A42757:309
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.
Thirdly, he saith, that he who was legally unclean, was kept back neither by the Priest nor Magistrate, but by those of the same Family as vers. 6, 7. imports. And the true reason (saith he) in this Text why his uncleanness did seclude him from eating the passover, was because it quite excluded him out of the camp for a time, (not Tabernacle or Temple) and so by necessary consequence from the house wherein he was to eat the passover, &c. and by like reason it debarred him from all other Ordinances.
Thirdly, he saith, that he who was legally uncleane, was kept back neither by the Priest nor Magistrate, but by those of the same Family as vers. 6, 7. imports. And the true reason (saith he) in this Text why his uncleannesse did seclude him from eating the passeover, was because it quite excluded him out of the camp for a time, (not Tabernacle or Temple) and so by necessary consequence from the house wherein he was to eat the passeover, &c. and by like reason it debarred him from all other Ordinances.
Answ. 1 The Text Num. 9 6, 7. tells us the unclean were kept back; but by whom they were kept back, it tells not. That it was neither left free to the unclean person to eat of the passover, nor to the Family to admit him, but that there was an authoritative restraint, I prove by this argument. He that was unclean and before his cleansing did eat of the flesh of the Peace-offerings was cut off from among his people Lev. 7. 20. 21, Therefore he that in his uncleanness, did eat the passover, was to be cut off also. No man will say that there was any less punishment intended for the pollution of the passover, than for the pollution of Peace-offerings. And if the unclean were not permitted, under the Law, to eat of the Flesh of the Sacrifices, or if they did they were cut off; shall not as great care be had to keep the body of Jesus Christ (which was signified by the flesh of the sacrifices) and the blood of the Covenant, from being trod under Foot by Dogs and Swine? 2. Neither is there any such reason in that Text