A42757:302
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.
CHAP. X. A debate with Master Prynne, concerning the exclusion of profane scandalous persons from the passover.
CHAP. X. A debate with Master Prynne, concerning the exclusion of prophane scandalous persons from the passeover.
That which Master Prynne in his Vindication pag. 15, 16. pleadeth for his opinion, from the Law of the passover, may be (as I conceive) with no great difficulty answered, and I shall do it very shortly, (being to insist further in answering Erastus, who said much more for that point, which deserveth •n answer) First, in answer to our argument from the keeping back of the unclean. Num. 9. he saith, that all circumcised persons whatsoever, had a right to eat the passover, &c. being bound to eat the passover in its season, except in cases of necessity, disability, by reason of a journey, or of legal uncleanness only, not spiritual, as is clear by Exo. 12. 3. 43. to 50. Num. 9. 1. to 15. Deut. 16. 16, 17. Ezra. 6. 19, 20, 21. 2 Kings 23. 21, 27, 2. Chron. 35. 6, 7. 13. 17. 18. where we read that all the people and all the males ⟨p. 95⟩