A42757:173
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 fourth Scripture which proves lan Ecclesiastical government and Sanhedrin, is 2 Chro. 19. 8, 10, 11. where Jehoshaphat restoreth the same Church government, which was first instituted by the hand of Moses, and afterward ordered and settled by David. Moreover (saith the Text) in Jerusalem did Jehoshaphat set of the Levites, and of the Priests, and of the chief of the Fathers of Israel, for the judgement of the Lord, and for controversies, &c. It is not controverted whether there was a civill Sanhedrin at Jerusalem, but that which is to be proved from the place, is an Ecclesiastical Court, which I prove thus. Where there is a Court made up of Ecclesiastical members, judging Spiritual and Ecclesiastical causes, for a Spiritual and Ecclesiastical end, moderated by an Ecclesiastical president, having power ultimately and authoritatively to determine causes and ⟨p. 15⟩controversies brought before them by appeal or reference from inferior Courts; and whose sentence is put in execution by Ecclesiastical officers; There it must needs be granted that there was a supreme Ecclesiastical court, with power of Government. But such a Court we find at Jerusalem in Jehoshaphats time. Ergo. The Proposition I suppose no man will deny. For a Court so constituted, so qualified, and so authorised, is the very thing now in debate. And he that will grant us the thing which is in the assumption, shall have leave to call it by another name if he please. The assumption I prove by the parts. 1. Here are Levites and Priests in this Court, as members thereof, with power of decisive suffrage, and with them such of the chief of the Fathers of Israel, as were joined in the government of that Church; Whence the Reverend and learned Assembly of Divines, and many Protestant Writers before them have drawn an argument for Ruling Elders. And this is one of the Scriptures alleged by our Divines against Bellarmin, to prove that others beside those who are commonly (but corruptly) called the Clergy ought to have a decisive voice in Synods.
The fourth Scripture which proves lan Ecclesiasticall government and Sanhedrin, is