Selected quad for the lemma: sin_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
sin_n	forgive_v	pray_v	trespass_n	3,167	5	11.1087	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A91415	The Jewes synagogue: or, A treatise concerning the ancient orders and manner of worship used by the Jewes in their synagogue-assemblies. Gathered out of the sacred scriptures, the Jewish Rabines, and such modern authors, which have been most conversant in the study of Jewish customes. Wherein, by comparing the scriptures in the Old and New Testament together, many truths are fully opened, and sundry controversies about church-government truly and plainly stated. By William Pinchion of Springfeild [sic] in N. England.	Pynchon, William, 1590-1662.	1652 (1652)	Wing P4309; Thomason E802_4; ESTC R207368	80,705	99

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 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 Scholar 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 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 Teacher 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 Scholar 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 Teacher 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 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 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 Scholar 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 Teacher 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 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 Scholar 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 Teacher 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

as they are expressed in their Talmuds Teacher 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 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 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

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 Scholar 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 Teacher 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 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 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 Scholar 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 Teacher 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 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 mid-day 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 Scholar How many sorts of sin did they punish with scourging And how far was excommunication a sutable punishment for the same sins Teacher 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 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 Scholar 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 Teacher 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 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 Sch. 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 Teacher 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