A42757:257
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.
3 It is more then Mr. Prynne can prove that the Sacrament of Circumcision was not then administered in the Synagogues. The Jews do administer it in their Synagogues; and that John was Circumcised in the Synagogue, some gather from Luk. 1. 59. Venerunt, they came (to wit to the Synagogue) to Circumcise the Child; for my part I lay no weight upon that argument. But I see l•sse ground for Mr. Prynnes Assertion.
3 It is more then Mr. Prynne can prove that the Sacrament of Circumcision was not then administred in the Synagogues. The Jewes do administer it in their Synagogues; and that Iohn was Circumcised in the Synagogue, some gather from Luk. 1. 59. Venerunt, they came (to wit to the Synagogue) to Circumcise the Child; for my part I lay no weight upon that argument. But I see l•sse ground for Mr. Prynnes Assertion.
As for that which M. Prynne addeth in the close, that those who were cast out of the Synagogue might yet resort to the Temple, he hath said nothing to prove it. I find the same thing affirmed by Sutlivius de Presbyt. pag. 25. (though I had thought Master Prynnes Tenen•s of this kind, should never have complied with those of Episcopal men, against the Anti-Episcopal party) But neither doth Sutlivius prove it; only he holds that the casting out of the Synagogue was merely a civill Excommunication, and his reason is that which he had to prove, that Christ and his Disciples, when they were cast out of the Synagogues, had notwithstanding a free access to the Temple. To my best observation, I can find no Instance of any admitted to the Temple, while cast out of the Synagogue. I turn again to Erastus pag. 314. to see whether he proves it. He gives us two instances, first of Christ himself who was cast out of the Synagogues, and yet came into the Temple. But how proves he that Christ was [Greek or Hebrew]? for this, he tells us onely Quis dubitat? who makes Question of it? I am one who make a great Question of it, or rather put it out of Question, that Christ was not cast out of the Synagogues; for what saith he himself Jo. 18. 20. I ever taught in the Synagogue, and in the Temple, whether the Jews always resort. Christ was cast out of the City of Nazareth in the tumult by the people