A42757:245
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.
CHAP. VI. Of the casting out of the Synagogue.
WE read of a casting out of the Church, which was pretended to be a matter of conscience and religion, and such as did more especially concern the glory of God, Isa. 66. 5. Your brethren that hated you, that cast you out for my names sake, said, let the Lord be glorified. Such was the casting out of the Synagogue, mentioned in the Gospel Joh. 9. 22. & 12. 42. & 16. 2. Arias Montanus de arcano Sermone cap. 47. expounds it of excommunication from Church Assemblies. So the Magdeburgians cent. 1. lib. 1. cap. 7. and Corn. Bertramus de repub. Ebraeor. cap. 7. Godwin in his Moses and Aaron, lib. 3. cap. 4. & lib. 5. cap. 2. Wherein the interpreters also upon the places cited do generally agree, Erasmus, Brentius, Tossanus, Diodati, Cartwright in his harmony, Gerhard, &c. So likewise M. Leigh out of Paulus Tarnovius, [Greek or Hebrew] dicitur▪ ejectus e […] sacro Ecclesiae, excommunicatus. See Critica Sacra of the new Test. ⟨p. 61⟩pag. 391. So doth Aretius, Theol. Probel. loc. 133. (though cited by our Opposites against us) he saith, though it was abused by the Pharisees, yet it showeth the Ancient use of the the thing it self, that there was such a discipline in the Jewish Church. It is not much material, to dispute which of the degrees of the Jewish Excommunication, or whether all the three were meant by that casting out of the Synagogue. Drusius, and Grotius expound, Jo. 9. 22. of Niddui. Gerhard expounds Jo. 16. 2. of all the three Niddui, Cherem, and Shammata. It is enough for this present argument, if it was a spiritual, or Ecclesiastical Censure, not a civill punishment. Master Prynne, Vindic. pag. 48, 49. tells us. First, this casting out of the Synagogue, was not warranted by Gods Word, but was only a humane invention. Secondly, as it was practiced by the Jews, it was a diabolical institution. Thirdly, that it was merely a civill Excommunication, like to an Outlary, whereby the party cast out, was separate from civill conversation only, or from all company with any man, but was not suspended from any Divine Ordinance. Fourthly, that it was inflicted by the Temporal Magistrate. Fifthly, that in the Jewish Synagogues at that time, there was neither Sacrament nor Sacrifice, but only Reading, Expounding, Preaching, Disputing, and Prayer, so that it cannot prove suspension from the Sacrament.