A42757:235
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.
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.
2. Some understand that cutting off to be when a man dieth 〈non-Latin alphabet〉, 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 deniall of what he would have. Neither was that of the preserving of ones name in the posterity, applicable to women, but to their husbands onely; whereas their cutting off was threatned to all that were guilty, whether men or women. Finally, if that were the sence, then the cutting off did neither belong to such as choosed 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 sinne, were to be cut off, whether married or unmarried, whether having children or wanting children.
3. Others understand capital punishment to be inflicted by the civill Magistrate. But if all the offences for which cutting off was threatened in the Law, had been punished by death, the Mosaical laws, no less then those of Draco, might have been said to be written in blood, saith