London, Printed by E. G. for Richard Whitaker, at the signe of the
Kings Armes in Pauls Church-yard. 1646.]
REPRINTED BY A. MURRAY, 1 MILNE SQUARE.
THERE are few conversant with the Works of the Scottish Reformers who do not appreciate the talent and learning, and admire the style of composition and eloquence displayed in the writings of GEORGE GILLESPIE. As his Works have always been held in high estimation, and have been long exceedingly rare, and, consequently, high in price, the publication of a Complete Edition of his Works has been suggested by several Gentlemen of judgment and discrimination.
With that object in view the Publisher now issues his "Aaron's Rod Blossoming," which will be immediately followed by his "Dispute against English Popish Ceremonies," and "A Treatise of Miscellany Questions," together with his "Journal of the Westminster Assembly of Divines," (a work which has never before been printed,) and his Minor Controversial Pieces and Sermons. An Account of his Life and Writings, to form a prefix, will also be published, together with Title-page, Index, &c., to complete the Work.
It is expected that the Series will form One large handsome Volume, printed in a superior manner; and the Public will thus have in a collected form, for the first time, the Complete Writings of one of the greatest ornaments of our Church.
ERRATA.-Page 20, col. 2, line 2 of note, for read 117]. P. 25, l. 6, note, for read 】.
P, 26, c. 2, l. 27, for from bottom, for
read. P. 59, c. 2. line 5 from bottom, for read 7. P. 60, 1. 11 read 7. P. 190, c. 2, 1. 4 from bottom, for DX read DX
The Jewish church a pattern to us in such things as were not typical or temporal. If it could be
proved that the Jews had no supreme sanhedrim but one, and it such as had the power of civil
magistracy, yet there are four reasons for which that could be no precedent to the Christian
church. Where the constitution, manner of proceedings, and power of the sanhedrim are
touched. Of their synagoga magna, what it was. That the priests had great power and autho-
rity, not only in occasional synods, but in the civil sanhedrim itself.
CHAP. II. That the Jewish church was formally distinct from the Jewish state or
commonwealth,
We are content that the Erastians appeal to the Jewish government. Seven distinctions between
the Jewish church and the Jewish state. Of the proselytes of righteousness, and that they were
embodied into the Jewish church, not into the Jewish state.
CHAP. III.—That the Jews had an ecclesiastical sanhedrim and government distinct
from the civil,
Divers authors cited for the ecclesiastical sanhedrim of the Jews. The first institution thereof,
Exod. xxiv. That the choosing and calling forth of these seventy elders is not coincident with
the choosing of the seventy elders mentioned Num. xi., nor yet with the choosing of judges,
Exod. xviii. The institution of two co-ordinate governments cleared from Deut. xvii. A dis-
tinct ecclesiastical government settled by David, 1 Chron. xxii. 26. The same distinction of civil
and church government revived by Jehoshaphat, 2 Chron. xix. That text vindicated. Two dis-
tinct courts, one ecclesiastical, another civil, proved from Jer. xxvi. Another argument for an
ecclesiastical senate from Jer. xviii. 18. Who meant by the wise men of the Jews? Another ar-
gument from Ezek. vii. 26. Another from 2 Kings vi. 32; Ezek viii. 1. Another from Psal.
cvii. 32. Another from Zech. vii. 1-3. That Ezek. xiii. 9 seemeth to hold forth an ecclesiasti-
cal sanhedrim. That the council of the chief priests, elders and scribes, so often mentioned in
the gospel, and in the Acts of the apostles, was an ecclesiastical sanhedrim, and not a civil court of
justice, as Erastus and Mr Prynne suppose; which is at length proved. That the civil sanhe-
drim, which had power of life and death, did remove from Jerusalem forty years before the de-
struction of the temple and city, and, consequently, near three years before the death of Christ.
The great objection, that neither the Talmud nor Talmudical writers do distinguish a civil and
an ecclesiastical sanhedrim answered. Finally, Those who are not convinced that there was a
distinct ecclesiastical sanhedrim among the Jews, may yet by other mediums be convinced that
there was a distinct ecclesiastical government among the Jews; as, namely, the priest's judgment
of cleanness or uncleanness, and so of admitting or shutting out.
CHAP. IV. That there was an ecclesiastical excommunication among the Jews; and
what it was,
![[ocr errors]](https://books.google.rs/books/content?id=dUURAAAAIAAJ&hl=sr&output=html_text&pg=PR5&img=1&zoom=3&q=editions:ISBN0313293678&cds=1&sig=ACfU3U1OrK4yncj8xwNAGv_y1VpzFC65Bw&edge=0&edge=stretch&ci=646,1317,7,6)
excommunication, niddui, cherem, and schammata. The manner and form of their excommunica-
tion showeth that it was a solemn ecclesiastical censure. Formula anathematis. The excommu-
nication of the Cuthites. The excommunication among the Jews was a public and judicial act;
and that a private or extra-judicial excommunication was void, if not ratifed by the court. The
effects of the Jewish excommunication. That such as were excommunicated by the greater ex-
communication were not admitted to come to the temple. He that was excommunicated with the
lesser excommunication was permitted to come, yet not as other Israelites, but as one publicly
bearing his shame. The end of their excommunication was spiritual.
CHAP. V. Of the cutting off from among the people of God frequently mentioned in
the law,
The sense of the Hebrew word scanned. That the commination of cutting off a man from
his people, or from the congregation of Israel, is neither meant of eternal death, nor of dying
without children, nor of capital punishment from the hand of the magistrate, nor yet of cutting
off by the immediate hand of God for some secret sin. Reasons brought against all these. That
excommunication was meant by that cutting off, proved by six reasons.
CHAP. VI. Of the casting out of the synagogue,
The casting out of the synagogue is understood by interpreters and others to be an excommuni-
cation from the church assemblies, and not a civil punishment. Eight considerations to prove
this. That he who was cast out of the synagogue was shut out, not only from the company and
fellowship of men, but from the place of public sacred assemblies. It cannot be proved, that he
who was cast out of the synagogue was free to enter into the temple. The casting out of the sy-
nagogue was abused by the Pharisees, as the casting out of the church by Diotrephes.
CHAP. VII.-Other scriptural arguments to prove an excommunication in the Jewish
church,
![[ocr errors]](https://books.google.rs/books/content?id=dUURAAAAIAAJ&hl=sr&output=html_text&pg=PR6&img=1&zoom=3&q=editions:ISBN0313293678&cds=1&sig=ACfU3U2UIuMSOPXlKKYQLERTXF8pd9H0BA&edge=0&edge=stretch&ci=756,681,7,6)
That the separation from the congregation, Ezra x. 8, was excommunication. Josephus explained
in this particular. Of the devoting of a man's substance as holy to the Lord, which was joined
with the excommunication. What meant by the cursing, Neh. vii. 22. That the apogiuos or se-
parating mentioned Luke xiii. 25, was excommunication, or a segregation not from civil fellow-
ship only, but from sacred or church communion. The ecclesiastical use of that word touched.
CHAP. VIII. Of the Jewish exomologesis, or public declaration of repentance by
confession of sin,
The heathens had their public declaration of repentance from the Jews. The Jewish exomologesis
proved from the imposition of hands upon the head of the sacrifice. The law, Lev. v. 5, did also
appoint confession of sin to be made at the offering of a trespass-offering, which confession
was made in the temple, and in the priest's hearing. The law of confessing sin, Num. v. 6, 7, ex-
plained, and divers particulars concerning confession deduced from it. Other proofs of the Jewish
confession of sins from John ix. 24. Also from that which intervened between their excommunica-
tion and their absolution. From Ezra x. 10, 11. That David's confession, Psal. li., was published
in the temple, after ministerial conviction by Nathan. That if there be necessity of satisfying an
offended brother, how much more of satisfying an offended church.
CHAP. IX. Whether, in the Jewish church, there was any suspension or exclusion
of profane, scandalous, notorious sinners, from partaking in the public ordinances
with the rest of the children of Israel in the temple,
The affirmative is proved by plain and full testimonies of Philo and Josephus, beside some late wri-
ters well acquainted with the Jewish antiquities. That the publican, Luke xviii., came not into
the court of Israel, but into the court of the Gentiles. Nor can it be proved that he was a pro-
fane publican so much as in the opinion of the Pharisees and Jews. That the temple into which
the adulteress was brought, John viii., was also the court of the Gentiles; neither was she admit-
ted into the temple for worship, but brought thither for a public trial and sentence. Seven scrip-
tural arguments brought to prove an exclusion of the scandalous and known profane persons
from the temple. Somewhat de jure Zelotarum. What esteem the Hebrews had of an heretical
or Epicurean Israelite. That the temple of Jerusalem was a type of Christ (which is instanced in
ten particulars), and had a sacramental holiness in it, so that the analogy is not to be drawn to
an exclusion of profane persons from the word preached, but from the sacrament.
CHAP. X.-A debate with Mr Prynne concerning the exclusion of profane, scan-
dalous persons from the
passover,
The analogy of the law of the passover, as Mr Prynne understandeth it, will militate strongly
against that which himself yieldeth. That the unclean might be kept back from the passover
|