A42757:254
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.
To Master Prynnes fourth exception, the Answer may be collected from what is already said. We never find the temporal Magistrate called the Ruler of the Synagogue, nor yet that he sate in Judgement in the Synagogue. The beating or scourging in the Synagogues, was a tumultuous disorderly act; we read of no sentence given, but only to be put out of the Synagogue, which sentence was given by the Synagogical consistory, made up of the Priest or Priests and Jewish Elders. For the power of judging in things and causes Ecclesiastical, did belong to the Priests and Levites, together with the Elders of Israel. 1 Chro. 23. 4. & 26. 30. 32. 2. Chro. 19. 8. And therefore what reason Master Prynne had to exclude the Priests from this corrective power, and from being Rulers of the Synagogue, I know not. Sure I am the Scriptures cited make Priests and Levites to be Judges and Rulers Ecclesiastical; of which before. As for the chief Ruler of the Synagogue: Archysynagogus erat ⟨p. 65⟩primarius in Synagoga Doctor, say the Centurists Cent. 1. lib. 1. cap 7. and if so, then not a civill Magistrate.
To Master Prynnes fourth exception, the Answer may be collected from what is already said. We never find the temporall Magistrate called the Ruler of the Synagogue, nor yet that he sate in Judgement in the Synagogue. The beating or scourging in the Synagogues, was a tumultuous disorderly act; we read of no sentence given, but onely to be put out of the Synagogue, which sentence was given by the Synagogicall consistory, made up of the Priest or Priests and Jewish Elders. For the power of judging in things and causes Ecclesiasticall, did belong to the Priests and Levites, together with the Elders of Israel. 1 Chro. 23. 4. & 26. 30. 32. 2. Chro. 19. 8. And therefore what reason Master Prynne had to exclude the Priests from this corrective power, and from being Rulers of the Synagogue, I know not. Sure I am the Scriptures cited make Priests and Levites to be Judges and Rulers Ecclesiasticall; of which before. As for the chief Ruler of the Synagogue: Archysynagogus erat