A42757:298
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 when they had slain their children to their Idols, then they came the same day into my Sanctuary to profane it. But God would not have the Temple to be a receptacle for such. When Christ applieth that Scripture, Jerem. 7. against those who bought and sold in the Temple, Matth. 21. 12, 13. he makes it clear, that the Temple was made a den of robbers, not only as it was made a place of gain, or a den where the robbers prey lies, but even as it was a receptacle of the robbers or thieves themselves: therefore he is not contented with the overthrowing of the Tables of money-changers, and the seats of them that sold Doves, but he did also cast out all them that sold and bought in the Temple: that is, he would neither suffer such things, nor such persons in the Temple, yea though it was only in the utmost Court, or the Court of the Gentiles, as Grotius and Mr Selden think: how much less would he ⟨p. 89⟩have suffered such persons in the Court of Israel. dPhilo the Jew doth also apply what is said in the Prophets of Gods hating the Sacrifices of the wicked, even to the excluding of profane men from the Temple. Mr. Selden de jure nat. & Gent. lib. 4. cap. 5. doth so explain that casting out of the buyers and sellers out of the Temple, that the argument in hand is not a little strengthened thereby. He saith truly, that those who were cast out had polluted and profaned that holy place, ideo & ipsi, ut qui tum criminis aliorum participes, tum suo infames pariter, sie Templum seu montis Templi locum illum ipsis permissum profanabant, ejiciendi. He holdeth also that this which Christ did was done ex jure patrio, to wit, ex Zelotarum jure: and that else it had been challenged by the Priests and Scribes, if it had been contrary to the law or custom. Zealots, that is, private persons zealously affected, were permitted to scourge, wound, yea kill such as they saw publicly committing atrocious wickedness, by which the holiness either of the name of God, or of the Temple, or of the Nation of the Jews was violated. So Mr. Selden showeth out of the Talmudists, Ib. cap. 4. Now (saith he) Zelotarum jure, our Saviour though a private person (for so he was looked upon by the Priests and Scribes) did scourge and cast out the buyers and sellers. If so, then certainly such wicked and abominable persons were not allowed to come to the Temple;