A42757:199
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.
He proves that Judicia criminalia, criminal judgements did cease, and were taken away from the Jews forty years before the destruction of the second Temple. This he saith is plain in Talmud Hierosol. in lib. Sanhedrin cap. 7. in Talmud Babyl. in Sanbedrin fol. 41. 1. in Aboda z•ru fol. 8. 2. in Schab. fol. 15. 1. in Juchasin fol. 51. 1. Majen•on. in Sanhedrin cap. 14. sect. 13. He cites also a passage in Berachos fol. 58. 1. concerning one who for a heinous crime even for lying with a beast ought to be adjudged to death; but when one said that he ought to die, it was answered, that they had no power to put any man to death. And this saith Dr. Bux•orf is the very same, which the Jews said to Pilate John 18. 31. Now this power being taken from the Jews forty years before the destruction of the Temple and City, which was in the 71 year of Christ, his death being in the 34. Hence he proveth that this power was taken from the Jews near three years before the death of Christ. And I further make this inference, that since the Sanhedrin which had power of life and death, did remove from Jerusalem forty years before the destruction of the Temple (for which see also Tzemach David. edit. Hen. Vorst. pag. 89. and so about three years before the death of Christ; it must needs follow that the Council of the Priests, Elders, and Scribes, mentioned so often in, and before Christs passion, was not a civill Magistracy, nor the civill Sanhedrin, but an Ecclesiastical Sanhedrin. Whence also it follows, that the Church Matth. 18. 17. unto which Christ directs his Disciples to go with their complaints, was not the civill Court of Justice among the Jews, (as Mr Prynne takes it) for that civill Court of Justice had then removed from Jerusalem, and had lost its authority in executing Justice, I. Coch annot. in Exc. Gem. Sanhedrin. cap. 1. sect. 13. beareth witness to the same story above mentioned, that forty years before the destruction of the Temple, the Sanhedrin did remove from its proper seat (where he also mentions the ten stations or degrees of their removing) and Jam tum cessarunt judicia capitalia, saith he. Now at that time the capital judgements did cease. Thus we have three witnesses singularly learned in the Jewish Antiquities. Unto these add Casaubon ⟨p. 35⟩