A42757:384
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.
Answ. Abiathar was guilty of high treason for assisting and aiding Adonijah, against Solomon, whom not only his father David but God himself had designed to the Crown. So that the crime was of civill cognizance, and Abiathar deserved to die for it. That which Solomon did was an [Greek or Hebrew], a moderation of the punishment, as Strigelius calls it; when Solomon ⟨p. 138⟩might justly have put him to death, he only banisheth him from Jerusalem to Anathoth, there to enjoy his own inheritance, to live a private life, and no more to intermeddle in State affairs. Wherefore this example doth belong to the case of a capital crime committed by a Minister, but not to the case of scandal or mal-administration in his Ministry.
Answ. Abiathar was guilty of high treason for assis•ing and ayding Adonijah, against Solomon, whom not onely his father David but God himselfe had designed to the Crowne. So that the crime was of civill cognizance, and Abiathar deserved to die for it. That which Solomon did was an 〈non-Latin alphabet〉, a moderation of the punishment, as Strigelius cals it; when Solomon ⟨p. 138⟩might justly have put him to death, he onely banisheth him from Hierusalem to Anathoth, there to enjoy his owne inheritance, to live a private life, and no more to intermeddle in State affaires. Wherefore this example doth belong to the case of a capitall crime committed by a Minister, but not to the case of scandall or mal-administration in his Ministery.
2. Neither did Solomon directly or intentionally put Abiathar from the Priesthood for that offence, but by consequence it followed upon his banishment from Jerusalem, the place where the high Priest was to exercise his calling, 1 King. 2. 27. So (that is, in respect of banishment from Jerusalem mentioned in the verse immediately preceding) Solomon thrust out Abiathar from being Priest unto the Lord. A Minister now banished is not thereby thrust out from all exercise of his Ministry, for he may exercise it in another place; but Abiathar being thrust out from Jerusalem was eo ipso thrust from the calling of the high Priest, which was necessarily to be exercised in that place.