A42757:310
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.
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 Num. 9. as the excluding quite out of the camp, those who were unclean by a dead body, and so by consequence from the passover. Nay the Text rather intimateth, that they were in the camp; for they came before Moses and Aaron on that day, when the passover was kept, and said, We are defiled by the dead body of a man, Wherefore are we kept back. vers. 6. 7. I hope Moses and Aaron were not without the camp. I knew the Lepers and some other unclean persons were put out of the camp; but there is not one of the Texts cited by him which gives the least shadow of reason to prove that the unclean by the dead body of a man were quite excluded out of the Camp, except Num. 5. 2. And if he ⟨p. 97⟩will believe the Hebrew Doctors, and others upon that place, there were three Camps, the Camp of Israel, the Camp of the Levites, and the Camp of Divine Majesty; fThe unclean by the dead were free (say they) to be in the first two Camps, and were only excluded from the third. However, its agreed, that some unclean persons were excluded from the Sanctuary, who were not excluded from the camp of the Children of Israel, as is observed by Tostatus in