Bookclub: Aaron's Rod Blossoming Week 1

Status
Not open for further replies.
So initial comments and thoughts.

I'm not terribly familiar with Erastianism. In a nutshell I gather that the idea is that the state is the one who has powers of excommunication.

So a little background to this work that I found out as I was researching the bibliography:
Two members (at least) of the Westminstster Assembly, John Selden, and Thomas Coleman were Erastian, and it appears that Coleman preached a sermon before the Assembly in which he espoused Erastian principles. Rutherford and Gillespie especially took strong exception to it and Gillespie preached a sermon against it, and then soon published it.

Coleman defended his view with a work entitled "Brotherly Examination Re-examined: A clear justification of those passages in a sermon against which the reverend and learned commissioner, Mr Gillespie, first in two several sermons, and then in print, did preach and write."

Gillespie responded with a published work called "Nihil Respondes: A discovery of the extreme unsatisfactoriness of Master Coleman's piece, published last week under the title of A Brotherly Examination Re-Examined"

Coleman responded with "Male Dici Maledicis: A brief reply to Nihil Respondens" which I gather was quite a harsh title.

Gillespie responded with "Male Audis: An answer to Mr Colman his Male Dicis, wherein the repugnancy of his Erastian doctrine to the word of God, to the Solemn League and Covenant, and to the ordinances of Parliament."

Gotta love these titles. Looks like the Puritanboard isn't the first place to have heated debates! Apparently wanting to end it once and for all, Gillespie publishes "Aaron's Rod Blossoming". Boom. End of discussion. Or it should have been. I'm looking forward to reading and discussing.
 
Thanks for the background. From Ch. 1, Erastians believed "the Jewish church knew no such distinction as civil government and church government, civil justice and church discipline." That there was only one Sanhedrin - civil.

He shows the Jews cannot be a precedent for our government due to several reasons. One of which is that the Sanhedrin was composed mostly (if not entirely) of priests. So if they are to be a pattern for us, Christian ministers should be called to judge in civil government.

Ch. 2 seems to capitulate the argument in Ch. 1 and assume they should be a pattern. Even so, he shows the Jewish civil and church government was distinct even though ruled by the same people.

Halichoth Olam tells us that such and such rabbies were followed in the ceremonial laws; other rabbies followed in the judicial laws.

Very interesting quote from Ch. 2 - a categorization of the law from a source, not only outside of Reformed Christianity, but outside Christianity altogether!

I haven't made it through Ch. 3 & 4.
 
He shows the Jews cannot be a precedent for our government due to several reasons. One of which is that the Sanhedrin was composed mostly (if not entirely) of priests. So if they are to be a pattern for us, Christian ministers should be called to judge in civil government.

Ch. 2 seems to capitulate the argument in Ch. 1 and assume they should be a pattern.

Hmm. I think maybe I read this differently. I thought Gillespie's point was that even if the Erastians could prove that "the Jewish church was nothing but the Jewish state...there are divers considerable reasons for which that could be no precedent for us." In other words, even if it were true [which he goes on to show is not the case in ch. II and following], there is good reasons that it could be no precedent for us.
 
The Erastian position related to the "Christian" State, not the State per se. That's what makes it a slippery eel. Any references to an ecclesiastical government distinct from civil government were interpreted as belonging to a situation in which the State was non-Christian. The ideal of a single government with civil and ecclesiastical arms was taken from the Old Testament constitution. Gillespie went straight for their stronghold, and showed how there was an ideal separation between civil and ecclesiastical government-discipline even under the Old Testament.
 
So a few comments.

Chapter 1:
Gillespie makes the "hearty" concession that we should use the Jewish church as a model, except for the typical or temporary things.

He then goes to show that there always has been a distinction between the Jewish civil and Jewish ecclesiastical governments, even if they were closely related. He shows the absurdity of those who say we ought to follow the Jewish model but who believe the Jewish model was one government only.

I thought this quote was interesting:
I know some divines hold that the judicial law of Moses, so far as concerneth the punishments of sins against the moral law, idolatry, blasphemy, Sabbath-breaking, adultery, theft, etc., 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.

I would have thought he would have been more firm on this, but presumably he'll get more into that in Book 2.

Chapter 2:
He quotes Thomas Coleman as saying that the church of Israel had no distinction between civil and ecclesiastical government. Gillespie's response: oh really? Let's see.

He says they were distinct, not materially, but formally, and shows this in seven ways.

Chapter 3:
He shows about 20 authorities who either assumed or declared a civil/ecclesiastical distinction. And then goes to confirm that there is.

That's my pitiful and basic take so far. Unfortunately most of my mental energy is being consumed in proofing.
 
I would have thought he would have been more firm on this, but presumably he'll get more into that in Book 2.

Was curious what you meant here. I wonder if what he meant was that these individuals advocated for the specific penalties for those sins, as found in the OT. To me it sounded like a more modern debate on theonomy vs. the establishment principle (but I'm not sure).

Anyway, I found his listing of 12 verses for the Jewish Sanhedrin compelling and enlightening (pp. 4-14). Especially his comments on Deut 17:8-12 (#2); 1 Chr 23:4 (#3); and 2 Chr 19:8, 10, 11 (#4).
 
That quote figures in the debate on authorship of Wholesome Severity some contending the views of it and Aaron's Rod are not compatible. I'll post anything relevant if interest is there, later. Some old versions of the research are online. Search on the quote will likely bring it up.
I thought this quote was interesting:
I know some divines hold that the judicial law of Moses, so far as concerneth the punishments of sins against the moral law, idolatry, blasphemy, Sabbath-breaking, adultery, theft, etc., 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.
 
Was curious what you meant here. I wonder if what he meant was that these individuals advocated for the specific penalties for those sins, as found in the OT.

Sure. At first glance it appears as though Gillespie is saying "some people think we should punish idolaters and Sabbath-breakers, etc...and I find myself sympathetic with that idea." And that surprised me because I would have thought he would be completely on board with the idea. But perhaps you're correct and he's speaking about the specific penalties for those sins, rather than whether those sins should be punished at all. I'm pretty sure he gets into more detail in Book 2 and 3.
 
There is a line in the Epistle to the Reader which sums up the controverted point quite helpfully:

The controversy is not about taking from the magistrate what is his, but about giving to Christ that which is his. We hold a reciprocal subordination of persons, but a co-ordination of powers.

Gillespie observed that ecclesiastical government and discipline are tied to the kingship of Christ, and that Christ was martyred for His kingship. Ecclesiastical discipline is therefore an essential part of the church's testimony for the kingship of Christ in the world.

The three degrees of discipline -- niddui, cherem, and schammata -- were debated among rabbinical scholars. While he was not tied to the findings of rabbinic scholarship Gillespie was concerned to retain these degrees from a New Testament standpoint in order to conserve the distinct nature of ecclesiastical discipline. Even in these earlier chapters he made it clear that civil punishments aim at preserving the honour and integrity of the law, whilst church discipline seeks to reclaim the offender. This concern for a right use of moderate discipline is brought out in the quotation from Augustine on the title of the book: "lest either undisciplined patience foster iniquity, or impatient discipline dissipate unity."

From a present day perspective it is interesting (and concerning) to see the way our societies have primarily come to see civil punishments in terms of seeking to reclaim the offender. By this means the society is effectively seeking to be mediatorial and merciful without upholding the claims of law and justice. Christ's work of satisfying law and justice alone prepares the way for a merciful and moderate use of discipline which magnifies the law and makes it honourable.
 
I wanted to make a quick note to say that I'll be regularly updating both my versions (linked in the first post), as I find errors and add things like the summaries to the table of contents. So please feel free to make use of the latest file if you like (I put time stamps on the copyright page).
 
Quick question for those who know Greek. Pg 7, left column, middle, he says

"...those that looked to the execution of the sentence, and to the keeping of the law, like the
nomothesia among the Grecians; for
nomothesia was one thing,
nomophulakia another."

Whereas in the 1646 edition, it says
nomophulakes among the Grecians; for
nomothesia was one thing,
nomophulakia another.

Which is correct?
 
To me, νομοφύλακες nomophulakes 'law guards, law defenders' seems to fit the context better than νομοθεσία nomothesia 'legislature', since a connection was made with those who looked to the execution of a sentence and the keeping of the law.

I might be wrong however.
 
Which is correct?

I went with the 1646 ed., based on Liddell and Scott:

νομο-θεσία, ἡ,
legislation...

νομοφῠλᾰκ-έω,
preserve the laws...

νομοφῠλᾰκ-ία, ἡ,
preservation of the laws...

νομοφῠλᾰκ-ικός, ή, όν,
observant of law...

νομοφῠλᾰκ-ιον (νομοφῠλᾰκ-εῖον Suid.), τό,
office of the νομοφύλακες...
 
Thanks guys, I had defaulted to the 1646 as well based on my own basic understanding.

Gillespie continues to give examples on the Jewish distinction between civil and ecclesiastical. I especially liked the one with Jeremiah: where even though the "scribes" condemn him to death, with an apparent ecclesiastical sentence, the "princes" acquit him. So it seems they didn't have the power of putting to death. Yet neither court seems to question the legitimacy of the other.

Gillespie keeps piling it on. Very much enjoying it so far.
 
Final versions of the Kindle and regular PDF are up and proofed, except for a few errant citations I've yet to find.

I really liked his discussion of the degrees of excommunication, even if the Jews tended to get carried away with the implementation. Overall I appreciated the reasoning behind it (don't be overly harsh) and the reasoning behind things like those excommunicate persons who came into the synagogue being greeted with something like "may the Lord comfort thee and put thee in mind of thy neighbour's instruction." The point being that excommunication of this sort was for the purpose of restoring, which is an excellent thing to bear in mind.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top