A42757:275
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.
In any of these three cases, a man was to confess his •inne, when he brought his trespass-offering, and the offering was not accepted without confession: Lev. 5. 5. And it shall be, when he shall be guilty in one of these things, that he shall confess that he hath sinned in that thing. And he shall bring his trespass-offering, &c. nThis confession was made in the Priests hearing, and not to God alone, as Mr Prynne affirmeth Vindic. pag. 17. For, 1. It was a ceremonial Law, concerning the external worship of God, and a part of the Law of trespass-offerings. He might as well have said, that the Trespass-offering was made to God alone, without the presence of the Priest or any other▪ 2. He himself doth not deny (but intimate) that till such confession was made, a man was not admitted to make atonement by trespass-offerings. And so do the Jews understand the Law of confession, as we shall hear by and by. Now how could it be known, whether a man had confessed any thing at all, if it was secretly, and to God alone? 3. The sins to be confessed, were oft times scandalous and known to others, (as hath been cleared.) Therefore the confession was to be known to others also. 4 That this confession (not private and auricular, but public and penitential) was made in the Temple, ⟨p. 76⟩before and in the hearing of the Priest, I prove from Philo the Jew. In his book de sacr. Abelis & Caini, at the close, speaking of the Levites ministry, he saith, that he did execute and perform [Greek or Hebrew], all those services which belong to a perfect Priesthood, and to the bringing of man to God, whether by burnt-offerings, [Greek or Hebrew] aut pro peccatis quorum paenitet saith Gelenius the Interpreter, meaning the trespass-offerings. But observe further, he speaks of the penitential part, as a public thing, or rather of the public declaration of repentance. Repentance of sins, that is, repentance declared or professed (which was in the confession joined with the trespass-offerings) was one of the chief things about which the Levitical ministry was exercised: which is the clear sense of the place. More plainly, the same Philo lib.
In any of these three cases, a man was to confesse his inne, when he brought his trespasse-offering, and the offering was not accepted without confession: