A42757:154
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.
Thirdly, the Sanhedrin did punish no man, unless admonition had been first given to him for his amendment. Maimon. de fundam. legis cap. 5. sect. 6. (yea saith Gull. Vorstius upon the ⟨p. 3⟩place, though a man had killed his parents, the Sanhedrin did not punish him unless he were first admonished) and when witnesses were examined, seven questions were propounded to them, one of which was, whether they had admonished the offender, as the Talmud it self tells us ad tit. Sanhedrin cap. 5. sect. 1.
Thirdly, the Sanhedrin did punish no man, unlesse admonition had been first given to him for his amendment. Maimon. de fundam. legis cap. 5. sect. 6. (yea saith Gul. Vorstius upon the ⟨p. 3⟩place, though a man had killed his parents, the Sanhedrin did not punish him unlesse he were first admonished) and when witnesses were examined, seven questions were propounded to them, one of which was, whether they had admonished the offender, as the Talmud it self tels us ad tit. Sanhedrin cap. 5. sect. 1.
Fourthly, the Sanhedrin respondebat de Jure, did interpret the Law of God, and determine controversies, concerning the sense and intent thereof. Deut. 17. 8, 9, 10, 11. and it was on this manner as the Jerusalem Talmud in Sanhedrin cap. 10. sect. 2. records. There were there (in Jerusalem) three assemblies of Judges: one sitting at the entry to the mountain of the Sanctuary: another sitting at the door of the Court: the third sitting in the Conclave made of cut stone. First, address was made to that which sate at the ascent of the mountain of the Sanctuary: then the Elder (who came to represent the cause which was too hard for the Courts of the Cities) said on •his manner. I have drawn this sense from the holy Scripture, my fellows have drawn that sense. I have taught thus, my f•llows so and so. If they had learned what is to be determined in that cause, they did communicate it unto them. If not, they went forward together to the Judges sitting at the door of the Court: by whom they were instructed, if they (after the laying forth of the difficulty) knew what resolution to give. Otherwise all of them jointly had recourse to the great Sanhedrin. For from it doth the Law go forth unto all Israel. It is added in Exc. Gemar. Sanhed. cap. 10. sect. 1. that the Sanhedrin did sit in that room of cut stone (which was in the Temple) from the morning to the evening daily sacrifice. The Sanhedrin did judge cases of Idolatry, apostasy, false Prophets, &c. Talm. Hieros. in Sanhed. cap. 1. sect. 5.