A42757:197
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.
for he might have said, I do not mean, that ye shall judge him for that which concerneth Caesar, but for that which concerneth your own Law and Religion. Therefore certainly the answer which the Jews made to Pilate, did reply, that though they had power to judge a man in that which concerned their Law and Religion, yet they had no power to put any man to death, no not for that which concerned their Law. 4. There are several passages in the story of Paul which show us, that though the Jewish Sanhedrin might judge a man in matters of their Law, yet they were accusers, not Judges, in civill or capital punishments, I mean when a man was accused as worthy of bonds or of death, though it were for a matter of their Law, they had no liberty to judge, but only to accuse. The Jews drew Paul before the judgement seat of Gallio, even for a matter of their law. This fellow (say they to Gallio) persuadeth men to worship God, contrary to the Law Acts 18. 13. If they had intended only an Ecclesiastical censure, their recourse had been either to the Sanhedrin, or at least to the Synagogue, but because they intended a corporal temporal punishment, which neither the Sanhedrin nor the Synagogue had power to inflict, therefore they must prosecute Paul before Gallio; whose answer was to this purpose, that if it had been a matter of wrong or wicked lewdness, it had been proper for him to have judged it, but that since it was no such thing, he would not meddle in it, knowing also, that the Jews had no power to do it by themselves. Again, Acts 23. 28, 29. Claudius Lysias writeth to Faelix concerning Paul thus, and when I would have known the cause wherefore they accused him, I brought him forth into their Council. Whom I perceived to be accused of questions of their Law, but to have nothing laid to his charge worthy of death or of bonds. That which made Lysias interpose in the business, and rescue Paul from the hands of the Jews, was the Jews design to put Paul to death, under colour of judging him according to their Law (which was the pretence made by Tertullus Acts 24. 6.) Now in that which was to be punished, either by death, or so much as by bonds, Lysias conceives the Jews to be ⟨p. 33⟩no competent Judges, therefore he brings Paul into the council of the Jews, not to be judged by them, but to know what accusation they had against him.