A42757:211
Aaron's rod blossoming, or, The divine ordinance of church-government vindicated so as the present…Aarons rod blossoming, or, The divine ordinance of church-government vindicated so as the present…
Aaron's rod blossoming, or, The divine ordinance of church-government vindicated so as the present Erastian controversy concerning the distinction of civill and ecclesiastical government, excommunication, and suspension, is fully debated and discussed, from the holy scripture, from the Jewish and Christian antiquities, from the consent of latter writers, from the true nature and rights of magistracy, and from the groundlessness of the chief objections made against the Presbyterial government in point of a domineering arbitrary unlimited power / by George Gillespie ...Aarons rod blossoming, or, The divine ordinance of church-government vindicated so as the present Erastian controversie concerning the distinction of civill and ecclesiasticall government, excommunication, and suspension, is fully debated and discussed, from the holy scripture, from the Jewish and Christian antiquities, from the consent of latter writers, from the true nature and rights of magistracy, and from the groundlesnesse of the chief objections made against the Presbyteriall government in point of a domineering arbitrary unlimited power / by George Gillespie ...
London: printed by E.G. for Richard Whitaker, 1646
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
holdeth the same thing which Bertramus holdeth concerning the Jewish excommunication, and which hath now been cited. Godwin in his Moses and Aaron, lib. 5. cap. 1 speaketh of the Ecclesiastical Court of the Jews, unto which (saith he) belonged the power of excommunication, the several sorts of which censure he explaineth cap. 2. namely Niddui, cherem, and Shammata. After all which, he begins cap. 3. to speak of civill Courts of the Jews, a distinct government.
holdeth the same thing which Bertramus holdeth concerning the Jewish excommunication, and which hath now been cited. Godwyn in his Moses and Aacon, lib. 5. cap. 1 speaketh of the Ecclesiasticall Court of the Jewes, unto which (saith he) belonged the power of excommuication, the severall sorts of which censure he explaineth cap. 2. namely Niddui, cherem, and Shammata. After all which, he begins cap. 3. to speake of civill Courts of the Jewes, a distinct government.
Grotius. annot. in Luke 6. 22. compares the Jewish excommunication with that which was exercised by the Druids in France, who did interdicere saerificiis, interdict and prohibit from their Sacrifices impious and obstinate persons. Yea those who were excommunicate by Niddui or the lesser excommunication, he likens to those penitents or mourners in the ancient Christian Church, who were said to be [Greek or Hebrew], qui non cum caeteris orabant &c. He tells us the ancient Christians did in divers things follow the Jewish discipline, and among other things in excommunication; He cites the same passage of Tertullian which is cited by Mr Selden, concerning a shutting out, à communication orationis, & conventus, & omnis sancti commercii. Which is as full and high a description of the Ecclesiastical censure of Excommunication, as any can be. So that the Jewish Excommunication being paralleled with that Excommunication which Tertullian speaks of, and which was practised in the ancient Christian Church, what more can be required in this particular? And here I cannot but take notice, that Master Prynne doth very much mistake and misrepresent Mr Selden, as if he held the Jewish excommunication to have been no more but a shutting out from civill company or fellowship, whereas