A42757:228
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.
Behold saith Drusius, no mention here of excommunicate persons, for they did not come into the Synagogues. Peradventure every Excommunicate person, had not access to the Temple neither, but he that was extrajudicially, or by private persons excommunicate, as those words might seem to intimate, He that dwells in this house put into thy mind, to hearken to thy neighbours or companions, that they may restore thee. Or if you take it to extend to judicial excommunication, then Hen. Vorstius doth expound it, animad. in Pirke p. 169. fso, as it may be understood only of the lesser excommunication, when there was still hope of repentance, and reconciliation. So Jo. Coch. ubi supra pag. 149. thinks that an excommunicate person was not altogether cast out of the Synagogue, but was permitted to hear, and to be partaker of the Doctrine, but otherwise and in other things he was separate, and not acknowledged for a Church Member; and this he saith of [Greek or Hebrew] menudde, of him that was simply excommunicate by the lesser excommunication or Niddui. But he saith otherwise of him that was excommunicate with Cherem. Non docet, non docetur. He is neither permitted to teach, nor to be taught. Grotius on Luke 6. 22. tells us, that excommunicate persons under Niddui, came no otherwise to the Temple than Heathens did, that is, had no liberty to come into the Court of Israel. However, such as were excommunicate by Cherem were not permitted to come near the Temple, saith Master Weemse in his Christian Synag. p. 138. An excommunicate person of the first sort, (Niddui,) when he came to the Temple, or Synagogue, you see (by what hath been said) he was there publicly bearing his shame, and looked upon as one separate from the ⟨p. 51⟩Communion of the people of God. And so much for the effects.
Behold saith Drusius, no mention here of excommunicate persons, for they did not come into the Synagogues. Peradventure every Excommunicate person, had not accesse to the Temple neither, but he that was extrajudicially, or by private persons excommunicate, as those words might seeme to intimate, He that dwells in this house put into thy mind, to hearken to thy neighbours or companions, that they may restore thee. Or if you take it to extend to judiciall excommunication, then Hen. Vorstius doth expound it, animad. in Pirke p. 169.