A42757:308
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.
That which he objecteth from 1 Cor. 10. I am to answer also distinctly by it self. His second reply is, that those who were legally unclean at the day appointed for the passover, so as they could not then receive it, were yet peremptorily enjoined to eat it the 14. day of the second month, &c. Num. 9. 11. 12. he must not be suspended from it above one month. Answ. The Scripture cited proves no such thing, except upon supposition that they be clean the 14. day of the following month. And what if any of them were in the second month also unclean, by the touch of a dead body or otherwise? Were they not kept off in the second month, as well as in the first? Is it not plainly said of the second passover vers. 12. (the very pla•e cited by himself) ⟨p. 96⟩according to all the Ordinances of the passover they shall keep it? and one of those Ordinances was the keeping back the unclean.
That which hee objecteth from 1 Cor. 10. I am to answer also distinctly by it selfe. His second reply is, that those who were legally uncleane at the day appointed for the passeover, so as they could not then receive it, were yet peremptorily enjoyned to eat it the 14. day of the second moneth, &c. Num. 9. 11. 12. he must not be suspended from it above one moneth. Answ. The Scripture cited proves no such thing, except upon supposition that they be clean the 14. day of the following moneth. And what if any of them were in the second moneth also uncleane, by the touch of a deadbody or otherwise? Were they not kept off in the second moneth, as well as in the first? Is it not plainly said of the second passeover vers. 12. (the very pla•e cited by himselfe) ⟨p. 96⟩according to all the Ordinances of the passeover they shall keep it? and one of those Ordinances was the keeping back the uncleane.