A42757:296
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.
And now having taken off the two principal objections, we shall take notice of such Scriptures as either directly, or at least by consequence prove, that notorious and scandalous sinners were not allowed to be admitted into the Temple, and partake in all the ordinances.
And now having taken off the two principall objections, we shall take notice of such Scriptures as either directly, or at least by consequence prove, that notorious and scandalous sinners were not allowed to be admitted into the Temple, and partake in all the ordinances.
1. God reproveth not only the bringing of strangers into his Sanctuary, who were uncircumcised in the flesh, but the bringing of those who were uncircumcised in heart, that is, known to be such, for de secretis non judicat Ecclesia, Ezech. 44. 7, 9. Such ought not to have had fellowship in the holy things. No stranger uncircumcised in flesh, shall enter into my Sanctuary, of any stranger that is among the children of Israel. It is a law concerning proselytus domicilii, such proselytes as having renounced idolatry, and professing to observe the seven precepts given to the sons of Noah, were thereupon permitted to dwell and converse among the children of Israel. (Of which more elsewhere.) Such a one ought not be admitted into the Sanctuary, or place of the holy assemblies, there to partake in all the Ordinances with the Church, unless he be both circumcised in flesh, ⟨p. 88⟩and also in regard of his profession and practice a visible Saint, or one supposed to be circumcised in heart. The disjunction Nor tells us that if he were either uncircumcised in flesh, or known to be uncircumcised in heart, God did not allow him to be admitted to communion with the children of Israel in all public ordinances. 2. There is a Law, Deut. 23. 18. forbidding to bring the hire of a whore into the house of the Lord: and that because it was the price of a whore; how much more was it contrary to the will of God, that the whore her self, being known to be such, should be brought to the house of the Lord? For propter quod ununiquque est tale, id ipsum est magis tale. This argument is hinted by