A42757:794
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.
The last of his citations maketh very much against him, namely, Acts 21. 28, 29. where the Jews of Asia do accuse Paul for bringing Greeks into the Temple. For they had seen before with him in the City Trophimus an Ephesian, whom they supposed that Paul had brought into the Temple. Mark here Paul is not challenged for conversing familiarly with a Greek, but only for bringing him into the Temple; and without all doubt the malice of his adversaries did catch at every advantage which they could have against him. I cannot but admire how M. Prynne could cite this place to prove that the Jews might not converse nor keep civill company with the Heathens, since it proveth the very contrary, that the Jews might have civill, but no religious fellowship with Heathens. And whereas he addeth that the Jews had no dealing or conversation with the Samaritans, Joh. 4. 9. Luke 9. 52, 53. I answer, the reason was because the Jewish Church had excommunicated and anathematized for ever the Samaritans, who being once circumcised and having received the book of the Law, did afterward hinder the building of the house of the Lord. This Excommunication of the Cuthites or Samaritans most solemnly performed you may find in Pirke R. Ecclesiae, cap. 38. More of this elsewhere. Here I only touch it, to show that this also of the Samaritans makes against him.
The last of his citations maketh very much against him, namely, Acts 21. 28, 29. where the Jewes of Asia doe accuse Paul for bringing Greekes into the Temple. For they had seen before with him in the City Trophimus an Ephesian, whom they supposed that Paul had brought into the Temple. Marke here Paul is not challenged for conversing familiarly with a Greeke, but onely for bringing him into the Temple; and without all doubt the malice of his adversaries did catch at every advantage which they could have against him. I cannot but admire how M. Prynne could cite this place to prove that the Jewes might not converse nor keepe civill company with the Heathens, since it proveth the very contrary, that the Jewes might have civill, but no religious fellowship with Heathens. And whereas he addeth that the Jewes had no dealing or conversation with the Samaritans,