Page images
PDF
EPUB

Befides which, as is proved in the preceding Letters, it received the approbation of Jefus himself. And with regard to the fanhedrin, it was evidently founded on the commandment of God to the Ifraelites (Deut. xvi. 18.), "to make to themselves judges and officers in all the gates "of their cities, which the Lord their God gave them "throughout their tribes ;" a commandment which appears to have authorized them not only to appoint as many judges in their particular cities as they found to be neceffary, but also to establish a fuperior court of judges in their chief city, by which the fentences of the inferior courts might be reviewed, and judgment pronounced in matters of peculiar difficulty or importance.

Do Independents further affert, that these were not ecclefiaftical, but only civil courts, and, of courfe, that we are not entitled to argue from the government which obtained in them, to that which is to exift in the Chrif tian church? It is replied, that the fynagogue being defigned for the religious instruction of the people, and its privileges and punishments being fpiritual (in fo far as the Jewish economy admitted of this), it must have been principally, if not entirely, an ecclefiaftical inftitution. The reason why the blind man (John ix.) was caft out of the fynagogue, viz. his profeffion of faith in Chrift, was purely ecclefiaftical: and our Saviour himfelf tells his difciples, that the fame punishment would be inflicted on them for a fimilar fault. Nor is it lefs plain that the fanhedrin, though it was empowered to take cognizance of civil, was appointed also to judge of ecclefiaftical matters. Thofe who appealed to it, were required to hearken to the priest as well as to the judge, Deut. xvii.; and when revived by Jehoshaphat, 2 Chron. xix. it was authorized to determine in the matters of the Lord as well as in the king's matters. The account likewife of the manner in which excommunication was performed by them in a particular inftance, as recorded.

in Pirke Rabb. Eliefer, cap. xxxviii. fhews that this ceremony, though attended sometimes with the privation of civil rights, was alfo an ecclefiaftical punishment. "Ezra, Zerobabel, and Joshua," say the Jews, "affembled "the whole congregation in the temple of the Lord; "and they brought three hundred priefts, three hun"dred trumpets, and three hundred books of the law,

and as many boys; and they founded their trumpets; " and the Levites, finging, curfed the Samaritans in the mystery of the name Jehovah, and in the decalogue, "and with the curfe of the fuperior houfe of judgment, ❝ and likewife with the curfe of the inferior house of "judgment, that no Ifraelite fhould eat the bread of the "Samaritans, that no profelyte should be received from “them, and that they should have no part in the resur"rection of the dead." "Quid tum fecerunt Ezra, Zero"babel et Jehoshua? Congregaverunt totam ecclefiam feu "cætum populi in templum Domini et introduxerunt " trecentos facerdotes, et trecentos adolescentes (feu "difcipulos minores) quibus erant in manibus trecenta "buccinæ, et trecenti libri legis. Hi clangebant; Le❝ vitæ autem cantabant et pfallebant ; et excommunica"bant Cuthæos per myfterium nominis Tetragrammati, "et per fcripturam defcriptam in tabulis legis, et per "anathema fori fuperioris feu cœleftis, et per anathema "fori inferioris feu terreftris, ita ut nemo Ifraeli"tarum unquam in pofterum comederet buccellam "aliquam Cuthæorum. Hinc dicunt quicunque come"dit carnem Cuthæi, is vefcitur quafi carne porcina

Cuthæus quoque ne fieret profelytus, neque haberet 66 partem in refurrectione mortuorum, juxta illud quod "fcriptum eft, Non ad vos fimul nobifcum attinet inflaura❝tio domus Dei noftri: neque in hoc neque in futuro "feculo." Buxtorf, too, explains the ejection from their fynagogues to be a cafting out from their holy affemblies, and as correfponding to the excommunication

fpoken of in 1 Cor. v. which furely must have been the act of an ecclefiaftical court *. Selden makes it imply at leaft an exclufion from fellowship in holy affemblies, and confiders it as equivalent to that excommunication which, according to Tertullian, exifted in his days in the Christian church +. Ludovicus Capellus, in his Specilegio upon John ix. 22. affirms that the Jewish excommunication by Niddui was an ecclefiaftical cenfure, and excluded from a communion in holy things, and infinuates the fame of the other modes of excommunication. Goodwin, in his Mofes and Aaron, book v. chap. i. fpeaking of the Jewish ecclefiaftical court, fays, that to the members of it belonged the power of excommunication, and that it was a representative church. "Hence," fays he, "is that (Matth. xviii. 17.) dic ecclefia"tell the church." The famous Bertram, moreover, in his book de Repub. Hebræor. lib. vii. thinks that the Jewish excommunication by Niddui was fimilar to our fufpenfion from the facrament, and that their excommunication by Cherem answered to our excommunication from the church. And Grotius, in his Annotations on Luke vi. 22. affirms that their excommunication refembled that of the ancient Druids, who excluded thofe who were under it from the public facrifices-" inter"dixerunt facrificiis." On the whole, it may be remarked that in the twenty-four cafes in which excommunication was inflicted (mentioned by Buxtorf, Lexicon, p. 1304. 1305.-Selden de Jure Nat. et Gentium, lib. iv. cap. viii.-and Joh. Coch. in his Annotations in Excerpt. Gem. Sanhedrin, cap. ii. p. 147.), there were feveral in which not only civil and external injuries, but religious scandals, were the reason of their infliction. One

* See his Lexicon Chald. Talmud. et Rabbin. edit. 1639, p. 827.828.

† See his Treatife de Jure Nat, et Gentium, lib. iv. cap. ix.

caufe, was the defpifing of any of the precepts of the law of Mofes, or ftatutes of the Scribes; another, the mention-. ing of the name of God rafhly, or a vain oath; another, the tempting of others, or presenting to them occafion to profane the name of God; another, making them to eat holy things without the temple; another, the preventing of them from fulfilling the commandments; another, a presenting a profane offering, according to Buxtorf, or a fickly animal, according to Coch.; another, a priest's not separating the gifts of an oblation, &c. ; in all of which inftances, as well as others which might be stated, it is plain that it was not civil injuries, but religious fcandals, that were the grounds of the excommunication, and confequently that the fynagogue and fanhedrin, which pronounced this excommunication, muft certainly be viewed as eccle-fiaftical courts.

[ocr errors]

Thus, then, it appears that the fynagogue and fanhedrin, whatever connection they might have in another view with civil matters, must be confidered as ecclefiaftical courts-that they were inftituted, if not upon explicit divine warrant, yet with the express permiffion and approbation of the Deity-and that the allufion of our Saviour, in Matth. xviii. to these Jewish courts, whatever of them is intended, fully warrants the deduction of Prefbyterians from this paffage, that fimilar courts fhould exift alfo in the Chriftian church, and the government be vested in their hands, unless it can be proved from other paffages, that it is not, merely ecclefiaftical rulers in particular, but the members of every Chriftian congregation in general, who are now to govern the church of God,

APPENDIX II.

REMARKS ON A VIEW OF SOCIAL

WORSHIP, &c.

BY

JAMES ALEXANDER HALDANE.

SINCE the preceding Vindication of Prefbytery was written, a book, by the author now mentioned, has been published in defence of Independency. Expecting to find in it an abler or at least a fuller defence of the principles which are here controverted than is contained in the publications of Meffrs Innes or Ewing, I read it with avidity, but must confefs that I have been completely disappointed. For any additional argument which it brings forward, it might, as far as I can judge, have remained unpublished, without any material injury either to the reputation of the author, to the inftruction of the world, or to the particular caufe which it meant to ferve. It abounds with profeffions of candour, of the moft liberal charity, and of the moft ferious and difinterefted regard for truth. And yet while Mr. Haldane avowedly examines Prefbytery in general, and points out the evils which he thinks result from it, he almoft uniformly improves it into a pretext for haranguing, chiefly against our Eftablished Church, and for exhorting her members to renounce her communion. Were there not other churches however, as the Relief, and Burgher, and Antiburgher, which are equally zealous in fupporting Presbytery, and which, of course, equally merited his cenfure? How

« PreviousContinue »