A42757:234
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.
There are five different opinions concerning that cutting off mentioned in the Law. First, Augustine in divers places, understands the meaning to be of the second death or eternal condemnation. But this is not suitable to the infancy of the Jewish Church; for whiles they were bred under the pedagogy of the Law, things eternal and invisible were not immediately and nakedly propounded unto them, but under the shadows and figures of temporal and visible things. So that if eternal death were the ultimate intendment of that commination (as I ⟨p. 53⟩verily believe it was) yet it must needs be acknowledged, that there was some other punishment in this life, comprehended under that phrase, to resemble in some sort, and to shadow forth that everlasting cutting of.
There are five different opinions concerning that cutting off mentioned in the Law. First, Augustine in divers places, understands the meaning to be of the second death or eternall condemnation. But this is not sutable to the infancy of the Jewish Church; for whiles they were bred under the paedagogy of the Law, things eternall and invisible were not immediately and nakedly propounded unto them, but under the shadows and figures of temporall and visible things. So that if eternall death were the ultimate intendment of that commination (as I ⟨p. 53⟩verily believe it was) yet it must needs be acknowledged, that there was some other punishment in this life, comprehended under that phrase, to resemble in some sort, and to shadow forth that everlasting cutting of.
2. Some understand that cutting off to be when a man dieth [Greek or Hebrew], without children, having no off-spring or posterity behind him to preserve the memory of him; for he that left children behind him, was esteemed to live in some sort after he was dead. But the cutting off in the Law, is privative, not negative, it is a depriving of a man of what he hath, not the denial of what he would have. Neither was that of the preserving of ones name in the posterity, applicable to women, but to their husbands only; whereas their cutting off was threatened to all that were guilty, whether men or women. Finally, if that were the sense, then the cutting off did neither belong to such as chose voluntarily to live unmarried, nor to men who being married had children to preserve their memory after their death. But all that committed such or such a sin, were to be cut off, whether married or unmarried, whether having children or wanting children.