A42757:354
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.
Thirteenthly, I argue from the signification of the legal or ceremonial uncleanness, and from that which was signified by the exclusion of those that were legally unclean. Without all controversy the keeping back of such, was a significant ceremony. For all the legal ceremonies concerning cleanness or uncleanness were teaching ceremonies, and are therefore called Doctrines, Matth. 15. 9. Col. 22. 2. What was taught and signified thereby, I have before showed, namely, that profane ones be not admitted to fellowship with Gods people in their holy things. Yea, was not profaneness and open wickedness more hateful to God than legal uncleanness? yes saith Erastus pag. 144. because God appointed greater punishments for the ⟨p. 122⟩former then for the latter: the greater crimes were punished by fire and sword, stoning, hanging; the smaller by mulcts, and stripes. But yet (say I) by his grounds the legal uncleanness was more hateful to God than profaneness and wickedness, in reference to fellowship in the holy things, (for that is the point) He holds that the most flagitious and profane were commanded of God to eat the Passover, and yet those that were only Jegally unclean were forbidden: though the Scripture say, Prov. 15. 8. & 21. 27. that the Sacrifice of the wicked is abomination to the Lord, and the oblations of those whose hands were full of blood, his soul hated, and he could not away with them▪ Isa. 1. 11, 12, 13, 14. and when they came to his house, he told them, When ye come to appear before me, who hath required this at your hands, to tread my courts?
Thirteenthly, I argue from the signification of the legall or ceremoniall uncleannesse, and from that which was signified by the exclusion of those that were legally uncleane. Without all controversie the keeping backe of such, was a significant ceremony. For all the legall ceremonies concerning cleannesse or uncleannesse were teaching ceremonies, and are therefore called Doctrines,