of Col Bo, both showing that it was not a civil, but a sacred business, done in the name and authority of the God of heaven; and the latter formula still used in most of the Jewish synagogues, as Vorstius informs us.

2464, and Mr Selden, de Jure Nat. et Gentium, lib. 4, cap. 8, have observed out of Pirke and Dr Buxtorff, both there and Dissert de Lit. Hebr. thes. 49, noteth the three words used by the Hebrews in this re

38, that the Cuthites1 (who were also called Samaritans), after they had been circumcised by Rabbi Dostai, and Rabbi Zacharias, and had been taught by them out of the book of the law, they were excommunicate by Ezra, Zerubbabel, and Joshua the high-priest, three hundred priests, and three hundred disciples, and the whole church in the temple, the trumpets sounding, and the Levites singing; they did even by the great name of God excommunicate the Cuthites, that there should be no fellowship between any man of Israel and the Cuthites, that no proselyte should be received of the Cuthites, and that they should have no part in the resurrection of the dead, nor in the building of the house of God, nor in Jerusalem. This passage Dr Buxtorff in his Rabbinical Lexicon, p.

Aebthariel Jah Domini Zebaoth. Nomine Michael Principis magni. Nomine Mathatheron cujus nomen est sicuti nomen domini ejus. Nomine Sandalphon qui nectit coronas pro domino suo. Nomine Nominis 42, literarum. Nomine quod apparuit

Mosi in Sinai. Nomine quo dissecuit Moses Mare. Nomine Ehieh ascher Ehieh, Ero qui ero. Arcano nominis Amphorasch. Scriptura quæ exarata est in tabulis. Nomine Domini exercituum Dei Israelis, qui sedit inter cherubim, etc. Maledictus ex ore nominis celebrandi, et tremendi, quod egreditur ex ore sacerdotis magni die expiationem, etc. Evellatur ipse e tabernaculo. Nolit dominus illi condonare, sed tunc fumet furor et indignatio contra virum illum. Incumbant illi omnes maledictiones conscriptæ in hoc libro legis. Expellat nomen ejus sub cælo, et segreget illum in malum ex omnibus tribubus Israelis, juxta omnes execrationes hujus fæderis consignatas in hoc libro legis, etc. Hæc sit

voluntas Dei et dicatur. Amen.

1 Quid tum fecerunt Ezra, Zerobabel et Joshua? Congregaverunt totam ecclesiam seu cætum populi in templum domini et introduxerunt 300 sacerdotes et 300 adolescentes (seu discipulos minores) quibus erant in manibus 300 buccinæ, et 300 libri legis. Hi clangebant; Levitæ autem cantabant et psallebant: et excommunicabant Cuthæos per mysterium nominis Teiragrammati, et per scripturam descriptam in Tabulis legis, et per anathema fori superioris seu cælestis, et per anathema fori inferiores seu terrestris, ita ut nemo Israelitarum unquam in posterum comederet buccellam aliquam Cuthæorum. Hinc dicunt quicunque comedit carnem Cuthæi, is vescitur quasi carne porcina. Curhæus quoque ne fieret proselytus, neque haberet partem in resurrectione mortuorum, juxta illud quod scriptum est. Non ad vos simul nobiscum attinet instauratio domus dei nostri: neque in hoc neque in futuro seculo. Præterea quoque ne haberet partem in Jerusalem. Hinc dicitur, Vobis non est pars neque jus, neque memoria in Jerusalem. Transmiserunt autem anathema hoc ad Israelitas qui erant in Babylonia.

is, they did excommunicate them both by niddui, cherem, and schammata: and so much for the manner and rites.

As for the authority by which a man was excommunicated, we see (by that which hath been already noted) that it was a public and judicial act, and it was necessary there should be at least an assembly of ten. Those formula before cited make it evident. that it was an authoritative sentence of an ecclesiastical assembly (and therefore done as it were in name of the court of heaven, to which purpose domus Judicii superioris seu cœlestis, was mentioned in the business, and it was a juridical or forensical act, and done solemnly in the temple, in that case of the Cuthites), Drusius de Tribus Sectis Judæorum, lib. 4, num. 237, concerning the discipline of the Esseans, and their excommunicating of ungodly persons, tells us it it was done by a hundred men assembled together. It is very true which Mr Selden observeth, de Jure Nat. et Gentium, lib. 4, cap. 8, the Hebrews' writ of a judicial excommunication, and of an extrajudicial excommunication, by which one private man might excommunicate another; yet that extrajudicial excommunication could not stand in force unless it were ratified by the court; and of itself it was rather optative, or imprecative, than obligative, as is manifest by the instance which J. Coch1 gives us, ex Gem. Moed Caton. Two men having mutually excommunicated each other, it cometh to an authoritative decision: he that had excommunicated the other for that for which he ought to have been punished by a pecunial mulct, but not by excommunication, was himself justly excommunicate by the other, according to the last of the twentyfour causes of excommunication before mentioned, that is, he who unjustly excommunicateth another shall be himself excommuni

1 Annot. Gem. in Ex. Sanhedrim, p. 147, R. Simon, fil. Lakisch custodiebat hortum. venit quidam et ficus cæpit vovare. Ille inclamare: hic non nauci facere. Tum illes excommunicatus esto. Tu vicissim inquit alter excommunicatus esto. Nam si ad pecuniam tibi obstrictus sum, numquid anathemati obnoxius sum? Adiit R. Lakisch super hoc Schola rectores. Responsum est: Ipsius Anathema anathema est: tuum nullum est.

cated; so the excommunicating of the one man for a civil injury was declared null, and the excommunicating of the other for his unjust act of excommunication was ratified; which doth not only prove what I have said of private or extrajudicial excommunication, but also confirm what I asserted before, concerning the causes of excommunication, that it was not for personal or civil injuries, but for matter of scandal, and that pecuniary mulcts and excommunication were not inflicted for the same, but for different causes; and so much for the authority.

The effects of excommunication were these,1-he might not be admitted into an assembly of ten persons; he might not sit within four cubits to his neighbour; he might not shave his hair, nor wash himself; it was not lawful to eat nor drink with him. He that died in excommunication got no funeral, nor was there any mourning made for him, but a stone was set over him to signify that he was worthy to be stoned, because he did not repent, and because he was separated from the church. An excommunicate person might not make up the number of ten where there were nine; the reason was, because he might not be acknowledged for a church member, or one who could make up a lawful assembly. Drusius (de tribus sectis Judæorum, lib. 3, cap. 11) draweth two consequences from that excommunication of the Cuthites before mentioned: 1. That it was not lawful for a Jew to eat bread with a Samaritan. 2. That the Samaritans were cut off from the Jewish church, and that without hope of regress, being schammatised. It is more disputable how far forth excommunication did deprive a man of the liberty of access into the temple. The Talmudists hold, that of old an excommunicate person might enter into the temple, yet so as he might be known that he was excommunicate. It is said in Pirke Rabbi Elieser, cap. 17, that Solomon built two gates, one for bridegrooms, another for mourners and excommunicated persons; and when the children of Israel, sitting between these two gates upon the sabbath days and holy days, did see a bridegroom come in, they knew him and did congratulate with him; but when they saw one come in at the door of the mourners, having his lips covered, they knew him to be a mourner, and said, "He that

dwells in this house comfort thee;" but when they saw one come in at the door of mourners with his lips not covered, they knew him to be excommunicated, and spake to him on this manner, "He that dwells in this house comfort thee, and put into thy mind to hearken unto thy neighbours." The like you have in Cordice Middoth, c. 2, sect. 2, where it is said, that ordinarily all that came into the temple did enter upon the right hand, and they went out upon the left hand, those excepted to whom some sad thing had befallen; and when it was asked of such a one, Why dost thou enter upon the left hand? he either answered that he was a mourner, and then it was said to him, "He that dwells in this house comfort thee," or he answered, Because I am excommunicate (so readeth Buxtorff), or Quia ego contaminatus rejicior (so readeth L'Empereur), and then it was said to him, "He that dwells in this house put into thy mind to hearken to the words of thy companions, that they may restore thee." The same thing is cited e libro Musar by Drusius, præter lib. 4, in John ix. 22, his opinion is that those that were separate and excommunicate by the lesser excommunication, were admitted into the temple in the manner aforesaid, but that they were not admitted into the synagogue, because it is added in libro Musar (which I find also added in the fore-mentioned place of Pirke R. Elieser), that after the temple was destroyed, it was decreed that bridegrooms and mourners should come into the synagogue, and that they in the synagogue should congratulate with the one, and condole with the other. 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. Vorstius1 doth expound it (Animad. in Pirke, p.

1 De his merito dubitari potest, num licuerit ipsis sacra adire limina, imprimis qui severiori excommunicationis genere vel multati erant.

828.

niæ non fuerit adempta.

D

169) so as it may be understood only of the lesser excommunication, when there was still hope of repentance and reconciliation; so J. Coch (Ubi Supra, p. 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 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 vi. 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 Mr Weymes 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 communion of the people of God; and so much for the effects.

The end of excommunication was spiritual, that a sinner being by such public shame and separation humbled, might be gained to repentance, and thereby his soul saved 1 (which is the end of church discipline, not of civil censures). The court waited ninety days upon his repentance, and did not proceed to cherem, except in case of his continuing impenitency, when all that time he gave no sign of repentance, nor sought absolution.

From all that hath been said, I hope it is fully manifest, that the Jewish excommunication was an ecclesiastical censure, and not (as Mr Prynne would have it) a civil excommunication like to an outlawry at common law.2

I conclude with a passage of Drusius de Tribus Sectis Judæorum, lib. 4, cap. 22,

1 M. Selden de Jure Natur. et Gentium, lib. 4, cap. 8, Effectus ac finis excommunicationis hujusmodi, jure communi erat, ut solitæ popularium consuetudinis libertate reus privaretur, usque dum pænitentia ad bonam mentem rediens solveretur sententia.

2 Independency Examined, p. 10. Vindic. of the Four Questions, p. 4, 5.

It hath been much controverted, what should be the meaning of that commination so frequently used in the law of Moses, "That soul shall be cut off from among his people." The radix signifieth properly such a cutting off as is like the cutting off a branch from the tree; and cutting off, is applied to divorcement; Deut. xxiv. I, a bill of divorcement, in the Hebrew, of cutting off; so Isa. 1. 1; Jer. iii. 8. It is certain that carath doth not necessarily signify to cut off by death, destruction, or a total abolition of the very existence of him that is cut off, but any cutting off, by whatsoever loss or punishment it be. The Septuagints render it not seldom by such words as signify the loss or punishment of the party without destroying him, as by xórτω, ἀποκόπτω, ἐκκόπτω, κατακόπτω, abscindo, amputo, succido, excindo; àñorráw, avello; abstraho, κατασπάω; demitto, περιτέμνω, είνα cumcido, ἀφαιρέω; ἐξαίρω, aufero, πλήττω, percutio; Túrra verbero. Sometime they render it by ixrgic contero, extero, terendo excutio, to strike out (sometime to wash out, or to wipe off spots or filth, as H. Stephanus tells us; thence giμμa, the cloth wherewith we wipe our hands when we wash them); Num. xix. 13, "That soul shall be cut off from Israel." The Septuagints, ixrginrsras n tuxn ἐκείνη ἐκ Ισραήλ; yea, where they render it by ἐξολοθρεύω, that ἐξολόθρευσις, or cutting off, is

sometimes meant of captivity, Amos i. 5; sometimes of the decay and dissolution of a monarchy, Ezek. xxxi. 12; sometimes of the deposition or repudiating of priests, 1 Sam. ii. 33, "The man of thine whom I shall not cut off from mine altar;" sometimes generally for a judgment, or punishment, Isa. xxii. 25. The English translators in some places where it is in the original, and oogsú, render it to fail, 1 Kings ii. 4; to loose, 1 Kings xviii. 5; sometime they render the same original word to hew, 1 Kings v. 6; "to hew timber," Jer. lxvi.; sometime simply to cut, Ezek. xvi. 4, "Thy navel was not cut." In other places where the Septuagints have aige aufero, the English hath to fail, 1 Kings viii. 25; ix. 5; 2 Chron. vii. 18. This aig is the word used by the Apostle in the case of excommunication, 1 Cor. v. 13.

There are five different opinions concerning that cutting off mentioned in the law.

1. Augustine in divers places understands the meaning to be of the second death, or eternal condemnation. But this is not suitable to the infancy of the Jewish church, for while they were bred under the pædagogy of the law, things eternal and invisible were not immediately and nakedly propounded unto them, but under the shadows and figures of temporal and visible things; so that if eternal death were the ultimate intendment of that commination (as I verily believe it was), yet it must needs be acknowledged that there was some other punishment in this life comprehended under that phrase, to resemble in some sort, and to shadow forth that everlasting cutting off.

2. Some understand that cutting off to be when a man dieth arexvos, without children, having no offspring or posterity behind him to preserve the memory of him; for he that left children behind him was esteemed to live in some sort after he was dead. But the cutting off in the law is privative, not negative; it is a depriving of a man of what he hath, not the denial of what he would have; neither was that of the preserving of one's name in the posterity applicable to women, but to their husbands only, whereas their cutting off was threatened to all who were guilty, whether men or women. Finally, if that were the sense, then the cutting off did neither belong to such as chose voluntarily to live unmarried, nor to men who, being married, had children to preserve their memory after their death,

but all that committed such or such a sin were to be cut off whether married or unmarried, whether having children or wanting children.

3. Others understand capital punishment to be inflicted by the civil magistrate. But if all the offences for which cutting off was threatened in the law had been punished by death, the Mosaical laws no less than those of Draco might have been said to be written in blood, saith Gersomus Bucerus.1 Is it credible that all and every one who did by any chance eat the fat or the blood, or did make a perfume for smell like to the holy perfume, or did touch a dead body, or a grave, or a tent wherein a man had died, or anything that an unclean person had touched, and had not been thereafter sprinkled with the water of separation, were without mercy to die for any of these things? Yet these were cut off from among their people, Exod. xxx. 38; Lev. vii. 15, 17; Num. xix. 13, 20. Another reason I take from Mercerus on Gen. xvii. 14. We nowhere find, either in Scripture or in the Jewish writings, that such of the seed of Abraham as did neglect circumcision were punished by the sword of the magistrate, yet by the law such were to be cut off. Now, without all controversy, such were excluded from communion with the church of Israel, and being so excluded, they were said properly to be cut off from among their people, saith Mercerus; and moreover the cutting off in the law is expressed by such a word as doth not necessarily signify that the person cut off ceaseth to have any being, but it is used to signify a cutting off from a benefit, relation, or fellowship, when the being remains, as was noted in the beginning.

4. Many of the Hebrews, whom Mr Ainsworth (Annot. in Gen. xvii. 14; Exod. xxxi. 14; Num. xv. 30) followeth, understand by that cutting off untimely death, or the shortening of life before the natural period. This interpretation I also dislike upon these reasons: 1. That which is taken for a foundation of that opinion, namely, that the cutting off in the law is meant only as a punishment of private sins known to God alone, and which could not be proved by witnesses, this, I say, is taken for granted, which is to be proved. 2. Yea, the contrary appeareth from Lev. xvii. 4, 5, the end of that cutting off was, that the children of Israel might

1 De Gubern. Eccl. p. 57.

fear to do that thing which they saw so punished; but how could they make this use of a divine judgment inflicted for some private sin, they knew not for what. 3. The commination of divine judgments is added in a more proper place, Deut. xxviii.; Lev. xxvi., and in divers places, where wrath and punishment from God is denounced against all such as would not observe his commandments, nor keep his statutes and judgments. But the cutting off is a part (and a great part) of the corrective or penal Mosaical laws which contain punishments to be inflicted by men, not by God, which makes Piscator almost everywhere in his Scholia, to observe, that excindetur is put for exscinditor, that soul shall be cut off, for let that soul be cut off. 4. The cutting off was a distinguishing punishment,-they that did such and such things were to be cut off, and in being cut off were to bear their iniquity, Lev. xviii. 26; Num. xv. 31, but we cannot say that Abijah the son of Jeroboam, or king Josiah, being taken away by an untimely death, were thereby marked with a sign of God's wrath, or that they were cut off from among their people, and did bear their iniquity. 5. And whereas they object from Lev. xvii. 10; xx. 5, 6, that the cutting off was a work of God, not of men, it is easily answered from that same place, it was only so in extraordinary cases, when men did neglect to punish the offenders, Lev. xx. 4, 5,"And if the people of the land hide their eyes from the man when he giveth of his seed unto Molech, and kill him not, then I will set my face against that man, and against his family, and will cut him off;" which giveth light to the other place, Lev. xvii. 10. What I have said against the third and fourth opinion doth militate against Erastus, for he expoundeth the cutting off these two ways, that is either of capital punishment, or of destruction by the hand of God, yet he inclineth chiefly to the last (see lib. 3, c. 6). He toucheth this cutting off in divers places, but valde jejune, and because he is pleased to profess he had no skill of the Hebrew, he appealeth to the word 200gsúa of which before.

There is a fifth exposition, followed by many both Popish and Protestant writers, who understand by the cutting off, excommunicating or casting out from the church; and of this opinion are some very good Hebritians, as Schindlerus, Lexic. Pentagl., p. 655; Cornelius Bertramus, de Republica

Ebræorum, cap. 2; Godwin's Moses and Aaron, lib. 3, cap. 4; the Jewish Canons of Repentance, printed in Latin at Cambridge, anno 1631, where the Hebrew hath n the Latin hath ordinarily excommunicatio; so do divers of our soundest writers take the cutting off in the law to be excommunication, Synops, pur. Theol. Disp. 48, Thes. 24. 39. There are these reasons for it :

1. The cutting off had reference to an ecclesiastical corporation or fellowship. It is not said, that soul shall be cut off from the earth, or from the land of the living, but, cut off from his people, more plainly, from Israel, Exod. xii. 15; Num. xix. 14, but most plainly, "That soul shall be cut off from the congregation" (or church), Num. xix. 20, intimating somewhat ecclesiastical; so Lev. xxii. 3, "That soul shall be cut off from my presence." The Septuagints, ¿' iμo, from me; the Chaldee, from my face; and this was the very cutting off, or excommunication, of Cain from the church by God himself, Gen. iv. 14, "From thy face shall I be hid," and ver. 14, " And Cain went out from the presence of the Lord." It is another and much different phrase which is used to express cutting off from the world, or from the land of the living, Ezek. xxv. 7, "I will cut thee off from the people, and will cause thee to perish out of the countries;" Jer. xi. 19, "Let us cut him off from the land of the living;" Zeph. i. 3, "I will cut off man from off the land."

66

2. He that in his uncleanness did eat of an unholy thing was to be cut off, Lev. vii. 20, 21; yet for such a one was appointed confession of sin and a trespass-offering, by which he was reconciled, and atonement made for him, as Mr Ainsworth himself tells us on Lev. v. 2; whence I infer, that the cutting off such a one was not by death inflicted either from the hand of the magistrate or from the hand of God, but that the cutting off was ecclesiastical, as well as the reception or reconciliation. I know Mr Ainsworth is of opinion that the cutting off was for defiling the sanctuary presumptuously, or eating of an holy thing presumptuously, when a man was not cleansed from his uncleanness, and that atonement by sacrifice was appointed for such as defiled the sanctuary ignorantly. But that which made him think so was a mistake, for he supposeth that for sins of ignorance or infirmity only God did appoint sacrifices, but that for wilful or malicious sins there was no sacrifice,