A42757:237
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.
4. Many of the Hebrews whom M. Ainsworth annot. in Gen. 17. 14. Exod. 31. 14. Numb. 15. 30. followeth, understand by that cutting off, untimely death, or the shortening of life, before the natural period. This interpretation I also dislike, upon these reasons, 1. That which is taken for a foundation of that opinion, namely, that the cutting off in the Law is meant only as a punishment of private sins known to God alone, and which could not be proved by witnesses; this (I say) is taken for granted which is to be proved. 2. Yea, the contrary appeareth from Levit. 17. 4, 5. the end of that cutting off was, that the children of Israel might fear to do that thing which they saw so punished. But how could they make this use of a Divine judgement inflicted for some private sin, they knew not for what? 3. The commination of Divine judgements is added in a more proper place Deut. 28. Lev. 26. and in divers places, where wrath and punishment from God is denounced against all such as would not observe his Commandments, nor keep his Statutes and Judgements. But the cutting off is a part (and a great part) of the corrective or penal Mosaical Laws, which contain punishments to be inflicted by men, not by God; which makes Piscator almost everywhere in his Scholia to observe, that exscindetur is put for exscinditor, that soul shall be cut off for, let that soul be cut off. 4▪ The cutting off was a distinguishing punishment; they that did such and such things were to be cut off, and in being cut off, were to bear their iniquity, Lev. 18. 29. Numb. 15. 31. But we cannot say that Abijah the son of Jeroboam, or King Josiah, being taken away by an untimely death, were thereby marked with a sign of Gods wrath, or that they were cut off from among their people, and did bear their iniquity. 5. And whereas they object from