A42757:340
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.
I have spoken before of the cutting off, which I will not here resume. Only this, such presumptuous and contumacious sinners were not to be reckoned among the people of God, nor to enjoy the privilege of Church Members, therefore not admitted to the Passover.
I have spoken before of the cutting off, which I will not here resume. Onely this, such presumptuous and contumacious sinners were not to be reckoned among the people of God, nor to enjoy the priviledge of Church Members, therefore not admitted to the Passeover.
Secondly, Josephus de bello Jud. lib. 7. cap. 17. speaking of such as were permitted to eat the Passover, in the time of Cestius, doth thus design them, [Greek or Hebrew], being all of them pure and holy, not only pure from legal uncleanness, but such as were also esteemed holy. But moreover, it is clear from Jo. 18. 28, they themselves (the Jews) went not into the Judgement Hall lest they should be defiled: but that they might eat the Passover: that the Jews did so understand the Law, that moral as well as ceremonial uncleanness, did render them uncapable of the Passover: for they had no such ceremonial Law, that they who come into the Judgement Hall, should be legally or ceremonially unclean: yet this had disabled them from eating the Passover: for they held litigious or forensicall actions unlawful upon a holy day as Capellus, and Casaubon (above cited) do prove. Such a sinful and scandalous act had kept them back from the Passover.
Secondly, Iosephus de bello Iud. lib. 7. cap. 17. speaking of such as were permitted to eat the Passeover, in the time of Cestius, doth thus designe them, 〈non-Latin alphabet〉, being all of them pure and holy, not onely pure from legall uncleannesse, but such as were also esteemed holy. But moreover, it is clear from Io. 18. 28, they themselves (the Jewes) went not into the Judgement Hall lest they should be defiled: but that they might eat the Passeover: that the Jewes did so understand the Law, that morall as well as ceremoniall uncleannesse, did render them uncapable of the Passeover: for they had no such ceremoniall Law, that they who come into the Judgement Hall, should be legally or ceremonially uncleane: yet this had disabled them from eating the Passeover: for they held litigious or forensicall actions unlawfull upon a holy day as Capellus, and Casaubon (above cited) doe prove. Such a finfull and scandalous act had kept them back from the Passeover.