A42757:846
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.
Seventhly, the Erastian principles do plainly contradict and confute themselves. For both Erastus, Bishop Bilson, and Master Prynne hold that he Jewish Sanhedrin in Christs time was a temporal Magistracy and a civill Court of justice, which had power to scourge, imprison, torture, and outlaw offenders, yea to put to death as the first two do positively aver. sHow then can it be said, If he neglect to hear the Church, &c. that is, if he neglect to hear the civill Magistrate who hath power to ⟨p. 398⟩imprison, scourge, torture, outlaw, yea to put him to death? Surely if he neglect to hear the Church, doth intimate that the Church hath not used nor cannot use any external coercive power. Erastus finds himself so mightily puzzled with this difficulty, that to make out his interpretation of Matth. 18. he confesseth Thes. 53. and confirm. Thes. lib. 2. cap. 2. the Jewish Sanhedrin had no power under the Romans to judge of civill causes and injuries, but of things pertaining to their religion only, tso that at that time (saith he) a man might impune without punishment contemn the judgement of the Sanhedrin in civill things. And thus while he seeketh a Salvo for his Gloss upon Matth. 18. he overthroweth the great argument by which he and his followers endeavour to prove that there was no other Sanhedrin in Christs time, but a civill Court of justice, because say they, that Sanhedrin had the power of the Sword and other temporal punishments.
Seventhly, the Erastian principles do plainly contradict and confute themselves. For both Erastus, Bishop Bilson, and Master Prynne hold that he Jewish Sanhedrin in Christs time was a temporall Magistracy and a civill Court of justice, which had power to scourge, imprison, torture, and outlaw offenders, yea to put to death as the first two doe positively averre. sHow then can it be said, If he neglect to heare the Church, &c. that is, if he neglect to heare the civill Magistrate who hath power to