Aarons Rod Blossoming, Book 1 · Chapter 7
CHAP. VII. Other Scripturall Arguments to prove an Excommucation in the Iewish Church.
ANother Scripture proving Excommunication in the Jewish Church (which is also paralell to that casting out of the Synagogue as Erastus himselfe told us) is Ezra. 10. 8. that whosoever would not come within three dayes, according to the counsell of the Princes and Elders, all his Substance should be forfeited, and himselfe separated from the Congregation (or Church, It is Kahal in the Hebrew, and foreign in the Greeke) of those that had been carryed away.
This separation from the Congregation or Church is not meant of banishment, but of Excommunication, as it is interpreted by Lyra, Hugo Cardinalis, Cajetan, Nicholaus Lombardus, Mariana, Cornelius a lapide: of Protestants Pellicanus, Lavater, Diodati, the Dutch Annotations, the late English Annotations; all upon the place. Also by Zepperus de pol. eccl. lib. 3. cap. 7. and divers others who cite that place occasionally. Ampsingius disp. advers. Anabaptist. pag. 276. doth from that place confute the Anabaptists tenent, that there was no other but a Civill Tribunall in the Jewish Church. Beda upon the place cals this Assembly a Synod, …nita Synodo &c. Josephus antiq. lib. 11. cap. 5. expresseth the punishment of those who would not come to Hierusalem at that time, thus, foreign A double punishment foreign and foreign: the former is referred to the persons themselves, and it signifieth an abalienation of those persons from the Congregation, not a banishing or driving of them out of the Land; for foreign signifieth to abalienate a person or thing, by renouncing and quitting the right, title, and interest which formerly we had in that person or thing; so houses, lands, persons, &c. are abalienated, when (though they and we remaine where before) we cease to owne them as ours; and thus the Congregation of Israel did renounce their interest in those offenders, and would not owne them as Church-members. The other punishment was the dedicating or devoting of their substance. Gelenius the Interpreter hath rightly rendered the sence of Iosephus: Et quisquis non adfuerat intra praescriptum …empus, ut excommunicetur, bonaque ejus sacro aerario addicantur. You will object, this separation from the Congregation is coupled together with forfeiture of a mans estate, and so seemeth rather banishment than Excommunication. This objection being taken off, I think there shall be no other difficulty to perplex our interpretation. Wherefore I answer these two things. 1. It is the opinion of divers who hold two Sanhedrins among the Jewes, one Civill, and another Ecclesiasticall; that in causes and occasions of a mixed nature which did concerne both Church and State, both did consult conclude, and decree, in a joynt way, and by agreement together. Now Ezra 10. the Princes, Elders, Priests, and Levites, were assembled together upon an extraordinary cause, which conjuncture and concurrence of the Civill and the Ecclesiasticall power might occasion the denouncing of a double punishment upon the contumacious, forfeiture and excommunication. But 2. The objection made, doth rather confirme me, that Excommunication is intended in that place. For this forfeiture was foreign a making sacred, or dedicating to an holy use, as I have shewed out of Iosephus. The originall word translated forfeited is more properly translated devoted, which is the word put in the margin of our bookes. The Greek saith foreign, anathemstizabitur which is the best rendring of the Hebrew foreign. It was not therefore that which we call forfeiture of a mans substance. Intellige saith Grotius, ita ut Deo sacra fiat. And so the excommunication of a man, and the devoting of his substance as holy to the Lord, were joyned together: and the substance had not been anathematized if the man had not been anathematized. I doe not say that Excommunication ex natura rei doth inferre and draw after it, the devoting of a mans estate as holy to the Lord. No: Excommunication can not hurt a man in his worldly estate, further than the Civill Magistrate and the Law of the Land appointeth. And there was Excommunication in the Apostolical Churches, where there was no Christian Magistrate to adde a Civill mulct. But the devoting of the substance of Excommunicated persons Ezra 10. as it had the authority of the Princes and Rulers for it, so what extraordinary warrants or instinct there was upon that extraordinary exigence, we can not tell.
Finally M. Selden de Jure nat. & Gentium. lib. 4. cap. 9. p. 523. agreeth with Lud. Capellus that the separation from the Congregation Ezra 10. 8. plane ipsum est foreign fieri, it is the very same with casting out of the Synagogue, which confuteth further that which M. Prynne holds, that the casting out of the Synagogue was not warranted by Gods word, but was onelyonly a humane invention.
I know some have drawne another argument for the Jewish Excommunication from Nehem. 13. 25. I contended with them, and cursed them, id est, anathematizavi & excommunicavi, saith C. a lapide upon the place. So Tirinus upon the same place. Mariana expounds it, anathema dixi. Aben Ezra understands it of two kinds of Excommunication, Niddui and Cherem. For my part, I lay no weight upon this, unlesse you understand the cursing or malediction to be an act of the Ecclesiasticall power, onelyonly authorised or countenanced by the Magistrate: Which the words may well beare▪ for neither is it easily credible that Nehemiah did with his owne hand smite those men and plucke off their hayre, but that by his authority he tooke care to have it done by civill Officers, as the cursing by Ecclesiasticall Officers. The Dutch annotations leane this way, telling us that Nehemiah did expresse his zeale against them as persons that deserved to be banned or cut off from the people of God.
Another Text proving the Jewish Excommunication is Luke 6. 22. When they shall separate you, and shall reproach you, and …ast out your name as evill. It was the most misapplied censure in the world, in respect of the persons thus cast out; but yet it proves the Jewish custome of casting out such as they thought wicked and obstinate persons. This foreign Beda upon the place understandeth of casting out of the Synagogue, Separent & Synagoga depellant &c. yet it is a more generall and comprehensive word then the casting out of the Synagogue. It comprehendeth all the three degrees of the Jewish Excommunication, as Grotius expounds the place. Which agreeth with Munsterus Dictionar. Trilingue, where foreign is the onelyonly Greeke word given both for the three Hebrew words Niddui, Cherem, and Shammata, and for the Latine Excommunicatio. Wherefore foreign in this place is extermino, excommunico, repudio, which is one of the usuall significations of the word given by Stephanus, and by Scapula. It is a word frequently used in the Canons of the most ancient Councels, to expresse such a separation as was a Church-censure, and namely suspension from the Sacrament of the Lords Supper. For by the ancient Canons of the Councels, such offences as were punished in a Minister by foreign that is deposition, were punished in one of the people by foreign that is segregation or sequestration. Zonaras upon the 13th Canon of the eighth generall Councell, observeth a double foreign used in the ancient Church …ne was a totall separation or casting out of the Church which is usually called Excommunication; another was a suspension or sequestration from the Sacrament onelyonly. Of which I am to speak more afterward in the third Booke. I hold now at the Text in hand, which may be thus read, according to the sence and letter both, when they shall excommunicate you, &c. Howbeit the other reading when they shall separate you, holds forth the same thing which I speake of; separate, from what? our Translators supply from their company: but from what company of theirs? not from their civill company onelyonly, but from their▪ sacred or Church assemblies, and from religious fellowship, it being a Churchcensure and a part of Ecclesiasticall discipline, in which sence, as this word frequently occurreth in the Greeke fathers and ancient Canons when they speake of Church discipline, so doubtlesse it must be taken in this place. 1. Because, as Grotius tels us, that which made the Jewes the rather to separate men in this manner from their society was the want of the Civill coercive power of Magistracy, which sometime they had. And I have proved before that the civill Sanhedrin which had power of criminall and capitall judgements did remove from Ierusalem, and cease to execute such judgement, forty yeeres before the destruction of the Temple. 2. Because in all other places of the new Testament where the same word is used, it never signifieth a bare separation from civill company, but either a conscientious and religious separation by which Church members did intend to keep themselves pure from such as did walke, (or were conceived to walke) disorderly and scandalously, Acts 19. 9. 2 Cor. 6. 17. Gal. 2. 13. or Gods separating between the godly and the wicked, Matth 13. 49. & 25. 32. or the setting apart of men to the ministery of the Gospell, Acts 13. 2. Rom. 1. 1. Gal. 1. 15. Thirdly, a Civill separation is for a Civill injury; but this separation is for wickednesse and impiety, whether accompanied with civill injury or no; they shall cast out your name as evill, foreign, or as it seemes the Syriak and Arabik interpreters did read foreign tanquam improborum, as of wicked and evill men. The sence is the same.
Thus farre of the Jewish Church, the Jewish Ecclesiasticall Sanhedrin, the Jewish Excommunication. I proceed to the Jewish Exomologesis or publike Confession of sinne.