A42757:185
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.
Eighthly, even without Jerusalem and I•da there was a Senate or assembly of Elders, which did assist the Prophets in overseeing the manners of the people, censuring sin, and deliberating of the common affairs of the Church. This C. Bertramus de polit. Jud. c. 16. collecteth from 2 Kings 6. 32. But Elisha sate in his house, and the Elders sate with him. I know some think that those Elders were the Magistrates of Samaria, but this I cannot admit, for two reasons. 1. Because Josephus Antiq. lib. 9. cap. 2. calls them Elisha's disciples: and from him Hugo Cardinalis, Carthusianus, and others do so expound the Text. They are called Elishas Disciples, as the Apostles were Christs Disciples, by way of Excellency and eminency: all the disciples or sons of the Prophets were not properly Elders, but those only who were assumed into the Assembly of Elders, or called to have a share in the managing of the common affairs of the Church. 2. Cajetan upon the place gives this reason from the Text it self, to prove that these Elders were spiritual men (as he speaketh) because Elisha asketh them, See ye how this son of a murderer hath sent to take away my head? What expectation could there be, that they did see a thing, then secret and unheard of, unless they had been men familiar with God? Now these Elders were sitting close with Elisha in his house. It was not a public or Church assembly for worship, but for counsel, deliberation, and resolution, in some case of difficulty and public concernment. So Tostatus and Sanctius on the place. A parallel ⟨p. 22⟩[…] ⟨p. 23⟩[…] ⟨p. 24⟩place there is, Ezech. 8. 1. I sate in mine house, and the Elders of Judah sate before me. Whether those Elders came to know what God had revealed to the Prophet, concerning the state of Judah and Jerusalem, as Lavater upon the place supposeth, or for deliberation about some other thing, it is nothing like a civill Court, but very like an Ecclesiastical senate. Now if such there was out of Jerusalem, how much more in Jerusalem, where (as there came greater store of Ecclesiastical causes and controversies concerning the sense of the Law, to be judged, so) there was greater store of Ecclesiastical persons it for government? whatsoever of this kind we find elsewhere, was but a Transsumpt, the Archetype was in Jerusalem.