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 ...

CHAP. I. That if the Erastians could prove what they alledge con∣cerning the Iewish Church Government, yet in that particular the Iewish Church could not be a president to the Christian.

OBserving that very much of Erastus his strength, and much of his followers their confidence, lie••h in the old Testament, and Jewish Church, which (as they averre) knew no such distinction, as Civill Government, and Church Government; Civill Justice, and Church Discipline; I have thought good, first of all, to remove that great stumbling-block,

that our way may afterward lie fair and plain before us. I doe heartily acknowledge, that what we finde to have been an Ordinance, or an approved practice in the Jewish Church, ought to be a rule and patterne to us, such things onely excepted which were typicall, or temporall, that is, for which there were speciall reasons proper to that infancy of the Church, and not common to us. Now, if our opposites could prove that the Jewish Church was nothing but the Jewish State, and that the Jewish Church-government, was nothing but the Jewish State∣government, and that the Jewes had never any supreame Sanhe∣drin but one onely, and that civil, and such as had the temporall coercive power of Magistracy (which they will never be able to prove) yet there are divers con••iderable reasons, for which that could be no president to us.

First, Casaubon exerc. 13. anno 31. num. 10. proves out of Maimonides, that the Sanhedrin was to be made up (if pos∣sible) wholly of Priests and Levites; and that if so many Priests and Levites could not be found, as were fit to be of the Sanhe∣drin, in that case some were assumed out of other Tribes. Howbeit I hold not this to be agreeable to the first institution of the Sanhedrin. But thus much is certaine, that Priests and Levites were members of the Jewish Sanhedrin, and had an authoritative decisive suffrage in making decrees, and infli∣cting punishments, as well as other members of the Sanhedrin. Philo the Jew de vita Mosis pag. 530. saith that he who was found gathering sticks upon the Sabbath, was brought ad prin∣cipem & sacerdotum consistorium, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. that is, to the Prince or chiefe Ruler (meaning Moses) toge∣ther with whom the Priests did sit and judge in the Sanhedrin. Jehosaphat did set of the Levites, of the Priests, and of the chiefe of the Fathers of Israel, for the judgement of the Lord, &c. 2 Chro. 19. 8.

Secondly, the people of Israel had Gods own Judiciall Law given by Moses, for their civill Law: and the Priests and Levites in stead of civill Lawyers.

Thirdly, the Sanhedrin did punish no man, unlesse admoni∣tion had been first given to him for his amendment. Maimon. de fundam. legis cap. 5. sect. 6. (yea saith Gul. Vorstius upon the

place, though a man had killed his parents, the Sanhedrin did not punish him unlesse he were first admonished) and when witnesses were examined, seven questions were propounded to them, one of which was, whether they had admonished the offender, as the Talmud it self tels us ad tit. Sanhedrin cap. 5. sect. 1.

Fourthly, the Sanhedrin respondebat de Jure, did interpret the Law of God, and determine controversies, concerning the sence and intent thereof. Deut. 17. 8, 9, 10, 11. and it was on this man∣ner as the Ierusalem Talmud in Sanhedrin cap. 10. sect. 2. re∣cords. There were there (in Ierusalem) three assemblies of Iudges: one sitting at the entry to the mountaine of the Sanctuary: another sitting at the doore of the Court: the third sitting in the Conelave made of cut stone. First, addresse was made to that which sate at the ascent of the mountaine of the Sanctuary: then the Elder (who came to represent the cause which was too hard for the Courts of the Cities) said on •…•…his manner. I have drawne this sence from the holy Scripture, my fellows have drawn that sence. I have taught thus, my f•…•…llows so and so. If they had learned what is to be determi∣ned in that cause, they did communicate it unto them. If not, they went forward together to the Iudges sitting at the doore of the Court: by whom they were instructed, if they (after the laying forth of the difficulty) knew what resolution to give. Otherwise all of them jointly had recourse to the great Sanhedrin. For from it doth the Law go forth unto all Israel. It is added in Exc. Gemar. Sanhed. cap. 10. sect. 1. that the Sanhedrin did sit in that roome of cut stone (which was in the Temple) from the morning to the evening daily sa∣crifice. The Sanhedrin did judge cases of Idolatry, apostasie, false Prophets, &c. Talm. Hieros. in Sanhed. cap. 1. sect. 5.

Now all this being unquestionably true of the Jewish San∣hedrin: if we should suppose, that they had no supreme Sanhe∣drin but that which had the power of civill Magistracy, then I aske where is that Christian State, which was, or is, or ought to be moulded according to this patterne. Must Ministers have vote in Parliament? Must they be civill Lawyers? must all criminall and capitall Judgements be according to the Judiciall Law of Moses, and none otherwise? Must there be no civill punishment, without previous admonition of the offender? Must Parliaments sit, as it were in the Temple of God, and interpret Scripture,

which sence is true, and which false, and determine controversies of faith and cases of conscience, and judge of all false doctrines? yet all this must be, if there be a paralell made with the Jewish Sanhedrin. I know some divines hold, that the Judiciall Law of Moses, so far as concerneth the punishments of sins against the morall ••aw, Idolatry, blasphemy, Sabbath-breaking, adul∣tery, theft, &c. ought to be a rule to the Christian Magistrate. and for my part, I wish more respect were had to it, and that it were more consulted with. This by the way. I am here only shewing, what must follow, if the Jewish Government be taken for a pr••sident, without making a dis••inction of Civil & Church government. Surely, the consequences will be such, as I am sure our opposites will never admit of, and some of which (namely concerning the civill places or power of Ministers, and concer∣ning the Magistrates authority to interpret Scripture) ought not to be admitted.

Certainly, if it should be granted that the Jewes had but one Sanhedrin, yet there was such an intermixture ••of Civill and Ecclesiasticall both persons and proceedings, that there must be a partition made of that power, which the Jewish Sanhe∣drin did exercise, which (taken whole and entire together) can neither sute to our Civill nor to our Ecclesiasticall Courts. Nay, while the Erastians appeale to the Jewish Sanhedrin (sup∣pose it now to be but one) they doe thereby ingage themselves to grant unto Church officers a share at least (yea a great share) in Ecclesiasticall government: for so they had in the Supreme Sanhedrin of the Jewes.

And further the Jewes had their Synagoga magna, which Gro∣tius on Matth. 10. 17. distinguisheth from the Sanhedrin of 71. for both Prophets and others of place and power among the people praeter 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, besides the members of that Sanhe∣drin were members of that extraordinary assembly, which was called the great Synagogue, such as that Assembly Ezra 10. which did decree forfeiture and separation from the Congregation, to be the punishment of such as would not gather themselves unto Ierusalem: in which assembly were others beside those of the Sanhedrin. Of the men of the great Synagogue I read in Tze∣mach David pag. 56. •…•…dit. Hen. Vors. that they did receive the

traditions from the Prophets; and it is added Viri Synagogae magnae ordinarunt nobis preces nostras. The men of the great Syna∣gogue did appoint unto us our prayers, meaning their Liturgies, which they fancy to have been so instituted. The Hebrews themselves controvert, whether all the men of the great Syna∣gogue did live at one and the same time, or successively; but that which is most received among them, is, that these men did flourish all at one time, as is told us in the passage last cited, where also these are named as men of the great Synagogue, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, Zerubbabel, Mordechai, Ezra, Jeho∣shua, Seria, Rehaliah, Misphar, Rechum, Nehemias. Rambam ad∣deth, Chananiah, Mischael, and Azariah.

Finally, as Prophets, Pries••s, and Scribes of the Law of God had an interest in the Synagoga magna after the Captivity, so we read of occasionall and extraordinary Ecclesiasticall Synods before the Captivity, as that assembly of the Priests and Le∣vites under Hezekiah, 2 Chro. 29. 4. 15. and that erring Synod of the 400 Prophets, 1 Kings 22. 6. Herod also gathered toge∣ther the chiefe Priests and Scribes, Matth. 2. 4. I conclude, that if it should be granted there was no Ecclesiasticall Sanhedrin among the Jewes, distinct from the civill, yet as the necessity of a distinct Ecclesiasticall Government among us, is greater then it was among them (in respect of the foure considerations above mentioned) so likewise the Priests had a great deale more power and authority in the Jewish Church, (not onely by oc∣casionall Synods, but by their interest in Synagoga magna, and in the civill Sanhedrin it selfe) then the Erastians are willing that Church officers should have in the Christian Church.