A42757:331
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.
The fifth animadversion shall be this: whereas Erastus holdeth pag. 106. that under the law every one was judged clean or unclean, according to his own judgement and conscience, and not according to the Priests, the Lepers only excepted; Also that when a man had committed any sin, it was in the free will of the sinner to expiate his sin when he pleased, and he was no way compelled to it. I answer, If every unclean person except the Leper was allowed to judge and pronounce himself clean when he pleased, then to what purpose did uthat Law serve Lev. 7. 20. 21. or that whoever was unclean and had not purified himself, was not to be admitted to come into the Tabernacle, and if he presumed to come, he was to be cut off from the congregation Num. 19? By Erastus his principles no man should have been cut off, if he had pleaded himself not to be unclean; and how many would do so, if that could save them from being cut off? Is it not also plain from Levit. 15. 15. 30. 31. that both men and women who were unclean by their issues, (not by Leprosy) were to bring an offering to the Priest for their cleansing, otherwise were not to be accounted clean, but looked upon as defilers of the Tabernacle in their uncleanness, whatever they might think of themselves. So women that were unclean after Child-Birth, had not power to pronounce themselves clean, and were not free to come to the Sanctuary when they pleased, but they were first to bring a sin offering, and the Priest was to make atonement for them Lev. 12. 6. 7. 8. There was a certain number of days appointed for the cleansing, both of women after Child-Birth, and of men who had an issue, yea, when the days of the cleansing were full-filled, they were not free to come unto the Tabernacle, except they brought their offering for atonement. Lev. 12. 6. 7. & 15. v. 13. 14. 15. Philo the Jew de vita Mosis lib. 3. pag. 531. tells us there was a certain definite time, till the expiring whereof, those that were unclean by a dead body, were excluded from the Temple. Josephus antiq. Jud. lib. 3. cap. 10. records the like, not only of Lepers, but of those that had an issue, or were defiled by the dead, that till the set time was fulfilled, all these were kept back from the congregation.