A42757:262
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.
Another Scripture proving Excommunication in the Jewish Church (which is also parallel to that casting out of the Synagogue as Erastus himself told us) is Ezra. 10. 8. that whosoever would not come within three days, according to the counsel of the Princes and Elders, all his Substance should be forfeited, and himself separated from the Congregation (or Church, It is Kahal in the Hebrew, and [Greek or Hebrew] in the Greek) of those that had been carried away.
ANother Scripture proving Excommunication in the Jewish Church (which is also paralell to that casting out of the Synagogue as Erastus himselfe told us) is Ezra. 10. 8. that whosoever would not come within three dayes, according to the counsell of the Princes and Elders, all his Substance should be forfeited, and himselfe separated from the Congregation (or Church, It is Kahal in the Hebrew, and 〈non-Latin alphabet〉 in the Greeke) of those that had been carryed away.
This separation from the Congregation or Church is not meant of banishment, but of Excommunication, as it is interpreted by Lyra, Hugo Cardinalis, Cajetan, Nicholaus Lombardus, Mariana, Cornelius a lapide: of Protestants Pellicanus, Lavater, Diodati, the Dutch Annotations, the late English Annotations; all upon the place. Also by Zepperus de pol. eccl. lib. 3. cap. 7. and divers others who cite that place occasionally. Ampsingius disp. advers. Anabaptist. pag. 276. doth from that place confute the Anabaptists tenet, that there was no other but a Civill Tribunal in the Jewish Church. Bede upon the place calls this Assembly a Synod, Anita Synodo &c. Josephus antiq. ⟨p. 69⟩lib. 11. cap. 5. expresseth the punishment of those who would not come to Jerusalem at that time, thus, [Greek or Hebrew] A double punishment [Greek or Hebrew] and [Greek or Hebrew]: the former is referred to the persons themselves, and it signifieth an abalienation of those persons from the Congregation, not a banishing or driving of them out of the Land; for [Greek or Hebrew] signifieth to abalienate a person or thing, by renouncing and quitting the right, title, and interest which formerly we had in that person or thing; so houses, lands, persons, &c. are abalienated, when (though they and we remain where before) we cease to own them as ours; and thus the Congregation of Israel did renounce their interest in those offenders, and would not own them as Church-members. The other punishment was the dedicating or devoting of their substance. Gelenius the Interpreter hath rightly rendered the sense of Josephus: Et quisquis non adfuerat intra praescriptum empus, ut excommunicetur, bonaque ejus sacro aerario addicantur. You will object, this separation from the Congregation is coupled together with forfeiture of a mans estate, and so seemeth rather banishment than Excommunication. This objection being taken off, I think there shall be no other difficulty to perplex our interpretation. Wherefore I answer these two things. 1. It is the opinion of divers who hold two Sanhedrins among the Jews, one Civill, and another Ecclesiastical; that in causes and occasions of a mixed nature which did concern both Church and State, both did consult conclude, and decree, in a joint way, and by agreement together. Now