A42757:194
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.
1. The strongest proof which Erastus brings out of Josephus antiq. lib. 20. cap. 8. which (as he allegeth) puts the thing out of all controversy, is a very weak and insufficient proof. Josephus tells us in the close of that Chapter, that after the death of Herod and A chelaus, this was the Jewish Government, [Greek or Hebrew]. This he citeth page 177. and page 178. to prove that the Sanhedrin in Christs time, was a civill Magistracy, having power of the Sword. But I may with a great deal more probability argue contrariwise from these words. Josephus tells us the Constitution and form of the Jewish policy or Government was at that time Aristocratical, but it was an Ecclesiastical Aristocracy, the government was in the hands of the chief Priests. Or thus (if you will) the Jews at that time had a bare name of an aristocracy; they had their [Greek or Hebrew] Optimates, Primates, or Rulers: but it was titulo tenus, all power of civill government being taken from them by the Romans, and the government that was, was Ecclesiastical. That very Chapter gives us a better argument to prove, that the Romans did not permit to the Jews capital Judgements: for Josephus there records that Ananus the high Priest taking the opportunity after the death of Festus, while Albinus the Successor of Festus, was but yet on his journey toward Judea, did call a Council of Judges ([Greek or Hebrew]) before whom he presented James the brother of Christ, and some others, who were (as guilty of impiety) condemned to be stoned. Which mightily displeased all such as did observe the Laws. Albinus at that time coming from Alexandria, being informed of the thing, and that it was not lawful for Ananus to do any such thing, without the Roman Governor, wrote a chiding and threatening letter to Ananus. And further, the thing being secretly signified by some to King Agrippa, who did also beseech the King to command Ananus to do no such thing again, he having trespassed in this. Whereupon Agrippa was so highly offended, that he took away from Ananus the high Priests place, and gave it to Jesus the son of Damneus. ⟨p. 30⟩2. Whereas Erastus argueth from the imprisoning, beating, or scourging, yea taking counsel to kill the Apostles Acts 4, & 5. the stoning of Steven Acts 7.
1. The strongest proofe which Erastus brings out of Iosephus antiq. lib. 20. cap. 8. which (as he alledgeth) puts the thing out of all controversie, is a very weake and insufficient proof. Iosephus tels us in the close of that Chapter, that after the death of Herod and A chelaus, this was the Jewish Government, . This he citeth page 177. and page 178. to prove that the Sanhedrin in Christs time, was a civill Magistracy, having power of the Sword. But I may with a great deale more probability argue contrariwise from these words. Iosephus tels us the Constitution and forme of the Jewish policy or Government was at that time Aristocraticall, but it was an Ecclesiasticall Aristocracy, the government was in the hands of the chiefe Priests. Or thus (if you will) the Jewes at that time had a bare name of an aristocracy; they had their Optimates, Primates, or Rulers: but it was titulo tenus, all power of civill government being taken from them by the Romans, and the government that was, was Ecclesiasticall. That very Chapter gives us a better argument to prove, that the Romans did not permit to the Jewes capitall Judgements: for Iosephus there records that Ananus the high Priest taking the opportunity after the death of Festus, while Albinus the Successour of Festus, was but yet on his journey toward Iudea, did call a Councell of Judges () before whom he presented Iames the brother of Christ, and some others, who were (as guilty of impiety) condemned to be stoned. Which mightily displeased all such as did observe the Laws. Albinus at that time comming from Alexandria, being enformed of the thing, and that it was not lawfull for Ananus to doe any such thing, without the Roman Governour, wrote a chiding and threatning letter to Ananus. And further, the thing being secretly signified by some to King Agrippa, who did also beseech the King to command Ananus to doe no such thing againe, he having trespassed in this. Whereupon Agrippa was so highly offended, that he tooke away from Ananus the high Priests place, and gaue it to Iesus the sonne of Damneus.