A42757:288
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.
Erastus and his followers hold, that among the Jews none was excluded from any public Ordinance in the Temple, for moral uncleanness, that is, for a profane scandalous conversation, but only for legal or ceremonial uncleanness. The like Master Prynne saith of the Passover, and of the Temple he holds that even those who were for their offences cast out of the Synagogues, were yet free to come and did come to the Temple. I shall particularly make Answer both to Erastus and to Master Prynne in this point, when they shall fall in my way afterward. I shall here, more generally endeavour to rectify their great mistake, and to prove an exclusion from the Temple and public Ordinances, for public and scandalous offences in life and conversation, or for moral as well as ceremonial uncleanness.
ERastus and his followers hold, that among the Jewes none was excluded from any publike Ordinance in the Temple, for morall uncleanesse, that is, for a prophane scandalous conversation, but onely for legall or ceremoniall uncleanesse. The like Master Prynne saith of the Passeover, and of the Temple he holds that even those who were for their offences cast out of the Synagogues, were yet free to come and did come to the Temple. I shall particularly make Answer both to Erastus and to Master Prynne in this point, when they shall fall in my way afterward. I shall here, more generally endeavour to rectifie their great mistake, and to prove an exclusion from the Temple and publike Ordinances, for publike and scandalous offences in life and conversation, or for morall as well as ceremoniall uncleanesse.
First, I shall prove it ex ore duorum, from the Testimonies of two of the most famous witnesses of the Jews themselves, Philo and Josephus. tPhilo lib de Victimas offerentibus, is so full ⟨p. 84⟩and plain, as if he had purposely written that Book to record the exclusion of scandalous persons from Communion with the Church of Israel in the Temple. He presseth all along the necessity of holiness and purity in those who bring Sacrifices, and tells us that their Law did exclude from their holy Assemblies meretricious persons, despisers of God, and all that were known to be impious and profane, as well as those who were legally unclean.