A42757:203
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 chief objection which ever I heard or read against this distinction of a Civill Sanhedrin and an Ecclesiastical Sanhedrin among the Jews, is this. That neither the Talmud nor the Talmudical writers mention any such distinction, but speak only of one supreme Sanhedrin of 71, and of other two Courts, which sate the one at the door of the Court before the Temple, the other at the gate which entereth to the mountain of the Temple. There were also Courts in the Cities where capital cases were judged by three and twenty, pecuniall mults by three.
The chiefe objection which ever I heard or read against this distinction of a Civill Sanhedrin and an Ecclesiasticall Sanhedrin among the Jewes, is this. That neither the Talmud nor the Talmudicall writers mention any such distinction, but speake onely of one supreme Sanhedrin of 71, and of other two Courts, which sate the one at the doore of the Court before the Temple, the other at the gate which entereth to the mountaine of the Temple. There were also Courts in the Cities where capitall cases were judged by three and twenty, pecuniall mults by three.
Answ. It must be remembered that not only the Talmudical Commentators, but the Talmud it self, is much later than the time of the Sanhedrin, and the integrity of the Jewish government. Yea later (by some Centuries) than the destruction of the Temple and City of Jerusalem. So that the Objection which is made is no stronger than as if one should argue thus, There is no mention of Elderships constituted of Pastors and Ruling Elders (without any Bishop having preeminence over the rest) neither in the Canon Law, nor decretals of Popes, ⟨p. 36⟩nor in the Book of the Canons of the Roman Church. Therefore when Paul wrote his Epistle to the Church of Rome, there was no such Eldership in that Church, constituted as hath been said. But if the Ecclesiastical Government either of the Church of Rome, or of the Church of the Jews can be proved from Scripture (as both may) it ought to be no prejudice against those truths, that they are not fou•d in the Writers of afertimes, and declining ages. Howbeit there may be seen some footsteps of a Civill and Ecclesiastical Sanhedrin, even in the Talmudical writers, in the opinion of Constantinus L'Empereur, and in that other passage cited by D. Buxtorf out of Elijah. Of which before. And so much concerning an Ecclesiastical Sanhedrin among the Jews.