A42757:293
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.
To the first I answer, it rather confirmeth then confuteth what I have said. For 1. The Text saith, Vers. 13. the Publican stood afar off: the Pharisee not so. zGrotius upon the place, Verse 11. noteth, that the Pharisees fault was not in this particular, that he came further into the Temple then the Publican: for the custom was such, that the Publicans were to stand in the Court of the Gentiles, the Pharisees in the Court ⟨p. 86⟩of Israel. Camer. myroth. in Luke 18. is also of opinion that the Publican stood in the Court of the Gentiles, or in that first Court into which Josephus lib. 2. contra Appion. saith, that all, even Heathens, might come. 2. And though our opposites could prove, that the Publican came into the Court of Israel, (which they will never be able to do) yet this place helps them not at all, unless they can prove that this was a scandalous and profane Publican. It is certain that divers of the Publicans were religious and devout men, and that this was one of them, we may more then conjecturally know, by the Pharisees own words, for when he hath thanked God, that he is not as other men, adulterers, unjust, extortioners, he addeth with a disjunction, or even as this Publican, thus preferring himself not only to the infamous and scandalous Publicans, but even to this devout Publican. More of this place afterward, in the debate of Matth. 18.
To the first I answer, it rather confirmeth then confuteth what I have said. For 1. The Text saith, Vers. 13. the Publican stood afarre off: the Pharisee not so. zGrotius upon the place, Verse 11. noteth, that the Pharisees fault was not in this particular, that he came further into the Temple then the Publican: for the custome was such, that the Publicans were to stand in the Court of the Gentiles, the Pharisees in the Court ⟨p. 86⟩of Israel. Camer. myroth. in Luke 18