A42757:170
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.
for the Priests (its not said the Judges) lips should preserve knowledge, and they should seek the Law at his mouth. Another concerning matter of fact, and according to the judgement which they shall tell thee, thou shalt do. Grotius upon the place acknowledgeth a judgement of the Priests distinct from that of the Judges: and he addeth a simile from the Roman Synod consisting of seventy Bishops which was consulted in weighty controversies. But he is of opinion that the Priests and Levites did only end avour to satisfy and reconcile the dissenting parties, which if they did, well, if not, that then they referred the reasons of both parties to the Sanhedrin, who gave forth their decree upon the whole matter. The first part of that which he saith, helpeth me. But this last hath no ground in the Text, but is manife•ly inconsistent therewith, V. 12. The man that will do presumptuously, and will not hearken unto the Priest, or unto the Judge, even that man shall die. Which proves, ithat the judgement of both was supreme in suo genere, that is, if it was a controvert ceremonial, between leprosy and leprosy, or between clean and unclean, Lev. 10. 9, 10, 11. Ezech. 22. 26. or dogmatical and doctrinal, concerning the sense of the Law, and answering de Jure, when the sense of the Law was controverted by the Judges of the Cities, then he that would not stand to the sentence of the Ecclesiastical Sanhedrin, whereof the high Priest was pre•dent, was to die the death. But if the cause was criminal, as between blood and blood, wherein the nature or proof of the fact, could not be agreed upon, by the Judges of the Cities, then he that would not submit to the decree of the civill Sanhedrin at Jerusalem should die the death. And thus the English Divines in their late annotations, give the sense according to the disjunction, V. 12. While the Priest bringeth warrant from God for the sentence which he passeth in the cause of man, Ezech. 44. 23, 24. he that contumaciously disobeyeth him disobeyeth God, Luke 10. 16.