A42757:323
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.
Next, whereas he saith pthat this confession or declaration of repentance for sin, in the old Testament, had place only in those sins for which the Law appointed no particular punishments: and that there was no confession imposed where the Magistrate was to punish the crime: This with a great deal of boldness and confidence (as his manner is) he doth maintain: Intending thereby (it seems) to exempt from all manner of Church-discipline whatsoever is punishable by the civill Magistrate, as adultery, perjury, and the like. But that which he affirmeth so strongly, is manifestly contrary to the express Law, Levit. 6. from vers. 1. to vers. 8. where wilful lying, and perjury, robbing and violence, fraud and cozenage, all these were to be confessed and expiated by Sacrifice; notwithstanding that they were also to be severely punished by the civill Magistrate. Nay, in that very place it is commanded that what had been violently taken away, or deceitfully gotten, or fraudulently detained, should be restored, and moreover a fifth part added thereto, for a mulct, yet this did not exempt the sinner from making confession. So Num. 5. 6, 7, 8. for one and the same offence the Law enjoineth both that confession be made and expiation; and moreover that recompense be made to the party injured or to his kinsman. Yea the Law, Num. 5. 6, 7. speaketh universally; When a man or woman shall commit any sin that men commit, &c. then they shall confess their sin which they have done. Which made the Hebrews extend this Law to criminal and capital cases, as Mr. Ainsworth upon the place noteth out of these words of Maimony. Likewise, all condemned to death by the Magistrates, or condemned to stripes; no atonement is made for them by their death, or by their stripes, until they have repented and confessed. And so he that hurteth his neighbour, or doth him damage, though he payeth him what ever he oweth him, atonement is not made for him till he confess. Therefore Erastus is still a double loser in arguing from the Law of Moses. It proves not what he would, and it doth prove what he would not.
Next, whereas he saith p