover his hatred to his brother by deceit : thereupon the matter must be brought before the Church, or Court of Elders, called the Synedrion.

And our Saviour doth tell us, that contumelious nick-names (such as Raca is in the Talmud) were a just cause to bring such a person before the Elders of the Synedrion, Matth. 5. 22. or at least they were lyable to be brought thither : and the Greek word in Mat. 5. 22. is Synedrion: and so the word Church, in Ier. 15. 17. is Synedrion in the seventy.

12. The Church is commanded to rejoyce in the Feast of Ta­bernacles, with exceeding joy; with musick, songs, and palm-bran­ches in their hands. Levit. 23. 40. But this kinde of joy was not acted by the whole multitude of the Church, but by the Elders of the Sanhedrin Court only, for they were the whole Church re­presentatively. vid. M. Ains. in Levit. 23. 40.

13. Not only the Elders assembled in the high Sanhedrin, but all the Elders of their inferiour Sanhedrins in each Session, might well be called a Church: as in Psal. 107. 32. Let them exalt him in the Church of the people, and praise him in the sitting of the El­ders. The term Church, and the sitting of the Elders, are terms Synonima in this Text. The manner how the Jews did exalt God in the Church of the people; and praise him in the sitting of the Elders, is thus recorded by the Hebrew Doctors. Men made confession unto God, for four sorts of deliverances, before ten men, whereof two of them must be wise men. After this manner they exalted God before the Church of the people, because it was done before some of the Elders of the Church, who may be called [a Church,] for so they are called representatively.

And marvel not that two Elders, or two wise men, are called [A Church;] for if Symeon and Levi assembled together in Counsel, about the destruction of the Sychemites, be called Kahal, a Church, as they are in Gen. 49. 6. then two wise men, or El­ders of the Sanhedrin with eight of the people in their company, may as well be called A Church of people.

14. Kahal, the Church, Prov. 5. 14. translated by the Septu­agint [Page 74] [Ecclesia,] means the Assembly or Court of Elders: the words of the text run thus. I was almost in all evil, in the midst of the Church and Assembly. The Seventy have the like phrase up­on the word Church, in 1 Chron. 28. 8. Now therefore in the sight of all Israel, the Church of the Lord: this Church was nothing else but the Congregation of Elders, compared with verse 1. and with chap. 29. 1 - 10 - 20. These Elders were the chief Doctours in Moses Laws; and therefore those that lived in evil, contrary to their teaching, might well fear the evil of punishment, when they stood in the middest of their Church and Assembly, as Salo­mon warneth, Prov. 12. 13, 14.

15. Iesus Ben Syrack, one of the former Hebrew Doctors, since the Prophets, puts the word [Church,] for a counsel of wise and learned men. He first shews the un-aptnesse of Artificers, for matters of Counsel and Judicature, they shall not be sought un­to, (saith he) in matters of publique Counsel, neither shall they sit high in the Church, nor sit in the Iudges seat, nor understand the sentences of Iudgement. Ecclus. 8. 24. 33. In these words he doth plainly make the Elders of the Court Sanhedrin to be a Church by themselves.

16. The same Authour saith, that the adulterous wife shall be brought into the Church, and inquisition and examination shall be made of her children, Ecclus. 23. 22 - 24. he saith plainly, that the adulterous woman shall be brought before the Church of the El­ders, and they shall make inquisition concerning the Legitimacy or bastardy of her children: And after this sort the Congregation or Church of Elders sit to judge them that had taken strange wives, Ezra. 10. 14. 16.

17. It is no more absurditie to call the Elders of the Sanhedrin a Church : then it is to call a Court of Heathen Magistrates, a Church. But a Court of Heathen Magistrates are called a Church properly; for the Town-Clerk of Ephesus told Demetrius and his consorts, that if they had any thing to lay against Paul and A­lexander, it should be determined in a lawfull Church, that is to say, it should be legally determined in an Assembly of Magistrates, Act. 19. 39. Therefore seeing a Court of Heathen Magistrates are properly called a Church; why may not that Church in Mat. 18. 17. be taken for a Court of Elders, seeing the Elders of all their Synedrions were the chosen Elders of the Church for all matters, and therefore were or ought to bee learned and expert in all [Page 75] the Lawes of Moses, both Leviticall and Judiciall.

18. Those eminent persons in the Church of Corinth, that spake with Tongues and prophesied; are called a Church by the figure Synecdoche, 1 Cor. 14. 23. Thus the text is, when the whole Church is come together into one, and [all] speak strange tongues: No man that is well advised will say that the word Church in this place, doth mean the whole people in general: the word [all] must not have that sence, except you will say [also] that the whole multitude spake with strange tongues: but no man (I think) will say so : therefore the word [all] and the word Church, must have reference to those only that spake with strange Tongues. These only are called the whole Church, by the figure Synecdoche. Like­wise it is said, every one that hath a Psalme, or hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath interpretation: this phrase [every one] must not be taken vulgarly for every one of the common multitude of the Church. The Apostle himself doth contradict that Exposition; for he doth teach us to oppose the learned to the unlearned, in ver. 23. 24. therefore he doth exempt the unlearned, as not fit to be ac­counted into the number of every one that hath a Psalm &c. there­fore these two phrases, all and every one: means all and every one of those only whom God had gifted with extraordinary gifts, for the plantation of his Church : these only the Apostle calls the whole Church, by the figure Synecdoche, because they were the chiefe guides and directions of the multitude.

19. The word Church is of a large capacity; it signifies an Assembly of any kind of men: and therefore it may as well be applyed to an assembly of Magistrates, in a Court of Justice, as to any other Assembly.

First, The whole Army of Sauls souldiers that lay incamped in the field against the Philistims, are called Kahal a Church : and in the Septuagint, Ecclesia. 1 Sam. 17. 47.

Secondly, Nebuchadnezzars Army against Israel, is called Ka­hal, a Church, and in the seventy, Ecclesia. Ezek. 16. 40.

Thirdly, Nebuchadnezzars several companies of souldiers collected into several bands out of several Nations, are called Churches, in the plural number, Ezek. 26. 7. and in the seventy, Synagogues.

Fourthly, The Persian Army is also called a Church: Ier. 50. 9. and in the septuagint, a Synagogue.

Fifthly, Pharaohs army is also called Kahal, a Church. Ezek. 17. 17.

[Page 76] Sixthly, The Army of Gog is four times over called Kahal, a Church, and in the seventy, a Synagogue. Ezek 38. 4. 7. 13. 15.

Seventhly, all the multitude of Israel that came out of Ae­gypt are called Kahal, a Church, before ever they entred into that Church Covenant which God made with them in Horeb. Exod. 16. 3.

Therefore it is no absurdity to call a Court of Elders a Church.

20. A confused multitude of people may be called a Church: therefore much more an orderly Assembly of Elders in a Court of Justice. In Acts 19. 32. It is said, that the Church was confused that rose up against Paul and Alexander : and in verse 41. The Town-Clark dismissed the Church, that is to say, the disorderly multitude: and Syracides puts the word Church, for a disorderly multitude of evil doers. Ecclus 26. 5.

21. A company of wicked and corrupt Elders may be called a Church, as in Psal. 26. 5. I hated the Church of evil doers; that is to say, the Church or Synedrion of Sauls flattering Counsellors. And Iacob also in his last will, speaking of the bloudy action of Simeon and Levi, saith, O my soul come not thou into their secret, and unto their Church mine honour be not thou united. Gen. 49. 6. Hence it follows, that the conclave of Cardinals in Rome, may be truly and properly called a Church: and the general Coun­cels of Cardinals, Bishops, and other Popish Doctors, may truly and properly be called a Church: though also they ought to be called a malignant Church, or a Synagogue of Satan.

Therefore I wonder why any man of learning and wisdom should account it such a strange matter to interpret the word Church in Matth. 18. 17. to mean the Elders of the Synedrion-Court: especially considering they were the Churches chosen Elders, appointed to sit in Moses Chair, to expound Moses laws, and to punish all the Transgressors thereof with sutable punish­ments; and though they were grown now more degenerate then in former times, yet they had some godly Elders among them, as Gamaliel, and Nichodemus, and Ioseph of Arimathea, with ma­ny others, doubtles here and there dispersed among their several Sanhedrins.

I will conclude these one and twenty Collections with this Summe.

[Page 77] First, Their opinion, that, Tell the Church, requireth a new Court; would breed new speech in the New Testament. But our Lord spake it, as is evident, of the Church of Elders, of the Politie known and practised of old in Israel, Bro. in Ma­nuscript.

Secondly, In the Iews Reipublike, the same Ecclesia that judged Dammages, or Death, judged of excommunication: and still the chief Rulers being of Faith, should have their stroke. They will and should study to excel in Divinity, to be true Bishops and Elders, to eat up the book of the Gospel, and to see all miscarri­ages sagely restrained. The Apostle did excommunicate the Corinthian, as an Elder or Bishop. Bro. in Manus. and Apoc. 155.

Thirdly, The Reformed Churches as Zurick, take the wisest order that destroy all the Popes marks, The Consul is present at all Scholars dealings: and most straitly look to Scholars carriage twice in the Yeer, and all punishments are referred to the Con­sul and Synedrion : such was the Apostles Doctrine and Sy­nagogues of old. Bro. Apoc. 230. and on the Lords Prayer. pag. 10. & 11. & alibi.

Truly I must needs confess that I cannot justly except against your exposition of the word Church in Matth. 18. 17. and yet I desire a little further satisfaction: Whether it be lawful to call all the visible professors of the Faith dispersed over the world, A Church of Christ or no?

I have already shewed you, that the word Church is of such a large capacity that it may well comprehend them all : and therefore I do fully accord with those Divines that describe the Church of Christ to be outwardly visible farre and wide over the face of the earth.

Very learned men do think that there can be no such universal visible Church of Christ. 1. Because all those visible Professors cannot meet together in any one place to perform that publick worship which Christ hath ordained: And secondly, they cannot have any general Officers over them, because they cannot meet together to chuse them.

I do desire that no man will be offended suddenly at the term Church, attributed to all visible Professors of the Faith: For though they cannot now personally meet together in any one place, as perhaps they did in the dayes of Adam and Noah▪ [Page 78] yet they do dayly meet together in the unitie of the Faith, and they do all make the same publick Profession of salvation by All the outward Professors of the Faith through the world, do make an univer­sal visible Church of Christ. Christ alone. But for the better performance of the same publick Faith and Worship, they are fitly divided and distributed into par­ticular visible Churches: And my reasons for calling all visible Professors an universal visible Church of Christ, are these. 1. What other Temple of God can that be, wherein Antichrist doth sit as God, but the universal visible Church of Christ dispersed over the world? Antichrist cannot be said to sit as a God in any one particular Congregational Church; but he sits in the Temple of God, even as Christ sat formerly in the Temple between the Cherubims, whither the twelve Tribes resorted three times a year; And these twelve Tribes are called a Church of Nations, Genesis. 28. 3. Because they Typified all the outward Professors of the Faith in all Nations, as well as the inward Professors of the Faith all the world over. In this outward Temple or Church An­tichrist, did set up the throne of his Dominion, to rule them and govern them after his own will, by his own Laws and Decrees.

Secondly, What other Church was it which Paul did perse­cute, but the universall visible Church of Christ. He saith, that in times past he did persecute the Church of God, and wasted it; he is not said to persecute any one particular Church, but he persecu­ted the Church of God in general not in Iudea onely, but in other strange Conntries and Cities also: that is to say, he perse­cuted divers Godly persons that believed in Christ, and which as yet continued in several Synagogues, in several Countries. Acts 22. 19. & 26. 11. All these visible Professors of the Faith in seve­ral Synagogues, and in several Countries, the Apostle calls them all together, The Church of God in the singular number, Gal. 1. 13. Phil. 3. 6. Though they were not personally united into one par­ticular visible Church; yet they were united together by the same Faith into one universal visible Church, The Jerusalem from Heaven.

3. What other Church was it whereof Paul was made a Mini­ster, that he might preach unto the Heathen the unsearchable riches and mysteries of Christ, that the Church might know the manifold wisdom of God? Eph. 3. 8. 10. & verse 21. He desires that praise may be given for it in the Church through all Generati­ons for ever. But Paul was not made a Minister to any one par­ticular Church, but to the Church of Christ in General.

[Page 79] 4. Paul tells the Corinthians, that God had ordained in the Church, first Apostles, secondarily, Prophets, &c. For what particular Church did God ordain these Officers? surely, not for any particular Church; therefore they were ordained for the good of the general visible Church, dispersed over all the world where ever a doore of entrance was opened to them : and when Christ gave them a new Commission to preach the Gospel at his Ascention, he did not send them to any particular Church, but appointed them to preach the Gospel to all Nations in the world.

5. Christ made a promise unto Iacob, That he should grow in­to a Church of Nations. Gen. 28. 3. Gen. 35. 15. & 48. 4. This Church of Nations must be understood of an universal visible Church, dispersed into all nations as well as of the invisible Church (as I noted in the first mark of an universall visible Church.) The universal visible Church, doth include the Elect among others that hope to go to Heaven, as well as they by their outward Profession. Therefore all outward Professors of the Faith may be well cal­led the Children of Iacob, because they profess the Faith of Ia­cob, and because they are begotten to this Faith by the children of Iacob. For the twelve Apostles, and the seventy Disciples were of Iacobs loyns. They begate other Preachers who begate many children unto the Faith of Iacob: Therefore all these pro­fessors of the Faith may well be called the children of Iacob. (Galathians 6. 16.) And thus Iacob did grow into a Church of Nations.

The Hebrew Doctors say, That God did not onely ordain the twelve Tribes to make one National Church; but they say also, That every Tribe was a Church by it self (as I have formerly no­ted.) It is written in 2 Chron. 20. 5. that Iehosaphat in the Church of Iudah; Here the Tribe of Iudah is called a Church: And so it is again in verse 24. and in 2 Chron. 30. 25. There­fore say the Hebrew Doctors, When the Church brought a Bul­lock for a sinne-offering, as it was commanded in Leviticus 4. 14. The Elders of the Sanhedrin brought twelve Bullocks for twelve Churches, because every Tribe made a Church by it self. Vide Ainsworth in Leviticus 4. 14. and Numbers. 15. 34.

And it seems to me that every Tribe made such a kind of Church by it self, as a Christian Nation is : For I apprehend that [Page 80] a Christian Nation may be called a Church, as well as a Tribe by it self may.

How can such visible National Professors be called a Church, or be called the Kingdom of Heaven; seeing most out­ward Professors are but Hypocrites?

It is true, most outward Professors are but Hypo­crites; yet these together with some Godly among them, may well be called The Church of Christ; and by the noblest part they may well be called The Kingdom of Heaven, because their profession is of an Heavenly calling: And so that place must be understood in Matthew 13. 19. 41. 42. 44. 47. and Matthew 8. 12. Apoc. 8. 10. and 10. 1. and 12. 14. And for the outward Co­venant sake, he doth outwardly own them, rule them, govern them as his Church and People, and if any do wrong them, he doth revenge their cause: Therefore all visible Churches have great priviledges.

Very learned men do think that none ought to be ad­mitted into a particular visible Church as a Member thereof, un­til the same Church shall judge them to have true grace in their souls by trying and examining the marks of their effectual con­version; for they do not hold it lawfull to receive any one that is an Hypocrite into a particular visible Church.

If none ought to be admitted into a particular visible Who are to be accounted as fit persons to be admitted as members of a particular visi­ble Church. Church, until they manifest the Truth of Grace in their souls, then doubtless Christ hath given infallible rules, whereby the Church may discern aright of the Truth of their Grace, and di­stinguish it from close hypocrisie: But I must confess that I am to seek where to find those rules. For though the Scriptures have perfect rules in general, yet when these rules come to be applied to particular persons, then am I to seek for certainty of judge­ment. I conceive it is one of the royal Prerogatives of the Lord Jesus, to know what particular persons have the truth of Grace in their Souls. Questionless, all such are the most fit persons that are to be joyned as Members of particular Churches. But yet, if there be any other that do call upon the Name of the Lord, and depart from iniquity, our Lord Jesus Christ would have us to e­steem them also as fit matter for a particular visible Church; until by their scandalous walking they deserve to be excommunicated. I will no more speak of this, because divers godly learned have dealt in the Argument to very good purpose. Yet this I would [Page 81] say, let Churches, both Teachers and Members, be careful that they be not too censorious and pragmatical, lest they turn men upon the stumbling blocks of Anabaptistry, &c.

CHAP. III. That Schools of Learning were at the first erected by Je­sus Christ, for the breeding of a Succession of able Men: for Pastors, Teachers, Elders, Iudges, &c. to the end of the world.

WHat means hath Christ ordained for the raysing up of continual succession of Pastors and Teach­ers, Elders and Iudges, for the well governing of his Church to the end of the world?

The Sonne of God, the Eternal Wisdom, hath or­dained Christ hath or­dained Schools of learning for the continual rai­sing up of Pa­stors, Teachers, Elders, &c. For the good govern­ment of Church and Common-weal, to the end of the world. schools of Learning to be erected every where for the education of youths, in all good literature, until they might attain to gifts and parts of learning and godliness, by which they may be made fit for any place of government, either in Church or Common-Weal. I say, it is evident that Christ ordained schools of learning to be erected every where for Seminaries and Seed-plots of able men, fit to bear Office in particular visible Churches, and Common-Weal. Because from time to time, Jesus Christ did stir up divers Prophets and other excellent persons to rule and or­der Schools of learning.

First, Jesus Christ stirred up Samuel the Prophet to erect schools of learning when he was King over all the twelve Tribes, he kept a school at Naioth in Ramah: wherein he trained up di­vers scholars in such a way of learning, as might sit them for Pro­phesie: and therefore when Saul came thither to seek David, The blessing of the Prophets School fell upon him, and he did pro­phesie whiles he was there; and thereupon grew a Proverb by way of Admiration, Is Saul among the Prophets? 1 Sam. 19.

Seconly, there was another Prophets school erected at Bethel, in a high piece of ground, which was called The Hill of God: 1 Sam. 10. 3. 5. And we may see the care of Godly Samuel to train [Page 82] up young men in learning, that so there might be a succession of Prophets, and of other able men fit to bear Office in Church and Common-weal, when he was dead and gone; and though Saul came not to this last school, with any intent to be a scholar there: yet he obtained a Prophetical gift from their society; and this Pro­phetical gift did signifie to him, what great need he had of the best gifts of learning from the Prophetical School to execute the Kingly Office that was now laid upon him. And by this Pro­phetical gift which fell upon him after he was anointed, he was confirmed and strengthned in his Office.

So likewise the seventy Elders, as soon as they were chosen to bear Office in the high Sanhedrin Court, they were confirmed in that Office by the immediate gift of Prophesie. Numb. 11. 20. to 30. And those gifts of Prophesie which fell upon them in that day, did point unto them what manner of men they ought to be, that should enter into such a weighty Office and Calling. Sometimes our glorious Mediator did extraordinarily fit men for places of publick imployment. But ordinarily he did fit men to such emi­nent places, by training them up in the Prophets schools.

Thirdly, The Hebrew Doctors do often make mention of these Prophetical Schools from ancient times. They say, That Sem or Melchisedech was a Teacher of Schools, when he was the King of Salem.

Abraham was a Prophet, and had a house of Doctrine, and did exercise his gifts in Teaching his Houshold the way and charge of Christ in his Commandments, Statutes, and Laws; and withall commanded them to walk in the way, (that is, the Faith and Religion) of the Son of God, and to do Iustice and Iudge­ment.

The Rabbins say also in the Ierusalem-paraphrase, that Isaac went from the School-house of Sem the great, to the Well where the Majestie of the Lord had been revealed. vide Ainsworth, Ge­nesis 24. 62. This Hebrew Record is probably true; because, It is certain that Sem was still living in the dayes of Isaac, as it is evident by comparing the years of his life, in Genesis 11. 11. with the Story of Isaac in Genesis 24. But however you may take this Hebrew Record as a Prosopopeia to set forth the dignitie, and the antiquitie of School learning. And out of question it might as well become Sem, Sacrificer to the most high God and [Page 83] King of Salem, to keep a Propheticall school after the confusion of tongues (that most lamentable curse and plague) as King Samuel: and he might well train up his Nephew Isaac in learn­ing, seeing he knew that he should be heir of the promise after he was dead and gone. And doubtlesse, Sem was the great Doctor of that age: and so the Hebrew Doctors do often stile him, SEM the Great. vid. Ains. Gen. 14. 18.

Fourthly, The Hebrew Doctors say, That Jacob was a Ma­ster of learning, and that he dwelt in Tents, and studied the Law all his dayes: But Esau the wicked, walked in the way of death to kill Jacob. vide Ainsworth Genesis 25. 27. The Cal­dy saith, that Iacob was a Master of a House of Doctrine: as giving himself to religious study and Scholarship.

And Iacob departing to the Heavenly Citie and Countrie, left the Faith of the Sonne of God in his glorious Family; and in special prophesieth, That Judahs Tribe should have Teachers of Judahs Shiloh. (The great Mystery of Godlimess, God mani­fested in the flesh) and Expounders of the Law, that to him all the Nations should be gathered, Esa. 11. and 66. John 11.

5. After that great Apostasie of Israel in Egypt, The Sonne of God stirred up Moses, a faithfull servant in his house, to be a re­storer of the Church, and a Teacher to all Israel fourty years: And to all the Israel of God ever after Moses from Christ, directed that Levites from twentie five to thirty yeers of age, should be as Graduates, before they entred into the work of the Taberna­cle : And they were fourty yeers studying the Law in the Wil­derness. And Moses Aaron, and the seventy Elders, &c. were famous Rectors and Directors to them. And in Davids dayes, The Levites had a lower degree to begin to study and prepare themselves from twentieyeers old. Numbers 8. 24. 1 Chron. 23. 24.

6. Schools of learning were of great esteem, even in the dayes of Apostasie, when the ten Tribes worshipped the Calves of Dan and Bethel : And though Iezabel destroyed many Prophe­tical Schools, yet they had some godly friends in those persecu­ting times that preserved many of them. Good Obadiah hid one hundred of the Prophets by fiftie in each Cave. 1 King 18. 4. with 1 King 19. 10. 14.

A while after, the Prophet Elisha erected many Prophetical [Page 84] Schools in sundery parts of the tenne Tribes.

First, He kept a Prophets School at Gilgal. 2 Kings, 2. 1. with Chap. 4. 38. And in this one School there were one hun­dred Scholars, for whose sake Elisha healed the bitter pottage: This Miracle Christ did among them for the countenancing and en­couraging of Schools.

Secondly, There was another School of the Prophets at Ie­rico. 2 Kings, 2. 4, 5. and for their comfort and encouragement, Elisha healed the barren waters of that place. verse 18.

3. There was another Prophetical School at Bethel. 2 Kings 2. 23. But some of the young children of this place mocked the Prophet Elisha contumeliously, but for that presumptuous sinne, Elisha did curse them; thereupon fourty two of them were by Gods hand killed with two Bears that came suddenly out of the wilderness upon them: to the terror of all ungodly-educated chil­dren, Luke 10. 16. Psal. 105. verse 15.

4. Another Prophetical School was at Carmel, 2 King. 2. 25. with Chap. 4. 25. & 23.

5. Another Prophetical School was in Samaria (as I think) for there Elisha did sometime dwell. 2 Kings 2. 25. and Chap­ter 5. 3.

6 There was another Prophetical School at Mount Ephraim, as Gehazi tells u [...]. 2 King 5. 22. And we may well conceive that there were many Prophetical Schools in the other parts of the ten Tribes.

But what number of Prophetical Scholes were erected in the Kingdom of Iudah at this time, is not recorded: yet we may sup­pose that there were moe then in the ten Tribes; because they had some Godly Kings that would cherish and nourish such Semi­naries of Learning and Piety. There was a Colledge in Ierusa­lem, where Huldah the Prophetesse lived, 2 Kings 22. 14. It seems by the story, that he did not onely live neer unto the Pro­phets Scholes, but she was a lover thereof in the affections of her soul; and therefore the blessing of the Prophets Schole fell upon her, and so she became an extraordinary Prophetesse. Yea, the most of the Prophets (as I conceive) were at the first trained up in Scholes of Learning, in a way fit for Prophesie, when ever it should please the Lord to act upon them by his spirit immediately: but in case the holy spirit did come downe upon them, yet they [Page 85] lost nothing by their learned pains; for thereby they were made fit to be called into publick places.

7. Godly Daniel, Ananias, Azarias and Misael, did erect Scholes of Learning among the Jews, that were captived into Ba­bylon, into Persia, &c. after they were raised to places of Honour by Nebuchadnezzar and Darius: else how could Ezra have been so ready and so perfect a Scribe in the Law of God, shortly after the first company that returned out of captivity.

8. After the captivitie, this perfect Scribe, Ezra together with some other Godly Doctors of his Age and time, did erect Scholes of learning, for the preservation of the Hebrew text, lest it should be corrupted through the decay of the Hebrew Tongue : for they saw the Hebrew Tongue began to decay from common use; therefore they which the diligence of ten thousand eyes, de­vised and ordained many precious rules for the preservation of the holy Text, to every Hebrew letter and voice; so that no one let­ter could be lost, but it might be soon espied by the observation of the said rules. By their rules, and the seventy Translation, and by the Talmudiques, and by the New Testament, the Text and sense of the Old Testament is most fully preserved to us, upon whom the ends of the world are come.

These Hebrew Grammarians which sprang from Ezra, and Ezra and the Do­ctors of his Age, did with great diligence devise many precious rules, to preserve the purity of the Hebrew text to every letter. continued long after, were called Massorites, and they were raised up by the special eye of Gods providence, to devise certaine rules for the preservation of the purity of the Hebrew Text, so that by their Orthographie Dictionary or Massoreth, the Hebrew that is kept most pure and perfect, so that no one letter was ever more or lesse; nor of any other forme in Moses time, with Vowels, Ac­cents, and Marginal-readings (expounding the Text,) then at this day. vid. Mr Broughton, Apoc. 65. and in pag. 118. he saith, that the Massorites Dictionary was invented for the peeservation of every Letter, Prick, and Accent. And a latter work called Tipheroth Israel tells us, That the Hebrew Letters, Pricks, and Accents, are at this day as God set them in the two Tables. vid. Mr Brought. in Apoc. 294.

9. This great diligence of these Godly Schole-Doctors de­serves to be had in everlasting remembrance, and their good ex­ample ought to be imitated of all Governors of Scholes of Learn­ing. Some praise is due to them that erect fair buildings, for [Page 87] Scholes of learning; But more praise is due to them that study to set up the best way of Discipline that can be devised, for the train­ing up of young Students in the speedy understanding of the ori­ginal Tongues, and in the right understanding of the true sense of the text.

Let me produce one Rule which the Hebrew Doctors devised, for the preservation of the Holy Text, touching the latter Jod: they would not have the letter Iod to perish from the Law, and therefore by way of Prosopopeia, they bring in the Law as a Plan­tife before God, complaining of losing Iod, with humble cry before God, in these words. O Lord of the world, this is thy rule, that a Testament which faileth in a Letter, faileth in all: in Sa­rai I had Jod, but when she was named Sarah, then Jod was gone, and so the authoritie of the Law is lost. God answereth thus, Thou hast no losse at all; for though Jod was in the end of a fe­minine, yet now I have set it in the beginning of a masculine, when I named Hoshea by the name Jehoshuah. uid. M. Broughton, in Apoc. 297.

Also he further sheweth, that this diligence of the Massorites for the preservation of the least Letter, our Lord commendeth, in these two words, [...] and [...], in Mat. 5. 18. by these two terms our Lord doth tell us, that the least Letter or Tittle in the Law shall not faile: but any man may see that he borroweth this speech from the Massorites diligence, touching the Letter Iod. And by these termes our Lord doth countenance Gramer-study, as a pro­fitable proffession, by naming the least letter in the Greek tongue, in his book: for the terme [...] is rare; none of the hea [...]hen have it (that I remember) but Plutarch: yet Matthew and Luke have it. Hence we may learne, that though Punctum (a prick) hath no quantitie, yet the terme is of great quantitie. Bro. on Dan. 9.

10. Again, There fifteen words in the Old Testament that are pricked over the head, for special deep consideration, and they have ever been so written from the first Copie. The Hebrew Doctors call these Pricks [...] But that terme is not used by Matthew, nor by the Syriack or Arabick: therefore not the fifteen strange Pricks, but Vowel Pricks must needs be meant, which point containeth the most exquisite depth of the Hebrew Tongue. And thus our Lord doth approve and commend our [Page 86] Schole-studdies, by touching upon these terms : and by this his testimony he authorizeth all the rest. vide Master Broughton in Daniel 9. in his Reduction of the Gospel to Gabriels Relation.

Again, The Hebrew Doctors of Ezraes Age, gave another rule for the preservation of the Hebrew text. They reckon how often every letter cometh in the Hebrew text, how often words of short or full writing were diversly written, and where, and what strange text would seem corruptions to the unstayed: and how often eth and vau, (little particles) do come together, in sort easie to deceive a Coppyer, without a Table of Direction. Such points are a Brazen wall to keep the Scriptures certainty. vid. Mr. Bro. in Epist. to the Nobil. p. 7.

From this provident care of God over the Hebrew text, I con­clude, that neither book nor letter of the Hebrew text, which was written by Gods Prophets, for the use of all ages is lost : onely those books are lost which some Prophets wrote in the nature of humane Chronicles, for the present use of that Age and Nation: and in that respect they took no more care to preserve them, then they did of their humane Chronicles, because they did nothing at all concerne other Nations in after Ages. But every book and letter which the Prophets wrote as Divine Scripture, for the use of all Nations and Ages, Jesus Christ hath preserved by the diligence of the Massorites. And their Tables of Direction are extant and kept safe with great care until this day : one of those Tables is kept Naharden upon Euphrates, and another is kept at Ierusalem.

Again, the Hebrew Doctors from and after Ezra took speci­al The Hebrew Do­ctors took care for the preserva­tion of the truth of doctrine, as well as for the preservation of the Hebrew Text. care to preserve the truth of Doctrine unto Posterity: and for this end they made the ten Commandments to be the foundation of every point of Doctrine. And our Saviour Christ saith, that the whole Law and the Prophets doth hang upon the two Tables. Matth. 22. 40. Therefore the ten Commandments must needs contain in them all matters concerning faith and manners : and therefore the ancient Hebrew Doctors might well make the ten Commandments the foundation of every point of Doctrine. And for the honour of the two Tables, they did number up all the letters of the two Tables, and found them to be six hundred and thirteen, then they drew up all the Laws of Moses unto six hundred and thirteen. They might have made them mo, or fewer; but by Gods spirit in ho­nour [Page 88] of the two Tables, they bring them just to the number of six hundred and thirteen : they make two hundred forty and eight bidding Commandments, telling us what we should believe or do; and 365. forbidding evil. vid. M. Brought. in Apoc. 175.

But after the Hebrew Doctors, under this silver age of the Persian Monarchy were decayed, then the Jews began to be more loose in Religion under the iron Dominion of the Seleu­cidae and Lagidae. The cruel wars of those daies bred such pro­fanes among the generality of the Jews, especially under the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes, that many Jews became Athe­istical Sadduces : yet then in these evil daies, God by his provi­dence raised up some Schools of Learning, wherein were some godly Doctors that took care to preserve the truth of Doctrine, in opposition to those Atheistical Sadduces : And this they did by enacting divers terms of Religion. They called all the Books of the Old Testament, The Law, Be­cause the Sadduces did now reject all the Books of the Old Testament, except the five Books of Moses Law. They al­so enacted divers termes wherein they professed the immor­tality of the soul, in opposition to the said Sadduces; as I have formerly noted it before at large.

After those daies, they had still some care of godly learning: for in the daies of our Saviour, they did maintain Schools of Learning, and our Lord was present among the Doctors, hearing them, and posing them with Questions. Luke 2. 46. And in Jerusalem there were certain of the Synagogue, called Lu­bartines, which rose in opposition to Stephens Doctrine. Acts 6. 9. These Lubartines must not be taken for Libertines, as some unadvisedly do call them, because of their opposition to Stephen, but that is a great mistake: I say they were called Lu­bartines, because they belonged to some Lubar or Colledge: Lubar saith M. Weemt signifies a high place [...], and on such high pieces of ground they used to build their Schools.

Again, in another of these Schools Paul was brought up at the seet of Gamaliel: and there he was taught according to the perfect manner of the Law of the Fathers. Acts 22.

Again, many such Schools were erected am [...]ng the dispersed Jews, while they lived in Heathen Countries; one of these [Page 89] Schools was governed by one Tyrannus, and there the Disciples disputed daily. Acts 19.

And thus Iesus Christ by the means of these Schools, hath in all ages nursed up many godly and able scholars, fit to teach the Law in synagogues, and fit to bear Office as Elders, in the Sanhedrin Courts.

And these Schools of Learning were so highly set by a­mong the Jews in ancient time (neoterici nostrates effuciunt) that they accounted it a great shame for any man of wealth or leisure, if they did not frequent those Schools at the least three times a week, except hand-labourers. Maymony in Thal. Thora, saith; That all the Jews but hand-labourers did bring up their children from seven yeers old to fourteen, in learning the plain tongue: yea, they studied the Tongue all their daies week­ly, for some few hours; not minding gains thereby, but delight to know God: And our Saviour at twelvs yeers of Age delight­ed to sit in the midst of the Doctors, hearing them, posing them, and asking them Questions: and all that heard him were astonied at his understanding and answers. Luke 2. 46, 47. This place where Christ sate amongst the Doctors, was such a Col­ledge or house of Doctrine, as that was where Huldah the Pro­phetess lived. 1 Kings 22. 14.

Yea, the Jews set a higher esteem upon their Schools of Learning, then they did upon their Synagogues. vid. Ainsw. in Levit. 26. 31. and such priviledges did belong to Schools of learning, as rewards of learning : that if a Scholar at unawares committed man-slaughter, and thereupon was exiled to a Citie of Refuge, his master must go with him, as it is written, [and live] For the life of them that love and seek after Wisdom, is counted as death without the Doctrine of the Law. In like sort, if the master were exiled, his School goeth with him. vid. Ains. in Deut. 19. 4. This great priviledge Iesus Christ gave to Schools and Scholars, as a reward of learning.

What rules of direction can you give for the well or­dering of Schools of learning in these daies, that so the Scholars thereof may speedily attain to the knowledge of the Greek and Hebrew Tongues, and to the right understanding of the holy Scri­ptures?

No question but a better way of discipline may be [Page 90] found out, then yet is practised; as M. Broughton hath often warned, and hath propounded sundry directions that way: but it would be a two-handed labour for me to bring all particulars into a compendious method. The Lord in mercy stir up others to take this work in hand, for the advancement of Learning and Godlines. Amen.