A42757:586
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.
As for Pauls Appellation to Caesar. First, It is supposed by our opposites that he appealed from the Ecclesiastical Sanhedrin of the Jews, which is a great mistake; For he appealed from the Judgement-seat of Festus to Caesar; that is, from an in•eriour civil Court, to a superior civil Court, which he had just cause to do: for though Festus had not yet given forth any sentence against Paul, yet he appeals à gravamine, and it was a great grievance indeed, while as Festus showed himself to be a most corrupt Judge, who though the Jews could prove none of those things whereof they accused Paul, Act. 25. 7. (which should have made Festus to acquit and dismiss him) yet being willing to do the Jews a pleasure, he would have Paul to go to Jerusalem, there to be judged before himself. verse 9. Now this was all the favour that the Jews had desired of Festus, that he would send Paul to Jerusalem, they laying wait in the way to kill him. vers. 3. No appellation here from the Sanhedrin at Jerusalem, where he had not as yet compeered to be examined, far less could he appeal from any sentence of the Sanhedrin. The most which can be with any colour alleged from the Text, is, that Paul declined to be judged by the Sanhedrin at Jerusalem, they not being his competent and proper Judges in that cause. I stand at Caesars Judgement-seat saith he, where I ought to be judged; meaning that he was accused as worthy of death, for sedition, and offending against Caesar; whereof he ought to be judged only at Caesars Tribunal; not by the Jews, who were no Judges of such matters. A declinator of a ⟨p. 254⟩[…] ⟨p. 255⟩[…] ⟨p. 256⟩Judge is one thing, and Appellation from his Judgement or sentence is another thing. But put the case that Paul had indeed appealed from the Sanhedrin at Jerusalem, either it was the civil Sanhedrin, or the Ecclesiastical. If the civil, it is no President for appeals from Ecclesiastical Courts. If the Ecclesiastical, yet that serveth not for appeals from Ecclesiastical Courts in Ecclesiastical causes; for it was a capital crime whereof Paul was accused. Nay, put the case that Paul had at that time appealed from the Ecclesiastical Sanhedrin in an Ecclesiastical cause: