A42757:771
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
Book 3 › Chapter 2: Whether Matth. 18. 15, 16, 17. prove Excommunication.
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.
His third reason doth only beg what is in Question, that by the Church is not meant any Ecclesiastical but a civill Court of the Jews. He needed not to cite so many places to prove that the Jews had civill Courts. If he could but cite one place, to prove that they had no Ecclesiastical Courts, this were to the purpose. Not that I grant that at this time the Jews had any civill Jurisdiction or Jewish Court of Justice; for after that Herod the great did kill Hircanus and the Sanhedrin, (in the opinion of many learned men) the Jews had no more any civill Jurisdiction. Now Herod the great was dead before the time of Christs Ministry. Others think they had some civill Jurisdiction a while after Hircanus death. How ever he cannot prove, that at this time when Christ said Tell the Church, the Jews had any civill Court of Justice, which did exercise either Criminal or Capital Judgements. I have in the first Book showed out of Buxtorf, L'Empereur, Casaubon, and I. Coch. (who prove what they say from the Talmudical writers) that 40 years before the destruction of the Temple (and so before Christ said Tell the Church) the Court of civill Justice at Jerusalem did cease. If Master Prynne make any thing of this Gloss of his, he must prove 1. That there was no Ecclesiastical Court among the Jews. (I have before proved that that Council of the Jews in Christs time was an Ecclesiastical Court, though he conceives it was merely civill) 2. That a private civill injury might not then, nor may not now, be brought before a civill Court, except after several previous admonitions despised. 3. That Chists Rule, Tell the Church was antiquated and ceased, when a civill Court of Justice among the Jews ceased. If he say that the same rule continueth ⟨p. 560⟩for telling the civill Magistrate in case the offender prove obstinate after admonition, then I ask. •. how will he reconcile himself? for pag. 4. he saith the Church in this Text is only the Sanhedrin or Court of civill Justice among the Jews. 2. If this Text Mat. 18. was applicable to the primitive Church after the destruction of Jerusalem, and when there was no Jewish Sanhedrin to go to, then the Pagan Magistracy must pass under the name of the Church, for they had no other civill Court of Justice to go to.
His third reason doth onely begge what is in Question, that by the Church is not meant any Ecclesiasticall but a civill Court of the Jewes. He needed not to cite so many places to prove that the Jewes had civill Courts. If he could but cite one place, to prove that they had no Ecclesiasticall Courts, this were to the purpose. Not that I grant that at this time the Jewes had any civill Jurisdiction or Jewish Court of Justice; for after that Herod the great did kill Hircanus and the Sanhedrin, (in the opinion of many learned men) the Jewes had no more any civill Jurisdiction. Now Herod the great was dead before the time of Christs Ministery. Others think they had some civill Jurisdiction a while after Hircanus death. How ever he cannot prove, that at this time when Christ said Tell the Church, the Jewes had any civill Court of Justice, which did exercise either Criminall or Capitall Judgements. I have in the first Book shewed out of Buxtorf, L'Empereur, Casauhon, and I. Coch. (who prove what they say from the Talmudicall writers) that 40 yeeres before the destruction of the Temple (and so before Christ said Tell the Church) the Court of civill Justice at Hierusalem did cease. If Master Prynne make any thing of this Glosse of his, he must prove 1. That there was no Ecclesiasticall Court among the Jewes. (I have before proved that that Councell of the Jewes in Christs time was an Ecclesiasticall Court, though he conceives it was meerely civill) 2. That a private civill injury might not then, nor may not now, be brought before a civill Court, except after severall previous admonitions despised. 3. That Chists Rule, Tell the Church was antiquated and ceased, when a civill Court of Justice among the Jewes ceased. If he say that the same rule continueth