A42757:326
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.
Fourthly, whereas rErastus holdeth that the exclusion of the unclean under the Law, did only typify something which is to come to pass in the life to come, that is, the shutting forth of sinners from the Heavenly Paradise, if they be not washed from their filthiness by the blood of Jesus Christ: and therefore ought not to be unto us any argument for the exclusion of scandalous sinners. I answer, If the shutting out from Heaven was the only thing signified, and if there be a fit analogy or proportion between the Type and the thing typified, then 1. one may be in Heaven and cast out again, and in and out again, as under the Law one might be many times admitted to the Temple and shut out again. 2. It would also follow, that there is some other exclusion greater then the exclusion from Heaven, as under the Law there was a greater exclusion than the exclusion from the Sanctuary, and that was to be cast out from the company and conversation ⟨p. 107⟩of Gods people: sfor though every uncleanness which did exclude one from the company of the Israelites, did also exclude him from the Sanctuary; yet every uncleanness which did exclude one from the Sanctuary, did not exclude him from the company of the Israelites. Even as now among us, suspension from the Lords Table is not the greatest and worst exclusion, but there is another greater then that. Thus you see Erastus could not make his Type agree with his Antitype. Whence it doth further appear that the exclusion of the unclean under the Law, did teach and hold forth somewhat in a political sense, touching the communion and fellowship of the Church in this life. Whatsoever it might signify more, I will not now dispute, but this it did signify. And this I shall so far make good, that I shall at once both answer Erastus, and propound a strong argument for the keeping off from the holy things those that are morally and scandalously encleane. First, let it be remembered that I have proved already from Heb. 13. 15, 16. 2 Pet. 2. 13. Jude vers. 12. that the people of God are defiled by communion and fellowship with scandalous sinners. In the second place consider that prophecy,