A42757:198
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 the same reason Paul himself did decline going to Jerusalem, to be judged there, no not of matters concerning the Religion and Law of the Jews, that accusation being so far driven on, as to make him worthy of death. His accusers (saith Festus to King Agrippa) brought none accusation of such things as I supposed, but had certain questions against him of their own superstition, and of one Jesus which was dead, whom Paul affirmed to be alive. And because I doubted of such manner of questions▪ I asked him whether he would go to Jerusalem, and there be judged of these matters, Acts 25. 18, 19, 20. This Paul had declined vers. 10. I stand at Caesars judgement seat (said he) where I ought to be judged. And why? but because his accusation was capital, even in that which concerned the Law of the Jews, and he knew the Jews at that time had no power of capital judgements. Some have alleged this example of Paul for appeals from Presbyteries or Synods to the civill Magistrate: by which argument themselves grant that the Jewish Sanhedrin then declined by Paul, was a Ecclesiastical, not a civill Court. 5. Besides all this Erastus his opinion is strongly confuted by that which Constantinus L'Empereur Annot. in remp. Jud. pag. 404. to 407. proving that the Jews after the thirtieth year of Christ, had no power of punishing with death; for proof hereof citeth a passage of Aboda zara, that forty years before the destruction of the Temple, the Sanhedrin (which had in former times exercised capital judgements) did remove from Jerusalem, quum viderent se non posse judicia capitalia exercere, when they perceived that they could not exercise capital judgements, they said let us remove out of this place, lest we be guilty: it being said Deut. 17. 10. according to the sentence which they of that place shall show thee: whence they collected, that if they were not in that place, they were not obliged to capital judgements: and so they removed. And if you would know when there he tells us out of Rosch Hasschana, they removed from Jerusalem to Jabua, thence to Ousa thence to Sc•aphrea, &c. He that desires to have further proofs for that which hath been said, may ⟨p. 34⟩read Buxtorf. lexic. Chald. Talmud. & rabbin. pag. 514, 515.