A42757:169
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.
The next proof for the Ecclesiastical Sanhedrin shall be taken from Deut. 17. 8, 9, 10, 11, 12. where observe 1. Tis agreed upon both by Jewish and Christian Expositors, that this place holds forth a supreme civill Court of Judges, and the authority of the civill Sanhedrin is mainly grounded on this very Text. Now if this Text hold forth a superior civill Jurisdiction (as is universally acknowledged) it holds forth also a superior Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction distinct from the Civill. For the Text carrieth the authority and sentence of the Priests as high, as the authority and sentence of the Judges, and that in a disjunctive way, as two powers, (not one) and each of them binding, respectively, and in its proper sphere. 2. The Hebrew Doctors tell us of three kinds of causes, which being found difficult were transmitted from the inferior Courts to those at Jerusalem. 1. capital causes. 2. mulcts. 3. leprosy, and the judgement of clean or unclean. Now this third belonged to the cognizance and judgement of the Priests. Yea the Text it self holdeth forth two sorts of causes, and controversies, some forensicall between blood and blood: some ceremonial between stroke and stroke; not only Hierome, but the Chaldee, and Greek, readeth, between leprosy and leprosy. Grotius noteth, the Hebrew word is used for leprosy, many times in one chapter, Lev. 13. Plea and plea seemeth common to both, there being difference of judgement concerning the one and the other. 3. Here are two Judicatories distinguished by the disjunctive Or V. 12. which we have both in the Hebrew, Chaldee, Greek, and in our English Translation; so that vers. 9. and is put for or, as Grotius noteth, expounding that verse by vers. 12. And as the Priests and Levites are put in the plural V. 9. the like must be understood of the Judge, whereby we must understand Judges, and so the Chaldee readeth V. 9. even as (saith Ainsworth) many Captains are in the Hebrew called an head, 1 Chron. 4. 42. And ⟨p. 12⟩so you have there, references of difficult cases from inferior Courts, to the Priests or to the Judges at Jerusalem. 4. There is also some intimation of a twofold sentence; one concerning the meaning of the Law, according to the sentence of the Law, which they shall teach thee, V. 11. and this belonged to the Priests,