A42757:347
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.
Eighthly, though the hallowed bread might in case of necessity be lawfully given to David and his men, (the Ceremonials of the first Table yielding to the Substantials of the second) yet Abimelech the Priest would not adventure to give it, till he understood that the young men had then kept themselves at least from women, 1 Sam. 21. 4, 5, 6. this being a part of that sanctification which was required in those who did partake of holy things, not only among the Hebrews, but among other Nations, as Hugo Grotius noteth upon the place, and upon Exod. 19. 15. Now the Show-bread, or the twelve loaves which did show or present the people to God, can not be supposed to be holier then the Paschal Lamb which did show or present Christ to the people, and was a Sacrament or Seal of the covenant of grace. David also and his men in that danger of their lives had as good right to eat the Show-bread, as any Israelite could pretend to for his eating the Passover: yea that was a substantial duty of the second Table, which Christ himself justifieth: this was a ceremonial duty of the first Table, and grounded on a positive law. This therefore doth afford me an argument with manifold advantages. For if the Show-bread might not be given to David and his men in their extreme necessity, unless they had for a certain space before abstained from the use of their wives, otherwise lawful: how much less might the Passover be given as an holy Ordinance (which did not concern the saving of mens lives in extreme necessity) to scandalous persons living in known whoredom and adultery?
Eighthly, though the hallowed bread might in case of necessity be lawfully given to David and his men, (the Ceremonials of the first Table yeelding to the Substantials of the second) yet Abimelech the Priest would not adventure to give it, till he understood that the young men had then kept themselves at least from women, 1 Sam. 21. 4, 5, 6. this being a part of that sanctification which was required in those who did partake of holy things, not onely among the Hebrews, but among other Nations, as Hugo Grotius noteth upon the place, and upon Exod. 19. 15. Now the Shew-bread, or the twelve loaves which did shew or present the people to God, can not be supposed to be holier then the Paschall Lambe which did shew or present Christ to the people, and was a Sacrament or Seale of the covenant of grace. David also and his men in that danger of their lives had as good right to eate the Shew-bread, as any Israelite could pretend to for his eating the Passeover: yea that was a substantiall duty of the second Table, which Christ himselfe justifieth: this was a ceremoniall duty of the first Table, and grounded on a positive law. This therefore doth afford me an argument with manifold advantages. For if the Shew-bread might not be given to David and his men in their extreame necessity, unlesse they had for a certaine space before abstained from the use of their wives, otherwise lawfull: how much lesse might the Passeover be given as an holy Ordinance (which did not concern the saving of mens lives in extreame necessity) to scandalous persons living in known whordome and adultery?